The US Army At Its Worst!
Thread Starter
The US Army At Its Worst!
Tell me the Rules of Engagement and presence of JAG Lawyers in Combat Command HQ's is not a very dangerous combination for Troops engaged in Combat Operations in Afghanistan!
This is a tragedy of huge proportions!
It is time we bring the Troops Home!
If we are not only going to put them at great risk by the ROE's but then prosecute them for Murder when there was no Malice or Evil latent to violate or ignore the ROE's.....then we might as well pack up and go home because the Taliban will have won the War.
Seems a long time ago someone had something to say about situations like this.....
US 1stLT Clint Lorance Gets 20 Years in Leavenworth for Ordering Attack on Taliban
This is a tragedy of huge proportions!
It is time we bring the Troops Home!
If we are not only going to put them at great risk by the ROE's but then prosecute them for Murder when there was no Malice or Evil latent to violate or ignore the ROE's.....then we might as well pack up and go home because the Taliban will have won the War.
Seems a long time ago someone had something to say about situations like this.....
It really ain't the place nor time to reel off rhyming diction, but yet we'll write a final rhyme while waiting crucifixion. For we bequeath a parting tip of sound advice for such men who come in transport ships to polish off the Dutchman. If you encounter any Boers, you really must not loot 'em, and if you wish to leave these shores, for pity's sake, don't shoot 'em. Let's toss a bumper down our throat before we pass to Heaven, and toast a trim-set petticoat we leave behind in Devon.
US 1stLT Clint Lorance Gets 20 Years in Leavenworth for Ordering Attack on Taliban
Last edited by SASless; 26th Sep 2013 at 03:42.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
This guy most likely has been made a scapegoat, the sad thing is, JSOC are quite happy to rain down hellfire's and blow mums and kids to pieces along with the various "teams" in country who when they make a mistake will quite happily dig bullets out of bodies in full view of the survivors..all in an ass covering effort.
This guy, most likely trying to do his job to the best of his ability....gets 20 year
This guy, most likely trying to do his job to the best of his ability....gets 20 year
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Seoul
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US Army At Its Worst!
I agree, I mean I don't know the exact details of this incident but in general after 14 years of military/Army life...I've seen enough. You should see the aviation side of the house.
Spot on haughtney1, Shades of Vietnam?
I suggest that the JAG's reps be put in the front line, not in the HQ, just to see what it's like.
F**k it, put the JAG there as well, Army's first female TJAG takes the helm Wednesday - News - Stripes
Regards,Den.
I suggest that the JAG's reps be put in the front line, not in the HQ, just to see what it's like.
F**k it, put the JAG there as well, Army's first female TJAG takes the helm Wednesday - News - Stripes
Regards,Den.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Lai officer got Life and did 3.5 years. I expect something similar will happen to Lt Lorance, although as usual our 'advanced' civilisation demands men like Lorance go do their duty in situations that are not black and white, using its judicial arm and the luxury of time and hindsight to decide their actions did not meet the complex criteria imposed on them. That's not to say there shouldn't be rules, but clearly today's soldier needs to be decisive and legally astute, which is not an easy balancing act in situations that are normally less than textbook.
Where I think Lorance did go wrong - and I write this based on the account in the link that seems generally sympathetic, but also as someone who has had some training on RoE, albeit not in combat - is with the original 2 guys he ordered fire on. He seems to have balanced all probability that they were bad guys, based on descriptions and circumstance. Was that enough to get his sniper to take them out? My understanding of the rules is no. If they were aiming at someone; if they were planting a device; maybe even if they were just moving into position with weapons - but I gather all they were doing was sitting on a motorbike. Our rules say that's allowed, and we have to wait for them to choose to end their lives by taking up arms or endangering someone elses' life. 'Looking at us funny', irrespective of circumstance, can't be used as a defence for taking someone's life.
That said, I'm sure on one of these 'Ross goes to Afghan' type programmes, one episode shows the Brits engaging a 'dicker' - perhaps they had EW Int to confirm he was, without doubt, in the enemies kill chain?
This is only my opinion based on the narrative and I don't envy Lorance or any of the brave guys who don't have the luxury of the time I have to sit and decide what to do. I'm also sure that the guys they took out were undoubtedly Taliban and up to no good, but in which case we need to either change the rules to allow 'reasonable doubt' (which I don't actually think would be a good idea), or ensure that when they do get caught they're put out of action for a long time by jail, including de-radicalisation. All perfect world, of course!
Where I think Lorance did go wrong - and I write this based on the account in the link that seems generally sympathetic, but also as someone who has had some training on RoE, albeit not in combat - is with the original 2 guys he ordered fire on. He seems to have balanced all probability that they were bad guys, based on descriptions and circumstance. Was that enough to get his sniper to take them out? My understanding of the rules is no. If they were aiming at someone; if they were planting a device; maybe even if they were just moving into position with weapons - but I gather all they were doing was sitting on a motorbike. Our rules say that's allowed, and we have to wait for them to choose to end their lives by taking up arms or endangering someone elses' life. 'Looking at us funny', irrespective of circumstance, can't be used as a defence for taking someone's life.
That said, I'm sure on one of these 'Ross goes to Afghan' type programmes, one episode shows the Brits engaging a 'dicker' - perhaps they had EW Int to confirm he was, without doubt, in the enemies kill chain?
This is only my opinion based on the narrative and I don't envy Lorance or any of the brave guys who don't have the luxury of the time I have to sit and decide what to do. I'm also sure that the guys they took out were undoubtedly Taliban and up to no good, but in which case we need to either change the rules to allow 'reasonable doubt' (which I don't actually think would be a good idea), or ensure that when they do get caught they're put out of action for a long time by jail, including de-radicalisation. All perfect world, of course!
Thread Starter
as someone who has had some training on RoE, albeit not in combat
Re My Lai.....that was cold blooded murder of over 300 unarmed Men, Women, Children and Infants.
That is a far different thing than what we are talking about here.
That Lt. Calley only wound up serving Three plus years of House Arrest is a travesty....and that his superiors who were directly involved got off without any Prison time is a bigger travesty.....and worse of all....all those Senior Officers who covered it up did not go prison really stunk to high heavens.
You might recall Colin Powell as a Major was one of the Officers who covered it up....and look how he prospered over the Years.
This young Officer does not deserve such treatment. In Combat....the Tie must go to the Runner.....not to the Umpire!
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No personal insult meant.....but that alone disqualifies you from addressing this situation. Unless and until you have walked in those Boots....you just do not fully understand what it is all about. Classrooms are a far different situation than when you are nose to nose with the bad guys.
With the caveat that we do not have all of the story here I must say I do feel that the 1st Lt has been dealt with harshly. However I do not agree with you SASless when you say "that alone disqualifies you from addressing this situation,,,,,nose to nose with the bad guys". By that very necessity the rules of war including specific ROE must be made by those not involved or nose to nose with the bad guys. What manner of carnage and depravity would we fall into if it were not such. The US Army like the British Army act at the direction of the civil populace not for themselves. They must be held accountable to the rules set by the civil body. Now, do not get me wrong on this, this outcome stinks to high heaven I agree and my heart goes out to this young man who must now feel utterly betrayed by his country. The British Army, with their long experience of policing insurgency in Northern Ireland know only too well the stress of working within what appears to be impossible ROEs. But it is a system that works and it keeps us true. From what I have read about the situation he endured and the decision he made, a similar outcome would have happened had it taken place during the conflict in NI. What I believe should happen now, is that the young man should be granted an immediate pardon and yes, I agree, it is long past time to get out and leave Afghanistan to Afghanistan. Being in command under such circumstances is not a responsibility I would welcome.
Last edited by TomJoad; 26th Sep 2013 at 16:33.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,569
Likes: 0
Received 46 Likes
on
31 Posts
I trust that this is a lesson learnt for those who contributed to an earlier thread who wanted to bomb the Serbs without UN approval at Srebrenica. No matter what you may think - not in ROE: don't do it.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: ........
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Even though both men tested positive for gunshot residue and were acting suspiciously military intelligence released them back into the wild. The two aforementioned scouts were not confirmed as enemy fighters by that same exact military intelligence and the Army assumed Lorance guilty of random acts of murder ...."
Military Intelligence = Oxymoron
Military Intelligence = Oxymoron
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
You'll never win a War when one side doesn't play to your rules, they will simply exploit the situation, and you will pay the price.
Well, all that is as may be. It matters not a jot who the enemy is or what war is being fought or what operation it is (even QRA against a airliner "not communicating"). In the subsequent "investigation" the man on the ground (or in the air on floating in his closed-up ship) is in a no-win situation.
He knows he is facing an enemy force that can cause his unit great harm. The two men in a Land Cruiser are armed, but not directly threatening him. But their radio report will alert the force the force they face to their presence and, possibly cost them their lives and a mission fail.
OPTION 1: He shoots the two men and engages the enemy iaw his orders and succeeds.
Years later he is found guilty and sentenced to 20 years in prison, life ruined for even for doing his duty and making the best decision he could in the heat of battle.
OPTION 2: He doesn't shoot the two men and they send his position and strength to the main force who immediately engage and inflict massive casualties on our man's force.
A while later, he faces charges of failing to take the correct action to protect his force and is found guilty of dereliction of duty or some such, court martialled, imprisoned and dismissed the service.
In my little ADUK world, ROE were there to stop us escalating a situation into WW3. Today, they are written by lawyers to give the courts the ammunition to hang the faithful.
Simplistic, I know, but that's how it feels.
He knows he is facing an enemy force that can cause his unit great harm. The two men in a Land Cruiser are armed, but not directly threatening him. But their radio report will alert the force the force they face to their presence and, possibly cost them their lives and a mission fail.
OPTION 1: He shoots the two men and engages the enemy iaw his orders and succeeds.
Years later he is found guilty and sentenced to 20 years in prison, life ruined for even for doing his duty and making the best decision he could in the heat of battle.
OPTION 2: He doesn't shoot the two men and they send his position and strength to the main force who immediately engage and inflict massive casualties on our man's force.
A while later, he faces charges of failing to take the correct action to protect his force and is found guilty of dereliction of duty or some such, court martialled, imprisoned and dismissed the service.
In my little ADUK world, ROE were there to stop us escalating a situation into WW3. Today, they are written by lawyers to give the courts the ammunition to hang the faithful.
Simplistic, I know, but that's how it feels.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never having been in that situation as I'm an airman rather than a grunt, but I've just finished reading "Outlaw Platoon"; an excellent book about a US Army platoon commander in Afghanistan. He describes an event that came close to becoming another My Lai but everyone held to their ROE. his description of the feelings they were going through was excellent writing. I recommend the book.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
Well things never change, there is always someone at the rear pulling the strings with no comprehension of how it effects those at the front, same happened during the Gulf War, the A10 in European green scheme stood out like a sore thumb against the desert, so they painted them grey locally as per the rest of the aircraft operating out there, CENTAF sitting at the rear were not happy with this ordered them to repaint them European dark green and it is believed to have led to losses.
Last edited by NutLoose; 26th Sep 2013 at 21:25.
Originally Posted by BigGreenGilbert
We'll said that man. Another non mil aviation thread from sasless.
As for "another" thread from SASless, I think he is a good contributor to the forum, even if you don't like his views. That's what discussion is about; engaging with people with different opinions.
Just my late night thoughts.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear hear CM, Jaw Jaw not War War
Actually having just been prompted by your post it struck me that the ROE conundrum must be even more testing for aircrew, especially against ground targets. Exactly how sure can you be of the intentions of the suspected insurgent on the ground when you are at whatever height and whatever knots you are doing! Nightmare, I take my hat off to those who do and do it so well.
Actually having just been prompted by your post it struck me that the ROE conundrum must be even more testing for aircrew, especially against ground targets. Exactly how sure can you be of the intentions of the suspected insurgent on the ground when you are at whatever height and whatever knots you are doing! Nightmare, I take my hat off to those who do and do it so well.
Last edited by TomJoad; 26th Sep 2013 at 21:42.
Totally agree, TJ. The ground attack ROE and target ID issue is a nightmare. Even with great kit and reliable intel. My worst nightmare was the post-911 scenario of having to shoot down or order the engagement of a (so called) rogue airliner. Another lose/lose situation with invenitable litigation no matter what decission one took.
I second the "I take my hat off to those who do and do it so well"
I second the "I take my hat off to those who do and do it so well"
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 26th Sep 2013 at 21:49.