Is it wrong for our soldiers to be so readily punished for defending themselves in a time of war?

Question

When they are in fact ligitimately defending themselves of course. I think that the American policy on this issue "don't shoot unless shot at" stinks. That could easily be too late. And they have to be nicer to their prisoners than they get treated. Any opinions from people with real knowledge on the subject?

I'm asking you guys because I am not thoroughly informed on the subject. Just going off what I have heard from the media and in the military town I live in. I see soldiers on trial all the time and I just wonder if that's right. If our policies are apropriate and fair to our soldiers.

Answer 1

(1) The ROE does not prevent a servicemember from defending life, limb, or government property, ever. When lethal force is justified, it is justified. And it is not "don't shoot unless shot at". If there is a justifiable threat, then a lethal response is warranted and authorized. This has nothing to do with the bullshit time-wasting conservative vs liberal debate some idiots seem to drag every Iraq or Afghanistan-related issue into.

(2) American servicemembers have been captured in very, very few situations in Iraq or Afghanistan (the 506th Maintenance Company debacle comes to mind). Whatever treatment they endure is no justification for the abandonment of the Geneva and Hague Conventions. When you fight an enemy that does not acknowledge universal notions of human rights or even morality, that does not give you free license to become a barbarian.

(3) Servicemembers who go under UCMJ action do so because there are charges brought against them. That in and of itself is not conclusive of guilt. If they are guilty, they suffer the consequences. If they are innocent, they are exonerated. It is as simple as that. It works a lot better than with some other militaries, certainly. CPT James Yee was exonerated when he could very well have become a Dreyfus. The system may not be perfect (the 1LT Pantano case comes to mind) but it does work, and it is a sight better than having no recourse to justice.

And it says a LOT about the American military that it is willing to put its own on trial for legal and moral transgressions against civilians. If it were the Russian military going around raping and murdering civilians (as they do in Chechnya), you can be damn sure that they don't get brought up on charges.

Supporting the troops does not equate putting them on a pedastal. There are bad apples in any organization, and the military is not exempt. If anything, they need to be held to a higher standard rather than being given carte blanche to become criminals and thugs should they so choose, in the name of "support the troops" or "national security".

Swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution means living by its values at all times.

Answer 2

I think its funny how most of the liberals that answer this question have never been under fire , nor stepped foot on hostile soil. Its extremely easy to be an arm -chair general in a lazy boy recliner and a/c blowing on you. Watch 2 or 3 of your best friends get killed by an I.E.D, then tell me how simpithetic you are. But also, Marines and Soldiers dont go around shoting people indescriminetly. There are a few cases out of the over 400,000 or so men or women that have done a tour in country. But i suggest that if anyone has a problem that our military is fighting to violently, than i suggest you pick up a rifle, and go on patrol in the al-anbar province. If not , keep your god damn mouth shut.

Answer 3

well, to start with your first question, that whole wait to be shot at first issue isnt always the case. the rules that governs a soldiers right to shoot or attack an "enemy" is called the Rules Of Engagement, or ROE. certain times call for more lenient ROE such as wait until you are fired at. now in other situations the ROE can, and has been, changed to something more like if they have a weapon and point it at you or act in a threatening manner, then shoot first. The US abides my the Geneva Convention which is a set of rules that establishes many things like how POWs are to be treated, and who is or is not a combatant. Every country that signed the convention doesnt necessarily abide by it, but we the US do. did you know that medical personnel arent supposed to be targets, but that also means that they cant shoot or attack the enemy.

Back to the initial subject of soldiers defending themselves, it not defense until youve been engaged, by definition that is. so having to wait until youve been shot at makes it defense, and the soldier is then allowed to legitimately defend themself. the american military is so very much "in the eye of the public" all around the world, that we cant really afford to go around blowing people away that merely look like terrorist, especially in a country like Iraq where everyone fits the stereotypical image of a terrorist. not to say that all iraqis are terrorist, dont get me wrong. but if we started shooting and come to find out that they were noncombatants, that would not be good, and would not go over very well with many coutries that already have an issue and are looking to start a fight with the US.

one last comment, the people that do the shooting are usually blended in with other civilians, so the soldiers dont even notice until they have already been shot at. but the noncombatants do pose a serious issue in combat, because of the fact that we do follow the Geneva Conventions. we cannot shoot or harm noncombatants, or well pay the consequences. so we definitly need to identify the people as combatants before we send them to Allah. and thats why the soldiers have to wait.

Answer 4

It is wrong for people (the media) to jump to conclusions when civilians or other "Non-Combatants are killed. In any War, or military confrontation, civilians are always a high percentage of the casualties - they get killed, their homes, businesses, neighborhoods, and ways of life are destroyed. Sometimes this is on purpose (Dresden during WWII). More often than not it is an unfortunate but not unexpected result of combat operations. This will not change.

However; there are Rules of Engagement that MUST be adhered to. These ROE spell out exactly when and who and how personell can engage the "Enemy". Military personell are often held to a higher standard - this will not change either.

Answer 5

Soldiers may always legitimately defend themselves.

Sadly, this is not the war of WWII were we pushed forward, and anything in front was a target unless it waved a white flag. (fine, an oversimplification, but...)

I haven't seen any REPORTS of soldiers or Marines being punished or prosecuted for proper defensive fire... just a few idiots who went WAY off the reservation, and if THEY are guilty of the charges... punish them IAW UCMJ.
However, CAN shoot preemptively in certain zones.

And yes I know... pulled 6 month door-gunner tour as an over aged reservist.

Answer 6

Unfortunately in this politically correct age it is difficult to determine true "acts of war" terrorisim and todays modern wars are really fought by a select few and this makes the loss of innocent life that much more tragic. As well as splashed across the front page of every news carrier... We want to defend our selves and this is not an unreasonable request. but when people use war as a liscense to maim and kill without regard, or to loot and rape this irreprehensable and is worse that the enemy that these solders are fighting.

Answer 7

Anytime our standards are only equal to or lower than our adversary, we will have lost before we even begin.

this is nothing new, we went through the same discussion in Vietnam. As a combat veteran, I can assure you, most American GIs hold themselves to a far higher standard than does the American public.

source
4400th CCTG Bien Hoa AB Detachment II Farm Gate 1963

Answer 8

We must respect the ethics for war which we have sworn to abide by. Not to mention the Geneva Conventions. I don't support Bush's policy of doing anything and disregarding any laws he feels necessary to get the job done.

Answer 9

I think that the "don't shoot unarmed women and old men policy" is a good one, and soldiers that violate should be punished.

Answer 10

WORD "railroad dave"!!!!

surely they can shoot at people who know they are hostile and are brandishing arms...? i wasnt aware that they explicitly couldnt shoot untill shot at?

theres nothing wrong with treating your prosoners more nicely is there? woudlnt you hope that maybe your enemy would treat your soldier more nicely...? we havent seemed to really be treating them more nicely either tho... but you have to stick to your ethics if you are going to go around calling people unethical.