A Reasonable Forum on Religion, Science, Skepticism, and Atheism

Register or Log In

1. 

   Brian M
   Member

   at least the ones who question orders.

   "Serving with my unit 2nd battalion 16th infantry in New Baghdad Iraq, I vividly remember the moment in 2007, when our Battalion Commander walked into the room and announced our new rules of engagement:

   "Listen up, new battalion SOP (standing operating procedure) from now on: Anytime your convoy gets hit by an IED, I want 360 degree rotational fire. You kill every [expletive] in the street!"

   We weren't trained extensively to recognize an unlawful order, or how to report one. But many of us could not believe what we had just been told to do. Those of us who knew it was morally wrong struggled to figure out a way to avoid shooting innocent civilians, while also dodging repercussions from the non-commissioned officers who enforced the policy. In such situations, we determined to fire our weapons, but into rooftops or abandoned vehicles, giving the impression that we were following procedure."

   Posted 1 year ago #
2. 

   Custador
   Moderator

   Holy shit!

   Posted 1 year ago #
3. 

   K Dubya
   Member

   I recall that when i was in Iraq in early 2007 there was a similar SOP a bit north of Baghdad, which was to fire (usually blindly and at night) 90 degrees off the convoy in whichever direction the IED was.

   Not as extreme as what you posted, but foolish none the less.

   Posted 1 year ago #
4. 

   Custador
   Moderator

   The difference between the UK and US SOPs is incredible. UK troops operate a policy called Courageous Restraint - That is, they don't open fire unless the target is a confirmed hostile, and the target is firing upon them, and there are no civilians in the way. Otherwise they just withdraw and come back later.

   Posted 1 year ago #
5. 

   K Dubya
   Member

   Typically the US operates in a similar manner. I've heard several accounts of armed engagement in which the US warfighter made a decision in the heat of battle and was then hung out to dry because others thought (based on reports) that he was in the wrong.

   We aren't all gun slinging outlaws, but sometimes one of the gunslinging outlaws ends up in charge somehow.

   Posted 1 year ago #
6. 

   Custador
   Moderator

   If that happened in the UK, the officer concerned would be bent over and butt-fucked sans-KY by the resulting Court Martial.

   Posted 1 year ago #
7. 

   K Dubya
   Member

   I would like to imagine a similar fate fell upon the Battalion Commander that Brian M mentioned, but there was no conclusion in his story.

   Posted 1 year ago #
8. 

   Eudaimonist
   Member

   UK troops operate a policy called Courageous Restraint - That is, they don't open fire unless the target is a confirmed hostile, and the target is firing upon them, and there are no civilians in the way. Otherwise they just withdraw and come back later.

   Courageous Restraint also makes certain that troops have to seek higher authority before escalating force, and it's cost a great deal of soldiers' lives. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/7852684/Gen-David-Petraeus-to-review-courageous-restraint.html)

   I can't believe a trained army officer thought 360 degree fire was appropriate and effective.

   Posted 1 year ago #
9. 

   Custador
   Moderator

   The thing is, soldiers make the choice to risk their lives in war-zones when they join the army. Civilians getting used as human shields made no such choice. For that reason, I honestly do think it's more ethical to risk the lives of slodiers than the lives of civilians.

   Posted 1 year ago #
10. 

    K Dubya
    Member

    Perhaps it would be more ethical.

    However, these are non uniformed combatants, and it is impossible to tell who is who or what is what. It is even possible that these human shields are also combatants, playing a dangerous game of roulette, hoping the allied soldiers will not open fire.

    I am NOT saying that they should shoot everyone just in case. What I am saying, is that sometimes the guys with their boots on the ground have a better perspective to make critical desicions without the fear of being ass raped, sans KY.

    Too much grey area, IMO, for blanket policies.

    Posted 1 year ago #
11. 

    Eudaimonist
    Member

    Too much grey area, IMO, for blanket policies.

    Yeah, this is what I was trying to get at. It's not merely a balance between soldier/civilian life, because I certainly agree a soldier has signed up for it while a civilian hasn't.

    Posted 1 year ago #
12. 

    Custador
    Moderator

    That comes down to training, training and more training, imo. And I do agree that you should always be sceptical when the rear-echelon criticise operational decisions made on the ground.

    Posted 1 year ago #
13. 

    B.O.B.
    Member

    I have never seen combat, but I did spend three years in the U.S. army infantry. I think that one of the more important points made above was how the NCOs would respond. Reporting unlawful orders up the chain of command is never as easy as one might assume. Depending on where you are you might not have an opportunity to contact your battalion commander for weeks or even months, and in the mean time your NCO support chain has 100% ownership of your ass and everything attached to it. In my experience the NCOs operate more by tradition than by regulation, and can always find a procedural loophole to fuck you with if you get on their bad side. I imagine in a combat environment opportunities for retribution for perceived disloyalty are not hard to find.

    Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.