No wonder they hate us

[Klast Brell]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01431.html

"Baiting is putting an object out there that we know they will use, with the intention of destroying the enemy," Capt. Matthew P. Didier, the leader of an elite sniper scout platoon attached to the 1st Battalion of the 501st Infantry Regiment, said in a sworn statement. "Basically, we would put an item out there and watch it. If someone found the item, picked it up and attempted to leave with the item, we would engage the individual as I saw this as a sign they would use the item against U.S. Forces."

Not the intention to turn it in to the police, or sell it, or get it the fuck out of the street where a kid could pick it up and get hurt. No there could be no other reason. Ever.

[Ddrak]

Yeah - I read that and wondered who signed off on that being a good idea. Makes sense from a purely military view I guess in the "you'll get a good percentage of true enemies vs collateral damage" idea, but add in the hearts-and-minds angle and the whole thing is going to blow up in your face.

Dd

[Finglefinn]

And your point is what, Klast? War sucks? No shit.

Are you trying to invoke some kind of emotional response by the readers of this thread and get us to go "rah, rah, war sucks, Bush sucks, bring the troops home, peace, love, dope!!!!1!"

If this is the worst thing that happens in combat, you better thank your lucky stars. And yes, this is a combat situation. Not a situation where lawyers, politicians and other people who are sitting in cushy offices in DC get to arbitrate what happens after-the-fact in a theatre of war half a world away.

Go read the last section of the article:

"We don't discuss specific methods targeting enemy combatants," said Paul Boyce, an Army spokesman. "The accused are charged with murder and wrongfully placing weapons on the remains of Iraqi nationals. There are no classified programs that authorize the murder of local nationals and the use of 'drop weapons' to make killings appear legally justified."

It is unclear whether the program reached elsewhere in Iraq and how many people were killed through the baiting tactics.

[Harlowe]

Our tactics seem to work beautifully, for making it more dangerous for our troops.

[Ddrak]

I may have misread you, Fingle, but it sounds like you're defending the idea?

Dd

[Kulaf]

IMO it depends on where it is being done. From my reading of the article it's not like this sniper unit operates near civilian population centers but rather where they believe insurgents are storing weapons......and insurgents are likely to be the ones picking up the "bait".

[Garrdor]

I see this as an act of desperation. Just like everything we do over there.

[Trollbait]

It is a sound military strategy.

It's result will depend on what standards they are using for judgement.

It is doubtful that every individual who picks up the bait is killed.

Depending on when and where they are utilizing this practice would determine the "hearts and minds" effect.

As long as the person picking up the bait meets the "Hostile Intent" threshold then I don't see an issue with the procedure.

Doesn't leave a lot of room for error, however.

[Finglefinn]

The way this baiting technique is described, it gives you a bad feeling about how we are conducting the war. It does come off as an act of desperation. And no, I do not like it if the baiting is done exactly how they describe it, especially if people were killed. If they used it to draw out insurgents and capture them, that's a different story. I'm sure it is a much more complex issue that described, but on the surface I do not like it. But that's why I called attention to the quote at the end of the story.

What I despise is people like Klast (and the author of the article at the Post) who sit here and try to find every single thing that we are doing wrong in the war and call attention to it. These guys run around trying to act like whistle blowers, when they should be spending their time helping the average reader understand why we are there and how we are going to get out. A reporters job is not to constantly editorialize and paint the US military in a bad light. Their job is to report the news. A good story about how we saved 50 Iraqi citizens lives in Al Anbar would be nice, here and there. I easily tire of the "war sucks, Bush sucks, bring the troops home, whaaaaaa!" mantra.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Its easier for Klast, Partha and thier ilk to armchair quarterback situations they know little about, and have less guts to find out for themselves. Its much easier for them to rant on about complex and difficult military situations, pointing out how this method is immoral, or that technique violates section blah blah of some esoteric and out of context treaty. Then they can sit back with their Starbucks, whisper platitudes to themselves about how they've stood up to The Man, and reward themsleves with a rental of the next Tim Robbins movie.

War is a nasty thing. As it should be. There are never good wars. But when you get in a war, and people start to shoot at you, you get a perspective wholly different than some MMO playing shithead (me included). For what its worth, I'm a proponent of making war so nasty, so dirty, so inhumanely horrible, that we don't want to engage in it too often.

War has its own morality, if you can call it that. The most moral war is the shortest one. The most logical war is the one that takes the fewest lives. And the best war is the one where you get to write the history of it. If baiting allows the US to to do all three, I'm for it. Hell, if tossing babies on spikes would end the war, I'd be for that too. In any prolonged military engagement, the winner is usually the one with the hardest will, and the intestinal fortitude to do things that would make Ghengis Kahn shit himself.

[Select]

For what its worth, I'm a proponent of making war so nasty, so dirty, so inhumanely horrible, that we don't want to engage in it too often.

Eh, parts of Africa have some pretty horrible shit going down right now. There's been years of that, yet battles and struggles are all too often. Unless you think the Western world would handle a horrible, dirty war differently than those parts of of Africa.

[Kulaf]

A war can only end when somone on one side or the other has the ability to surrender. A war against a population is an unwinable war unless you want to resort to Roman/Mongolian tactics where you "pacify" a population by killing every man/woman/child in a city and then parading the locals from nearby villages past them so they can see what will happen to them if they too resist.

Short of that you need some form of C&C on the other side capeable of surrender.

[Klast Brell]

Really Embar? We just have to call it a war and that makes any horrible behavior alright?

Would it make the car bombs and I.E.d.s in Baghdad alright if the insurgents called it war?

Would it make 9/11 alright if Bin laden called it war?

Would it make the missiles flying out of the Gaza strip alright if the Palestinians called it war?

I hope you don't think I'm making a false dichotomy here because my point is this. If you can justify it to yourself that easily then so can they. If you can feel as secure and righteous in your cause that way then so can they.

[Harlowe]

I know you guys like to dismiss Klast because he can be a bit over-the-top, but he makes some very good points.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I hope you don't think I'm making a false dichotomy here because my point is this. If you can justify it to yourself that easily then so can they. If you can feel as secure and righteous in your cause that way then so can they.

Absolutely Klast. And if they call it a war, then they should expect the hounds of Hell unleashed upon them by those they attacked. Personally, I don't get too caught up in the whole "terrorism" angle, because I think its just a spin word. I see those that attacked us as the enemy in a war. And they are using whatever means available to strike. As should we.

Also, I feel those that support the enemy, are the enemy as well, and should expect no less than what we deliver to those carrying out the actual attacks. I think if we could figure out a way to stomp Saudi Arabia into last century without throwing the world economy into chaos (interruption of world oil supplies and all that scenario entails), we should do it. I think its the only thing thats stopping us from doing so.

[Trollbait]

If you can justify it to yourself that easily then so can they. If you can feel as secure and righteous in your cause that way then so can they.

Sure they can Klast.

But you pick a side to be on.

[Partha]

Its easier for Klast, Partha and thier ilk to armchair quarterback situations they know little about, and have less guts to find out for themselves.

As, with drool cup firmly tucked under chin and Cheeto bag near, Embar fights another battle for the 101st Fighting Keyboardists.

[Ddrak]

And if they call it a war, then they should expect the hounds of Hell unleashed upon them by those they attacked. Personally, I don't get too caught up in the whole "terrorism" angle, because I think its just a spin word. I see those that attacked us as the enemy in a war. And they are using whatever means available to strike. As should we.

Also, I feel those that support the enemy, are the enemy as well, and should expect no less than what we deliver to those carrying out the actual attacks. I think if we could figure out a way to stomp Saudi Arabia into last century without throwing the world economy into chaos (interruption of world oil supplies and all that scenario entails), we should do it. I think its the only thing thats stopping us from doing so.

I strongly disagree. To act without regard for innocent life, to slaughter a general population in order to produce a political result, to kill your own men deliberately in order to effect temporary goals, to use brainwashed suicides as a tool of choice - none of these are things that the US should be doing, nor should they even consider doing them. Historically, nations using such tactics have found themselves isolated and defeated regardless of their military and industrial strengths. The same would be true today - a nation that would slaughter innocents both their own and the enemies would be branded the enemy of the civilized world and be isolated, sanctioned and destroyed from both the inside and out.

Dd

[Finglefinn]

... to slaughter a general population...

Historically, nations using such tactics have found themselves isolated and defeated regardless of their military and industrial strengths. The same would be true today - a nation that would slaughter innocents both their own and the enemies would be branded the enemy of the civilized world and be isolated, sanctioned and destroyed from both the inside and out.

We killed nearly 200,000 innocent civilians in Japan with two atomic bombs at the end of WWII, Dd. I don't remember us being marginalized or ousted by the civilized world.

[Trollbait]

We killed nearly 200,000 innocent civilians in Japan with two atomic bombs at the end of WWII, Dd. I don't remember us being marginalized or ousted by the civilized world.

That is because, contrary to what revisionists want you to think, we dropped those bombs on military installations and military industrial centers.