I saw an interesting story in today's Hartford Courant about some of our tactics in the War on Terror™:



Questions for debate:

How large, in your opinion, is a potential for innocent civilians to pick up items such as detonation cords (which, to an untrained eye, look just like any other cord), especially in a country as poor as Iraq?

If you are willing to concede that somebody can pick up an item such as detonation cord simply for use in the household, do you still think this is a legitimate military tactic?

Is this the case where the ends are justified by the means?

First off, English Horn, your link is a bit squiffy. It takes some navigation to get to the link in question.

Second, I really doubt that the actions of three court-martialed soldiers in Iraq are truly relevant to the sniping procedures of the whole of the United States Army. If they’re getting court-martialed for it, I’m pretty sure that means that the army disapproves.

And although I find it dubious that they actually use mundane objects like detonation chords for this “baiting” procedure, I think that it has the potential to be rather effective in this war. Let’s face it; if the charming man from across the street bends down to pick up a discarded Kalashnikov, chances are he’s not using it to furnish his quaint household interior.

Now, your questions;

How large, in your opinion, is a potential for innocent civilians to pick up items such as detonation cords (which, to an untrained eye, look just like any other cord), especially in a country as poor as Iraq?

The army is a great deal of things, but it is not stupid. I don’t think that it is standard procedure anywhere to shoot possible civilians over a length of common cording, no matter its potential usage.

If you are willing to concede that somebody can pick up an item such as detonation cord simply for use in the household, do you still think this is a legitimate military tactic? Is this the case where the ends are justified by the means?

…The WAR in Iraq is exactly that; a WAR. Not one of those charming little tea-parties, where everyone apologizes for spilling milk, or scattering crumbs. War, if anything is defined by “The ends justify the means”. Until we withdraw, or kill every man woman and child in Iraq, that isn’t going to change.

Englishhorn, this is indiscriminate killing and it directly violates international law. It is absolutely intolerable. Please forgive me if I find this very hard to believe, considering the lengths we go to to limit civilian deaths. Your link to this article wasn't related to the topic...is there another? (I'll look for one, too)

Sorry for the bad link (blame the stupid Hartford Courant). Here's the better one, and just in case it fails, another one from Associated Press.

The story has nothing to do with policy or ROE. If the soldier did this he will be tried by a military court.

I have seen documentary showing snipers and their ROE are very tough. Even if they see “insurgents” with guns they have to be identified positively as hostiles before they can shoot. Often they just get away.


A supposedly “classified program” is the defence here – but “Boyce also said there are no classified programs that authorize the murder of Iraqi civilians or the use of "drop weapons" to make killings appeared to be legally justified, which is what Vela and the two other snipers are accused of doing.”

Is this the case where the ends are justified by the means?

There is a program along these lines, but it’s classified. Bottom line, if you believe that I have an ounce of credibility, I implore everybody not to take what is in an article or statements by an attorney as gospel.

Let’s run the scenario through a logic test. Why would a unit plan and resource a mission to infiltrate a sniper team or a Small Kill Team (SKT) to a hide site, with no close support on hand (for obvious reasons)………and then compromise that position by shooting at any random person who happens to pick up an object. The manner in which the article speaks makes it sounds just like that. That an SKT is going to randomly shoot at any person for stopping to pick something up. That ends the mission; and what would the gain be?

Although this scenario plays right into what a certain flavor of activist/critic already believes, I would hope all reasonable people would believe that the military is smarter than this.

We do employ various tricks and ruses, but the actions as described in the article are not one of them. There is much more I wish I could say.......

General media and public ignorance about sniper selection, training and their true operational role could turn this story into another large propaganda victory for the bad guys. This is all the more frustrating because, as DTOM states, the sensitive nature of sniper tactics, techniques and procedures used in Iraq (and Afghanistan) makes correcting misperceptions in a cogent, substantive manner in any public forum very difficult.

True snipers (as opposed to any soldier with a rifle, or a squad designated marksman) are highly selective shooters - they are not out just to make a kill. These soldiers undergo a thorough psychological assessment and very intensive training. Their goal is to kill combatants with extreme precision - to do anything less would compromise the mission. Snipers are a very limited resource within the Army, and require several elements in tight coordination to employ effectively. Dedicated sniper teams will sometimes sit for days and not fire a shot if they cannot guarantee the activity is that of the enemy. However, by remaining in place and not compromising their position they also serve as a highly trained surveillance team that is as vital in the current operational environment as is taking out the bad guys emplacing IEDs. Snipers are professionals whose tactical actions often have a positive operational impact well beyond their immediate command's area of responsibility.

Just to be clear, in this context I have been speaking of conventional Army snipers only.

I caution against jumping on the condemnation bandwagon until the rest of the story comes out.

Your reticence no doubt does you credit, but it seems the image of the US hunter killer sniper has already been hung up to dry.

Link.

Not withstanding the possibility of a BBC bias it seems to me that the nature of how these American snipers are being seen is already cut n dried in the western media and its going to take more than personal assurances or appeals to common sense to change that perception I fear.

Certainly we can put the BBC right there with the NYT or even more left and we can be sure that innuendo suggesting that our snipers are all just killers with scopes is not beyond them as in the statement below.

“It is unclear how widely the tactic may have been used in Iraq or how many people may have died as a result of it.
The US army has declined to confirm whether the "baiting" policy exists.”

Thus they call it “tactic” as if they somehow know it is and the only question is “how widely is it used”. Typical distortion of the facts.

DTOM is right saying this whole scenario makes no sense and for a BBC reporter to make the above statement based on a conversation with the defense attorney for a soldier under court martial is too ludicrous to discuss – Typical though.

While I cannot attest to the validity of any of this I know that snipers are employed extensively throughout operations in Iraq. The typical role I understand for snipers to be employed is basically target reduction(?) and defense basically of anything sensitive. I don’t however know of anything that has to do with baiting and I have spoken with numerous troops from every branch of our armed forces that have served in Iraq.

One thing I will say is that Iraq is a very large country with lots of stuff going on. For instance the media reports close to nothing really on everything that is possibly could regardless of how it may look to some particular mind. Iraq is also used by just about everyone for some different reason, be it political or other, ranging from presidents, to congress, to civil advocacy groups, so how this fits in there is most likely impossible to really know anymore.

From what I can gather though I think that such a maneuver would be discouraged and or denied overall by any command element, of course this is from what I know or understand what is mostly fragmented and time/situation dependent. SO much of the war in Iraq is pretty much the same, with various groups and or motives, even different command styles. I do know that for many everything became more and more personal overall, and at times I did not know what to make of things people said and or did. For instance, I had been home, or back in the states for over a year when zarqawi was killed, I had no control over a loud verbal burst of cheering… For people that have to face the worse of Iraq over and over again, which could be anyone really at anytime, if you even see anyone, could be very hard to deal with. This aspect of the war I think fails at home with the motto of support the troops. Then again this war is so politically controlled and political overall that the actual conflict is marginalized to the point in which marines who have been in combat all day against guerilla forces are punished for reacting against what that really means.

Overall this conflict has created such a divide, so much confusion and is thoroughly controlled by the detached even while those in direct contact are hard pressed to explain the reality of such.

Ted


Are you some white house aide doing damage control on any subject harmful to presidency and Republicans in general??
DTOM says:


The Army will not deny such a program exists. Therfore... no denial means... it exists.

Does a pastor who tells you that God exists lie to you?? No, he believes every word of what he says. So to I see you DTOM, but is that enough.

Let's look at it from a common sense standpoint. As long as it is classified, that means we are hiding thing and tactics from not only the enemy, but also the American public. Once again, were told to accept the dark and have faith.

But common sense should tell us as Americans Been there, done that a ba-zillion times and we keep getting burnt for it. Our nation name continues to be tarnished.

Common Sense

What is the likelyhood a High Level level target will be doing the dirty work of picking up detonation or explosive equipment. Possible, but common sense says... "Generals, don't get their hands dirty they make tactical plans"

What is the possibility that a low to mid level target that would retreive "bait" would be well known by intelligence?? Possible.. but still it's a low to mid level they are probably not known.

If a target is not known, what are the chance the sniper along with his command are getting it wrong.

Lastly, DTOM, I don't believe you would come out and say anything negative or harmful to and great degree. Why do I say this. Because I know too many Marines still in Iraq and freshly out of Iraq and they tell me stories hat I won't repeat ever on this board. But there is no way you can be in Iraq, and not know the atrocities that are happening... "wide" scale. Yes some soldiers and Marines get court marshalled, but they are the unfortunate ones that got caught and spotlighted.

Common sense

Why would these guys even think they could drop a chord down and nothing happen. They learned it. Not from boot camp. More than likely they done it before, they saw someone do it before. That is common sense. Any one from the service knows... that's how it works.


I think we need to separate the idea of this tactic and the trial of soldiers. The soldiers say they were using a tactic, that the Army will not deny exists. however the army is not prosecuting these soldiers for using the tactic of baiting, but rather staging the "bait" after they made a kill.

Ted



then why won't the Army simply deny such a tactic exists?? What's ludicrous is your ease in in one hand calling soldiers heroes and in the other hand, being so quick to label a soldier charged with murder as a dishonorable liar that should not be believed.

Because this begs the question – what ARE your tactics and that will be classised is my guess. DTOM told you as much as he could and all of that said this is not ROE in any way.

I'm not asking you to take my word and my word alone. I'm asking you, before a knee-jerk reaction or a pre-conceived notion overcomes you........to take a reasoned look at what makes sense. The actions as described in the article produce no gain. The lives of an SKT would be endangered (because it is a risky mission) for no measurable outcome commensurate with that risk. The problem with an article like this is that it bears a faint kernel of truth, but takes the biased word of a defense attorney, and sensationalizes the issue.
Maybe that's good enough for you to form an opinion, but not me. And while you believe me to only speak glowingly of the military, I contend that I've been pretty critical when warranted and applicable to the topic at hand. I have real 'four letter word type' beefs with many things the Army does and/or professes. We simply don't field many of these topics, as they would be fairly mundane and not debatable by many members. Sort of like me trying to post in a topic about economics.

Lastly, let me reference this obliquely, if such a program existed, you can be sure that it consists of far, far more than simply dropping an item in a random plot of ground and then engaging the first knucklehead that comes by to check it out. It is possible, however, that the sniper team in question fired outside the ROE or otherwise committed a wrongful act, and is trying to cover their tracks by claiming they fired on orders, or by procedure within this program. Either way, disclosing classified information should defintely be one the charges brought against him.

I have to agree to an extent. Its easy to find quotes from a broad range of U.S personal making the statement that outside the gates is not safe period. To add to this how would the sniper and or snipers know for sure in any measure that the person or person interacting with whatever the bait was actually happen to be enemy combatants. I don’t think that U.S or its leadership overseas could condone putting up a sign, saying don’t touch this with a warning, and then having people shot by snipers that happen to touch the sign. I don’t think in any way that actually would win in any small fraction hearts and or minds really, there is no way to gain a PID at that point as far as I can tell. I think you also have to have that to act basically, such as being shot at for one.

What I don’t get is with the sensitivity of anything really in this kind of a situation on why something so volatile really in terms of an outcome could come to exist in the first place, which leads me to think that whatever was really going on was not accurately represented by the source in question.

The other available avenue to take is that something like this was actually being conducted for some reason, whatever it was or is, and it happened to go bad as I would think statistically it would from the environment at hand, in which case or any case something like this should be investigated on the basis of the impact statements like this can have or the reality that things like this do indeed occur. Its something I might relate to the backwater incident of recent. If we don’t allow the Iraqi government to govern or have any say, its not going to be looked upon really I would think by the populous with any favor. So to me, to have this exist, and no act of investigation to be made, even if outlandish or false, I think tends to undermine us really, or endeavors overseas that we happen to take up.

Mainly let's address this idea that the idea that we are taking the accussed and their attorney's word only. From the articles English horn posted:



The Captain is telling you when he would engage. I don't care about the official rules of behavior. Because rules aren't reality, and this is why i say the things I say about you. You HAVE to know reality there and the official rules of engagement are not one in the same. Less every Marine I know, which is many, that has had a conversation with me in confidence, in regards to iraq, is full of it. You HAVE to know that the reality on the ground and the things happening are far worse than any, even liberal paper, is willing to report and print. So yes you will be critical, but like a loyal member of a family i see you are the type to keep it more "in house"... I guess I can't say I don't understand this mentality, seeing there are things I won't share

So it is not knee jerk reaction but an understanding that what happens on the big scale happens on the small. There will be big operations targeting big targets with this tactic, but the testimony of the captain and of the squad and the accused tells us it's happening on a small scale too.

In Vietnam snipers would kill children who were used as ammo carriers to the viet cong. Because killing people who would arm the enemy was seen as reasonable. I don't think that war mentality has changed that drastically today. If "bait" was planted in a place with known activity I think the idea that this person is enabling the enemy would be sufficient enough to engage. I reiterate the Captains words:

Capt Didier


Now this is the tactic legitimate??

I think it's important for people to understand the motive of the reporter. We don't have journalists anymore. They don't go to a scene and see A and then write down that A happened. They put A into their biased (change the world) template along with their editor's. One thing I've learned working for the Army for over 22 years is that things are not always what they seem with the Govt or DoD, and more than likely aren't. Omissions, half-truths and errors are not only possible, but common. An example is the Stryker personnel carrier; you'll hear one view in the media for years and then you might come across a story like the one about the General Lee. There are others to be sure.

Droop, I'm not really sure where you're going with your post. I have already agreed that the sniper team in question may have fired outside of the ROE, or have otherwise violated regulations. If so, then they should be punished for that, and disclosing classified information. But if you are arguing that there indeed is a policy as described in the article, then are you going to back it up in any way?
Claiming that atrocities happen in war doesn't quite add up to factual evidence. I have endured a fair share of combat, though not as much as some others here, and I have never witnessed or have been a party to an act that would be considered a violation of the Laws of Land Warfare, or otherwise be considered a war crime. You state: You HAVE to know that the reality on the ground and the things happening are far worse than any, even liberal paper, is willing to report and print. Yes, the act of being in mortal combat with someone trying to kill you is far worse, far more intense than anything ever written in any periodical. But you'll have to excuse me if I'm not a party to your belief that war crimes are a daily occurrence. If that is not the gist of your post, then by all means clarify your position.


As cited by the article, no. Of course it's not a legitimate tactic to place material as bait in some random location and shoot the first person to pick it up. That's akin to murder. Not to mention that its tactically stupid and possibly suicidal.

QUOTE

Yes, I am arguing that that tactic/policy akin to what is ascribed in the article exists. You admit there is a baiting program. But your last question is disengenuous. We have testimony that the baiting program exists. The Army will not disclose anything officialy confirming or denying because it is classified. You, yourself believe the soldiers should be punished for releasing classified information.



You want to punish soldiers for releasing classified information, that was necessary for their defense in a trial. You want to punish a Capt for having more loyalty to the people of America rather than loyalty to military obligations, for talking about this "bait" program.

Then come debate time you can ask.... "Got any proof it exists" No, I do not have classified documents proving a classified program exists, particulary, because it is classified. Early you asked us to use common sense, now you tell us... "sit down, play stupid"



It has to do with your statements of "trust me". You've made clear your military involvement, and I have no reason to think you are lying. However, I find you lack of knowledge or lack of knowledge to express that there are far more atrocious acts that go against ROE disturbing and in conflict of earning my trust.

Like I said I don't know you, but I know the Marines that have shared stories about Iraq. Some I've know for as many as 10 + years. Who have seen "crimes" who have participated in what most civilians would call "crimes". But war is Hell and brings out the worst. I trust them, cause they have no point to lie. They aren't trying to paint a We're not so bad picture for me cause they no it is unnecessary. If I was there... who know what i would be doing.

This part of debate we can drop though, because it deals too much with issues that are irrelevant to the debate.



What about putting an object in a specific location and shooting the first person you believe to be a combatant who picks it up?? Does this make it legit in your eyes?

I see, so what you've expressed in the upper two paragraphs would indicate that you feel you can't trust DTOM because he hasn't engaged in crimes, whereas these people whom you trust, have. Therefore he must be lying and those other sources are obviously telling the truth....because they 'have no point to lie' whereas DTOM does, for whatever reason, in your estimation. I don't have much to add to that one, kind of says it all...I guess Mustang too must be deceiving us since he agrees with DTOM. Unlike your sources.



Obviously the answer is no. The fact is, the killings that these soldiers are accused of were not related to the "baiting" program in any way. Nor from what I've read have even the soldiers themselves, in their own defense, indicated that they were using this program. They planted evidence to cover themselves after the fact, which has nothing to do with this program, the specifics of which we are not privy. So, the underlying premise, that a cord is set out and anyone who picks it up is shot, and that this ties in to the case here somehow, is erroneous.

All we know is that a "baiting" program exists. We also know that it has nothing to do with this case (even their lawyers admit as much, but are hoping that the existence of this program with be an extenuating circumstance for their defense). There is nothing wrong with drawing insurgents out or tricking them. That's why camouflage exists. It has both defensive and offensive purposes. I have no idea how this program is employed, but I don't see any reason to draw the nefarious conclusions that innocent Iraqis are being shot picking up cords left on the road because our sniper units have so very much time on their hands they like to sit around and do that sort of thing.

Basically, yes it does sum it up. I don't think DTOM lies though, I just think, like you, he is protective of the military institution. And therefore again like you, is willing to hide behind the fact of classifications, and "official" rules of war.

Basically, if DTOM is in the thick of it, he's seeing illegal things and things contrary to ROE done by American troops. Things not reported when seen. It's not the air force up high dropping bombs... it's not as "polite" or so I hear And I don't have a clue what you are talking about when you talk about mustang... edited... (o.k. read mustang's post the jist is snipers are trained and selective. no there is no big argument or disagreement there. )



That is not the fact. Thje fact is the soldiers are accuessed of planting the material. The soldiers contend they were acting pursuiant to orders. I haven't read anywhere the orders were to shoot anybody and then plant the evidence.

All that said, the root cause could be traced to a program that allowed for someone picking up "bait" items being allowed to be engaged. The Army does not deny this program exist and there is testimony it does.

In another way you are correct, the soldiers trial is not as important as the idea of the programs existence.



It's like Camoflauge.... ROFL!!! No it isn't like Camo. I don't think the military is going to indiscriminately kill any one who picks up the bait. But if someone is picking up bait not seeing the snipers. not firing at the snipers, how are we defining them as enemies?? Last I checked, the ones wearing a uniform are on our side

Here is a longer, more informative article. The killings that these soldiers are accused of were not related to the "baiting" program in any way.





They (allegedly) planted evidence, in an action that was unrelated to this program. The soldiers are NOT contending that they "planted the item and/or used it as bait under orders".

I must admit, I'm intrigued by your argument. I'm not lying, yet I'm not telling the truth. And I'm not telling the truth because I don't care to see a classified program aired for all learn about, thereby negating its effectiveness or possibly putting lives of US soldiers in danger? I call that self preservation and common sense. I have stated again that it is entirely possible that the snipers in question may have committed an illegal act. That apparently would not suffice for you; you somehow want to believe that a program as described in the article exists. As opposed to a defendant trying to cover his actions by saying that he acted under orders or within the ROE.

I will reiterate, and you can believe me or don't. The Army does not have a program that involves dropping random items in order to shoot the first person that comes along.
I believe our insurgent enemies to be rather tactically stupid at times, but even they aren't that inept. Any program along these lines involves far more intelligence, planning and consideration. The enemy doesn't wear uniforms, but here is a host of other intelligence criteria that is used to identify the enemy.

I'm not on a crusade to convince, I understand that you don't know me, and an online persona is not the best basis of credibility. You should not necessarily take what I say as truth, that's why I ask to simply run a story like this through the logic test. Does it make sense the way the story is written? What is the possible gain or effects of such a program versus the obvious downsides?

Mrs. P Don't you think we are concentrrating too much on these soldiers trial and not enough on the existence of a program and the legitamacy of this program. I know what the prosecution is alledeging, and it seems the defense is trying to relate what the soldiers did to the baiting program. Whether they did or did not act within their orders or the allowable spectrum of this classified tactic, does not legitimize the program itself.

DTOM


Are you truly intrigued?? O.K. I'll explain with an example. to start your next paragraph you state:



Well DTOM, I do believe you. But do you see the words i emphasized?? Because I am not sure if you conciously said those words in such a way to tell the truth but at the same time mislead.

Do I believe that they drop random items?? No, DTOM I believe their are classified items that have been deemed "drop" items. What these items are... i don't know, because it is classified.

Do I believe that they do so to shoot the first person that comes along?? No DTOM I believe there is some type of belief or regulation of things to look for and if a person matches this criteria then that person maybe engaged.

So if I were to state:

Given a hostile area of high activity against US troops and the picking up of a specific "bait" item by a male within ages 18 and 40 that appears to fit a "host of other intelligence criteria that is used to identify the enemy", would such a man be possibly engaged??

what is the answer?



Here are some gains.

Uncertainty by the enemy.
discourages the picking up of or aquiring of items harmful to soldiers
destroys possible enemies


Here are some downsides

soldiers placed in danger
possible civilian casualties
bad press

The downsides for the most part are assumed risks already taken, they are not added risks.

Since what the soldiers ‘did” is not related to the quote “baiting program”, and they are being court marshaled, we should assume that the classified program has nothing to do with dropping something (call it what you like) and then shooting the first person who walks by and picks it up.


You seem to think that because it is classified (for good reason) that it must be somehow “wrong” which I maintain and as DTOM has said numerous times is speculation based on nothing but the statement of a defense attorney for the accused men. Which is thin at best.

I indeed said those words consciously. I vehemently wanted to disabuse the notion brought forth in one of the opening questions for debate: If you are willing to concede that somebody can pick up an item such as detonation cord simply for use in the household, do you still think this is a legitimate military tactic? I'm not trying to mislead at all. I'm trying to say that the answer to that debate question is not only not legitimate, but wrong on premise.

You question the legitimacy of a program similar to what was described as ‘baiting’ by the article. I believe that I said I believed the program (if one exists ) to be perfectly legal given the parameters and conduct that I know to be true. Since said program is classified, it would of course be quite difficult to debate the merits of it. My main concern in this thread was to offer the position that the military is not engaging in behavior as described in the article. At least not as a matter policy. Some individual breaches will occur obviously, as happens in all instances of combat.

To answer your latest question: Given a hostile area of high activity against US troops and the picking up of a specific "bait" item by a male within ages 18 and 40 that appears to fit a "host of other intelligence criteria that is used to identify the enemy", would such a man be possibly engaged??
Your wording doesn’t exactly fit the realistic scenario, but generally speaking, yes, such a target would be engaged.

News break- Sandoval was aquitted.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../709290348/1013

A
military panel acquitted U.S. Army Spc. Jorge Sandoval of two counts of murder yesterday, apparently swayed by testimony from fellow Army snipers that two Iraqi men were killed on orders from a higher- ranking soldier.

Of course! Much better to leave it on the street for children to pick up. ! If I saw a gun on the street, I'd pick it up. Does this mean I'm going to use it? NO!!! I hate guns. It means I don't want to leave it there for someone else to grab and possibly hurt themselves or someone else with. But, what, if they are Arab and pick up a gun, it's okay to assume they'll use it?

It seems to me thatplacing an object, mundane or otherwise, out in the open and shooting anyone who picks up that object is a bad tactic.