Treatment of Iraqi suspect focus of war ethics debate: Army insiders back charges, snub lawmakers
We are highly disturbed by media accounts that the Army is beginning criminal proceedings against Lt. Col. Allen B. West for taking actions in Iraq that he believed were necessary to protect the lives and safety of his men, and which he apparently reported to his chain of command. To us, such actions if accurately reported do not appear to be those of a criminal.
- Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
From a moral and ethical standpoint, the U.S. Army can never allow such purported behavior. As horrific as war is, we cannot go down that slippery slope. Everything that we stand for as an Army and a nation would be undermined.
- anonymous U.S. Army official
I know the method I used was not the right method. I was going to do anything to intimidate and scare him, but I was not going to endanger his life. If it's the lives of my men and their safety, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can.
- LT COL Allen B. West, U.S.Army
As a former Army Reserve officer, I still remember having it drummed into me that Job One for every officer was to ensure the safety and security of the men and women under their command. To that end, an officer is expected to take every reasonable step to meet that responsibility. The question in this case is "Where does reasonable end and a war crime begin?"
Despite criticism from leading Republicans on Capitol Hill, senior Army leaders are defending the filing of criminal charges against a battalion commander in Iraq who fired his pistol near the head of an Iraqi detainee in an attempt to frighten him into divulging information about a planned ambush against U.S. forces.
The case, the focus of intense debate within the Army and in wider military circles, has raised questions about acceptable conduct in wartime. This comes as casualties increase in Iraq and the U.S. military battles a shadowy insurgency against Iraqis loyal to deposed President Saddam Hussein and foreign fighters linked to the al-Qaida terrorist network....
Four senior Army officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity, defended the filing of criminal charges and said the military justice system must be allowed to run its course without interference.
Following a preliminary hearing in mid-November in Tikrit, Iraq, West now awaits a decision by Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of the 4th Infantry Division in central Iraq. Odierno will decide whether the Army will court-martial West for aggravated assault and communicating a threat, impose a lesser administrative sanction or dismiss the matter. If convicted at court-martial, West could face eight years in prison.
"The Army has to deal with this," one official said. "They cannot walk away from somebody who fundamentally breaks the rules like this. The American Army on the battlefield carries the values of the American people, and one of those values is we do not abuse our enemy."
Even more disturbing than West's decision to fire his pistol near the head of the Iraqi detainee, the official said, was West's admission during the preliminary hearing that, before firing his pistol, he watched as his soldiers beat the Iraqi in an attempt to get him to talk.
Given that level of "abuse," the official said, "the leadership will have to take some kind of action. I'm not (necessarily) suggesting a court-martial, but they'll have to take some kind of action."
I imagine that most, if not all, Americans would agree that we want out Armed Forces to conduct themselves with dignity, compassion, and in compliance with the recognize laws of war. Having said that, however, one must also come to grips with the fact that war is a messy, brutal business that becomes even worse if only one side recognizes and respects the laws of war. In fighting an enemy that is largely of an insurgent nature, American troops are clearly forced to engage an enemy blissfully and/or willfully ignorant of internationally-recognized laws governing the conduct of war. In such an environment, do we still have the right to hold our troops to this standard when the enemy bears no such encumbrance?
LT COL West, I would imagine, had no intention of actually causing physical harm to the Iraqi detainee in question. However, if West had reason to believe that this person had information that could enhance the safety and security of his troops, should he not have the right to use any reasonable means at his disposal short of murder to extract that information? Can we assume that West knew where that line was and was simply doing everything short of crossing that line in order to protect the men and women under his command?
Under normal circumstances, the actions of West would be reprehensible. We must, however, keep in mind the circumstances under which US troops are forced to operate. The enemy is not fighting a conventional war, and yet those of us behind the lines are expecting commanders like West to conduct themselves as if they are fighting a conventional war. I believe that this is both an unfair and unreasonable burden to place on a commander in the field.
If LT COL West had pointed his pistol at the detainee's head and pulled the trigger, the U.S. Army would have every right to charge him with murder. West undoubtedly knew the limit he was up against, but he likely also recognized that instilling the fear of the unknown in the detainee might shake loose the information he was after. Of course, this is not something that you or I might do in the course of our day-to-day existence, but combat in Iraq is nothing like what you or I face on a daily basis. Ambushes, roadside bombings, truck bombs...you try living under those conditions, and then come back and tell me you wouldn't do the same thing LT COL West did. Remember, context is crucial in wartime.
No, I do not necessarily condone LT COL West's actions, but I CAN understand the reasons behind them. From a moral and ethical standpoint, his actions were reprehensible, but war is an activity that does not exist in the realm of the moral OR the ethical. I believe that West was doing what he felt was necessary to protect the men and women under his command. It is impossible to know this with any degree of certainty, but it is very possible that the information obtained may have saved American lives. In the final analysis, isn't that what is truly important?
