A US Marine's Response to 'PC' ROEs

[Trip_Wire]

In response to the news blurb about the Marine who
put two rounds in a wounded insurgent's head in
Fallujah, here's a response from a Marine:
 
  ----------------------------
  It's a safety issue pure and simple.  After
assaulting through a target, we put a security round
in everybody's head.  Sorry al-Reuters, there's no
paddy wagon rolling around Fallujah picking up
"prisoners" and offering  them a hot cup a joe,
falafel, and a blanket.  There's no time to dick
around  on the target.  You clear the space, dump
the chumps, and moveon.org.

  Are Corpsman expected to treat wounded terrorists?
Negative.  Hey libs, worried about the defense
budget?  Well, it would be waste, fraud, and abuse
for a Corpsman to expend one man-minute or a battle
dressing on a terrorist. Its much cheaper to just
spend the $.02 on a 5.56mm FMJ.

  By the way, in our view, terrorists who chop off
civilian's heads are not prisoners, they are
carcasses.  Chopping off a civilian's head is
another reason why these idiots are known as
"unlawful combatants."  It seems that most of the
world's journalists have forgotten that fact.

  Let me be very clear about this issue.  I have
looked around the web,  and many people get this
concept, but there are some stragglers. Here is your
situation Marine:  You just took fire from unlawful
combatants(no uniform - breaking every Geneva
Convention rule there is) shooting from a religious
building attem pting to use the sanctuary status of
their position as protection.  But you're in
Fallujah now, and the Marine Corps has decided that
they're not playing that game this time.  That was
Najaf. So you set the mosque on fire and you hose
down the terrorists with small arms, launch some
AT-4s (Rockets), some 40MM grenades into the
building and things quiet down.  So you run over
there, and find some tangos (bad guys) wounded and
pretending to be dead.  You are aware that suicide
martyrdom  is like really popular with these idiots,
and they think taking some Marines with them would
be really cool.  So you can either risk your life
and your fire team's lives by having them cover you
while you bend down and search a guy that you think
is pretending to be dead for some  reason. Most of
the time these are the guys with the grenade or vest
made of explosives.


Also, you don't know who or what is in the next
room. You're already speaking English to the rest of
your fire team or squad  which lets the terrorist
know you are there and you are his enemy.  You are
speaking loud because your hearing is poor from
shooting people for several days.  So you know that
there are many other rooms to enter, and that if
anyone is still alive in those rooms, they know that
Americans are in  the mosque. Meanwhile (3 seconds
later), you still have this terrorist (that was just
shooting at you from a mosque) playing possum. What
do you do? You double tap his head, and you go to
the next room, that's what!!!

  What about the Geneva Convention and all that Law
of Land Warfare stuff?


  What about it. Without even addressing the issues
at hand, your first thought should be, "I'd rather
be judged by 12 than carried by 6."


Bear in mind that this tactic of double tapping a
fallen terrorist is a perpetual mindset that is
reinforced by experience on a minute by minute
basis. Secondly, you are fighting an unlawful
combatant in a Sanctuary, which is a double No-No on
his part.  Third, tactically you are in no position
to take "prisoners" because there are more rooms to
search and clear, and the behavior of said terrorist
indicates that he is up to no good.  No good in
Fallujah is a very large place and the low end of no
good and the high end of no good are fundamentally
the same . Marines end up getting hurt or die.  So
there is no compelling reason for you to do anything
but double tap this idiot and get on with the
mission.

  If you are a veteran, then everything I have just
written is self  evident.  If you are not a veteran,
then at least try to put yourself in the situation.
Remember, in Fallujah there is no yesterday, there
is no tomorrow, there is only now.  Right the hell
NOW.  Have you ever lived in NOW for a week?  It is
really, really not easy.  If you have never lived in
NOW for  longer than it takes to finish the big
roller coaster at Six Flags, then shut your hole
about putting Marines in jail for "War Crimes."

 

[time expired]

Indisputable logic IMHO.
                            Regards

 

[GAP]

Sounds about right for someone who is there....

The backseaters, unless they are prepared to go out there and do it their way, which eliminates the problem, should just quiet down...

 

[Bobby Rico]

The general concensus among alot of these PC nazis seems to be in warfare that the life and safety of the enemy is more valuable than your own. :

 

[COBRA-6]

Remember, in Fallujah there is no yesterday, there
is no tomorrow, there is only now.  Right the hell
NOW.  Have you ever lived in NOW for a week?  It is
really, really not easy.  If you have never lived in
NOW for  longer than it takes to finish the big
roller coaster at Six Flags, then shut your hole
about putting Marines in jail for "War Crimes."

That's outstanding.

 

[Mdrinka]

Amen

 

[Donut]

Send that to the NDP Human Rights observers  ;D

 

[Cloud Cover]

For crikey sakes- its "Response" not Responce.

 

[rz350]

Just wondering, what if instead of a Us Marine it was a  Waffen SS writing about putting a 8mm Mauser instead of a 5.56 into a wounded Canadian, instead of an insurgent at Dieppe, instead of Fallujah to save valuable deutschmarks instead of valuable dollars. Would it then become a war crime?

Hello, what if it was some rifleman from the 53rd motor rifles shooting afghans during the 80's? I'm sure then you would all be hailing as a prime example of how savage and inhumane the commies where, even it was doing the same thing to the same enemy. (whereas the Canadians at Dieppe did follow the laws of war, the Afghans the Soviets fought did very little different in that respect then the ones we fight)

I my self feel that makes us better then them, is the fact we do not normally do things like they do. We take the moral high ground, we do the right thing, and not doing it, lowers us to being closer to them *puts on his flame proof suit*

 

[Chubbard]

Just wondering, what if instead of a Us Marine it was a  Waffen SS writing about putting a 8mm Mauser instead of a 5.56 into a wounded Canadian, instead of an insurgent at Dieppe, instead of Fallujah to save valuable deutschmarks instead of valuable dollars. Would it then become a war crime?

Hello, what if it was some rifleman from the 53rd motor rifles shooting afghans during the 80's? I'm sure then you would all be hailing as a prime example of how savage and inhumane the commies where, even it was doing the same thing to the same enemy. (whereas the Canadians at Dieppe did follow the laws of war, the Afghans the Soviets fought did very little different in that respect then the ones we fight)

I my self feel that makes us better then them, is the fact we do not normally do things like they do. We take the moral high ground, we do the right thing, and not doing it, lowers us to being closer to them *puts on his flame proof suit*

true, but SS-Brigadeführer Meyer ordered his men to shoot prisoners that had already been captured according to the laws of war, to conserve rations (money was not the issure, finite and dwindling supplies where), whereas the article here talks about killing illegal combatants in the course of clearing a hostile building, two completley different things IMHO.

 

[MediTech]

Just wondering, what if instead of a Us Marine it was a  Waffen SS writing about putting a 8mm Mauser instead of a 5.56 into a wounded Canadian, instead of an insurgent at Dieppe, instead of Fallujah to save valuable deutschmarks instead of valuable dollars. Would it then become a war crime?

Hello, what if it was some rifleman from the 53rd motor rifles shooting afghans during the 80's? I'm sure then you would all be hailing as a prime example of how savage and inhumane the commies where, even it was doing the same thing to the same enemy. (whereas the Canadians at Dieppe did follow the laws of war, the Afghans the Soviets fought did very little different in that respect then the ones we fight)

I my self feel that makes us better then them, is the fact we do not normally do things like they do. We take the moral high ground, we do the right thing, and not doing it, lowers us to being closer to them *puts on his flame proof suit*

You take the high ground and then we'll put you six feet underground at the end of the day okay?  The epitaph on your tombstone will say "I took the higher ground and got greased."  Secondly, a terrorist is not protected under the Geneva Convention as they are illegal combatants.

 

[rz350]

comparing Waffen SS (ones that did not serve as camp guards ever) troops to Marines, I don't have a problem with.  However, your comparison of Taliban (terrorist suicide bombers) who are not lawful combatants to CDN soldiers wearing a distinct soldier and insignia who are lawfull combatants is way off base. Furthermore, the SS were accused of shooting prisoners where as the marines are accused of clearing houses that they received fire from. 

I know, it was a bit of a poor comparison, thats why I did insurgents that US and CDN forces battle right now, with the Forces the Soviet Union battled in the 1980's as a more fair comparison in my second paragraph. As that one is much fairer. And yes, I went the fighting WAFFEN-SS not the totenkopfdivision or similar camp guard units, as they to me are not soldiers, just murderers. Whereas the waffen units and the werhmatch where soldiers who usually (not always but usually) fought with honour, even if it was for an unhonourable cause.

I dont think its always bad to shoot the wounded, just, that, all reasonable efforts should be taken to take prisoners of them instead, as that to me is one of the things we have better then the insurgents, a certain level of respect for ALL human life, even the very unworthy life. If at all possible, the way the article was written, sounded like he was very cavalier about it, perhaps I misunder stood the original article? but it sounded like he was shooting anyone, any time, under any circumstance. I can see certian circumstances where it would be quite normal and resonable to do so, and other times where it would be a mere slaughter.

 

[Danjanou]

For crikey sakes- its "Response" not Responce.

Fixed just for you.

Helpful Mod 8)

 

[GAP]

Helpful Mod

that's an oxymoron isn't it  ;D

 

[sober_ruski]

Forces the Soviet Union battled in the 1980's as a more fair comparison in my second paragraph.

Uh-huh. I can just see it now. After an ambush on a couple BMPs or stinger attack on a troop chopper mujas go and ... render first aid to the wounded troops.  : It wasnt the soviet trying to overthrow the government (PDPA)

 

[career_radio-checker]

Remember, in Fallujah there is no yesterday, there
is no tomorrow, there is only now.  Right the hell
NOW.  Have you ever lived in NOW for a week?  It is
really, really not easy.  If you have never lived in
NOW for  longer than it takes to finish the big
roller coaster at Six Flags, then shut your hole
about putting Marines in jail for "War Crimes."

Here is your problem.

It is very easy to see the real message said marine is trying to convey "You aren't here fighting with us, you don't know what it's like so shut the *&$#* up". Sorry, I will not Marine. (Note: my response will be used in 2 person singular to address this marine for writting purposes)

You say that there is no yesterday or tomorrow only NOW. Perhaps, with the constant routine of eat-sleep-shoot, you have lost track of time, but I guarantee you -- unless the hand of God decides otherwise -- the sun will rise again for another day. Just like it did yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that. Denying that there is a tomorrow just demonstrates an ignorance that you have decided to be complacent with, and with it, an inability or willing to understand the greater overall picture and objective. That objective is to bring peace and security to Fallujah and Iraq. Whether that peace comes in a few months or a few years who knows.

Your mentality is 'well that's one less terrorist to worry about,' but I don't have to tell you that there are many more willing to take that terrorist's place. Now, what if that terrorist had a night to ponder over his actions in  an American hospital, and was impressed by the care he received and was willing the next day to give information on weapons caches or terrorist locations potentially saving your fellow Marines lives without them knowing it. You laugh at such speculations as being 'a liberal bleeding heart' and perhaps it is wishful thinking, in which case he would have faced a judicial system which would have punished him accordingly. In either case, we will never know because you decided to make a financial decision on the battlefield. A very poor financial decision I might add because in order to have a big payoff you have to be willing to invest time and money and there isn't much you can do nowadays with only $.02.

Now, you are correct, these terrorists are 'illegal combatants', but I would ask you to look at your uniform -- that makes you a legal combatant. And as such you are subject to the rules of engagement and laws that come with the Genava conventions. You see these laws as ineffective and a hindrance when facing Today's enemy. But what about tomorrow's enemy? Oh that's right, there is no tomorrow. Well, let me explain that those pesty Geneva convention rules also afford you protection in the heat of battle. We don't know who we will fight tomorrow, perhaps the Chinese, or even the Russians, but at least they follow some kind of ROEs. God forbid you ever find yourself in a room, bleeding from somewhere on your body, begging an enemy soldier not to shoot you simply because he wants to "secure the area".

In closing, I want to tell you Marine, this is modern warfare -- the gun is a primitive weapon in today's standards. Today's wars in these so called 'failed states,' are won by winning the hearts and minds of the locals. Win them and your enemy will have no place to hide. To do so, we need soldiers who can think, follow rules, and think of the greater objective; you only thought about yourself, the men around you and the here and now. Your actions might have won the battle, but it did nothing to win the war. And because of those actions, more Marines are going to face many more battles.

 

[MediTech]

Now, you are correct, these terrorists are 'illegal combatants', but I would ask you to look at your uniform -- that makes you a legal combatant. And as such you are subject to the rules of engagement and laws that come with the Genava conventions. You see these laws as ineffective and a hindrance when facing Today's enemy. But what about tomorrow's enemy? Oh that's right, there is no tomorrow. Well, let me explain that those pesty Geneva convention rules also afford you protection in the heat of battle. We don't know who we will fight tomorrow, perhaps the Chinese, or even the Russians, but at least they follow some kind of ROEs. God forbid you ever find yourself in a room, bleeding from somewhere on your body, begging an enemy soldier not to shoot you simply because he wants to "secure the area".

Correct me if I'm wrong but under the Geneva Convention if I fix up my enemy and patch him up real good he can't rise up and rejoin his ranks and fight me another day.  Johnny terrorist don't follow those rules.  For all I know he's an IED expert and he'll form a nice charge in a spent 155 shell and blow my convoy into little bits the next week.  I'd look like a real moron then wouldn't I?  I haven't won anybody's mind and mine is splattered all over the inside of my APC.  Or maybe I was lucky and I don't die but my legs are off at the knees and everytime I wake up in the morning and feel the seering pain I remember the day I could have plugged the terrorist scum and saved a lot of lives.  Or maybe he walks into a market the next week and kills 200 people.  Wouldn't help me at all in winning anybody's heart and mind especially when little clumps of their bodies are mixed in with the fresh fruits.

Secondly, if you read up on the third convention of the Geneva Convention it states "That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."  It's safe to say that the terrorist break nearly all the rules of the Geneva Convention so they are no longer protected under it.

 

[Gager]

A very poor financial decision I might add because in order to have a big payoff you have to be willing to invest time and money and there isn't much you can do nowadays with only $.02.

His example may have been poor but he has the right idea. How much does it cost to train a Marine to the point where he can operate in a place like Fallujah? Given the opposition doesn't follow the rules, $.02 over and over again to clear a room seems far better than having expensive Marines all over the room in pieces.

 

[orange.paint]

Now, what if that terrorist had a night to ponder over his actions in  an American hospital, and was impressed by the care he received and was willing the next day to give information on weapons caches or terrorist locations potentially saving your fellow Marines lives without them knowing it. You laugh at such speculations as being 'a liberal bleeding heart' and perhaps it is wishful thinking, in which case he would have faced a judicial system which would have punished him accordingly. In either case, we will never know because you decided to make a financial decision on the battlefield. A very poor financial decision I might add because in order to have a big payoff you have to be willing to invest time and money and there isn't much you can do nowadays with only $.02.

You must live in that world the Jehovah witness "watch tower" showed on the front cover (yes they caught me offguard).Rainbow's,baby's curled up with lions,Zebra's playing with cheetah's...

No doubt the TERRORIST would realise now great these Americans are!Maybe they will become Christian and move to Alaska!Get a grip on reality.I will not condone these guys for doing it as they are professionals doing a job.I'm sure they wouldn't correct you on TCCCS,why would you question their appropriate actions?




edit:done to poor spelling and overall mess of original statement...too much studying.

 

[tomahawk6]

I dont believe that the jihadist can be "rehabilitated". The one's that have been released return to the fight. I would much prefer a "take no prisoners" approach. So far we are holding 17,000 enemy prisoners. One reason that 2200 MP's have been given their deployment orders. What is the future for these people ? I certainly dont favor releasing them. What is the value of keeping them locked up as opposed to executing them ?

The same argument for Gitmo. Alot of very serious bad guys there. If we put them back out on the street they will go back to their evil ways.Execution is really the best solution for most of these guys as opposed to indefinite imprisonment.