Anon

http://www.americasdebate.com/forum....php/t6426.html

"I have investigated, tried as a prosecutor, or defended probably over 100 (maybe 200, I frankly don't keep track) rape allegations in the Army over the last 15 years. I have reviewed as many reports of investigation assisting other counsel as a favour, appellate counsel or military justice supervisor.

The issue is not a problem with the UCMJ. Yes there was a marital exception to rape, but we got around that by charging other offenses. The UCMJ jettisoned it around the time every other jurisdiction did.

This is not really a “military culture” issue either. Anecdotal evidence aside, rape allegations are taken seriously by the Commanders and Criminal Investigation Command (the “D” in “CID” means nothing – there only for historical purposes).

The problem revolves around lots of young men around young women and generally lots of alcohol. It is really no different that most college campuses.

Let me give you some typical scenarios. Guy and Gal go out, they get drunk. They go back to a barracks room and begin to mess around. They get to a point and the gal says no sex. The guy backs off. A few minutes later they mess around again and this time they start having sex. The gal says no and the guy stops and then leaves. 3 days later the gal cries rape. Prosecutable? Not on this planet. Does she think she has been raped? Sure.

Case 2: guy and gal get drunk. They have sex. Gal’s boyfriend finds out and now she cries rape. This is the typical Coitus Regretus scenario. Prosectuable? Nope. Does she think she has been raped? Maybe she can convince herself, most don’t.

Case 3: Guy and gal go out. They get drunk. Both are really bombed. Guy begins to mess around with gal and she seems to be moving and does not protest. Gal does not remember consenting (probably gave no oral consent) because she was too drunk. Was she too drunk to consent? Probably. Was the guy guilty of rape? Probably not. No mens rea or criminal intent. Granted Rape is a General intent crime, but if he honestly and reasonably believed she was consenting he cannot be convicted. Do we try it? We may take it to a preliminary hearing (Article 32 Investigation) where it usually dies. If it goes to trial, rarely a conviction.

Case 4: Gal just makes the whole thing up to get at boss/co-worker/ex-boyfriend.

Case 5: Gal gets drunk, Guy takes her back to the room and see that she is too drunk and takes advantage of her. Rape. Provable? Depends on freshness of complaint, witnesses, and most important, the accused’s statement. Do we try these? All the time. Do we win? Depends on the facts.

There are so few “traditional” (crawl in the window and attack victim) rapes in the armed forces that when we get one it is really startling. I have seen huge sentences on them. In fact the last person executed under the UCMJ was executed for Rape (in 1963). Most of the cases that people complain about nothing being done would have had the exact same result in the civilian world.

The real kicker about a rape case is the woman (or man) saying no only gets you so far and in the end, is really not that important to the case. The question ultimately involves whether the accused had an honest and reasonable belief that she was consenting then he lacks the criminal intent to rape – and that is a good thing. If you get the honest belief down, unless there is something way out of kilter, it will be reasonable.

While commanders do stupid things like making the complaining witness work next to the accused, you can’t punish or ostracize a soldier merely because they are accused of a crime. The casebooks are full of commanders that stick people in pup tents surrounded by barbed wire before they are ever convicted of anything. The unfortunate thing that we often have to move a complaining witness rather than an accused and sometimes there is just no place to move them.

It is not a discipline problem, it is not a training problem, and it is not a culture problem. Rape is a character flaw of the rapist.

There is a huge network of support available to any soldier that feels they have been raped. The military hospitals and clinics have counselors, social workers, psychiatrists, and psychologists. Is that their primary mission? For some yes, for most no. The military medical system is not designed to deal with that. Its primary purpose is the care of casualties. The other missions come second.

Yes, we can do things to make it more difficult for there to be male/female interaction in the military. Some things are easy and should be done to enhance the force. Lesly has some good points. If you make them too onerous, then you break down unit cohesion. Like it or not, the military cannot do its mission without women in the armed forces and in the field.

The hardest thing I have had to do in my legal career is tell a female soldier that I just could not take her case to trial. I had zero chance of winning and it would have been derelict for me to put her through a process that would have made her feel even worse. It took me two hours explaining that I believed that she feels she was raped, but the facts as she laid them out did not meet the elements. She never said no, she gave him no indication of no. She wanted to say no, but she just let him do it.

I would bet a paycheck there is no greater (adult) sexual assault problem in the military than there is on most large American campuses.

Doclotus- The UCMJ is a federal criminal scheme, thus under the Constitution double jeopardy applies to further federal prosecution (not state as some military accused have discovered).

Sorry for my long response.

J"

I reckon that's about as good a no BS answer as one is likely to find.

The following post is also a pretty good analysis of the situation too IMO:

"100 reports of rape, sexual assault, and 'other forms of sexual misconduct' reported in the past 18 months is low compared to the civilian population at large. Putting this in perspective, they are in a warzone, yet the incidence of 'sexual misconduct, rape, and sexual assault' is less than the average actual rape rate in Australia (a bit over .07 percent), a country not known for an abundance of sex crime. It is impossible (in a free society) to keep these things from happening entirely, but I think the military must have an overall better grasp on the solution than the general civilian population."

Anon

"For many military women sexual harassment, assault, and rape are the cause of their PTSD."

Proof? Define 'many'.

Don't go making allegations of this magnitude that you can't support at least anecdotally. That's unacceptable.

"Unfortunately, the number of female veterans reporting these crimes is very high."

Approx 100 allegations in 18 months among a population of approx. 500,000 is 'very high'? That works out to a 0.7% rape allegation rate. That's high?

On what planet?

"However, these incidents often go unreported because the women are usually of lower rank than their assailants, or are in their chain of command."

Interesting. And you came to that determination how exactly?

"If they report, they are at risk of being shunned, or losing their jobs. There are many other complicating factors that affect military women who have been raped, which are different from the civilian community. Military women are faced with issues of betrayal, role identification (Soldier/Victim) and loyalty to their service after being assaulted. This can be even more difficult if the rape occurred in a combat zone. The Navy operates the Sexual Assault Victim Intervention (SAVI) program."

Methinx you ought to read the statement i just posted from the Army prosecuter.

Julie

Well, don't let this knock your socks off. Men get raped in the military too.

People tend to think that only women experience sexual trauma, however, this is not the case. In 1995 the Department of Defense conducted a large study of sexual victimization among active duty populations and found rates of sexual harassment to be 78% among women and 38% among men over a one-year period. Rates of attempted or completed sexual assault were 6% for women and 1% for men. Rates of military sexual trauma among veteran users of VA healthcare appear to be even higher than in general military populations. In one study, 23% of female users of VA healthcare reported experiencing at least one sexual assault while in the military.

Perpetrators are frequently peers or supervisors responsible for making decisions about work-related evaluations and promotions. In addition, victims are often forced to choose between continuing military careers during which they are forced to have frequent contact with their perpetrators or sacrificing their career goals in order to protect themselves from future victimization.

Most military groups are characterized by high unit cohesion, particularly during combat. While this level of solidarity typically reflects a positive aspect of military service, the dynamics of cohesion may play a role in the negative psychological effects associated with sexual harassment and assault that occurs. Because organizational cohesion is so highly valued within the military environment, divulging any negative information about a fellow soldier is considered taboo. Accordingly, many victims are reluctant to report sexual trauma and many victims say that there were no available methods for reporting their experiences to those in authority. Many indicate that if they did report the harassment they were not believed or encouraged to keep silent about the experience. They may have had their reports ignored, or even worse, have been themselves blamed for the experience. Having this type of invalidating experience following a sexual trauma is likely to have a significant negative impact on the victim’s post-trauma adjustment.

http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/war/militar...al_trauma.html

Anon

"Perpetrators are frequently peers or supervisors responsible for making decisions about work-related evaluations and promotions."

Has it occured to you that just maybe that's why they were accused to begin with?

"Deny me my promotion? OK mofo, i'll fix your little red wagon".

I've SEEN that happen in the military. IMO the majority of sexual harrassment allegations in the military occur because the female isn't happy with the way she's being treated/used/promoted/wants out, and blah, blah, blah. And guess what...with a female CO or NCO, the men pull the same crap.

Anon

Of course the answer to this problem is very simple.

Segregate the units by sex.

Julie

Now that is something I very much agree on.

lemontree

Julie,
Jessica was never raped, but was carried by the Iraqi soldiers to a hospital. That same hospital staff tried to help Jessica by taking her to US troops, but their ambulance was fired upon by some dumb idiots, and they had to take her back to the hospital. The video footage was just propaganda at that time. Hero's were needed.
The hospital staff were interviewed by some CNN/BBC journalists later. I don't have a link, but I'm sure many members here have read that in the papers.
Jessica was never in danger of execution. If the Iraqis meant to do that then they would have shot her at the ambush site.

__________________

Cheers!...on the rocks!!

Julie

It's never been confirmed about the rape, since she still claims amnesia. However, I think they did find her chained to a bed, and she had enough serious injury that she did have surgery (on her back?). Is the cane she uses to aid her walking today just a front? From links I've read, she sustained serious injuries, and everyone here seems to think differently? Can we get some confirmation on this please?

Confed999

LYNCH
"Dr. Harith al-Houssona, a doctor in the Nasirya hospital, described Lynch's injuries as "a broken arm, a broken thigh, and a dislocated ankle." According to al-Houssona, there was no sign of gunshot or stab wounds, and Lynch's injuries were consistent with those that would be suffered in a road traffic accident. Al-Houssona's claims were later confirmed in a U.S. Army report leaked on July 10, 2003. "

"Lynch underwent back surgery on April 3 to correct a slipped vertebra that was putting pressure on her spinal cord. Since then, she has undergone several more surgeries to stabilize her fractures."

"On April 12, Private Lynch was flown to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. to undergo specialized treatment and rehabilitation. On April 17, she underwent surgery to repair a bone in her right foot."

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

lemontree

antelope,
The above quote by Sniper aptly explains it. It is the wait that causes trauma not the combat. This answers the your paragraph below.
That may be due to the heavy responsibilities shoulder by an officer. But all that is imminised by junior leadership courses and training. I don't know about other military academies, but here in India when one joins he is put in such a spin that many tend to drop out or have second thoughts, it is a sieve that is essential to ensure that when men passout as officers they can endure extreme levels of stress.
All ranks upto the rank of Lt. Colonel face combat directly, after that their age does not permit combat command. That is the reason that all battalion commanders especially in combat arms are below 40 yrs of age.
Officers have to lead from the front hence they will take casualities. This has nothing to do with stress or battle fatigue.
I was more stressed as an acting adjutant/XO (with my CO's endless tantrums), than commanding a rifle company in COIN ops.
1. Well just to through some light on the level of combat exposure that I went through. My battalion was deployed on the Line of Control (LOC) between India and Pakistan in Jammu & Kashmir. Our primary task was maintaining the sanctity of the LOC and to carry out rear area sanitisation from militant threats. We were there when relations between both nations were at its worst and jehadis were being pumped in with full vigour by the Pak army. There was daily firing at between the forward posts which are as close as 70 mtrs in some cases.
2. We had one particular forward post that was on a spur that was jutting into the Pakistani area. This post was at the bottom of the spur and it was dominated by 7 Pak army posts. In the rest of our area of responsibility we dominated the enemy. All officers and ranks were to spend 6 months on that post in rotation. Here the enemy would fire was very effective and deadly, every day we would get hit by minimum 200-300 rounds of heavy/medium machine guns, without the benifit of hitting back due to the vulnerability of its location. I still have the bullet splinter marks on my uniform, track suit and towels.
But one has to motivate the men, talk to them, keep them active and encourage belief in one's God. Religion is a real balm for people in distress and lowers stress. Besides we found ways and means of hitting back at the enemy and keeping him quite. Sniping was a favourite out there.
That is a silly assumption. Most troops after getting back from leave (not R&R) are in the best of sprits, R&R is a concept that we do not have, it has to be leave. In 3 months a man starts to get edgy when in a combat environment, by 5 months he gets stressed to dangerous limits. I ensured that my troops went home 3 times a year, i.e 2 months of annual leave and two other breaks of 14 days each of casual leave. It kept moral high and the men motivated. I had no cases of rape or molestation or attempts to approach prostitutes in my company, in the 3.5 yrs that we were in J&K.
That is a miss conception. You would have been happier that the shooting starts than waiting for it. ESPECIALLY in COIN ops, when you don't know where the enemy is.

Officer of Engineers

I believe this other thread on another board a few of us also visit provides some valuable insight


Mr Mudd, re: Maj H Schmidt & USAF leadership reqs


Topic:

Topic author: Officer of Engineers
Subject: Mr Mudd, re: Maj H Schmidt & USAF leadership reqs
Posted on: Mar 16 2005 7:39 PM
Message:

Sir,

Please forgive my lack of protocal for this question. I have never gotten the impression that Maj Schmidt had leadership training. My question is nothing more is this a personal defence mechanism for the Maj or a leadership cultural chasim between the army and the AF.

Schmidt haunted, not sorry
Families of dead soldiers angry pilot not taking responsibility
By The Canadian Press

The U.S. fighter pilot who dropped the bomb that killed four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan says he is haunted by memories of the incident and the suffering of the victims' families, but he still can't say he's sorry.

Maj. Harry Schmidt, in his first major interview since the 2002 incident, told a U.S. publication that not a day goes by that he doesn't think of the families of the dead Canadian soldiers.

But Schmidt says he was a victim of circumstances beyond his control.

"I was the wingman," the former pilot tells Chicago Magazine in its April issue.

"I was not in charge of making decisions. It was, 'Shut up. Hang on and say, Yes, sir.' I was the lowest person on the totem pole. I was, in effect, along for the ride."

The attack killed Pte. Richard Green, Pte. Nathan Smith, Cpl. Ainsworth Dyer and Sgt. Marc Leger. They were the first Canadians to die in combat since the Korean War.

Eight others, all members of the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, were injured.

In a reprimand from the U.S. Air Force, Schmidt, an Illinois National Guardsman, was accused of acting "shamefully" and exhibiting "arrogance and lack of flight discipline" during the deadly incident.

He was grounded and fined $5,000.

Schmidt appeared stoic during the inquiry into the incident, but his wife, Lisa, says she thought he was suicidal.

"I was afraid he was going to kill himself," Lisa Schmidt says in the magazine article.

Schmidt's personal anguish provides little solace for relatives of the four victims.

Joyce Clooney, grandmother of Pte. Richard Green, said Tuesday she would like Schmidt to stop defending his actions and say he's sorry.

"He should have made a public apology to the families," Clooney said in an interview from her home in Bridgewater.

"It would have meant a lot more coming from him than the president apologizing to the prime minister. It wasn't the prime minister's children or grandchildren who were killed. His problem is he always blames everyone else for what happened."

Lloyd Smith, father of Pte. Nathan Smith, said he's indifferent to what Schmidt does "any time now or in the future."

"I think he had his chance, and he elected not to take advantage of it at the time of the trial and shortly after the incident happened," Smith said from his Tatamagouche home Tuesday evening.

"He's made his bed. He'll have to lie in it," he said. "To look for forgiveness, he'll have to look to the big guy upstairs.

"We're just trying to move on with our lives and put this incident behind us and do the best we can to go forward."

Smith said from what he has heard through testimony, Schmidt was responsible for his actions on that fateful day.

"He was given good sound advice by traffic controllers and ground controllers and he elected to ignore that advice.

"He was given all the advice he could be given under the conditions . . . and he gambled. He rolled the dice."

Smith said an apology from Schmidt three years after the fact would be cold comfort.

"He's not showing a whole lot of remorse," he said.

Richard and Claire Leger, parents of Sgt. Marc Leger, told CTV the U.S. pilot's comments are too little, too late.

"I felt suicidal and I'm pretty darn sure that all of us felt suicidal," Claire Leger told Canada AM. "So welcome to the gang. . . . We're all stuck in the same boat."

Richard Leger added that Schmidt would do well to remember his role in their son's death.

"He has never really helped any of the families. If he did anything, he made it worse."

Schmidt blames the bombing, on the morning of April 18, 2002, on "the fog of war," saying he mistook the Canadian gunfire for an attack from Taliban fighters.

The pilot says superiors never told him the Canadians would be conducting live-fire exercises near Kandahar airport that night.

As well, Schmidt says he was flying under difficult conditions on an 11-hour mission pumped up on amphetamines called "go pills."

He tells Chicago Magazine that the fight to defend himself, to explain his actions to the government, the military and the people of Canada and the United States, has inhibited his own grieving process.

"I don't know if I have been able to fully grieve," he says. "Because I was in a position where I had to protect my family from the start."

Schmidt was originally charged with manslaughter and aggravated assault, which could have resulted in a jail term, but the charges were reduced to dereliction of duty.

Maj. William Umbach, the flight leader, was also charged with assault and manslaughter.

Those charges were dismissed last summer and he was allowed to retire from the Air National Guard, as he had requested.

Replies:

Topic author: MrMudd
Replied on: Mar 17 2005 07:25 AM
Message:

IMHO I wasnt there and Do not know the reality that these two experianced during that Event. I cannot pass a judgement on these guys. I feel the U.S. GOVT. Provided the Canadian citizens Justice.

I learned long ago that Accountability and Integrity are taught in the Home as a Child and that the military service simply adds Consequence to your decision process.

The way I evaluate this event and as a Professionaly trained Military Pilot. Is that these two were a unit. They above all are ultimately responsible for all actions regardless of out come. It is Integrity and accountability with the little Silent Witness (HUD/GUN/TGT POD tape) and Comms recordings that layout the circumstances. THose Circumstances convicted them for their actions. It was very clear.

They were distinctly advised not to release the ordnance, and they continued to prosecute the targeting. They had a means to leave the area to allow the deconfliction process to add clarity to the situation. They chose together as a unit to prosecute an attack. This attack Ultimately led to the loss of life of these Canadian citizens.

In my personal Reflection, had I been a participent in this event, I would of changed my posture to an observation one and offset out of the area and continued the Comms/Deconfliction process. This is What all American Military pilots are trained to do. If we do not get accountability for the ordnance release we do not Deploy. This means someones initials are etched on the bomb. It will forever ride on their Collar.

IN Short this event was not a pressing Self Defence issue or Battlefield need for Target prosecution. Always best to return home with ordnace that can be used for legitimate targets.

Simply put. I would mark the Location and save it for the Intel Weenies and Operations staff for followup.And or retasking should the out come indeed be deemed as an actionable target. Their are other flights out their "Vul'ing" as well as a follow up that will relieve them at the end of theirs. MY thoughts are that they operated independently of Theater forces, and Greed for blood pressed them into action.

What I am gathering from reading your article is that Maj. Harry Schmidt lacks the Humility and indeference to accept that they had failed and to take accountability for the outcome. I understand his plight with protecting his career and the weight of this incident on him and his family.

My self personally, I would have violated the AF rules about personal contact to Fratriced Victims. And stood in front of them as a man and appologised openly. becasue in my mind. Personal accountability as an Adult is what bases our Moral Standing and Honor. I would done this wether I felt I was justified or unjustified of my actions.

What he lacks is Respect for the Vicitims and humanity. I would never allow him to fly on my wing. And the US GOVT felt the same way, That is why he has no Flight status today.

"RickUSN-

That was intelligent and useful Mudd.

But it certainly is what Ive come to expect.

Mindless babbling with no intent to either enlighten or inform.

Edited by - mrmudd on Mar 17 2005 07:30 AM

Topic author: mattlott
Replied on: Mar 17 2005 07:55 AM
Message:

Mudd we all know that fratricide is gonna regrettably happen in war, history has born this out. But am I correct in hearing that these guys pursued the attack even after being told not to. As such this was not a mistake in support of troops where bomb fell to close or just went dumb.

What were the consequences for these two? Manslaughter?

Topic author: MrMudd
Replied on: Mar 17 2005 08:04 AM
Message:

OOE, I sincerly do not Beleive their is a subculture of Army Vs Aviation mindset for these accountability issues.

The nature of warfare has evolved greatly politiclly. 60 Years ago we would send Bombers against Civillians Firebombing total cities, to destroy an Enemies logistical Capability. This is something totally unacceptable today.


Leadership Wise, I seriously do not believe the AF is at fault for this incedent. The fault for this incedent fully rests on the Two men that prosecuted the attack. The ammount of Attack Protocol Flags that popped up and clearly presented themselves clearly proved How poorly they performed. The US Military Aviation Community had Provided them the "Procedurial Tool Bag" to deal with the event. They chose not to use the safeguards they were taught.


AS Far as finding publications and explaining them here in detail would not be something I would not be able to do. This is a Topic that requires the expertise of a JAG officer that deals with the legal Issues.

Possibly one of the other pilots here or those qualified to speak on this can shed more insight to operational Guidlines in force today as they involve with their occupational Specialty.

I can only provide my insight as a Experianced Combat Aviator. I think you will find the rest of us in the Mil Aviation community could only provide the same synopsis of this event in relation to Personal Accountability in warfare.

"RickUSN-

That was intelligent and useful Mudd.

But it certainly is what Ive come to expect.

Mindless babbling with no intent to either enlighten or inform.

Topic author: MrMudd
Replied on: Mar 17 2005 08:15 AM
Message:

quote:
Mudd we all know that fratricide is gonna regrettably happen in war, history has born this out. But am I correct in hearing that these guys pursued the attack even after being told not to. As such this was not a mistake in support of troops where bomb fell to close or just went dumb.

What were the consequences for these two? Manslaughter?


The pilots Claim that they were acting in self defence because of the sighted Ground fire taking place. At night. on the topography. I can understand the impression that was felt and observed by them. The Canadian forces wee on a training range (not sure to the type of weapons or how many were activly employing ordnance on the range) But i suspect that it created the signature that when observed from Flight Level could be miss identified as Anti Aircraft weaponry.

The Pilots did request permission to attack the area observing the range (pilots did not know it was a training site). They were ordered not to deploy ordnace numerous times by the controlling entities. LAte the employed ordnance when they felt they were under attack. I also understand those Controlling agencies the pilots were communicating with didnot know it was a training site, and they also did not know who was in the area. This added to the "Fog of War". What really matters is the fact that the pilots did not wait until a satisfactory classification presented itself. Again the pilots believed they were acting in self defense.

The Courts Martial did directly seek out a manslaughter Conviction. As far as the Uniform Code of military justice rules and consequences for this type of conviction. I am not up on the facts as to what the punishments would be. I cant make a comment on that.


This is about all I can say about the event, again I wasnt there. My opinions are only my personal observations, and dont represent those of the Government.

"RickUSN-

That was intelligent and useful Mudd.

But it certainly is what Ive come to expect.

Mindless babbling with no intent to either enlighten or inform.

Edited by - mrmudd on Mar 17 2005 08:29 AM

Topic author: Officer of Engineers
Replied on: Mar 17 2005 09:30 AM
Message:

MrMudd,

Thank you, Sir, for your response. I was not presuming to pass judgement. The two men will have to live with demons for the rest of their lives.

I was just seeking some understanding of their reactions.

Topic author: MrMudd
Replied on: Mar 17 2005 09:39 AM
Message:

SO are the Victims, and unfortunately no matter the outcome, They lost their family and will never be satisfied with the actions of all parties involved, The Military institution, and The evolving Law governing warfare.

It is one of many Blackballs that all military men must carry in the pursuit of their Job. It makes it more difficult for us to carry out Defense of a Nation when Individuals choose False self preservation over the common good of the nation and those that serve in the military.

I am dissapointed in the way it negatively reflects my Country and branch of service.

War is a Tragic waste of human Life.

"RickUSN-

That was intelligent and useful Mudd.

But it certainly is what Ive come to expect.

Mindless babbling with no intent to either enlighten or inform.

Edited by - mrmudd on Mar 17 2005 09:41 AM

Topic author: Type 7
Replied on: Mar 18 2005 11:05 AM
Message:

quote:
Again the pilots believed they were acting in self defense.

As can be expected, since then, the ROE on "self-defense" employment has been clarified. Not necessarily expanded or made more restrictive, just clarified in a manner similiar to what you discussed regards "fight or flight"

Topic author: MrMudd
Replied on: Mar 18 2005 2:37 PM
Message:

quote:

quote:
Again the pilots believed they were acting in self defense.

As can be expected, since then, the ROE on "self-defense" employment has been clarified. Not necessarily expanded or made more restrictive, just clarified in a manner similiar to what you discussed regards "fight or flight"


My apologies to any one that has taken offense to the way I feel.

"RickUSN-

That was intelligent and useful Mudd.

But it certainly is what Ive come to expect.

Mindless babbling with no intent to either enlighten or inform.

Edited by - mrmudd on Mar 18 2005 3:44 PM

Topic author: Type 7
Replied on: Mar 19 2005 01:04 AM
Message:

quote:

quote:

quote:
Again the pilots believed they were acting in self defense.

As can be expected, since then, the ROE on "self-defense" employment has been clarified. Not necessarily expanded or made more restrictive, just clarified in a manner similiar to what you discussed regards "fight or flight"

My apologies to any one that has taken offense to the way I feel.

No offense taken here, Mudd (if this was intended for me). I simply meant to illustrate that some higher ups I guess felt that there was a loophole in the ROE as it was at the time......IMHO, likely that the "self-defense" portion might have been somehow unclear, or might have involved too much latitude....not really sure since I'm not them. But in any event, shortly following that incident, a change came out for that portion of the ROE, which is why I feel the above might be true of how it came about.

Topic author: MrMudd
Replied on: Mar 19 2005 12:06 PM
Message:

It was ment for all those that feel slighted by my comments.


Sometimes......Self Defense seems to be thrown around as a "scape goat"

I seriously dont believe their excuse for the way they conducted that mission.

Self Defense is always the loop-hole to get around a ROE. Even if it is a Lie.

"RickUSN-

That was intelligent and useful Mudd.

But it certainly is what Ive come to expect.

Mindless babbling with no intent to either enlighten or inform.

Topic author: Type 7
Replied on: Mar 19 2005 5:32 PM
Message:

quote:
It was ment for all those that feel slighted by my comments.


Sometimes......Self Defense seems to be thrown around as a "scape goat"

I seriously dont believe their excuse for the way they conducted that mission.

Self Defense is always the loop-hole to get around a ROE. Even if it is a Lie.

I know what you mean. I'll tell you though, their situation surely weighs in the back of the mind, rightly or wrongly. My last time overseas, I was in a situation north of Ramadi where there were enemy spotted on one of the many islands along the length of the Euphrates. We had just come west from Al Taqaddam/Fallujah on our normal patrol this night, and approaching Ramadi from the west, spotted tracer fire north of the highway along the river, north of town. Gave the GFAC a call for that area, who was located at the Ramadi base, and he told me they had a situation and to proceed to the scene. Showed up there with the wingman, and we could see tracer fire coming from the west bank and striking the southernmost of four small islands in the river. On the east bank was a neighborhood, while on the northernmost of the four islands was a lighted structure, appearing to be a residence of some kind. Keep in mind, this is all under gogs since we had no targeting pods at that time, and it's dark as hell, so it's tough to see anything in great detail, since the GFAC didn't want us dropping illum. The FAC (back at the Ramadi base about 8 miles away) passed that there was personnel spotted on the island and were being taken under fire from troops on the west bank. He then cleared my flight for a gun pass from south to north and to contact XX on XX freq, and to expedite. Mind you, this is about under 2 minutes from showing up, and I still hadn't established where the friendlies weren't, only where they were..supposedly. Give a call to the ground team to get some further info, and at the time, notice that their fire from the west bank is striking structures on the east bank, not aimed mind you, but the stuff missing the island is landing there, and there's no return fire from the island. So we tell the ground guys to check fire, and ask them if they're only on the west bank. They come back with an affirmative, and clarify that they're on the south side of the island, 70 metres south....which would put them in the water, and near the southern side of the island. WTF? They reply that they're only on the west bank, 70 metres from the southern tip of the island. Again, makes no sense and is in my line of fire if I'm wanted to be in from the south. GFAC comes up and asks if the gun pass has been made yet, and I reply no, I'm still trying to un**** exactly where the friendlies are and aren't, since I'm getting two different stories, plus the run-in heading assigned will put rounds long into the area of the structure on the northern island. What is it, is it friendly? He replied he didn't know, but just don't shoot at it. I had to quickly explain the concept of long rounds and richochets, but finally just asked if the friendlies on the west bank are under any fire or immediate threat, since there seemed to be no return fire coming their way. They replied no, so I told the GFAC we're not going to put down rounds just yet until we can get some stuff sorted out. Some 15Es pushed our way and we worked them into the target to relieve us, since fuel was getting low. And I finally handed over the AO to them. Point is, I didn't want to put down rounds and either hit friendlies or hit civilians and be the next "that guy". And I'd be lying if I didn't admit that the Tarnak Farms/F-16 case was rearing it's head in my mind.

Topic author: MrMudd
Replied on: Mar 20 2005 02:56 AM
Message:

Weve all been their in some Fashion, I had a Bomb Skip and Go into a Apt Structure. Collateral Board Didnt fault Me. The SF Guys were actually Happy. They were in the area Hunting Down a Sniper that was shooting kids and women. (unknown to me) I was In the Area to Hit a Suspected Comms/Facility/antennae. adjacent 400 Meters up a ridge. Building Collapses they BDA, Find that The Apt Structure was actually a partial billeting for troops and followed the cables up the ridge where the antennae was still standing. Bomb went Long and Followed the apex of the ridge and took out the Troops. (they never knew they were there). It was a non uniformed force. Kind of a terror squad of some sort. That were part of the Ethnic fighting.

But in my mind it never excused the The other "Civillians" that were now under rubble. (it was never my intended target).

...The point im getting too, Is its not about ending up being "that guy" or not being "that guy" It is bound to happen to any of us right or wrong...despite the circumstances.

..Its about Moral Restraint and staying focused on working the issue. This is where i have the problem with "Those Guys".

"RickUSN-

That was intelligent and useful Mudd.

But it certainly is what Ive come to expect.

Mindless babbling with no intent to either enlighten or inform.

Topic author: Officer of Engineers
Replied on: Mar 22 2005 10:12 PM
Message:

Gentlemen and Sirs,

This has been enlightening. My apologies for thinking like a bellycrawler but I thought only us are exposed up front and personal.

Again, I do not presume to judge but it feels damned good that you flyboys feel same pressure as us bellycrawlers.

Topic author: MrMudd
Replied on: Mar 23 2005 07:11 AM
Message:

quote:
Gentlemen and Sirs,

This has been enlightening. My apologies for thinking like a bellycrawler but I thought only us are exposed up front and personal.

Again, I do not presume to judge but it feels damned good that you flyboys feel same pressure as us bellycrawlers.


I wouldnt fault your thoughts or for being a Canadian citizen rallying behind the issue. You are a Professional Military officer and have unique insite to the Military art.

I wouldnt think so much on the pressure of the Job, I believe it comes back to looking at humanity and respect for human life. There is a Reason an "Officer" Commands an Aircraft, It is the Single Handidly , Most lethal and destructive force on the battlefield, A Pure force multiplyer. With that lethality comes accountability and resposebility for its employment.

The Problem is war itself and those that shoulder it, All persons are capable of failure at any specific point in their " Free Agency" No matter how much an institution invests into a person, it will always fall back to that persons root core of how they view the world around them and humanity.

IF that individual is moraly decrepit. This is what happens. From the union worker assemblying the weapon, to the PVT-Commander in chief that weilds it in action. Their is no differnce, The institution simply does its best to evolve the training to reach those that fail on moral standing.

The Institution didnt Fail them, But it did have to bring more solution and education to the Military masses, to reach the unknowns of the human Psyche.

"RickUSN-

That was intelligent and useful Mudd.

But it certainly is what Ive come to expect.

Mindless babbling with no intent to either enlighten or inform.

__________________
Chimo

Anon

Mr. Mudd is a nugget of wisdom and experience, even if he is a bit moody at times.

antelope

Without being too offensive the realization that you are not an American military officer explains much of your comments.

1. I am in 100% agreement that the mental stress BEFORE combat exist and that for most people it subsides once you are doing something in combat. I will vouch for that from personal experience also.

2. Have you ever had a class on battle fatigue? If you have, did you ever see any studies of real battle fatigue victims conducted by a national governments medical establishment?

3. If you want to believe that officers up to the rank of LTC face the same prospects of direct combat as enlisted people I am not going to convience you otherwise. I guess the company CP fights as much as the line platoon. I guess the battalion CP fights as much as the line platoon. I guess the brigade CP fights as much as the line platoon. I will just let any enlisted man on this site judge your statement for what its worth. (Note: I don't doubt officers do fight but not to the extent enlisted do. I think the field grade casualty rate in major wars bare that out as well. Good Example: Look at the book Band of Brothers - The had the same Battalion Commander throughout the war. Only one Company Commander killed. How many enlisted men however were killed. If anything this unit was more at risk for officers than normal)

4. If you believe combat fatigue is caused by waiting for battle as opposed to being in battle you are ignorant of history and medical studies. Battle fatigue entered the lexicon during World War I when it was called "shell shock" since at that time everyone could see it was directly related to the time spent being shelled (not waiting to be shelled). Battle fatigue directly relates to the time and ferocity of combat.

5. U.S. military classes on this subject are specifically designed to disembue the very attitude you present on this subject. Either the U.S. Army is correct as are the U.S. government studies of World War II, Korean War, and Vietnam War battle stress victims or the old theory that battle stress is simply a sign of mental weakness is true.

Your own statement however seems to bare out that your troops suffer battle fatigue over time and you take a lot of measures to mitigate it. I think U.S. troops wish they had such a liberal leave (rest and recuperation) plan. If your soldiers were in a prolonged conflict (not one year rotation) and you did not send them home your own statement says you would have significant battle fatigue issues among your men and this is in an environment where you are not conducting large scale offensive operations where significant number of men are being killed.