Military Troops Disciplined for Doing Their Job

Dr. Bill Smith, ARRA Editor, USAF Retired: If you are military, family of military or a supporter of the military, the following examples of abuses of our service members by the military services will heighten your concern about today's military chain-of-command. The knee-jerk reaction of military commanders and their staffs in response to "excessive political correctness" by the liberal left should make your blood boil. Military members understand the inherent power of their commanders. However, they also trust in their commanders to defend and to protect them while they have served in "harms way." This abuse of our military by commanders with the use of the judicial system makes me wonder about the past influence of the liberal Clinton administration on the development and advancement of these commanders and their staff officers.

When military commanders send troops in to "harms way" to face "kill or be killed" situations, military commanders should not second guess or to treat these situations like civil actions. Military commanders should protect the troops from unreasonable accusations and / or excessive oversight and review. When commanders criminalize or attempt to criminalize military responses as detailed in the below examples, they trample on the morale of the troops, place at risk the lives, the careers and the reputations of the troops under their command. Today's commanders at many levels in the chain-of-commands seem to be more interested in protecting themselves or their service image and are willing to allow the careers, reputations, and livelihoods of lower ranking members to be placed at risk. It is time for commanders to stand up and say: "War is Hell" and innocent people die. Saving fellow comrades-in-arms is more important than treating "nicely" a terrorist insurgent. The following examples were detailed by Chuck Muth in his article Support the Troops by Untying Their Hands.

In November 2005 some “Johnny Jihadi” in this Iraqi town set off an IED (improvised explosive device) which killed one Marine and wounded two others. Immediately after the bomb went off, the rest of the squad came under sniper fire from nearby houses. In the process of clearing those houses, Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt and Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich encountered at least four armed Iraqi men. In the ensuing close-combat battle, the Marines, doing their jobs and protecting the lives of their comrades, killed 24 people, including some civilians who happened to be at a horribly wrong place at a horribly wrong time.

War is hell. And those civilians didn’t die because our Marines targeted them the way Muslim fanatics target civilians by strapping explosives on the mentally handicapped and sending them into the midst of a market. Those civilians died because Iraqi insurgents tried to hide in the civilians’ homes after trying to blow up an entire squad of Marines.

Four months later Time magazine reported on the Haditha battle, labeling it a “massacre.” Spooked by the American media and egged on by anti-war Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) - who proclaimed without evidence or first-hand knowledge that our Marines “killed innocent civilians in cold blood” – the military brought charges, including murder, against eight of the Marines involved in the Haditha battle. Most have since been dropped, as the government’s case against the Marines has crumbled under close scrutiny. However, Wuterich and Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum will go on trial this month for allegedly killing Iraqi civilians unlawfully.

The continued multi-million dollar prosecution of these Marines is outrageous. Even more so when you consider what the cost of defending them is doing to their families. As Tatum’s mother told NewsMax this week, “We don’t have enough money in our retirement account and equity in our home to come close to covering all these new trial expenses.” Is bankrupting a Marine’s family what Democrats – or Republicans for that matter – consider “supporting the troops”?

If this was an isolated incident of military prosecutorial excess, that would be one thing. But tying our soldiers hands with ridiculous “rules of engagement,” which the enemy violates at will, and then prosecuting them for doing what they’ve been trained to do has been a disturbing pattern throughout this conflict.
For example, Army Spc. Christopher Shore was convicted last month of “aggravated assault” for shooting at a man “whose hands had tested positive for touching explosives.” He didn’t hit the man, by the way. He only shot “at” him.

Marine Lt. Illario Pantano was charged with murder for shooting two Iraqi insurgents. Eventually, all charges against Pantano were dismissed, but in the process America lost the services of this heroic military officer. Following his trial, Lt. Pantano resigned his commission, noting that “the emotional and psychological strain on my family for the year that the investigation was ongoing well exceeded the rigors of combat that I experienced.”

Then there was the prosecution of Green Beret Capt. Dave Staffel and Master Sgt. Troy Anderson, both charged with premeditated murder for shooting a known Taliban figure in Afghanistan who, as the New York Times reported, “had already been ‘vetted as a target’ by American commanders as an enemy combatant who could be legally killed once he was positively identified.” But rather than pin a medal on the pair for their sharp-shooting prowess, the military prosecuted them. After months of agony and uncertainty, the Green Berets were exonerated last fall.

And then there was the prosecution of Lt. Col. Allen West who, you many recall, was summoned to interrogate an Iraqi prisoner believed to have information about a planned ambush of West’s squad in the town of Taji. The insurgent refused to spill the beans. So West took him out back, bent him over and fired a shot near his head, scaring the living…well, you know, out of the man. The insurgent immediately began singing like the proverbial canary. The ambush was thwarted. The man’s accomplices were apprehended and no further attacks on Col. West’s men occurred while under his command. Nevertheless, months later the Army decided to prosecute Col. West for scaring the prisoner into talking. It relieved West of his command, fined him $5,000 and forced him into retirement, ending a proud and honorable 22-year military career. When asked if it was all worth it, West responded that he would “walk through hell with a gasoline can” to protect his troops. This nation needs more Allen Wests and fewer Sean Penns. But if we keep prosecuting soldiers and Marines for shooting the enemy, or in some case, just scaring them, it won’t be long before we no longer have any American heroes to prosecute. . . . [Read More]

---

Tags: Iraq War, military commanders, military justice, military troops, support troops To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!