Polish Snipers in Iraq

[PeriscopeDepth]

http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2006/08/polish-snipers-and-most-excellent.html

I was going to post this after I came upon that piece of info while reading Fiasco, but forgot. Interesting that Army units prefer to have a Polish sniper along with them to get around the ROE.

PD

[bradclark1]

Our leadership would rather have 4 dead Americans than 1 dead Iraqi I guess.

[CCIP]

Our leadership would rather have 4 dead Americans than 1 dead Iraqi I guess.
Well statistically there are a lot more dead Iraqis than dead Americans, so that's not a very accurate argument...

[PeriscopeDepth]

I think we are scared to DEATH of offending people. While in one my university classes a year and a half ago that included panelists concerning the GWOT, I listened to several Marine officers responding to a question from a student who was concerned about collateral damage/civllian death. The Marines responded with a story that spoke of US military restraint to a degree of foolishness: while in contact with insurgent fighters and under mortar fire, an officer told us that he had watched a man with a cell phone in a Mosque minnaret calling down mortar fire on the Marines. Yet he could not do anything about it under ROE, because to fire on a mosque you had to be taking direct fire from the building. And even then you had to go through several chains of command before getting approval. What's the point of a military if they can't do their job because we're afraid of offending people?

PD

[OneToughHerring]

Doesn't surprise me that US is using Poles to bend the rules of combat in Iraq, they've used 'extraordinidary renditions' too. Maybe this is why the whole 'mother of all coalitions' was needed in the first place.

[Dowly]

A person having a cellphone in his hand after 8pm is a valid target? Right... this is getting ridiculous... :roll:

[bradclark1]

Our leadership would rather have 4 dead Americans than 1 dead Iraqi I guess.
Well statistically there are a lot more dead Iraqis than dead Americans, so that's not a very accurate argument...
Screw statistics! It's not about statistics. It's about tying our peoples hands to the point they can't react unless some of them are killed so it's a very accurate argument. Lets be clear, 20 dead Iraqis aren't worth one dead American because of politics which endangers our people. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck it's a duck. Shoot it!

[bradclark1]

A person having a cellphone in his hand after 8pm is a valid target? Right... this is getting ridiculous... :roll:
If they are out past curfew, they are valid targets.

[Platapus]

Wow. Guilt by cell phone and immediate death sentence.

Is this the new depth of which our society has sunk?

Cell phones are a common way for Iraqis to communicate as their wired infrastructure is destroyed.

What is the likelihood that an Iraqi using a cell phone to detonate an IED as compared to the likelihood of an Iraqi using a cell phone for legitimate reasons? 1/100? 1/1,000? 1/10,000? The number is important as this depicts our perception of the value of an Iraqi citizen's life.

Are we truly willing to kill an Iraqi citizen using a cell phone when, absent of other information, there is a 1/100 or 1/1,000 or 1/10,000 chance they are using it to detonate a cell phone? Do we not recognize the propaganda value of this to our enemies.

"The Americans care so little for your lives they are assassinating Fathers talking to their wives" And when the Iraqis see their people being murdered because they are using a cell phone, why would they not believe this. This is not the way to win their hearts and minds. This is the way to alienate them.

Think of this Iraqi's family. What do you think his sons/daughters or wife would do. What would you do if an invading force murdered your father for using a cell phone? I bet you would take up arms. Why would we think that the Iraqis would not react the same.

You kill one innocent Iraqi and now you have two very pissed off and motivated sons.

Kill one, breed two. Not a good outcome.

Let's for once pull our heads out of our ass and think of a solution that does not involve killing people. Killing people is easy but not always the appropriate solution.

You observe an Iraqi using a cell phone. Why not hop on the radio and inform everyone in your area that there might be an IED detonation and to take protective action (button up, move vehicles to a more secure area in the middle of the road, avoid overpasses, ect)? First objective is to let your troops know so they can protect themselves. Then continue to watch the Iraqi. Observe what he is doing and where he is going. Send forces down to detain and question.

Find out if he is guilty of anything. Remember, absent of any other information there is an overwhelming chance an Iraqi making a cell phone call is just doing that.

We are in a counter-insurgency conflict. Just killing the "enemy" is not how you win a counter-insurgency conflict. They can build insurgents far faster than we can kill them.

We have become the monsters we were fighting against.:nope:

[Dowly]

A person having a cellphone in his hand after 8pm is a valid target? Right... this is getting ridiculous... :roll: If they are out past curfew, they are valid targets.

Will everyone get shot who is out past the curfew time or just the ones that are carrying a cellphone?

[Skybird]

Cellphones are used to coordinate allied militias, report on americn actions and movement. In scenarios where they are used by the enemy, cellphone user are not only valid target, but should be considered enemy high-value assets. It's like killing an American radar station, or a scouting unit.

Don't be so naive, guys. In somalia it were little children scouting on Un and American troops whenever they moved out, and often they were the first to report to warlords (via cellphones, btw.)

during violent demonstrations in Germany, cellphones also play a role in the ability of violent groups to avoid or surprise the police, and outmanouver them and coordinate their own action. Some voices from the police's side have demanded that cellphones should be consficated during such events, or their owner should be arrested if they assist some thugs this way.

[Platapus]

Don't be so naive, guys. In somalia it were little children scouting on Un and American troops whenever they moved out, and often they were the first to report to warlords (via cellphones, btw.)


Are you advocating the preemptive shooting of children on the streets based on the possibility that they might be reporting a position?

I just want to understand what you meant.

[Tchocky]

Mobile phone sales in Iraq are going higher and higher, because like Platapus said, there isn't a reliable landline system.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=3492213&page=1

Militants use mobile phones to coordinate attacks. They also wear shoes, most are known to have two legs.

[Skybird]

Don't be so naive, guys. In somalia it were little children scouting on Un and American troops whenever they moved out, and often they were the first to report to warlords (via cellphones, btw.)


Are you advocating the preemptive shooting of children on the streets based on the possibility that they might be reporting a position?

I just want to understand what you meant.
I meant exactly what I wrote, not more, not less.

[Skybird]

Mobile phone sales in Iraq are going higher and higher, because like Platapus said, there isn't a reliable landline system.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=3492213&page=1

Militants use mobile phones to coordinate attacks. They also wear shoes, most are known to have two legs.

I doubt they wave their shoes to signal somebody that there is an American patrol coming. using a cellphone - is something different and has mnore threat potential.

Everybody note that "curfew" means certain limitations of individuals' freedoms and rights during certain time phases. If during the forbidden time somebody thinks he nevertheless must walk outside and telephone, he should not be surprised if he is considered to be a potential threat, then, and thus: a target. Parents are legally responsible for their children. Women can scout and fight, too.

Welcome to the jungle. It's wartimes.

[Tchocky]

Sure, it's an indicator of militant activity. But I think it's far too broad an indicator and using it operationally would be counter-productive due to false positives.

[CCIP]

I was just picking on a specific flaw in logic, I fully realize the complexity of the situation there. Every soldier occupying hostile territory will face this, unfortunately. I fully agree that ROE can be a real problem - but it's not usually because you need to shoot every sucker with a cellphone, it's because even if you do have obvious signs that he's more than just chatting on the cellphone, you'll get in s**t if you do shoot him. ROE have a nasty tendency to be very unpragmatic. But they are usually there for a reason. It pains me to say it, but I would rather have 4 dead American soldiers than 1 dead innocent Iraqi. Americans are professionals who are there to do a job, and part of their job is to stabilize the country and protect its civilians. They're volunteers and signed up for it. They should be responsible for taking risks. The "shoot everyone to save our boys" thing is selfish and hypocritical. Why the heck are you there in the first place? To save the Iraqis country and give them democracy, or to shoot them at first sign of danger? The two are sort of mutually exclusive...

[Dowly]

I was just picking on a specific flaw in logic, I fully realize the complexity of the situation there. Every soldier occupying hostile territory will face this, unfortunately. I fully agree that ROE can be a real problem - but it's not usually because you need to shoot every sucker with a cellphone, it's because even if you do have obvious signs that he's more than just chatting on the cellphone, you'll get in s**t if you do shoot him. ROE have a nasty tendency to be very unpragmatic. But they are usually there for a reason. It pains me to say it, but I would rather have 4 dead American soldiers than 1 dead innocent Iraqi. Americans are professionals who are there to do a job, and part of their job is to stabilize the country and protect its civilians. They're volunteers and signed up for it. They should be responsible for taking risks. The "shoot everyone to save our boys" thing is selfish and hypocritical. Why the heck are you there in the first place? To save the Iraqis country and give them democracy, or to shoot them at first sign of danger? The two are sort of mutually exclusive...

I agree! You said everything I had to say. :up:

[bradclark1]

Mobile phone sales in Iraq are going higher and higher, because like Platapus said, there isn't a reliable landline system.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=3492213&page=1

Militants use mobile phones to coordinate attacks. They also wear shoes, most are known to have two legs.
Thats why if they are out past curfew they must be up to no good with their cell phone so shoot them.

[bradclark1]

I was just picking on a specific flaw in logic, I fully realize the complexity of the situation there. Every soldier occupying hostile territory will face this, unfortunately. I fully agree that ROE can be a real problem - but it's not usually because you need to shoot every sucker with a cellphone, it's because even if you do have obvious signs that he's more than just chatting on the cellphone, you'll get in s**t if you do shoot him. ROE have a nasty tendency to be very unpragmatic. But they are usually there for a reason. It pains me to say it, but I would rather have 4 dead American soldiers than 1 dead innocent Iraqi. Americans are professionals who are there to do a job, and part of their job is to stabilize the country and protect its civilians. They're volunteers and signed up for it. They should be responsible for taking risks. The "shoot everyone to save our boys" thing is selfish and hypocritical. Why the heck are you there in the first place? To save the Iraqis country and give them democracy, or to shoot them at first sign of danger? The two are sort of mutually exclusive...
I'm missing something here. If a guy is out past curfew he's wrong. If he's outside curfew with a cell phone he's wrong again. Our troops don't have signs on them that says "Kill me because I volunteered". What utter bs. If Iraqi's are doing what they know they aren't supposed to be doing they are valid targets. They have the curfew for a reason. I don't see at all where that could be construed as selfish and hypocritical. Our "boys" did not sign up to be targets. Volunteeering doesn't mean being sacrificed because Iraqi's are breaking the law. They break the law they are wrong. You can't break the law in your own country yet you think it's alright for Iraqi's to break it. You think soldiers should be needlessly put at risk because they volunteered and you would rather have four soldiers get killed than stop an Iraqi breaking the law because you think the Iraqi has that right and soldiers volunteered for it so they should just accept it. No! Hell no!

[AntEater]

Well, the logic is if you invade a country without any legal basis, the rest of the world does care a little less about the safety of your soldiers than normal.

But honestly, when I read "Polish Snipers in Iraq" I though it was about Poles stealing the sniper sights from the Marines (or even from the Iraqis)
:rotfl:

[Radioshow]

For the record I'm Canadian, live in Hamilton and close to the border.

I dont recall seeing any American's beheading non-combatants, and then stringing up the bodies for all to see. Totally brutal and disgusting. The U.S. military is taking great risks(to great actually) to protect civilians and non-combatant assets.

Many of the Muslim extremeists are brainwashed for sure. They dont grow up with the freedom to chose as we do. Their media is totally controlled. They are born and bred to hate, such as in Palestine vs. Isreal. They are taught strict rules that must be adheard to, any deviation is severly punished. Muslim religion is one of control, male dominated control. I dont see how anyone can defend the violence they condone.
I dont pretend to know all the details, and surely they have some legitimate claims against western policies, but groups like Al-Queda are just plain nut-jobs.

Everyone like to piss on the U.S. as the big bully but who do you run to when you need financial or other aid after a disaster of some sort. Who do you call when your little country is being invaded. Who saved the world atleast TWICE in the last 100 years.
The U.S. maybe be the worlds policemen now but only because the rest of the world doesnt want or cant afford the job. If the U.S. were to pull all troops and assets from foreign soils there would be an uproar, and the world would be coloured communist "RED".

So while everyone whines about U.S. policy, Its more or less Canadian policy as well as we are joined at the hip, and I for one feel safer that the U.S. is still out "there".

A big THANK YOU to all servicemen and women in the U.S. armed forces.

[Polak]

As a Polish serviceman I must say that this sounds as total bullsh*t, I will get back to this topic tomorrow when I am more sober. ;)

[Foxtrot]

I dont recall seeing any American's beheading non-combatants, and then stringing up the bodies for all to see. Totally brutal and disgusting. The U.S. military is taking great risks(to great actually) to protect civilians and non-combatant assets.



Then you clearly don't know about nowthatsfawkededup.com (replaced "aw" with "uc") :) It was quite a "resource" during 2005s
The point is: If it is not reported by our media immediately doesn't mean it is not there. We all know about abuses in Abu Gharib prison camp scandal which took a while to come out.

Some info : http://www.azplace.net/index.php?itemid=718&catid=10

I have some pics but I am afraid that mods may not like it. I should have backed up their whole site in past :)

[jumpy]

If the U.S. were to pull all troops and assets from foreign soils there would be an uproar, and the world would be coloured communist "RED".

So while everyone whines about U.S. policy, Its more or less Canadian policy as well as we are joined at the hip, and I for one feel safer that the U.S. is still out "there".
lol

Is that the same 'special relationship' that we brits have with america? I wouldn't put too much faith in it if I were you... :lol:
It's already the case that american authorities think they can dictate how canada persues its own policies on drugs as they happen to differ than the stance of the us. Fortunately the canadian judiciary keeps persuing its own line whist ignoring frequent us attempts to extradite canadian citizens who have broken no laws in canada.

I'm not demeaning the troops of any nation out in iraq, but count yourself lucky that no foreign coalition is trying to bring democracy to your country, else you might find yourself in the sights of some army sniper whilst you're making an innocent phone call to your mum. You'd find the reasoning that you were using a mobile after hours, as justification for splattering your brains all over the place and leaving you without a recognisable face to speak of, fairly objectionable I should imagine.

**** happens, and fortunately for most of us it happens far away in some dust-bowl of a country no-one would have cared about if there were no oil, unlike countries like zimbabwe or congo; plenty of coalition action there no? No wealth, just a load of poor black people; or is it because we've over-stretched ourselves already...? :huh: Well, serious conflict in africa has been going on for decades longer than the recent trouble in the middle east and I've yet to hear any cries to invade and give the people the democracy 'that every free man is entitled to in this life.' So you'll have to forgive my less than sincere welcome to such claims of benevolence and altruism bandied about by our western nations, my own in particular, since that lying **** tony blair convinced us all that saddam had wmd as a pretext to invade.


It's too hot, and I'm grumpy...:hulk:

[CCIP]

Interesting how people take my qualified sympathy for the American position there as "pissing on the US" or as a desire to see American soldiers killed.

I repeat: I fully sympathise with the complexity of the situation there. That's not an excuse to relax ROE.

I'm also raising an eyebrow at how every time shooting Iraqis is mentioned, people bring up beheadings and extreme jihadism and other lovely things.

Uh, hello, Iraq has 30 million people. Why does shooting someone who could potentially be doing something against US troops equate to killing a vile, nasty beheader? That's the thing that disturbs me. The painting of the situation in black-and-white. One could forgive the US soldier in the middle of a firefight for having that sort of black-and-white vision - but you back home should be ashamed to have that sort of picture in your head.

[bradclark1]

Interesting how people take my qualified sympathy for the American position there as "pissing on the US" or as a desire to see American soldiers killed.

If it's me you are referring to I don't believe I even mentioned any nationality except for Iraqi's. You did say you would rather see 4 dead American soldiers than 1 dead Iraqi but I take no offense because I know what you are saying but I am strongly against your general opinion.
About black and white. What I don't seem to understand is there is a curfew, curfews mean nobody outside after a given time. It's that black and white. There is no "I don't feel like it". You have a male Iraqi outside after curfew and he's hanging out with a cell phone and cell phones are a common way to detonate IED's. What do you think he's doing? He's not supposed to be outside. He can call anyone he wants from within his house so what is his purpose? He can hang out outside during daylight all he wants. Would a good guy even be outside in Falusha after dark let alone curfew? People get killed and disappear there all the time. After all this is Iraq and it's a dangerous place. Would you go hang out outside in Falusha after dark? It's not the middle of London or New York or any quiet hometown USA. It's Iraq!

[PeriscopeDepth]

It's not I war I support. But we are there. And we need to stop half assing it and actually try and win a war, or leave. Anything in between is stupid, and I'm a little tired of watching Americans get blown up by the people we're supposedly liberating. Vietnam all over, IMO, in that we're too scared to actually win a war.

PD

[PeriscopeDepth]

Uh, hello, Iraq has 30 million people. Why does shooting someone who could potentially be doing something against US troops equate to killing a vile, nasty beheader? That's the thing that disturbs me. The painting of the situation in black-and-white. One could forgive the US soldier in the middle of a firefight for having that sort of black-and-white vision - but you back home should be ashamed to have that sort of picture in your head.
We deliberately killed several MILLION German and Japanese civillians during WWII, because some were POTENTIALLY factory workers. Not advocating razing Iraqi towns to the ground, just saying that seeing black and white works both ways.

PD

[CCIP]

Uh, hello, Iraq has 30 million people. Why does shooting someone who could potentially be doing something against US troops equate to killing a vile, nasty beheader? That's the thing that disturbs me. The painting of the situation in black-and-white. One could forgive the US soldier in the middle of a firefight for having that sort of black-and-white vision - but you back home should be ashamed to have that sort of picture in your head. We deliberately killed several MILLION German and Japanese civillians during WWII, because some were POTENTIALLY factory workers. Not advocating razing Iraqi towns to the ground, just saying that seeing black and white works both ways.

PD

Yea, but come on, haven't we learned anything in 60-odd years?

Pragmatically-speaking, all war is evil. But if we're to believe in the ideology behind this one, then at least we've gotta be striving to be a little more progressive than that. There's a lot of very positive ideas about America's struggle for democracy which I genuinely would like to believe in. But we better see them implemented on the ground, and not in reverse logic.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Yea, but come on, haven't we learned anything in 60-odd years? Not IMO.

Pragmatically-speaking, all war is evil. I don't think that's being pragmatic. That's just the way it is.

But if we're to believe in the ideology behind this one, then at least we've gotta be striving to be a little more progressive than that. Well, being "progressive" in this scenario is problematic to say the least. Because the fact is the people who are blowing up Americans are CIVILLIANS. Which they use to every advantage. And I believe most of the civllians, even those who aren't going around blowing up Americans, don't want us squatting on their homeland. Which is perfectly understandable. We encouraged them to rebel against their dictator several times, each time they rose up and were SLAUGHTERED while we stood back and watched. Any good will we had with the Iraqi population was pissed away between our calls to rebel and our decade plus long pointless bully-via-airpower.

There's a lot of very positive ideas about America's struggle for democracy which I genuinely would like to believe in. But we better see them implemented on the ground, and not in reverse logic. The only ways war should be used in my opinion is to TAKE something you need to have or defend that something from someone else. Or avenge an attack against your nation, through simple killing alone. Any other use of war, IMO, glorifies the butchering of other human beings. And it's done either to hide one's true intentions or because the one who is making war is a fool.

PD

[Platapus]

What I don't seem to understand is there is a curfew, curfews mean nobody outside after a given time. It's that black and white.

We don't know the terms of the curfew. Iraq like most industrial nations has people working shifts. I doubt that any total curfew could be implemented where no one can be on the streets after a specific hour.

The point I was trying to make was there there are myriad reasons for an Iraqi to be making a cell phone call at a specific time. One of those reasons is setting off an IED. But what about the other reasons? Absent of any a priori information, what is the likelihood of an Iraqi making a cell phone call to set off an IED as compared with an Iraqi making a cell phone call for any of the other reasons?

Can we establish that there is an overwhelming chance that it is being used for an IED as opposed to the legitimate uses of a cell phone?

We can't evaluate the "guilt" of violating a curfew without knowing the exact terms of the curfew and the allowed exceptions.

BTW would not an Iraqi using a cell phone to set off an IED make the call from inside a building?

Why would they call attention to themselves by violating the curfew, especially when they know that the Americans will shoot first and forget the question?

An insurgent would want to

1. Ensure his or her safety
2. Ensure that the IED is activated at the proper time

Catching a slug in the head would not allow either of these objectives to be met. The insurgents are many things but they are not stupid.

If this logic is valid, it would lead more credence to the probability that an Iraqi standing outside, making a phone call is an innocent person as a guilty person would be hiding inside.

The critical question is: Do the American forces really care about innocent Iraqi citizens or are they just "collateral damage"?

Facta sunt potentiora verbis.

[Polak]

A funny thing is that I read something similar in a polish newspaper, but the situation was slightingly different. Polish snipers complained about their ROE, they referred to their American colleagues who could open fire at Iraqis using cellphones... :hmm:

I assure you that our rules of engagement do not allow our troops to shoot Iraqis using cellphones. But the news where about Special Operations snipers, and since the only unit in Poland that have sniper capable for such mission are GROM snipers, and those guys live in their own world, with its own rules.

[Skybird]

What I don't seem to understand is there is a curfew, curfews mean nobody outside after a given time. It's that black and white.

We don't know the terms of the curfew. Iraq like most industrial nations has people working shifts. I doubt that any total curfew could be implemented where no one can be on the streets after a specific hour.


Nonsens. a curfew is a curfew, controled and enforced by military or paramilitary or police means. In Fallujah, there was fighting-a-battle taking place, and hardly people thought about getting to factory shifts in time - there were no factories working, or stores opened, etc. Violate the curfew in a combatzone, and bear the consequences. That simple. It is not a basic-democratic decision by a qualified majority - it is an order and command by a superior faction strong enough to enforce to obey the command - period.

What part exactly is it that people do not understand?

[bradclark1]

BTW would not an Iraqi using a cell phone to set off an IED make the call from inside a building?

Why would they call attention to themselves by violating the curfew, especially when they know that the Americans will shoot first and forget the question?

I think we've all learned by now that we don't understand the Arab mind. Bush and company made some assumptions and it didn't work so hot and some of the biggest shooters at us now are those we "liberated".

The insurgents are many things but they are not stupid.
They must be if they are outside of curfew with a cell phone. I would suspect that word of mouth would be "Hey don't hang around outside with a cell phone in your hand"

An insurgent would want to

1. Ensure his or her safety

:rotfl: I don't think the suicide bombers understand that part.

Catching a slug in the head would not allow either of these objectives to be met. The insurgents are many things but they are not stupid.

If this logic is valid, it would lead more credence to the probability that an Iraqi standing outside, making a phone call is an innocent person as a guilty person would be hiding inside.
You are trying to use western logic. Doesn't work. In fact logic would tell me don't go out after curfew and sure as hell not with a cell phone in your hand.

I'd be pretty sure that the troops don't shoot at every Tom, Dick, or Harry with a cell phone as soon as they see them. I'd say they probably observe first.

The critical question is: Do the American forces really care about innocent Iraqi citizens or are they just "collateral damage"?
The critical question is: Do you know who is going to shoot at you next or where the next IED is going to be. Then answer your own question.

Facta sunt potentiora verbis.
Don't read it. Have no desire to learn it. If it was Klingon I would probably go through the hassle of translation.

[TheSatyr]

You can't stop insurgencies OR terrorism by violence alone. History has taught us that. Russia,Israel,the USA and other countries keep trying the same old thing...and we keep getting the same old results. Even if we capture or kill Bin Laden it won't end Al Quaeda.(But at least he will finally get payback for 9/11). Someone else will just take over.

We have to find another way,cause this way ain't working.

[Tchocky]

Being pissed off that your country has been invaded isn't peculiar to the "Arab mind"

[bradclark1]

Being pissed off that your country has been invaded isn't peculiar to the "Arab mind"
No it's not, but that isn't what this topic is about.