Discipline

When I went into the military, I recall meeting briefly with my Father.  When I informed my Dad that I had just enlisted in the U.S. Navy, and would be in boot the very next day, he told me one thing, he said, “John, I hope you’re doing the right thing, because the military will do one of two things to you.  It’ll either make a man out of you, or a bum out of you.  It’s your decision.”

I relay the above story, and file this post under the title “Discipline,” after reading Dale Franks post regarding “The Fallujah Shooting." I file this under the title Discipline, because discipline, though it carries more of a negative connotation to many individuals; don’t spank your kids, etc; than a positive connotation, discipline is something more important, it is self-control.

Via Billy Beck.

Update Comment: Bear in mind, as you read all the words being churned out about this incident, the individuals, in that mosque, were not there to pay homage to Allah, they were in that mosque to facilitate their ability to kill Americans.  This comment does not justify, if justification is indeed needed, the soldier in question actions, it merely states what bears considering.

Update 11.18.04: A couple of emails posted at The Corner, which, though not specifically addressing this particular matter, are worth reading.  It sounds, from reading one of the emails, that those serving in Iraq and elsewhere in harm’s way, are reading the Net.

Posted by on 11/17 at 06:33 AM

  1. After reviewing the available information about this Marine the idea that this fellow might spend the rest of his life in prison for doing his job is about the most absurd thing I’ve heard yet today.

    If it even gets close to going that far, I’ll donate cash to his defense. 

    Posted by  on  11/17  at  08:38 AM

  2. Steve, I doubt very much that the soldier in question, here, would end up spending the rest of his life behind bars.

    Here is a link to the UCMJ, (Uniform Code of Military Justice).  If you take the time to review the UCMJ, and the articles under which this soldier can be charged, the Punitive Articles, you will find, or should I say depending upon how you interpret them you will find, that charges, which may or may not be brought against this soldier, are somewhat limited.

    Some thoughts to consider.

    If the soldier in question had provided relief to the enemy, even though he was allegedly wounded, he could be charged with aiding and abetting. (See Article 104.) I know, that is a broad interpretation.

    It may be difficult to charge the soldier with murder, (see Article 118), as the soldier was operating in the field of operations, and when operating in the field of operations, the soldier is required to destroy the enemy, and if he does not, can be charged under Article 99 if he "(8) ...willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or...

    I do not think the soldier could be charged under Article 93, Cruelty and Maltreatment, because the combatant allegedly killed was not under the soldier’s orders, he was the enemy.

    Though I do not condone this soldier’s behavior, I too would battle tooth and nail in his defense.  What actions do I think should be taken?  The soldier should be removed from his unit, active battle operations, and returned to his home base for any disciplinary action the military deigns to pursue.  He should be debriefed so that the military can garner any data which may provide guidance, which can be disseminated to other active duty troops serving under these type of conditions, to prevent these occurences from happening in the future.

    Until all of the facts are in, regarding this incident, no judgment can be rendered as to the alleged guilt of this man, under military law.  He is not subject to any civilian law in his current status.

    Posted by  on  11/17  at  10:37 AM

  3. I’ve downloaded the UCMJ and will try to read it later tonight.

    I would like to point out that the now dead terrorist did not move in a way that suggested surrender so he was not a prisoner of war, and he was not in uniform. Also remember that just the day before these terrorists had been booby-trapping the bodies of dead and injured terrorists for the express purpose of killing Marines.

    This terrorist, as far as I can tell, is not covered by the Geneva Convention and could be subject to summary execution by provisions in the Geneva Convention.

    I don’t know, maybe I’m naive about this event but it seems to me that too many people are willing to assume guilt at first blush. I would think the best people to determine the true purpose of this killing would be the other Marines who have some insight to the state of mind of the shooter and the experts who do the debriefing.

    Posted by  on  11/17  at  11:52 AM

  4. Steve,

    Take every word you’ve read, or heard, regarding this incident to date, especially regarding the young soldier’s alleged “guilt,” with a grain of salt.  The MSM is not judge and jury.

    Posted by  on  11/17  at  01:07 PM

  5. If there were no discipline, that soldier would have killed all the other so-called wounded terrorists in that room.

    He shot only one, and before he did so, he shouted a warning twice to his comrades that the guy was faking being dead.

    The solder displayed discipline. And, he killed the enemy.

    Since you were not there, what does that make all your hyper huff’n’puff?

    Yep. It makes it crap.

    Posted by  on  11/17  at  01:51 PM

  6. Mr. A’Barge - I think you should reread all the words I’ve written here today, as I find your comprehension of what has been written, by myself, and others linked to in this post, regarding this incident, not being comprehended by you.

    Posted by  on  11/17  at  02:19 PM

  7. I posted this on another blog earlier today, but it bears repeating -

    Obviously the marine felt in imminent danger. He wasn’t compelled to shoot any of the other bodies even though at least one of the others was still alive. The young man was not out of control, acting foolishly or dangerously.

    There is no difference between shooting the guy and fragging him to death by throwing a grenade in the room before entering. This is a war and none of it is pretty or even fair. Unless the wounded mujahadeen are in custody, they are the enemy, and therefore a threat. Past history tells us that if the roles were reversed there would have been a dead marine on that floor.

    I’ll remain proud of him and every other soldier that returns home after his duty is done.

    Posted by  on  11/17  at  07:29 PM

  8. I’m calling bullshit on this thing.

    Go look at this.

    I’ve watched the video as often as I could find it, surfing around on cable.  I’ve done everything but capture it, and I wish I could find the whole thing online.

    I’ve been having it out with Kim du Toit in e-mail, and people in Bob Hunt’s Yahoo group.

    I don’t like any of it, anything about it, and—least of all—all the horseshit emotionalized rationalizations that I been getting from bloody chimpanzees afraid to even think about it.

    Like I told Kim last night: if it’s my ass out there with him, I want that man out of my unit.

    That’s it.

    Posted by Billy Beck  on  11/18  at  03:30 AM

  9. Billy, the point you make in your post, regarding the Marine’s proximity to what would be the blast-radius, is definitely important to the overall discussion and rationalizations, made to date, regarding this incident.

    Posted by  on  11/18  at  06:34 AM

  10. John—I think so.

    I would only hasten to point out that Kim hasn’t been one of the “bloody chimpanzees”.  He’s been about as cool and rational as one can be on the wrong side of this deal.  And Bob only runs his group.  There are any number of other fools whi I’m talking about.

    Onward, through the gibberish.

    Posted by Billy Beck  on  11/18  at  07:00 AM

  11. Billy,
    About the blast radius, if the enemy is hiding ordinance that he has to set off manually it would seem to me that flipping his switch as soon as possible in as safe a way as possible, (head shot) to remove the threat.  If he’s booby-trapped seems to me this would work as well. Short of standing back and blowing the place up what do you do?

    I have exactly ZERO experience with having to deal with this type of situation, so does anyone here know the protocol?

    Posted by  on  11/18  at  08:48 AM

  12. I think you’re not getting my point, Steve.  If I’m going to “flip his switch” because I think he’s rigged to blow, I’ll be damned if I’m going to walk right up on his ass to tea-serving range in order to do it.

    Get it?

    And while I’m at this, let me point out that the downed man wasn’t rigged.

    Posted by Billy Beck  on  11/18  at  12:44 PM

  13. I need to go back and re-read some of the articles I drew my opinions from. I understood that this was the second squad in and that they weren’t expecting to find any of the enemy alive. If that’s not the case, then I understand what you’re saying explicitly. That would be extremely reckless behavior.

    Posted by  on  11/18  at  01:29 PM

  14. 1.) Legally, in civilian life, a citizen or policeman can use deadly force if he reasonably believes that his or another person’s life is in danger from an assailant.
    2.) The nature of the enemy, as I understand, is not that of an honorable military opponent. (Booby-trapped bodies, pretend surrenders, human butcher shops for kidnap victims, etc.)
    3.) No one asked the dead guy to stay in town or guaranteed his safety if he did. May he enjoy the company of 72 virgins for eternity.
    4.) The imbedded reporters with the Marines serve the same function as imbedded termites in your house.

    Posted by  on  11/18  at  01:31 PM

  15. "The imbedded reporters with the Marines serve the same function as imbedded termites in your house."

    Would you state the same thing about a reporter of the caliber of Ernie Pyle?

    Posted by  on  11/18  at  02:39 PM

  16. Steve—the largest point that I’m trying to make is that none of the rationalizations for shooting that man work in this case.

    Posted by Billy Beck  on  11/18  at  04:22 PM

  17. Ernie Pyle was 100% with the men. It was a different era. Some pretty rough stuff happened in WWII and it wasn’t used to beat up on our troops.

    Posted by  on  11/18  at  04:53 PM

  18. Billy,

    The rationalizations in condensed form:
    Self-preservation
    Legalities.

    Make your point, I’m evidently missing it.

    It certainly wouldn’t be the first time I’ve missed a point.

    Posted by  on  11/18  at  05:10 PM

  19. Steve:

    On “self-preservation”, Beck’s point is that *if* you really believe that the guy has a command-detonated booby trap, you sure as hell don’t walk up to his feet and kill him. When I was in the Army, we were taught that a fragmentation grenade will kill in a 15’ radius. The shooter, there, was a hell of a lot closer than 15 feet.

    Thus, the Marine was either suicidally stupid, or he *knew* the guy didn’t have a bomb.

    Posted by John Lopez  on  11/21  at  12:39 PM

  20. I thought that was the point and alluded to my understanding of that earlier on in the thread.

    Perhaps, I didn’t convey that clearly.

    Posted by  on  11/21  at  04:44 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Illinois Levels the Playing Field

Previous entry: Things That Make You Go Blind

<< Back to main