SEALs commit suicide rarther than face Liberals at home.
 

Death by rules of engagement

By Diana West
Friday, August 17, 2007

Now that Marcus Luttrell's book, "Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10," is a national bestseller, maybe Americans are ready to start a discussion about the core issue his story brings to light: the inverted morality and insanity of U.S. military rules of engagement.
On a stark mountaintop in Afghanistan, Leading Petty Officer Luttrell and three Navy SEAL teammates found themselves having just such a discussion back in 2005. Dropped behind enemy lines to kill or capture a Taliban kingpin who commanded between 150 and 200 fighters, the SEAL team was unexpectedly discovered in the early stages of a mission whose success, of course, depended on secrecy. Three unarmed Afghan goatherds, one a teenager, had stumbled across the Americans' position, presenting the soldiers with an urgent dilemma: What should they do?
If they let the Afghans go, the Afghans would probably alert the Taliban to the their whereabouts. This would mean a battle in which the Americans were outnumbered by at least 35 to 1. If the Americans didn't let the goatherds go -- if they killed them, because there was no way to hold them -- the Americans would avoid detection and, most likely, leave the area safely. On a treeless mountainside far from home, four of our bravest patriots came to the ghastly conclusion that the only way to save themselves was forbidden by the ROE. Such an action would set off a media firestorm, and lead to murder charges for all.
It is agonizing to read their tense debate as recounted by Marcus Luttrell, the "lone survivor" of the disastrous mission. Each of the SEALs was aware of "the strictly correct military decision" -- namely, that it would be suicide to let the goatherds live. But they were also aware that their own country, for which they were fighting, would ultimately turn on them if they made that decision. It was as if committing suicide had become the only politically correct option. For fighting men ordered behind enemy lines, such rules are not only insane, they're immoral.
The SEALs sent the goatherds on their way. One hour later, a sizeable Taliban force attacked, beginning a horrendous battle that resulted not only in the deaths of Mr. Luttrell's three SEAL teammates, but also the deaths of 16 would-be rescuers -- eight additional SEALs and eight Army special operations soldiers whose helicopter was shot down by a Taliban RPG.
"Look at me right now in my story," Mr. Luttrell writes. "Helpless, tortured, shot, blown up, my best buddies all dead, and all because we were afraid of the liberals back home, afraid to do what was necessary to save our own lives. Afraid of American civilian lawyers. I have only one piece of advice for what it's worth: If you don't want to get into a war where things go wrong, where the wrong people sometimes get killed, where innocent people sometimes have to die, then stay the hell out of it in the first place."
I couldn't agree more, except for the fact that conservatives, up to and including the president, are at least as responsible for our outrageous rules of engagement as liberals. The question Americans need to ask themselves now, with "Lone Survivor" as Exhibit A, is whether adhering to these precious rules is worth the exorbitant price -- in this case, 19 valiant soldiers.
Another question to raise is why our military, knowing the precise location of a Taliban kingpin, sends in Navy SEALs, not Air Force bombers, in the first place? The answer is "collateral damage." I know this -- and so do our enemies, who, as Mr. Luttrell writes, laugh at our rules of engagement as they sleep safely at night. I find it hard to believe that this is something most Americans applaud, but it's impossible to know because this debate hasn't begun. But it should. It strikes at the core not only of our capacity to make war, but also our will to survive. A nation that doesn't automatically value its sons who fight to protect it more than the "unarmed civilians" they encounter behind enemy lines is not only unlikely to win a war: It isn't showing much interest in its own survival.
This is what comes through, loud and ugly, from that mountaintop in Afghanistan, where four young Americans ultimately agreed it was better to be killed than to kill.
Diana West is a contributing columnist for Townhall.com and author of the new book, The Death of the Grown-up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization.


F-ing government is jacked up.:(

Truly tragic situation.
The gov't has really screwed the pooch in handling this war.
Even that [i]"liberal"[/i] FDR knew how to wage a war.

Quote of the day and my new sig:

A nation that doesn't automatically value its sons who fight to protect it more than the "unarmed civilians" they encounter behind enemy lines is not only unlikely to win a war: It isn't showing much interest in its own survival.

I'm fairly sure this article refers to Operation Anaconda. Anyway, the ROE situation for U.S. troops in hostile areas is down right negligent. You've literally got to be a hair from death in certain instances before you can pull the trigger. Putting troops into a situation like that is downright criminal and the fact that someone can be dealt negative recourse in an effort to support his mission and save his own life is a disservice to every party.

This letter truly disgusts me. The fact that some liberal armchair quarterback can honestly have issues with servicemen looking out for their own lives before personnel in a hostile area goes to show just how out of touch many liberals really are.

I am not even going to pretend to know the situation those guys were in, OR how these sepcial forces units operate. But, I am a US Marine and did serve in Iraq under probably similar ROE. And for SEALS to let these guys go, just doesn't seem to make sense. Grab them, tie them up, radio for immediate extract due to a mission compromise. There are execution checklist items for most mission contingencies.

Again, I can in no way relate to the actual situation they were in. And I do whole-heartedly agree that the best way to win a war is not with the strongest military. It's with a strong country, a strong people, people that have the will to win, people that can stomach friendly losses, and civillian casualties.

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged." - Unknown

I could never stomach war protestors. To me the only way they serve to end a war is for the United States to lose, or quit. When in the end, if the entire country would be supportive and let the Military do its job the way it knows how...a swifter end would indeed come.

Quote of the century:

[i]"I have only one piece of advice for what it's worth: If you don't want to get into a war where things go wrong, where the wrong people sometimes get killed, where innocent people sometimes have to die, then stay the hell out of it in the first place."[/i]

In an era where the military must appease civilians, it's impossible to win wars these days. And this is a classic example of our lacking trust in America's finest just because we've had problems with very few bad-seed soldiers.

Even the possibility of a group of highly-trained SOF men being savage, blood-thirsty hooligans will always outweigh their true professionalism and integrity. We trust surgeons to make decisions inside our bodies on the operating table. But when it comes to even the most secret military operations you still have to answer to the public [i]beyond[/i] your COC.

Problem is we (Americans) have become too good to for our own britches. We get so caught-up in the idea that everything and everyone needs to be treated with the same set of rights even though heads need to be split from time to time. I'm not saying that this moral stance is wrong... i'm just saying it makes it nearly impossible to wage war -- so maybe we shouldn't anymore. One of the many reasons on why i'm born-again on my criteria in waging wars. I haven't changed. It's that I realize how impossible everyone else is and has become during these trying times.

The thing that killed the war for us is the Media. Every little "bad" thing we do over here, im over in the desert now, is portraied to the world as a bad thing. I mean, they will blow up a car bomb and kill 200 of there own people, not much said. We kill a 10 year old boy, who is carrying an IED(suicide bomber) and we are baby killers. Now we dont kill that little boy and he blows up a HMVV and four soildiers/sailors/airmen/marines. Both situations get bad media coverage.

is it wrong to kill a child? yes
is it wrong to kill a child that is the enemy and going to kill you? very hard to answer, but I would do it to save my fellow americans and myself.

same thing
is it wrong to kill an innocent man herding sheep? yes
is it wrong to kill that man when you know he will give you away, which will ruin the mission? hard to answer, ROE says they have to impose a threat, have the means, and have the motive.
^^
this one is hard because he is innocent, but he will give you away. You cant prove it though so when you go in front of the Court Martial, you dont have the proper answers and your career and life are over. You will go to the Brig for following orders and remainging hidden.

[QUOTE=VRT Gump;1970679]is it wrong to kill a child that is the enemy and going to kill you? [/quote]

No, it is not wrong.

[QUOTE=VRT Gump;1970679]is it wrong to kill that man [b]when you know[/b] he will give you away, which will ruin the mission? [/QUOTE]

No, it is not wrong.

War sucks and ****ty things occur during a war.
But your main concern is finishing the mission and bringing everyone on your team home [i]alive.[/i]

[QUOTE=VRT Gump;1970679]The thing that killed the war for us is the Media. Every little "bad" thing we do over here, im over in the desert now, is portraied to the world as a bad thing. I mean, they will blow up a car bomb and kill 200 of there own people, not much said. We kill a 10 year old boy, who is carrying an IED(suicide bomber) and we are baby killers. Now we dont kill that little boy and he blows up a HMVV and four soildiers/sailors/airmen/marines. Both situations get bad media coverage.[/QUOTE]

Although the media is a big factor I don't think it's what killed the war. I think poor execution, poor leadership, shoddy planning, and unclear objectives killed the war.

We didn't win the war during 'mission accomplished' when we really should have. At least we did during GW1 and that's what people expected. That time-span was the only reasonable amount of time the peanut gallery back home would remain patient. You loose tons of war-support or tolerance for war when it's not delivered in 30 minutes or less.

We've had an Admin that's continuously stepped on their dicks. At first, it was easy to say, "hey, all admins have bad days." Now, it seems like something happens monthly. It's ridiculous.

Unclear objectives and shoddy planning go hand-in-hand. As a Soldier ask yourself what the objective was/is in Iraq (Not A-Stan because we know that one). Be honest. You might have a decent answer or you might not. It certainly will not be a clear answer because our Admin can’t even deliver that. If the Admin's reasonings for Iraq could be fabricated into a bridge, would you cross? Probably not and a lot of Soldiers felt the same way since 2003. Not a good force-multiplier or source of morale.

[QUOTE=LukeSTi;1970393]I am not even going to pretend to know the situation those guys were in, OR how these sepcial forces units operate. But, I am a US Marine and did serve in Iraq under probably similar ROE. And for SEALS to let these guys go, just doesn't seem to make sense. Grab them, tie them up, radio for immediate extract due to a mission compromise. There are execution checklist items for most mission contingencies.

Again, I can in no way relate to the actual situation they were in. And I do whole-heartedly agree that the best way to win a war is not with the strongest military. It's with a strong country, a strong people, people that have the will to win, people that can stomach friendly losses, and civillian casualties.

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged." - Unknown

I could never stomach war protestors. To me the only way they serve to end a war is for the United States to lose, or quit. When in the end, if the entire country would be supportive and let the Military do its job the way it knows how...a swifter end would indeed come.[/QUOTE]

Right on with all that. The only thing is, if this was the recon I believe it was, extraction may not have been an option and in many cases (especially within SOCOM) it is not. An extraction bird would have definetly alerted the HPTs they were after. Salty being infantry and maybe in your case as well may know, sometimes all you can do is let them pass and hope they don't see you.

The training is relevant to the battlefield on which soldiers fight. I can promise you these guys went down in a hail of gunfire only after bagging a few Mujj themselves. They don't put people who aren't prepared to operate in these conditions in, you can't be risk averse.

[QUOTE=1reguL8NSTi;1970791]Salty being infantry and maybe in your case as well may know, sometimes all you can do is let them pass and hope they don't see you. [/QUOTE]

In my experience break contact was the most important battle drill for small-unit reconnaissance. At least that's how lrs seemed to work despite being considered the cream of the crop in that MOS. And it makes perfect sense... even though you’re the best you're still not superman. If a 3:1 ratio (or higher) of poorly-trained, gun-toting hoodlums attack your small elite team odds are you may not walk out alive. 3:1 is the magic number in infantry offensives.

[QUOTE=Salty;1970811]In my experience break contact was the most important battle drill for small-unit reconnaissance. At least that's how lrs seemed to work despite being considered the cream of the crop in that MOS. And it makes perfect sense... even though you’re the best you're still not superman. If a 3:1 ratio (or higher) of poorly-trained, gun-toting hoodlums attack your small elite team odds are you may not walk out alive. 3:1 is the magic number in infantry offensives.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but the drum I'm beating is more to the line of "where are they going to break contact too?" They were no doubt isolated and if they get up and move out their cover's blown regardless. Them on foot running from a bunch of Taliban/al Qaeda fighters who no doubt have vehicles would not have ended well either. Furthermore, what effect would running have had on the rest of the mission.

Me personally, call higher and let them know, find a defendable terrain feature, cover my dead space with indirect fires (at least have them ready) and have stand-by air just outside of ear shot. With all that said, I'm sure they did something close to that effect. Must have left quite a pile of them.

Right. I'm not disagreeing with you. I would have killed them too. In fact, I probably would have killed them and not worried about it when coming back home.

Forgot to add that I was just trying to make the point that these small units don't have a lot of options or resources available to them when the going gets rough.

I think the biggest thing is mission purpose.
Why are we here?