Damn - This "Kid" DESERVED a Medal of Honor

[slukasiewski]

Buds pin, jump wings, a gedunk medal, 2 sharpshooter/expert awards and a Medal of Honor... !!!!!!

Wow!!! A true American Hero - http://www.maritimequest.com/misc_pages/medal_of_honor_lt_michael_murphy.htm

I would be proud to be his shipmate!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Buds pin, jump wings, a gedunk ribbon, 2 sharpshooter/expert awards and a Medal of Honor... !!!!!!

Wow!!! A true American Hero - MaritimeQuest - Lt. Michael P. Murphy USN (1976-2005)

I would be proud to be his shipmate!

Excellent.

Yes. The personification of American exceptionalism...the book which memorializes his group is:
"Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10"
Marcus Luttrell
Marcus Luttrell (Author)

For those who don't know of the episode which cost this hero his life, he'd be alive today except that this group couldn't bring themselves to kill innocent goatherder, and his son.

 

[slukasiewski]

Never Forget !!

 

[geauxtohell]

For those who don't know of the episode which cost this hero his life, he'd be alive today except that this group couldn't bring themselves to kill innocent goatherder, and his son.

It shouldn't be shocking or debatable that American soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen couldn't bring themselves to kill civilians.

 

[Anachronism]

If you haven't read Lone Survivor I HIGHLY recommend it. It's a great read by a gentleman who is both a Warrior and very good at telling his story. You won't be able to put it down.

These folks.... SEALs, Rangers, Delta Force, Green Berets, SOAR, Force Recon Marines, etc... are the reason that we can sleep a little easier at night knowing that there are people on our side who are both willing and capable of being just as mean, nasty, and dirty as the mofo's who want to do us harm. I'm very glad they're on OUR side.

As one of them likes to say about himself..... "Doing Evil Things to Evil People since 1993".

 

[boedicca]

The rate of additions to Anachronism's IGNORE LIST has slowed.

C'mon PEEPLE. We need to get him into triple digits!

 

[Anachronism]

It shouldn't be shocking or debatable that American soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen couldn't bring themselves to kill civilians.

Having read the book, I understand operationally why they couldn't do it; but in general terms the lives of 1,000,000 foreign civilians are worth less than the life of one American soldier, sailor, airman or marine so far as I'm concerned.

 

[geauxtohell]

Having read the book, I understand operationally why they couldn't do it; but in general terms the lives of 1,000,000 foreign civilians are worth less than the life of one American soldier, sailor, airman or marine so far as I'm concerned.

I found the book to be an absurd politicization of a factual event that was a disservice to the men involved in those operation, to include the 19+ men that lost their lives trying to extract Luttrell and his fallen comrades. Luttrell would have done better to simply state the facts. Lt. Murphy's family wasn't terribly pleased with his account of the events either. As he was the "Lone Survivor" only he knows what the facts truly are.

Killing civilians is tactically, operationally, and strategically stupid. It is also immoral. Thus it is illegal under the UCMJ. There is no way this team could have ever legally shot a goat-herder under the presumption that they might tip off the enemy.

Luttrell devotes a lot of ink to whining about the ROE. There is some room to question the sense of the ROE. However, not in this scenario.

 

[Anachronism]

I found the book to be an absurd politicization of a factual event that was a disservice to the men involved in those operation, to include the 19+ men that lost their lives trying to extract Luttrell and his fallen comrades. Luttrell would have done better to simply state the facts. Lt. Murphy's family wasn't terribly pleased with his account of the events either. As he was the "Lone Survivor" only he knows what the facts truly are.

That's your opinion and one that you are welcome to, even though it is not one that I share.

Killing civilians is tactically, operationally, and strategically stupid. It is also immoral. Thus it is illegal under the UCMJ. There is no way this team could have ever legally shot a goat-herder under the presumption that they might tip off the enemy.

I tend to disagree. There are many cases where it is tactically, opreationally, and strategically very intelligent to do exactly that. Heck, we could have ended the Iraqi War in a matter of hours with little to no loss of life on our part if we'd just been willing to Carpet-Nuke the entire country. War has only one rule. WIN.... BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Anything beyond that is a joke.

Luttrell devotes a lot of ink to whining about the ROE. There is some room to question the sense of the ROE. However, not in this scenario.

Again, we will drastically disagree.

 

[slukasiewski]

Here's a book I just ordered - [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Seal-Honor-Operation-Michael-Murphy/dp/1591149657/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c]Amazon.com: Seal of Honor: Operation Red Wings and the Life of Lt Michael P. Murphy, Usn (9781591149651): Gary Williams: Books[/ame]

 

[Trajan]

Having read the book, I understand operationally why they couldn't do it; but in general terms the lives of 1,000,000 foreign civilians are worth less than the life of one American soldier, sailor, airman or marine so far as I'm concerned.

I found the book to be an absurd politicization of a factual event that was a disservice to the men involved in those operation, to include the 19+ men that lost their lives trying to extract Luttrell and his fallen comrades. Luttrell would have done better to simply state the facts. Lt. Murphy's family wasn't terribly pleased with his account of the events either. As he was the "Lone Survivor" only he knows what the facts truly are.

Killing civilians is tactically, operationally, and strategically stupid. It is also immoral. Thus it is illegal under the UCMJ. There is no way this team could have ever legally shot a goat-herder under the presumption that they might tip off the enemy.

Luttrell devotes a lot of ink to whining about the ROE. There is some room to question the sense of the ROE. However, not in this scenario.

I have not read the book. I am highly skeptical of ALL combat diarists...I cannot remember who said it but a wise man once said the only 'war story' he ever believed was written in a letter later discovered having been authored buy a veteran of Lees army at Gettysburg to wit- "a bunch of us went up there to fight the Yanks and not a lot of us came a back."

anyway , GTH, I have to say, I am not totally on board with your statement, in that one should never ever, say never..... there a comes a time to cut cards with the devil if you discover yourself in a enough dicey situations.

Killing civilians is tactically, operationally, and strategically stupid. It is also immoral. Thus it is illegal under the UCMJ. There is no way this team could have ever legally shot a goat-herder under the presumption that they might tip off the enemy.

Now, I don't know the story of this goat-herder, was this guy in the way of an extraction point? a questionable hostile? a wondering innocent? someone gimme a brief please on the GH..

 

[geauxtohell]

Now, I don't know the story of this goat-herder, was this guy in the way of an extraction point? a questionable hostile? a wondering innocent? someone gimme a brief please on the GH..

A wondering innocent who compromised Murphy's team. The debate, apparently, was over whether or not it would be legal to kill him on the assumption he would go and tip off the Taliban.

By Luttrell's account, the matter was put up to a vote and he cast the deciding vote to not kill the man because he feared being prosecuted by the "liberal media".

As you said, if you are put in a situation where you have to make a deal with the devil, then you have to make a decision and live with the consequences.

However, it's absurd to act like this scenario would ever be sanctioned by the UCMJ or that the "liberal media" as opposed to Chain of Command would be the one who would prosecute you.

 

[Anachronism]

However, it's absurd to act like this scenario would ever be sanctioned by the UCMJ or that the "liberal media" as opposed to Chain of Command would be the one who would prosecute you.

Regardless, the idea that a US Soldier would even have to consider being charged by his own country/command for acting in a manner to protect himself, his team, and his mission is utterly absurd so far as I'm concerned.

As I've said many times before, and I believe wholeheartedly.... "Thou art paid for thine RESULTS not thine METHODS, therefore destroy your enemy by ANY means necessary before he destroys you." Even if it means 100,000 foreign civvies have to die to protect 1 US Soldier.

 

[konradv]

It shouldn't be shocking or debatable that American soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen couldn't bring themselves to kill civilians.

Having read the book, I understand operationally why they couldn't do it; but in general terms the lives of 1,000,000 foreign civilians are worth less than the life of one American soldier, sailor, airman or marine so far as I'm concerned.

Can't agree with that. I'm a Christian.

 

[Anachronism]

Can't agree with that. I'm a Christian.

I'm not a Christian and even when I was one, I always found a lot more interest in the God of the OLD Testament rather than the New Testament one.

 

[geauxtohell]

Regardless, the idea that a US Soldier would even have to consider being charged by his own country/command for acting in a manner to protect himself, his team, and his mission is utterly absurd so far as I'm concerned.

That notion is not shared by the chain of command, and for good reason.

Imagine the implications if a soldier could simply kill any civilian on the battlefield if they perceived that it would protect themselves. This notion goes beyond simple right and wrong, but that is an important aspect of it. Tactically and operationally, it prevents the "breeding of the insurgency" and the support of the American people from being eroded. Look at what My Lai did to Viet Nam if you doubt that.

All of us who served in the combat zone know the rules and the rules are more or less the same regardless of how high speed of a unit you are in. As a conventional Infantry guy in a Recon unit, we got compromised by Afghans all the time. The notion of shooting them to prevent our location from being given up was so outlandish that it wasn't even mentioned. I realize that a SEAL unit is a different creature, but part of being a part of a unit like that is knowing that you will be put in dangerous situations. You are still bound by the UCMJ. If that doesn't jive with you, then don't go into those units.

It's never acceptable to murder innocent civilians.

As I've said many times before, and I believe wholeheartedly.... "Thou art paid for thine RESULTS not thine METHODS, therefore destroy your enemy

Civilians aren't the enemy. They are the center of gravity in an asymmetric battle and you are never going to have any success in Afghanistan if you try and go scorched earth. You just end up creating more trigger pullers.

by ANY means necessary before he destroys you." Even if it means 100,000 foreign civvies have to die to protect 1 US Soldier.

Again: impractical.

 

[Anachronism]

It's never acceptable to murder innocent civilians.

I would suggest that there are very few truly innocent civilians in the world, inside the US or outside of it at this point in time.

Civilians aren't the enemy. They are the center of gravity in an asymmetric battle and you are never going to have any success in Afghanistan if you try and go scorched earth. You just end up creating more trigger pullers.

Anyone who is not entirely on my side in a conflict is the enemy, sir. I learned THAT lesson very early on in life.

Again: impractical.

Practicality is not my concern. Winning is. Dominating and Destroying the enemy is. To hell with the consequences or the collareral damage. Go Big or Go Home.

 

[geauxtohell]

I would suggest that there are very few truly innocent civilians in the world, inside the US or outside of it at this point in time.

What about the civilians that shielded Luttrell and protected him from the Taliban?

Anyone who is not entirely on my side in a conflict is the enemy, sir. I learned THAT lesson very early on in life.

Great. Now take a stick, go to Afghanistan, and start pointing them out. You'd be a hit.

Practicality is not my concern. Winning is. Dominating and Destroying the enemy is. To hell with the consequences or the collareral damage. Go Big or Go Home.

This isn't a conventional conflict. You can't fight it in the same parameters as a conventional conflict. In a conventional war, the goal is certainly to destroy civilian, military, and governmental infrastructure.

This is a different matter altogether. Part of the reason Iraq was a cluster fuck for several years is that all the Generals at the top were too boneheaded to get that simple notion.

I would argue that General Barno had it figured out in Afghanistan long before Iraq got un-fucked. It was much to our chagrin when units in Afghanistan started adapting the things we had been doing for years and all of sudden were considered "innovative" and "unique".

At any rate, if we could win by "shock and awe", we would have done that long ago.

This is a different matter entirely, we are talking about a singular event that is clearly wrong. Why Luttrell acts like it would ever be up for debate is beyond me.

 

[Anachronism]

What about the civilians that shielded Luttrell and protected him from the Taliban?

I'll say this... Had I been a member of the Taliban and found out that they'd shielded him, they wouldn't have survived. Even if he was already gone.

This isn't a conventional conflict. You can't fight it in the same parameters as a conventional conflict. In a conventional war, the goal is certainly to destroy civilian, military, and governmental infrastructure.

True. This is a philosophical conflict. A war between ideologies. The only way to win that sort of conflict is to WIPE THE OTHER SIDE OUT, to a man/woman/child.

This is a different matter entirely, we are talking about a singular event that is clearly wrong. Why Luttrell acts like it would ever be up for debate is beyond me.

You feel it would have been wrong. I completely disagree. Nothing is going to change either of our positions; so we can either continue banging our heads against the wall or just give up and move on.

 

[geauxtohell]

I'll say this... Had I been a member of the Taliban and found out that they'd shielded him, they wouldn't have survived. Even if he was already gone.

No, the Taliban didn't do that. They realized it would be stupid and cost them the sympathy of the population. That's what everyone is fighting for over there. To fully understand this, you'd have to understand Pashtunwali and how it works.

True. This is a philosophical conflict. A war between ideologies. The only way to win that sort of conflict is to WIPE THE OTHER SIDE OUT, to a man/woman/child.

Great. Show us where to drop the bombs.

You feel it would have been wrong. I completely disagree. Nothing is going to change either of our positions; so we can either continue banging our heads against the wall or just give up and move on.

I don't have to change your position, nor do I intend too. I am merely pointing out the fact that shooting the civilian would have been a crime.

You should read Petreaus' book if you can't understand why this is important. He'll de-mystify the position for you.