Allen West gets some ink...and it's epic

zyx123 said:
The facts are that West was not some 19-year-old lance corporal six months out of ITR. At the time of the incident he had 21 years of service, was a battalion commander, and was expected to meet standards that he had had 21 years to think about. The Army concluded that he did not live up to those standards, and offered him a choice between certain conviction by a GCM or a voluntary retirement. There are layers of expectations that exist in these situations, starting with the UCMJ and ending up in the Law of War. He failed to meet those expectations.
Click to expand...

And it's people like you, that are part of the problem. Judging his actions 1000 miles away from where they took place, in the theatre of war.

Congrats for being so high and mighty, to know that you wouldn't act in the same fashion. People under you, wouldn't have been lived.
 
zyx123 said:
The facts are that West was not some 19-year-old lance corporal six months out of ITR. At the time of the incident he had 21 years of service, was a battalion commander, and was expected to meet standards that he had had 21 years to think about. The Army concluded that he did not live up to those standards, and offered him a choice between certain conviction by a GCM or a voluntary retirement. There are layers of expectations that exist in these situations, starting with the UCMJ and ending up in the Law of War. He failed to meet those expectations.
Click to expand...

I'd follow him.
 
zyx123 said:
The facts are that West was not some 19-year-old lance corporal six months out of ITR. At the time of the incident he had 21 years of service, was a battalion commander, and was expected to meet standards that he had had 21 years to think about. The Army concluded that he did not live up to those standards, and offered him a choice between certain conviction by a GCM or a voluntary retirement. There are layers of expectations that exist in these situations, starting with the UCMJ and ending up in the Law of War. He failed to meet those expectations.
Click to expand...

**** *your* expectations, buckwheat.
 
FreeWillie said:
**** *your* expectations, buckwheat.
Click to expand...

Well, in all fairness, they aren't "his" expectations. They are the expectations you agree to live up to when you take the oath, whether or not you agree with them. What happened to West, by the letter of the law, was more than fair. That's why his men, and most soldiers, would follow him in to battle tomorrow if asked. He knew the rules, and he put the safety of his men and accomplishment of the mission above his own liberty and career.
 
Woodstock said:
He's a hero, and no doubt because of him there are guys still alive who would not have survived their tours in that region. He lost his seat in Congress because the Dems were so afraid of him rising through the ranks that they gerrymandered his district out from under him.
Click to expand...

Even then he still almost won
 
So what is the problem? I think id prefer him to some ass clown who would stab you in the back for some political advantage

Come and take said:
Actually I would of done the same same thing to protect my soliders.


"In testimony at an Article 32 hearing -- the military's version of a grand jury or preliminary hearing -- West said the policeman, Yahya Jhrodi Hamoody, was not cooperating with interrogators, so he watched four of his soldiers from the 220th Field Artillery Battalion beat the detainee on the head and body.

West said he also threatened to kill Hamoody. Military prosecutors say West followed up on that threat by taking the suspect outside, put him on the ground near a weapons clearing barrel and fired his 9 mm pistol into the barrel.

Apparently not knowing where West's gun was aimed, Hamoody cracked and gave information about the planned ambush on West's convoy, thwarting the attack.

West said there were no further ambushes on U.S. forces in Taji until he was relieved of his leadership post on October 4.

"I know the method I used was not right, but I wanted to take care of my soldiers," West testified to a military courtroom of observers and some teary-eyed troops formerly under his command.

Asked if he would have act differently if under similar circumstances again, West testified, "If it's about the lives of my soldiers at stake, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can."

Puckett argued that because West is always accompanied by U.S. troops that he acted to save American lives.

But while West's supporters call him a hero, military prosecutors said his actions amounted to torture and violated articles 128 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice."


Click to expand...



Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk Pro - typos are from the GD auto correct unless they are funny substitutions those I'll take credit for.
 
So far this thread hasn't generated much insight. Setting aside the knee-jerk reactions and ad hominem attacks there are two useful questions buried in the postings. The first is "was West right in what he did at Taji that day?" The second is "if you were in the same situation he was in, what would you have done?" Those are two separate questions.

On the first one I don't see any doubt. He was wrong by the standard he agreed to play by when he accepted his commission. If he wasn't ready to play by those rules he should not have accepted the commission. It's not as though he was new to all this - he had been on active duty for 21 years, and his bio says he came from a military family. He was wrong, that's what the historical record says. If you don't want to accept the historical record, you can look at what West said himself when it was all over. He said "I know the method I used was not right..."

On the second question, what would you have done, the fast answer for me is "I don't know." I wasn't there, and I doubt anyone reading this was there. None of us know exactly what was going on, or what the stakes were. It doesn't appear that this event occurred in the heat of an engagement or a firefight where fast decisions had to be made. But assume that was true, and assuming you had to make a quick decision in the fog of war, I think it's quite possible I'd have made the same decision he made and, like him, elected to deal with the consequences. From the bulk of the postings here it seems like the answer to that second question is a lot easier to others, who were not there, than it is to me.
 
zyx123 said:
From the bulk of the postings here it seems like the answer to that second question is a lot easier to others, who were not there, than it is to me.
Click to expand...

I don't know your history, but while nobody on this site was "there", many have been in similar situations (or trained for them) and have actually or mentally worked through them using their experience. While I may be way off base, in my experience most combat arms individuals would without much hesitation would sacrifice their career to save a brother's life. If that scenario only endangered themselves, they may not. To many, their brother's life is worth more than their own.
 
zyx123 said:
The facts are that West was not some 19-year-old lance corporal six months out of ITR. At the time of the incident he had 21 years of service, was a battalion commander, and was expected to meet standards that he had had 21 years to think about. The Army concluded that he did not live up to those standards, and offered him a choice between certain conviction by a GCM or a voluntary retirement. There are layers of expectations that exist in these situations, starting with the UCMJ and ending up in the Law of War. He failed to meet those expectations.
Click to expand...

So your answer it to take those who get the mission accomplished(LTC West, Major Gant) out of the fight because they broke a few rules to what, make everything all cute and fuzzy again?

All that's being done by the political gaming elements of the military in D.C. is weakening the position of the troops still in the field by removing effective leadership.

These military and political hacks in D.C. break more laws and rules that are far worse for this country every day than LTC West and Major Gant could ever do in a lifetime. But I guess that's okay because nobodies feelings got hurt or felt scared.

For those unfamiliar with Major Gant.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/jim-gant-top-green-beret-officer-forced-resign/story?id=24266710
 
JWPaolilliJr said:
Your questioning of yourself in these kind of instances, could very well lead to harm to yourself and others. This is the very type question that played out for Marcus Luttrell, "The Lone Survivor". Read the book when you get the chance, Then examine your thinking and "Mind Set".
Click to expand...

The truth is that West was not unique. Just because West was in a combat zone, he is not the first guy who ever had to make a decision quickly, with little time or information, with life-or-death stakes. Over the course of human history there may be a few others who have been in that situation. I've been privileged to know quite a few of them. Whenever I've talked with them about the decisions they made, under circumstances that bore some resemblance to West's that day in Taji, they always (and I mean ALWAYS) say the same thing. First, they say they don't know if they were right or wrong and they readily concede they could have been wrong. Second, they say they did the best the could with what they knew at the time. And third they say that afterward they just put it behind them and try not to relive it. It becomes a part of who they are. And they sure don't look to others to defend their actions. As for questioning oneself, personally, I'd rather not be led by guys who think they know the "answer" before the "question" has been asked.
 
Something that strikes me about that story:

I don't know how it is in the combat arms, never having served in that part of the military (I'm a SAR monkey in a different branch), but it seems to me that the standard method of breaking the rules to get the job done throughout the part of the .mil I'm familiar with* and throughout the .gov at large is to isolate the boss from it - to give them plausible deniability.

In this instance the boss did the deed himself - an O-5, presumably, would have EASILY been able to isolate himself many times over from the actions he was called to account for, yet did it personally. I take that as he didn't want his men being called to account for it, and wanted any potential blame on his shoulders alone. That says a HELL of a lot right there.




(*I've been fortunate throughout my career to work for awesome leaders that would NEVER expect us to take the hit for them just to keep them isolated. Then again, I've always had senior enlisted in command of the units I've been at, not O's.)
 
LoginName said:
"They drew first blood, Sir."
Click to expand...

I was thinking more;

[quoting Kurtz]

Willard: In a war there are many moments for compassion and tender action. There are many moments for ruthless action - what is often called ruthless - what may in many circumstances be only clarity, seeing clearly what there is to be done and doing it, directly, quickly, awake, looking at it.
 
zyx123 said:
The truth is that West was not unique. Just because West was in a combat zone, he is not the first guy who ever had to make a decision quickly, with little time or information, with life-or-death stakes. Over the course of human history there may be a few others who have been in that situation. I've been privileged to know quite a few of them. Whenever I've talked with them about the decisions they made, under circumstances that bore some resemblance to West's that day in Taji, they always (and I mean ALWAYS) say the same thing. First, they say they don't know if they were right or wrong and they readily concede they could have been wrong. Second, they say they did the best the could with what they knew at the time. And third they say that afterward they just put it behind them and try not to relive it. It becomes a part of who they are. And they sure don't look to others to defend their actions. As for questioning oneself, personally, I'd rather not be led by guys who think they know the "answer" before the "question" has been asked.
Click to expand...

I would have to guess more than a few.

It's easy to philosophize about something you know nothing of. You do explain yourself well but clearly show you've never been in a life and death struggle combat related.

Question for zyx123.... As I mentioned earlier, a particular situation comes to mind that I participated in which involved resupplying ordinance to a beleaguered scout platoon of the 9th Infantry Division which found itself in heavy contact at about two in the morning. They were unable to get their own assets to resupply and we were in and out picking up casualties. We were asked to pick up ordinance for their resupply since they were down to minimal ammo. Knowing it was against the rules of the Geneva Convention, knowing it was wrong to do so, would you have picked up the ordinance in order to save their skins or would you have taken the high road because those were the rules?
 
zyx123 said:
The facts are that West was not some 19-year-old lance corporal six months out of ITR. At the time of the incident he had 21 years of service, was a battalion commander, and was expected to meet standards that he had had 21 years to think about. The Army concluded that he did not live up to those standards, and offered him a choice between certain conviction by a GCM or a voluntary retirement. There are layers of expectations that exist in these situations, starting with the UCMJ and ending up in the Law of War. He failed to meet those expectations.
Click to expand...
Rules is Rules.

That's fine for Big Army garrison-style thinking, but failing to deviate from the exact expectations is a failure to adapt and overcome. That shit that gets soldiers killed when taken downrange.
 
Martlet said:
I don't know your history, but while nobody on this site was "there", many have been in similar situations (or trained for them) and have actually or mentally worked through them using their experience. While I may be way off base, in my experience most combat arms individuals would without much hesitation would sacrifice their career to save a brother's life. If that scenario only endangered themselves, they may not. To many, their brother's life is worth more than their own.
Click to expand...
I was actually assigned to the small 120 pax FOB out near Ar-Rutbah in 2003 when the FOB commander CPT Shawn Martin was court martialed for actions similar to what COL West did. If nothing else, I know we didn't get attacked once until after CPT Martin got relieved when one of my buddies took some shrapnel to the face.

Do I endorse the actions as a matter of military professionalism and discipline? No, of course not. That said, in warfare sometimes extraordinary measures are necessary.
 
Last edited:
So, he admits that the scared the shit out of a terrorist. That he fired a pistol near a terrorist to get info.

Gee, I am glad the terrorists would never resort to such barbaric tactics.

Motards
 
Martlet said:
He knew the rules, and he put the safety of his men and accomplishment of the mission above his own liberty and career.
Click to expand...

When the lead starts whistling, the most important rule is that you fight for the man on the left, and the man to your right. And they fight for you. Colonel West followed the warrior code, because that's who he is. A code much more important than some rules of engagement that some hyper correct pencil pusher in Washington came up with. The Romans had a saying.
many talk about war, but few buckle armor.
Click to expand...
Col. West buckled armor, and there will always be those talkers who don't contribute a thing to the actual war effort. You're an old soldier, iirc, so I guess you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
Doesnt happen very often, but this time, we both are on the same page, because I'd follow that man too.
 
As a total "civilian as f@ck" person, I could care less what happens to those scumbags and just want as many of our boys and girls to come home as safe and sound as possible. Awwwww...poor durka durka was scared and probably dropped a load in his pants when someone...didn't shoot him. Oh well. Allen West deserved a commendation for what he did. He broke the rules with what he did? Change the damn rules. These people are chopping off heads on camera, and has been said before they aren't a country and don't abide by the Geneva Convention. Screw 'em.
 
mikeyp said:
As a total "civilian as f@ck" person, I could care less what happens to those scumbags and just want as many of our boys and girls to come home as safe and sound as possible. Awwwww...poor durka durka was scared and probably dropped a load in his pants when someone...didn't shoot him. Oh well. Allen West deserved a commendation for what he did. He broke the rules with what he did? Change the damn rules. These people are chopping off heads on camera, and has been said before they aren't a country and don't abide by the Geneva Convention. Screw 'em.
Click to expand...

+1000
 
dustoff22 said:
I would have to guess more than a few.

It's easy to philosophize about something you know nothing of. You do explain yourself well but clearly show you've never been in a life and death struggle combat related.

Question for zyx123.... As I mentioned earlier, a particular situation comes to mind that I participated in which involved resupplying ordinance to a beleaguered scout platoon of the 9th Infantry Division which found itself in heavy contact at about two in the morning. They were unable to get their own assets to resupply and we were in and out picking up casualties. We were asked to pick up ordinance for their resupply since they were down to minimal ammo. Knowing it was against the rules of the Geneva Convention, knowing it was wrong to do so, would you have picked up the ordinance in order to save their skins or would you have taken the high road because those were the rules?
Click to expand...

I don't like hypotheticals, but since you ask...

I'll assume from dustoff22 that you were in command of a medevac bird that was prohibited by the Geneva Convention from being a combatant. I'll give you two answers. If I was in command of your unit I would not tell you to do it. If I was you, the pilot in command, I'd do it and pay whatever cost came of it.
 
Last edited:
zyx123 said:
I don't like hypotheticals, but since you ask...

I'll assume from dustoff22 that you were in command of a medevac bird that was prohibited by the Geneva Convention from being a combatant. I'll give you two answers. If I was in command of your unit I would not tell you to do it. If I was you, the pilot in command, I'd do it and pay whatever cost came of it.
Click to expand...

In other words, you would also break the rules just as West broke the rules. Maybe the real problem here is some screwed up rules.
 
zyx123 said:
So far this thread hasn't generated much insight. Setting aside the knee-jerk reactions and ad hominem attacks there are two useful questions buried in the postings. The first is "was West right in what he did at Taji that day?" The second is "if you were in the same situation he was in, what would you have done?" Those are two separate questions.
Click to expand...

YES and YES. So he scared some goat ****er and caused him to shit his pants but in the process learned valuable information. That information, in all likelihood, saved countless lives of US military personnel. Yeah, I am OK with that.
 

Similar threads

Maine gets close to implementing 3 Day Wait Period and makes it illegal to do Paramilitary Training in the State
3 4 5
Replies
135
Views
3K
42!
42!
Headspace and reloading
Replies
28
Views
503
PatMcD
PatMcD
Firearm Legislation? This is how it's done in a "free state"
Replies
13
Views
572
APFSDS
APFSDS
  • Poll
Local shooting and gunsmithing classes
Replies
0
Views
133
Darkslide
Darkslide
Beautiful Southern Young Girl Gets Harassed At Red Light: 2 Gentlemen Try To Force Her To Pull Over
Replies
17
Views
709
Junior314
Junior314
Back
Top Bottom