logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Yada  
#1 Posted : Wednesday, July 2, 2008 6:17:08 PM(UTC)
Yada
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 3,537

Quote:
IRAQ: To shoot or not to shoot is the question

In the end, the criminal case against Marine sniper Sgt. Johnny Winnick (pictured) may boil down to the simplest but yet most confounding question facing troops in Iraq: When can a Marine or soldier use deadly force against a suspected insurgent?

It's a question not even supposed experts can agree on. During the preliminary hearing completed Wednesday, a Marine lieutenant testified that he asked two majors — one a lawyer, the other a battalion executive officer — and got contradictory explanations.

Winnick is charged with manslaughter and assault for killing two Syrians and wounding two others.

Winnick says he opened fire because he believed the men were planting a roadside bomb, but no bomb was found. His superiors say he lacked the "positive identification" and "reasonable certainty'' needed to squeeze the trigger.

But what do those terms mean, particularly for snipers whose job is to kill the enemy from ambush at long range?

Winnick's attorney, Gary Myers, tried to get one of Winnick's fellow snipers to define "reasonable certainty." The young Marine said that, well, reasonable certainty means being reasonably certain.

"This is all words," said an exasperated Myers.

An officer testified that reasonable certainty means being "85% certain." Another said it means being "pretty damn sure."

A Pentagon expert called by Myers disagreed with the "85% certain" rule. He thinks young troops are being given confusing and contradictory guidelines by their superiors. He's written about his concerns in a tome titled ''Combat Self-Defense: How to Save America's Warriors From Risk-Adverse Commanders and Their Lawyers."

The hearing officer in Winnick's case will send a recommendation within 10 days to Lt. Gen. Samuel Helland about whether the case should go to court martial, be dropped or handled administratively.

Helland may have his own views. He began his military career as an enlisted soldier attached to Army Special Forces in Vietnam.

— Tony Perry, at Camp Pendleton

source


Photo: Sgt. Johnny Winnick, with sniper rifle in Iraq. Credit: Winnick family
Yada attached the following image(s):
johngun.jpg
If you'd like to join the YY Study Group room on Paltalk - just click here. The lockword is: yadayahweh
You can download the free software here.
Hope to see everyone on Paltalk!
WARNING: Do not give out personal information (name, address, etc.) to anyone on Paltalk - ever!
Offline bitnet  
#2 Posted : Thursday, July 3, 2008 12:04:34 AM(UTC)
bitnet
Joined: 7/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,120

I'm "pretty damn sure" that it is not possible to be more than "85% certain" about what an enemy -- whom you cannot identify with "reasonable certainty" -- is about to do when you have zero per cent knowledge of their motivation!
The reverence of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#3 Posted : Thursday, July 3, 2008 12:15:52 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
must be a hard place to stand, if you watch a guy hang around in the sand with his mates at the side of the road knowing thats where a roadside bomb could kill your friends. If you mission is to stop these kind of things happening you are going to have slip ups... unfrotunatly the slip ups are people...
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline kp  
#4 Posted : Thursday, July 3, 2008 3:18:10 AM(UTC)
kp
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,030
Location: Palmyra, VA

Oh, it's perfectly easy to tell if a Muslim is an "insurgent" or not. You simply wait until he kills you, and then you shoot him. Or at least that seems to be the policy of the politicians in Washington.

kp
Offline Icy  
#5 Posted : Thursday, July 3, 2008 3:32:18 AM(UTC)
Icy
Joined: 9/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 641
Man
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Why don't they just stick the lawyers and risk-adverse commanders in that position and see what they do. Either they will do like Winnick, or they will end up dead.
Offline kp  
#6 Posted : Thursday, July 3, 2008 6:15:13 AM(UTC)
kp
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,030
Location: Palmyra, VA

I'm with you Icy. When I was a college student back in the Vietnam war era, we used to wish we could bring the draftees home and send the politicians to take their places in the rice paddies. Now (as I predicted back in 2002) we've got Vietnam with sand. We've forgotten the lessons of Southeast Asia. We refuse to identify our real enemy. We have no clearcut objectives. The governments we're propping up are godless and corrupt. The body bags are piling up. And I'm starting to experience deja vu all over again.

Anybody remember the Mi Lai massacre? It's only a matter of time...

kp
Offline Theophilus  
#7 Posted : Wednesday, July 23, 2008 5:13:26 AM(UTC)
Theophilus
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 544
Man

Thanks: 4 times
It seems to me our armed forces are undertaking a task very different from the one I faced in Desert Storm or across the then inter-German cunducting excersies in anticipation of a Warsaw Pact invasion of central Europe. We had a very clear understanding of the Pact's war machine, tactics and the ground we were prepared to fight on. Conveniently Saddam acquired a mostly Soviet equipped military and adopted much of their playbook at the time of my service. We consequently knew well how to engage their sizable but identifable enemy force in kinetic battle.

After seeing the US forces flee the field in Vietnam, Lebenon, and Samilia Saddam thought that he could defeat us in Kuwait. After failing to delay the speedy route of his army and more significantly inflict the populary expected casulties on US forces needed to make US popluar will to fight yet again fold like a cheap suit, Saddam knew he had to change tactics from kinetic battle to long drawn out insurgency to defeat US will.

The fight in Iraq and Afghanistan seems now to reflect that lesson and by blending Jihadist into civilian garb it really places our forces in a new and difficult position. It seems most regard this as an impossible to engage in much less prevail in. From what I've observed since the troop surge and in particular the change in command and strategy to General Petreaus' COIN Counter Insurgency has yeilded IMO remarkable results on the ground. I came to this conclusion in large measure from reading Michael Yon's recent book "Moment of Truth in Iraq". http://www.michaelyon-online.com/

I didn't live through the Vietnam conflict and do recognize certain similarities, however, I also see significant differences. One difference being after the US lost nearly all of the goodwill gained from removing Saddam's regieme, our al Qaeda foes have treated the Iraqi people vastly worse and convinced many former insurgent fighters to work with the US and Iraqi national forces to clear their neighborhoods of a more horrific presence, AQI Al Qaeda in Iraq. While I respect the draftee American military for their service in South East Asia, I marvel at the modern all volunteer military who sign up for repeat tours of duty knowing the nature of this enemy and desiring to both protect their countrymen over here by defeating the enemy over there.

Even if successful militarily, I do wonder what difference will be made so long as martial funadmental Islam remains tolerated?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.