The Washington Post reported yesterday that U.S. military snipers are “baiting” insurgents in Iraq by scattering items such as detonation cord, plastic explosives and ammunition and then “engaging” those who pick up the items and attempt to leave with them, seeing this “as a sign they would use the item against U.S. forces.”
One: Thanks Washington Post for giving the enemy a heads up on this tactic. Nothing like tipping off the bad guys so they can be more careful in the future.
Two: How long do you think it will it be before some military lawyer and/or the ACLU rules the tactic a violation of the insurgents’ human rights?
Posted on September 25th, 2007 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: National
What are the US’s goals in Iraq? Assuming this program exists, how does it assist in the attainment of those goals?
The article in the Post states, “Members of the sniper platoon have said they felt pressure from commanders to kill more insurgents because U.S. units in the area had taken heavy losses.”
If this is true, it sounds similar to Vietnam, where commanders were judged by their body counts. It also sounds similar to the situation in the My Lai area in early 1968. Hopefully the outcomes won’t be the same. However, it seems that if a sniper killed an Iraqi civilian, planted det cord on his body, was charged with murder, then used the “bait” program as a defense (”defense attorneys argue that the program may have opened the door to the soldiers’ actions because it blurred the legal lines of killing in a complex war zone”), then there’s at least a possibility that certain elements of the Army are morally on a slippery slope.
Also, if this program exists, it seems to run counter to some of the tenets of the joint Army/MarineCorps manual on counterinsurgency that was partially authored by General Petraeus.
With a typically sounding American name such as John Smith, one has to wonder who this person really is and why aren’t they upset our troops are taking heavy loses?
Why does he gloss over mainstream media’s impunity that lacks discretion when jeopardizing USA war efforts and National Security with treasonable publications that should have remained as secret operational tactics?
By not standing in support our soldier’s efforts that would have identified the immediate outrage of dangerous betrayal, instead by prejudging and misdirecting fault he positioned himself to stand with the mainstream media and our enemy.
“Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Typically sounding American name Lenny: Please reference the quote that states or implies that I’m not upset that our troops are taking heavy losses.
And while you’re at it, why don’t you give me a quick primer on why these soldiers are dying in Iraq, what the US goals in Iraq are, and how this program (assuming it exists) furthers the attainment of those goals?
The Washington Post article states, “In documents obtained by The Washington Post from family members of the accused soldiers…..” The families of the three snipers accused of murder presented information about the “bait” program to the Post (and also to the AP), most likely as a public relations act to assist the defense of the three snipers. If you think it was treasonous to release this information, then why aren’t you condemning the families of the snipers?
I just got done cleaning up doggie crap in the backyard, and I can confirm to you that there are no clean ends. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find any clean ends on your posting either.
John, by golly if you’re still ‘not’ with it, what’s more amazing, as yet made any claim about getting it. We all knew the impossible problem with poop long before now, which is why I remain intolerant about your insisting it’s ok to let your dawg crap in my yard… a yard that happens to include my concern for troop safety!
Made worse by your omission in addressing an American military family’s duress that revealed operational secrets putting our troops at risk, nor how this somehow gives the news media license to forego their need for discretion when they further breech and compound the very same national security issues that endangers our troops… and you ask which quote implies your not upset with our troops heavy losses. None of this goes without saying!
Apparently you have real need to know, by your very own omission and subsequently launching a demoralizing blog, logic had nothing else to conclude. This is not about my post, rather yours in volunteering yourself to this position. No surprise when someone ask why an American would do this, nor upset when they refuse you the same impunity you’d give the news media, our enemy, for that matter even our own troops who for what ever reason may have been overzealous or by a criminal action impute what resulted in this security breech… keep in mind many other snipers are doing their grizzly work without facing similar charges. Let the courts do their work… bottom line, first stand is for America by not limiting or endangering our troop’s efforts, then worry about political correct war rhetoric!
By the way, our Police successfully use similar tactics… called ‘sting operations,’ the problem with war is the lack of ‘due process,’ especially with none Geneva compliant enemy who would rather die.
Lenny: What you call demoralizing, I call realistic. Here’s the realism of this war. The last time I checked, our national strategy was to bring a democratic pro-US government to Iraq [agree or disagree?]. To do this, our military needs to conduct itself vis-a-vis the Iraqis in a way that basically “wins the hearts and minds” so that the Iraqis will trust us and have a friendly attitude toward us and will want to help us oppose the terrorists so that the country can achieve peace. For our military, there is virtually no room for error in this situation. Every time we kill an innocent Iraqi, accidentally or intentionally, the terrorists win and we lose. Every time we kill an Iraqi, and the Iraqis view him as an innocent victim, the terrorists win and we lose. Every time Blackwater opens fire into a crowd of Iraqis, the terrorists win and we lose. And every time American soldiers (Sergeant Hensley, Sergeant Vela, Specialist Sandoval) shoot an unarmed Iraqi at point blank range, finish him off while he writhes on the ground still alive after taking the first bullet, then plant an AK47 on his body to make it look like he posed a threat to the soldiers who killed him, then the terrorists win and we lose.
So if ten Iraqis pick up a piece of explosive on the ground, and all ten are shot and killed by our snipers, and nine of them actually turn out to be terrorists, then the terrorists and ultimately the Iraqis are going to focus on how the one innocent dead Iraqi was an example of a US policy of indiscriminately murdering Iraqi civilians, and then the terrorists win and we lose.
This is what happens if our military strategy doesn’t correspond to our national strategy. That’s why the military strategy needs to correspond to the national strategy. Unfortunately, if the military strategy corresponds to the national strategy, then we’re going to suffer more casualties (which I do care about, notwithstanding your comments) and the war will be drawn out for a longer period. The Brits were in Malaya for twelve years, and they had advantages that we don’t have in Iraq.
Of course, the other option is to make the national strategy correspond to a scorched earth, kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out military strategy. In this case, we forget about a democratic government in Iraq, allow the Iraqi parliament to be dissolved, either allow Maliki to become a dictator or topple him and install a dictator of our choosing, and suppress the population by making the people more afraid of us than they are of the terrorists. However, to do this, President Bush or his successor will have to answer the question, “Why did we get rid of Saddam just to replace him with Saddam Jr.?”
So Lenny, if you’re demoralized by reality, that’s your problem, not mine. So what are you going to do about it?
John,
No mistaking how limited options expressed by armchair strategist in midst of war’s insanity confront the deadly need of a warrior’s survival mindset.
Keep praying for Congress’s troop support and their expedient safe return until war’s end!
Lenny: Just out of curiosity, have you notified the head armchair strategist in Baghdad, aka General Petraeus, that you disapprove of his strategy in Iraq?
Lenny: Here’s a summary of the testimony of Sergeant Evan Vela on Thursday at the court-martial of Specialist Sandoval in Iraq. The court-martial concerns a shooting on May 11 near Iskandariyah, which is 30 miles south of Baghdad. Sergeant Vela, Staff Sergeant Hensley and Specialist Sandoval are assigned to a sniper unit that was using the “bait” tactics earlier this year. Their families are the ones who released information about the “bait” program to the media earlier last week.
Vela said Staff Sergeant Michael Hensley told him to shoot the man, who had stumbled upon their snipers’ hideout, although he was not armed and had his hands in the air when he approached the soldiers.
“He (Hensley) asked me if I was ready. I had the pistol out. I heard the word shoot. I don’t remember pulling the trigger. It took me a second to realize that the shot came from the pistol in my hand,” he said.
Vela said that as the Iraqi man was convulsing on the ground, “Hensley kind of laughed about it and hit the guy on the throat and said shoot again.”
“After he (the Iraqi man) was shot, Hensley pulled an AK-47 out of his rucksack and said, ‘This is what we are going to say happened,’” Vela said.
If Sergeant Vela’s testimony is truthful, then these are not the actions of warriors, these are the actions of cold blooded murderers. Please feel free to tell me why you disagree since you are so supportive of these soldiers and what they did.
John,
We all should be outraged with criminal acts, but not become delusional in confusing ourselves as equal to General Petraeus, where fortunately, only he has the hammer over there!
Previously you responded to my 28 Sept post, once again you’ve chosen to miss the point. Let the courts do their work, not all our troops are criminals!
Interesting thought would be, to hear the results of you personally taking your dialog to IRAQ in an attempt to find common ground with the insurgents… lets hope there is never a sudden great quiet from the peanut gallery, after all, freedom of speech is one of the things our troops are fighting for, let’s keep security in place that helps them come home alive and healthy to enjoy.
Gee Lenny, can I interpret your statement that “We all should be outraged with criminal acts” to mean that if Sergeant Vela’s testimony is truthful, that you agree that Staff Sergeant Hensley and Sergeant Vela committed murder?
And once again, what about their families who provided information to the Washington Post about a classified sniper bait program? Assuming that this program exists, would you also agree that their families have done wrong in exposing it? If so, why aren’t you condemning them along with the Post?
I have never made a claim contrary to your statement that “not all our troops are criminals.” What I did was quote the article when it stated, “defense attorneys argue that the program may have opened the door to the soldiers’ actions because it blurred the legal lines of killing in a complex war zone.” After that, I offered an opinion that IF the lawyers’ claim was correct, that there was “a possibility that certain elements of the Army are morally on a slippery slope.” If you disagree with the lawyers’ claim, then attack the lawyers, not me. If you agree with the lawyers, that’s fine too. But if you agree with the lawyers’ claim, then you need to acknowledge that there’s a strong possibility that American soldiers will commit crimes and God forbid maybe even atrocities in an environment where there are “blurred the legal lines of killing.” And if this happens, the terrorist win and we lose.
Contrary to your statement, it is not my desire to find common ground with the terrorists. However, part of the military strategy associated with a national strategy of democratizing Iraq calls for the establishment of a safe and trustful environment vis-a-vis the civilian population so they will support our efforts to destroy the insurgency. If you want to know more about General Petraeus’ hammer, read Army Field Manual 3-24 (Marine Corps Warfighting Publication 3-33.5) on counterinsurgency operations. I think you’ll be surprised to find that in counterinsurgency, the highest priority is placed on protecting the host nation’s civilian population, even if it means compromising the full protection of our soldiers. As I said before, if you disagree with this, take it up with General Petraeus, cuz I’m just the messenger.
John,
Your ulterior motives on this conservative blog are questionable, you seem all over the place finding a peculiar purpose through the controversial misfortune of others… you might need professional help! Shock therapy has been outlawed for decades; let’s hope you refrain from public disorder giving cause for therapeutic ‘Tasor!’ Meanwhile support may be found on a more liberal site.
You continue to highjack origin of story lines, as in this one, glossing over national security. This short story might help regain your perspective of messengers!
You happened to be in IRAQ sitting in a fox hole under orders to ambush the enemy before they ambushed your unit, one of your own decide to inform the insurgents what’s up, lets hope an expedient effective quieting of that messenger insures your safe return to continue avoiding this inane dialog about breeching operational security and letting the courts work.
Well Lenny, if your writings reflect conservative thought as exemplified by Chuck Muth and the other conservative readers of this website, then I will proudly call myself a card carrying liberal from California.
Actually, like Governor Gibbons, I’m a yahoo from Sparks, but I think you get the point.
Earlier this week, Specialist Sandoval was acquitted of murder based at least partly on the testimony of Sergeant Vela. Staff Sergeant Hensley and Sergeant Vela will be tried for murder separately later this year. If the testimony that Sergeant Vela gave at Specialist Sandoval’s trial was an accurate representation of the facts, I anticipate that Staff Sergeant Hensley and Sergeant Vela will both be convicted of murder. However, you are correct, we should let the courts do their job and give their verdicts. When that happens, I’ll bring the issue up with you again.
God, what kind of fucking idiot is this Lenny guy? Nothing he’s written makes any sense. He must be some kind of retard.
Update: On February 10, Sergeant Evan Vela was convicted of murder, planting an AK47 on a dead Iraqi civilian’s body and lying to military investigators about the incident. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. He will also receive a dishonorable discharge from the Army.
Before the jury deliberated to determine sentencing, Sergeant Vela told them, “When I came to Iraq, I didn’t come to do anything wrong. I failed my standards, your standards and the standards of the army. All I can say is I’m sorry and ask for mercy.”
Lenny: Please feel free to continue defending this soldier and his actions.