Polish Snipers in Iraq

[PeriscopeDepth]

http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2006/0...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]

Originally Posted by 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...

[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

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...

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by CCIP

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]

Originally Posted by Dowly

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

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.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.