Should a soldier be excused if he went on a rampage.
 

Been a heavy debate in a local kiwi forum on the US soldiers killing villages recently. was 50/50 but got to heated and the moderator deleted it. lol. Most of the argument was this: The US have managed to keep there cool for this long apart from the odd killings that shouldn't of happened, that they should be excuse for what recently happened where the soliders involved should be sent home and delt with accordingly but they should note that this is war and terrible things happen therefore treatment instead of prison would be more appropriate. Imagine nearly every day seeing your fellow men some probably very close to you blown to bits or badly injured, with a country that blames you even though your trying to help them. And from all this your suppose to keep your cool. Why though take out the children. They must of been very outraged to do this. If i saw my mates go down around me, i dont know how i would react but i would be very angry. No matter how well your trained, you can't fully train emotions.

Wish the poll had a simple "no". US Soldiers should never lose it like this, and never shoot children unless they are packing.

Yeah sorry i realised i missed out the no/yes, but i can't re-edit a poll.

Vote needs a simple "no".

Everyone looses it from time to time. Somtimes sanity is in short supply, and people can only take so much. Still, you have to maintain a standard, regardless.

edit:
as for the last option "I thought only nazis took villages out."
People are alike in many ways, regardless of country. Generally speaking, from my experience, people are products of their enviorment. When you put people in a real ****ty enviorment, and keep them in what is tantamount to a steamcooker, you'd be amazed at what can manifest itself. I know what its like to simply, "not give a **** anymore". Infact, at one point in my enlistment while overseas, i coudlnt even remember when i was born. Let alone what home was like. So yes i can emphasis to the guilty soldiers to some degree, that is, if you want to talk about being burnt out and disconnected. But standards and intergrity must be maintained, period, thats non negotiable.

Let's remember that most of these guys are on their 3rd and 4th deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. The nature of counter-insurgency warfare is that there are no clearly defined enemies. When you consider that a good percentage of US troops there are reservists and national guard troops ill-trained and lacking in the language skills needed to perform in an occupation and counter-insurgent operation, I am surprised that there are not more incidents like Haditha. That said, my question is where are the officers who led these troops? They must bear the ultimate responsibility for controlling the men under their command. If they either were not present on the patrol or allowed this to happen, they are guilty of dereliction of duty at the very least. We must always remember that war is a dirty business and that counter-insurgency war is the dirtiest of all. When you add the numerous deployments many of these men are subjected to without any counseling or treatment for post-traumatic stress, the strategy or lack of same by the political leadership, it's small wonder these incidents happen. Remember, that the vast majority of servicemen in Vietnam were only required to serve one one-year term. Most of these men, as stated above, are not only on their 3rd or 4th tour but are also kept in beyond their EAOS(End of Active Obligated Service) by the illegal and immoral Stop-Loss Program. This does not excuse the behavior, but does put it into perspective.

Unless any of said officers issued some sort of order, directive, or influence, i'll wager not much more then administrative action is placed upon them. Hard to say really, **** rolls downhill. It all depends on who's in charge.

As for the enlisted men under question, Frankly i think how long they've been there, why, and how much of a husk they've become becaus of it wont be looked upon with much relevancy. They'll be made examples of.

I can understand it but can't condone it.
I haven't really read anything on the action itself but if my buddy got killed by an IED and figured these villagers knew it was there........... Thats a tremendous amount of rage. When you are in a rage like that you don't identify people as men, women and children. You just identify them as something that needs to be destroyed. You just want to kill and kill.
I blame it on being kept over their too long and being missused. How many rotations have they been through? How many times have they been attacked yet can't do a thing about it? Imagine the stress.

One could use such arguements to excuse all kinds of behaviour. Not to say that these killings happened in a vacuum, or should be considered that way, but to simply excuse it and give them treatment? What about if the guy's fuse is a little longer and he doesn't blow until after he gets home, then goes on this kind of rampage in his own home town, slaying women and children execution style there? Do you excuse that as well and suggest he simply needs some treatment? One might be tempted to respond "but this was in the heat of the moment," to which I would reply that this is not considered a valid defence in criminal matters and justly so. Sure Iraq is a hell hole, and yes an IED had just gone off. Its also a war zone so I don't see how either of these factors should surprise anyone.

I would neither condone nor accept such unprofessional behavior in any unit i belonged to. Unstable soldiers are unreliable in combat and a danger even to their own side, but we must recognize that in any large number of people living in a tense situation, there are going to be those who do horrible things. It's human nature. An evil and terrible part of human nature, to be fought and rooted out wherever it raises its ugly head, but a part none the less.

What's important, really important, is how their nation deals with such incidents when they occur. Are these heinous acts condemned with the perpetrators judged and punished according to the law, or are their actions ignored or even applauded.

That is essentially the difference between us and our enemies and what makes our societies worth defending.

Without looking too closely at the particulars of this case I think this illustrates quite clearly some of the poblems facing a modern military force. Like the case recently of british troops beating the s***t out of some young iraqis and being cought doing it on film - Troops are trained to kill, that is their purpose. Get the job done preferably using the most expedient means. Much of that training relies on speed and aggression to control a situation or overcome an objective.
Some small wonder that troops who are trained in such a way have difficulties when they have a 'police force' role imposed upon them. A soldiers natrual, encouraged reaction to a threat is to meet that threat with all the force available at his disposal. Generally this doesn't include giving whatever bad guys who might be around a second chance.
Sure military personnel are also trained to perform other duties, but the primary function of the infantry soldier is to kill. It's got to be pretty frustrating to have to not respond in the way you have been trained to do when coming under attack or when encountering difficult circumstances, particularily when there are conflicting directives for engaging the 'enemy'.
I'm not condoning such apparently vicious behaviour, but really, what's the difference between troops on the ground killing 'innocent' people and laser guided munitions going astray and doing the same? At the end of the day you still end up with a bunch of dead people.
As has already been alluded to; war is a nasty business. But what we hear from Iraq these days (excluding the outrage over hostage killings) seems to pale in comparison to some of the things I've read about the fighting on the eastern front between Germany and the Soviets during WW2. Things might seem bad over there to us now, but I'd venture to say they're not even close to the awful brutality of Stalingrad etc.
With any luck those who need to will get to the bottom of this one and find out the truth of the matter and act appropriately.

:yep:

The poll question is fine but the answer options are floored. As has been said a few times there should be a no option.

And I totally agree with what August said here:

This incident is in the process of being investigated and whilst it doesn't look good I will hold judgement until after the findings of the investigtion come out.

Simple answer: No.

However, soldiers are human being, and they react to the terror of war, or constant frustration in human ways. Which unfortunately includes trying to find relief for the accumulated frustration or pressure, which can lead to events like this.

Which, however, cannot be an excuse to spare them being held responsible.

The real question is if war is acceptable. "War doesn't ennoble man. It turns man into a dog." If you start a war, expect to see events like this at times.

It didn't work for the Soviets in Afghanistan nor will such a stupid idea work here. Not to mention summarily executing unarmed civilians in a town square compromises the values and standards to which our nations hold so dearly and use as an example for other nations to follow across the globe. I suggest you go read a couple of books on counter-insurgency by experts such as Lester Grau or Robert Taber. You'll find that your method suggested is totally counter-productive to say the least. Major General David Petraeus never employed such tactics and look at the successes he had which served as a model for the rest of Iraq.

Let's see... reasons to invade Iraq:

• Iraq's vast arsenal of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons which posed a threat to the US and its allies. What's that? We still haven't found this enornous stockpile of banned weapons? No problem!
• Iraq's connection to 9/11. What's that? We still haven't found any credible evidence of a connection between Iraq and 9/11? No problem!
• Saddam Hussein tortures and rapes Iraqis. What's that? We've been caught torturing and sodomizing Iraqis? No problem!
• Saddam Hussein has innocent Iraqis killed. What's that? We've been caught summarily executing unarmed women and children? No problem!
• "Saddam Hussein has tried to kill my daddy!"

Well 1 out 5 isn't too bad I suppose. Though at least August and a few others seem to understand why this sort of behaviour cannot be tolerated and excused.