Is not the same as knowing which way.
I hate this story:
From his position about 100 yards away, Master Sgt. Troy Anderson had a clear shot at the Afghan man standing outside a residential compound in a village near the Pakistan border last October. When Capt. Dave Staffel, the Special Forces officer in charge, gave the order to shoot, Sergeant Anderson fired a bullet into the man’s head, killing him.
In June, Captain Staffel and Sergeant Anderson were charged with premeditated murder. On Tuesday, in a rare public examination of the rules that govern the actions of Special Operations troops in Afghanistan, a military hearing will convene at Fort Bragg to weigh the evidence against the two men, both Green Berets.
I hated it yesterday when I first read it because 1) it smacks of second guessing the muddy boots folks upon whose shoulders a counter-insurgency campaign rests, 2) reading it the way the Times has pitched it leads to second guessing a deployed commander in charge of executing the CI campaign, and 3) shooting an unarmed man reads ugly even if he’s a bad guy.
I hate it even more today, having read the follow-up story.
An enlisted man who accused two Special Forces soldiers of illegally killing an Afghan man last year testified in a court Tuesday that he would not have agreed to make the accusation if he had known that a military investigation already concluded the killing was justified…
Sergeant Haarer, testifying via telephone, said he thought it was “a little odd” that his boss, Lt. Cmdr. Douglas R. Velvel, the legal adviser to the Special Operations commanding general in Afghanistan who was advocating filing the murder charges, asked him to sign legal documents as the official accuser. The request came after Commander Velvel told Sergeant Haarer to read through a “narrative of facts” about the killing written by Commander Velvel.
It is unusual for an enlisted soldier to formally accuse other soldiers of crimes, particularly soldiers of higher rank. It is rarer still for a military lawyer in a criminal inquiry to request or order a subordinate with no firsthand knowledge of any wrongdoing to allege a crime formally.
Army legal procedures require military lawyers like Commander Velvel to find someone else, usually an officer, to sign the charging document as an accuser…
“Soldiers can kill any person who has been considered to be an enemy combatant,” (Special Forces lawyer) Colonel Friend told the hearing. Though the Special Forces team could have easily captured Mr. Buntangyar instead of killing him, Colonel Friend added, they were not legally required to do so.
This is sojer stuff, and as such the ROE are beyond my professional expertise – but still, my antenna twitch. So I traipsied over to my favorite sojer blog for a little of that inside scoop. First the caveats:
I’m wondering what we don’t know about this situation. Which is oft times my stance when these things hit the news, because they usually do so through the defense attorneys. Not everything is a railroad, and I’ll await the results of a Court.
Quite right: The defense is given to leaking facts congenial to their case while the government will always play it close to the vest. But then there’s this:
I am willing to consider the fact that LTG Kearney is positioning himself for consideration by a Democrat administration for one of the plum 4 Star jobs by pushing this issue, establishing his creds in a way calculated to appeal to a Hillary/Obama administration with the Prince of Darkness (retired General Wes Clark) as the SecDef.
I’m willing to consider that notion as well, which means I’m probably just about ready to be a guest poster over here.
There are two things that everyone should understand about stars: 1) It takes a very great ambition to get even one of them, and 2) For those that do get one, one (or two, or three) it never seems to be enough.
The truth will out I hope. Whichever way the wind blows.
–
“I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw.” — Wm. Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2
I just hope two good soldiers aren’t going to twist in the wind for a while (and a chill wind blow among the deployed) as this resolves into clearer focus.
I hope that the truth will out as well, and I hope that the two Special Forces soldiers did nothing wrong. I don’t agree with you in one area, though. I have no problem with having our soldiers eliminate unarmed terrorists from a distance, if they are positive in their identifications. I am very much in favor of the technology that allows armed drones to do so as well. I see no reason to allow known terrorists the chance to shoot back.
Kristen, agreed.
Oh, I’m not second guessing that decision, nor the wisdom of the policy. Just saying that it “reads” ugly, especially considering the biases the NYT and its readership tend to hold.
You should run a side by side comparison of the NYT and another media outlet to see how they both tell the same story.
“The defense is given to leaking facts congenial to their case while the government will always play it close to the vest. ”
Really? Certainly not what has happened in the Haditha case. We need operators/warriors, not lawyers and generals.
To me, this whole “prosecute the operators” has spun nearly out of control. In no other war/conflict have we subjected our fighting men to the same level of scrutiny. I’m not advocating a blatant disregard for ROE a la Lt. Calley, but it’s getting out of hand when professional SF-types who are hunting a known insurgent get slapped with a “premeditated murder” charge. This is the same type of thing that happened to 2ndLt Pantano back in 2004 – he was eventually cleared of all charges, but not before he had been dragged through the mud to such a degree that he ended up resigning from the Corps.
Wonder how long it’ll be before ol’ Murtha weighs in on this one?
For a conviction for pre-meditated murder, the UCMJ (Art. 118) requires that the killing be “unlawful.” In other words, “without justification or excuse.” Based on the facts presented in these articles, the only way I see for the killing to have been unlawful was if the SF guys knew that the Afghan man was not, in fact, a vetted target. It does not sound like this was the case. Even if they were mistaken as to the target’s status, the most they could be guilty of would be manslaughter or negligent homicide. But not murder. The conclusion has to be that there is some political motivation behind this. The conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the charge sheet was signed by the General’s lawyer’s paralegal. Both the General and his lawyer are now stonewalling as to why these charges were brought. Legally defensible stonewalling. Yes. But also morally reprehensible. IMHO.
It’s a bad situation on a lot of levels while the wind blows. I hope the lessons of Haditha apply (Murtha be dammed).
Beyond the individual pain and tragedy there is also us Americans who lose out- two consumate professionals and educated SF are sidelined from GWOT. Their professional worth to this ongoing fight?Maybe several companies of infantry? Perhaps 1-2 F-18′s?…
b2
Old Major Unger told me a story once, about his time in Viet-Nam.
This was back when Jack Kennedy was President and the Major was an advisor along with a Sgt. Goodrow. It seems that the sergeant came from a family with some money in Texas, but just wanted to be a sojer and enlisted, and was good at it.
One of the sergeant’s hobbies was building really accurate rifles.
Said sgt. had a rifle of his own making with him one day, and used it to shoot an egregious evil VC person, right through the head.
As the Major said, it was morally, ethically, practically, and militarily the right thing to do. (The guy was widely known to be what he was)
Legally, it was murder, but nothing came of it. Some people really do need killin’
Sweet Jesus… an amazing revelation …a senior officer getting his ticket punched for higher rank/office on the backs of the troops that actually do the fighting…oh the injustice of it all they say…but really not surprising to anyone who has worn the uniform or who has more than a casual knowledge of military history… my cynicism and smouldering rage knows no bounds regarding this latest incident … best to sign off now an attempt to do something productive… Best
Arrr! Water me rum, will ye, ye slack-arsed sodomites! I almost forgot meself, and aye today is Talk Like A Pirate Day! Arrr!
B2, Re your comment #9 above about the sidelining of the SF types from the GWOT…it might be just a tad overstated…they are after all only men… highly trained of course but still men… but then again if your intent was to snark Lex, a noble goal indeed… I agree with your comment completely. Best
No “snark” Snake. ( Hey! I like that- ” Snark Snake”…S2 on tactical. New callsign for ya.
Nope. I’m serious. IMO, yhose (2) GB’s have language training, COIN experience, so on and so forth. They are worth their weight in gold to GWOT. Sidelining them costs us.
b2
Lex, I misread you originally. Thanks for the clarification.
B2, I couldn’t agree more that in this war our Special Operators are perhaps the most essential asset that we have. They deserve medals and applause from a grateful nation. Instead I fear that they will be put under a microscope for political reasons more and more as the divisions in our nation increase.
And they’re incurring risk at far, far greater rates than some of us in comfy chairs do. Lot of names on that wall in Tampa that weren’t there a few years back.
“The first thing we do let’s kill all the lawyers”
William Shakespeare
Henry VI, Act IV, Scene II
Marine 6, It was the general who initiated this action…his legal staff was following orders…you know how orders go…don’t you ? Best
PS, Also suggest you refrain in the future from making your oh so tiresome point by cherry-picking a Shakesphere quote out of contex…I expect better from a “Marine-6″
Sorry, Snake Eater, I forgot that some of you Army types don’t read too well. You might want to review the story above and note that it was “LCDR Douglas R. Velvel” the legal advior, (gee, do you think that might be a JAG corps REMF) who convinced the sergeant to sign the complaint.
We could probably agree that Kearney has failed the most minimal test of leadership, and is obviously a totally politcal animal.
But, my point, which you apparently missed, was that lawyers have no fricken place to second guess troops in the field. Too many people seem to have forgotten that we are at war, and the lawyers do not appear to be on our side.
Kearney may well have taken legal advice, but wouldn’t the ultimate decision have been his?
And the floating theory at the moment is that Kearney made the decision for political reasons. Lawyers tend to do what their clients (even in the artificial climate of JAG) tell them to do. As do paralegals.
If you’re gonna knock off the lawyers, it might be more efficient to hit the Generals with political aspirations at the same time. As well as all politicians of course. Just because.
Michelle, Many thanks for your support… blood has been drawn…and nothing more needs to be said in response to the breathtaking ignorance on display, for all to see, in comment # 19 above. Best
PS, Have you made your cherry jump yet?
Snake, thought I would let you enter the fray first. Then provide back up, if necessary.
The jump …alas, not meant to be this year, I’m afraid.
It might sound a bit corny, but I am in the midst of settling a small insurance claim from a car accident. Those monies will be my “fun fund”, a small portion of which will pay for the jump. At the moment, I ‘m in limbo, waiting for a dr’s report. There will always be next year.
But that reminds me … first, kill all the insurance adjustors! Next, the doctors!
Nah, I was just joking … about the doctors…
Michelle, Do hold on to your dream…next year is not that far away… and it’s worth the wait. Best