How to say it like it is!
 

Words from a US Marine Corps General this week.

Not saying I agree or disagree with his sentiments, but it is a refreshing change to see that he is only "counselled", rather than being dismissed, as he undoubtedly would have been if he were British.

Full story

Perhaps it is about time some of our leaders started to speak out a bit more, supporting the troops rather than looking after their careers. Then they might earn our respect.

I've edited out my initial comments to this as i pretty much said it like it is!!

I was watching footage of an Iraqi lying wounded in a road during the war...it was captured on CNN. The reporters words were something in the lines of "An Iraqi man lies injured in the road, the American soldiers......... shoot him"...

Then follows footage of the man lying in the road crawling around obviously wounded and a line (about ten) of American soldiers are leaning on a wall and start firing at him with everything they've got and when someone actually hits the man, they all start 'cheering' like little kids in front of the TV crew!. After a load of rounds missing and hitting the tarmac instead, the iraqi then gets hit several times and falls silent.
An interview with the a specific soldier afterwards followed.
He could not contain his excitement at shooting the unarmed wounded soldier with his unit. He thought it was 'cool' and loved every minute of it. And told the TV crew just that.

Wonder if he and his crew were given a bollocking......i doubt it!

I still have the video on my Computer....

Yeller,

I cannot help but suspect that you are fishing. Surely you would not want to be led/inspired/motivated by this neanderthal?

Do not get me wrong, we should not be ashamed of the violent side of our profession - as I recall, George Orwell said:

Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

I even have sympathy with what I think the general is trying to say. Indeed, I must concur with Winston Churchill who said:

Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result.

HOWEVER - we are paid to represent our Nation - and the values that we purport to hold dear. Sometimes, restraint requires more conviction - and courage.

Our cousins are generally very good at soundbites but comments like this lack judgement. Sometimes a moment to reflect is more effective than just blasting. You can, after all, win every fight and still lose the war. In a crunch, I would rather have a Brit senior officer 9 times out of 10.

Sorry if I took the bait, I just happened to look in after a glass of rather nice wine...which I shall now get back to...

I'm looking in also after a glass (or ten) of fine beer, can't sleep and waiting for breaky to open at eight... damn civvies.

Anyway, i wasn't gonna reply to the sheer ignorance and .... grr... can't think of the word... idiotism of the comments.

Looking back on it i see that you said you don't " agree or disagree with his sentiments" but cocks like this are the guys who get the US and Western forces in general a bad name and just serve to encourage terrorism and the like.

:mad:

Yours in drunken-the-next-day-ness

PO

Razor..

You're post reminds me of a video I saw of an American Apache looking from the point of view of it's gun, with the comms between the gunner and pilot going on in the background.

They mowed down a couple of unarmed Iraqis and when one was shot and wounded (but still moving), the gunner didn't want to shoot him again, however the pilot (who I assume is the mission commander?), told him to do so.

A split spurt of dust spays up and the guy stops moving...

Bet the pilot and gunner felt real good after that.

'Course there's no chance they were lying still, playing doggo until the RPG was ready:rolleyes: Unarmed...:hmm: yes, insurgents taken out are always innocent civilians murdered by the imperalist Yankee dogs.:rolleyes:

Personally I’d rather be second-guessed and condemed by know-nothings back home, who have never done anything more dangerous than cross the road, than be carried back in a body bag……

Oops... don't remember writing that reply!

It still stands though

PO

"Now sober but smelly he's got one big belly from livin' the good life provided by punk"

You mean this?

These pigs are our allies.

Alex what part of my post didn't you understand? Pigs? Got much recent time in out of area?

I'm not going to try to defend the Apache crew - who knows what Int that had on the victims in that video, but it looks indefensible on its own - but I will say that the Forces need people willing to kill. Not nice, but true.

The ideal soldier is one who is indifferent to death, and will kill if and when necessary, but not otherwise. I've never experienced it, but I doubt if there's anyone who has no emotions at all in that situation. So, taking it to extremes, we've got the choice of the soldier (or sailor, or airman) who enjoys killing, and spends years telling his mates about it in the bar, or the soldier who abhors it and, after his first kill, never touches a weapon again. Who would you rather have defending your country? And who would you rather spend millions on training to fight?

As I said, I haven't been there, and I wonder if anyone who hasn't can really comment. But is someone who enjoys his job such a bad thing?

BCH

Alex - interesting video. How can you be sure the 'wounded man' is not crawling to his SA7/14 (Very prevalent shoulder launched surface-to-air-missile - !)?

BCH - I will defend them. And what is that tosh about 'victims'?

Try imagining that you are hovering in the dark, in a hostile environmemt ,with an unknown number of threats surrounding you. Any moment could see an RPG or SAM coming at you from anywhere. But you have a job to do so you stay as long as is necessary, balancing the very real risk to your own life to the potential fall-out of failing to complete your mission; where were those 'victims' going? What was in the trucks? How many friendlies might they kill if they continued with their task unhindered?

Don't judge conflict from your armchair!

Alex - these "pigs" are the reason German is not your national language. It's a war for Christ sake, you pompass a-hole. There are plenty of "great moments" in British military history too. Palestine post-WW II comes to mind as one that is still haunting us all.

To the rest of you Brits - no offense. I've enjoyed many a beer with the Nimrod guys. People like Alex just don't have a clue and get under my skin.

I have met General Mattis - I assume that the whinging anti-American contributors on this thread have not. He is an outstanding man who is a true leader of men and was an excellent ally and friend to our troops in Iraq during the entry to Iraq.

As for the video piece. Assuming that this is a genuine piece of footage then it looks fairly professional to me. I don't hear much whooping from the US crew and I don't know when it was taken, what the mission was, who the enemy was or what the ROE were. Therefore I can not make a judgement on it. I find it sad that people put this sort of thing on the Internet and sadder people take pleasure in downloading it and passing it around.

The simple truth is that this happens in war; if the truth is uncomfortable then go live in a neutral country. If you doubt that there is a serious fight going on in Iraq then perhaps you should pay a visit or at least stop relying on the British media to provide you with your information.

As for Gen Mattis' comments on Afghanistan, I'm sure my Afghan friend (who spent 45 days in a Taliban jail for not having a beard) would agree. At least his family are no longer forced to attend public beheadings of women for some trivial 'crime'.

Not passing judgement, but the complete video of the apache incident was actually available to buy on CD-ROM at various BX's in Iraq. The complete video has end credits which include the crew's names.

I do wonder if this applies, though.

PTT,

OK, unarmed combatant walking slowly under a white flag. Easy.

Enemy soldier about to fire upon you - equally easy.

How about...you are storming a machine-gun post. Somehow, you survive and reach the enemy position. At this point the enemy gunners put their hands up. They were happy to kill you right up to the point that it appeared that they were going to lose. What do you do?:hmm:

What makes you think that the enemy in the video were no longer combatants?

Would you stake your life upon it? And your gunner's? And your wingman??!

Don't judge combat from your armchair!

..Beam me up.

Captain Kirk

I stated I wasn't passing judgement, but since you asked:

Q. How about...you are storming a machine-gun post. Somehow...lose. What do you do?
A. Take them prisoner, assuming I have the resources to do so. The fact that they have surrendered suggests I do.

Q. What makes you think that the enemy in the video were no longer combatants?
A. The first guy to be shot was unarmed. He had merely got out of his tractor. The second guy was getting what appeared to be a weapon - a fair kill. The third guy was seriously injured and crawling away from the combat area. Calling in an ARF to secure the area and arrest and treat the third man would have been correct.
I was in theatre at the time of this incident and I know the surrounding circumstances.

Q. Would you stake your life upon it? And your gunner's? And your wingman??!
A. If I was in an Apache and the wounded man was crawling away from the weapon? Yes. The risk could have been mitigated by keeping the injured guy in the sights and, if he made a threatening move, only then opening fire. It takes several seconds to set up a MANPAD - easily enough time to kill the guy, even if he has seen you.

Not really a question but more of a sanctiomonious statement: Don't judge combat from your armchair!
A. I was trying not to, but you asked.

It is good that my original post has provoked some good discussion, but the point I was hoping to make, so far has been missed.

I think that there is a big difference in the way the US Commanders dealt with what, by any stretch of the imagination, are fairly outspoken comments, and the way the British Government, and press, would have persecuted such comments.

People deal with the stresses of war in many different ways, as evidenced by the various posts and threads, but I do still feel that a moderate reaction to General Mattis's comments shows that there is genuine understanding of what war is like, and the effects it can have on brave and strong people.

Perhaps our UK Government and press could learn a few lessons, and not be so quick to "have a go" at our Armed Forces as they so seem to like doing.

Easy to say from the comfort of your armchair. They hadn't killed three of your best friends in the past 5 minutes, and would have killed you given the chance.

MightyGem - During the combat (i.e. before they surrendered) I would have killed them too. We who go to war know what we risk - our friends and our lives. Going to war without full knowledge of this is foolhardy and will lead to unnecessary emotional reactions.
Yes, it's easy to answer from in front of my laptop, but I do know how I react in these situations.

Personally I agree with PTT - and would have done so irrespective of whether it was a US, British or Martian flown Apache.

But, and it's a big but, 20-20 hindsight is of little value in the fog of war. Troops of any nation need to be suitably trained and have sufficient discipline to make the right judgements instinctively. Whether they did so in this instance is not something I can judge.

Nevertheless, the attitude of some of the ANG units in Incirlik the last time I was there I found profoundly disturbing. Deliberately seeking confrontation - and I once heard one of their number say, in all seriousness, "You guys had better stir up something for us to bomb soon as otherwise we'll be going home without having bombed a goddam thing".

Isn't that what air policing deterrence is all about?

To the best of my knowledge (and my ageing memory) there were no criticisms aired, either politically or in the press, of the guys who fought down south in 1982.
If they had not had inspired leadership on the ground and if they had not been the best in the world at what they had to do (a very dirty war when taking the mountains) the conflict would not have had the result it did. Circumstances often dictate that war is not the clinical affair that those not in the know would advocate. Taking a machine gun post on a mountain, at night and in sh***y weather may well have resulted in all of the ‘defenders’ getting wasted, even those who wanted to surrender (‘cos even bad guys observe the Convention when surrendering). Unlucky.

Aah, HAL Pilot, the old we helped you guys out in WWII line.... haven't heard that for a while.

I assume you'll agree then, that 'we're' the reason your national language is not Spanish, Portuguese, French or Dutch?

Or would that make an ass of you and me?

PTT – I cannot help but feel that you are being overly simplistic. What about the bad guys that you have not seen, carefully drawing a bead on you from 7 o'clock while you are self-righteously ‘keeping the injured guy in the sights’. I wouldn’t want you as my wingman. And I am afraid that putting up the Geneva Convention link is, to my interpretation, intimating judgement but shying from actually saying so…interesting given the topic title! No offence intended by the way – best debate in here for ages.;)

Beagle – I have seen some worryingly cavalier approaches too but also some incredible discipline too. Witness Triple Nickel aborting a drop on DMPI 10 of 10 after no impact seen on target 9 – raising the possibility of a collateral incident. Post flight it could be seen that the GBU was DH but UXB on DMPI 9 – it could be seen in a nice dark debriefing room but in a noisy, vibrating, sweaty cockpit with the sun reflecting off of the screen the pilot had not seen it (rather reinforces my, and your, point about the difference between being there at the time and making clinical judgements afterwards). To decommit the drop with milli-seconds to go was nothing short of meticulously professional. Not excusing the cowboys, but an important counterpoint.

CB – spot on in my book.

Yeller – actually, I think that you do have a point. Interestingly, the article does not put the quote into context. In a public forum the General would, at the least, be lacking judgement but to a military audience, under Chatham House rules…?

Given backpocket’s endorsement, I am inclined to suspect that his remarks have been taken wildly out of context.

Captain Kirk - As I said, I know the circumstances of the Apache video. The Apache was not alone - he had topcover from more than just one other aircraft.
The Geneva Convention link really was just a link. I wonder if it applies - there are so many ways to interpret it and I am not a lawyer.
That said, following the ideals of the conventions should be the norm. There are no black-and-white situations (otherwise this would be easy) but I suggest that it is much harder to apply the conventions when storming a machinegun post on an enemy held hilltop than when sat in several million dollars of the most deadly equipment on the battlefied watching a man with no legs crawl away from you.
So where do we draw the line? I guess that's down to the individual at the time and the subsequent board of enquiry afterwards. That's why, as BEagle said, "Troops of any nation need to be suitably trained and have sufficient discipline to make the right judgements instinctively".

No offence taken, btw :)

Uh oh.. I think we're in danger of agreeing!

Hello, can I have an argument please...

In my opinion, the questionable judgement was the decision to put the video about, thus ensuring that armchair generals with no experience of on the spot, operational decision making would have the opportunity to second guess from the safety of home whether their actions were reasonable or not. The only people who will know the full story, rather than what can be gleaned from poor quality video with nil background info were those in the AH and they seem pleased with their days work.

I'm not fishing here but a theme running through a lot of replies seems to be as long as the public doesn't find out it's ok.

Is this what you're trying to say?



Starting to think the lefties are right :confused:

Pileup Officer - my point is that we are your friends when you need us but pigs when we do something you don't agree with.
The UK and US have been best allies for years. The difference is that we don't UK bash every opportunity we get.

You do, however, accidentally kill British Servicemen with monotonous regularity

and lets not get started on allowing the IRA freedom to fundraise in the US until suddenly you discovered what terrorism was like in your own backyard.....

I think you'll find that the "allies" theory has been over used, and I'm not exactly sure what the UK has gained from it, though I suppose buying Merlin should just about wipe the slate clean. Lets see if it can bankrupt your Military as well.

Tourist, I used to think a little like you before I went to Baghdad. I saw for myself at first hand how bad things are out there, and just just how brutal the enemy are.

I can undestand the US officer feeling like that; when you have seen so many of your friends whacked by an unseen enemy, or witnessed unarmed men having their heads sawn off, women shot in the back of the head or seen your countrymen jump from burning skyscrapers rather than burn to death, perhaps you will feel the same.

The Americans are indeed are allies and we should be grateful. I will NEVER forget what they did for some of my/our people, and I now understand what their "centre of gravity" is.

The officer in question was asked a question, in a war, and he was honest. I hope he stays safe..and that the Apache crew do too.

Oh dear, what have I started by mentioning that video?! :ugh:

I seem to remember at the time it did get some negative press in the UK?

Whilst no-one but the pilot and gunner in the Apache can justify/fail to justify what they did, we're each entitled to our own opinions on what is right and wrong, surely?

IMO the crew were wrong to fire at that guy on the deck, you disagree with me? Ok, thats up to you...

Now any chance of getting back on the topic raised by YG? :}

I think you misunderstand me.
I have no problem with the general or the apache.
What I object to is the suggestion that the UK are only fair-weather allies.
The IRA blew up British town centres for years and the US not only didnt help but actually funded them in large part.
Then a US trained terrorist blows up New York Town centre and we leap to their defence (as well we should!)

I simply think it is a bit rich to lecture us on our responsibilities as allies

Am i right in saying that the Apache crew were put through court martial for that 'incident'?

From the BBC

The US Marine Corps has publicly upbraided one of its generals for his comments describing shooting people in Iraq as "fun".

Discussing fighting in Iraq, the General said he liked brawling and enjoyed shooting people.

The Marine Corps said Lt Gen James Mattis had been "counselled" concerning his remarks, made during a panel discussion in California.

The general had agreed he should have chosen his words more carefully.

Gen Mattis is a hardened veteran of combat and appears to have developed a taste for it.

During the discussion, he spoke of his experience fighting in Iraq as commander of the 1st Marine Division.

Public gaffe

Caught on tape, he said: "Actually, it's quite a lot of fun to fight; you know, it's a hell of a hoot. I like brawling; it's fun to shoot some people."

In the context of Afghanistan, he said men who slapped around women for not wearing a veil had no manhood and it was fun to shoot them.

The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen Mike Hagee, later issued a statement saying he had counselled Gen Mattis on his remarks.

The statement praised Gen Mattis as a brave and brilliant military leader and it seems there will be no disciplinary action

Tourist - you just don’t get it. I've never said the UK are only fair weather allies. Just the opposite, I said the UK has always been the best of allies.

My problem is with Pileup Officer calling us pigs and the constant US bashing that goes on here. If you go to a predominantly US website, you won't see UK bashing (we save it for the French :ooh: ).

Maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment always coming to this board. I realize the world doesn't rotate around the US military and I've always been interested in the thoughts of allied aviators.

Hal
Don't worry about Pileup - there may be problems with your politicians (bet you say the same), however I daresay that the majority of the Army, Royal Navy and RAF are on your side.
Pileup is just another wus, with 20/20 hindsight, who makes decisions on soundbites from doubtful TV, the anti-US press and a DVD of unknown history, all from an armchair defended by people who are asked to kill, to defend his rights to make stupid comments. He hasn't been fired upon by people who 5 seconds later want the full Geneva Convention when they surrender. Of course he wants an unemotional response - yeah right!

Plain speaking would seem to have become the accepted Pentagon lingua franca.
---------------------------------------------------------

Guardian, Saturday 29th January.

US jets 'flying over Iran to spot potential targets'

The US is increasing the pressure on Iran by sending military planes into its airspace to test the country's defences and spot potential targets, according to an intelligence source in Washington.......

The US military denied the reports. "We're not flying over frigging Iran," an official said........
----------------------------------------------------------------

Be nice if the MOD adopted the same frank manner. :E

An MoD spokesman declined to comment.....

...and it was me who called the Apache crew pigs, not Pileup, and I did it deliberately. I judge a pig by its actions.

Out comes the usual agressive banter.... 'armchair generals', 'when did you last see active service?' 'hidden RPG', 'you can't tell unless you were there', yak yak yak, but there was no hidden RPG, and no hint of one unless you think that tractor looked threatening. Its easy to get wound up in militarism if your cause is a just one, cf Falklands, WW2, less easy if its becoming obvious to even the very dim that this aggression is unjustified. If I was in the US military I would hang my head in shame, as it is they, and the American public, appear to glory in the slaughter.

Hal

Please don't tar us all with the same brush as others who post anti-American comment here or anywhere else. I spent nearly 40 years as an RAF pilot working alongside the US Forces, including in the Gulf and former Yugoslavia. I have nothing but good to say about American professionalism and people I worked with.

In any Forces you're going to get ar**holes who let the side down - we've got our own court-martial running at the moment for some of ours. My feelings about them are the same as would be for any nationality who behave in such a barbaric manner - despite what you witness or experience there is no excuse for dragging yourself down to the same gutter level as those who disregard the values of civilised society. That's what distinguishes us from, let us say, the routinely less civilised behaviour of some people of other nations.

We are right to condemn those who behave in a barbaric way towards other human beings, no matter what they have done. We must observe our own standards of civilised behaviour or we lose our credibility in the fight to help oppressed people.

Whether or not you believe the war is justified or not, whether or not you believe it is right to impose western-style democracy on another nation, there is no excuse for anti-allied comment [and I encompass more nations than just the US here].

I have posted on many topics against those who make anti-American comments. Such comment usually turns a sensible discussion into a trans-Atlantic slanging match, which becomes boring and unpleasant to read.

FJJP