US apologises for 'kill team' photos of Andrew Holmes and Jeremy Morlock with Afghans

[Feuer Frei!]

THE US Army has apologised after the publication of photos showing their soldiers smiling and posing with civilians they allegedly murdered. This week, German news magazine Der Spiegel published three photographs said to show two US soldiers accused of being part of a rogue "kill team" last year during their tour in Afghanistan.
Perhaps the most damaging image appears to show one soldier smiling as he lifts the head of a dead, bloodied Afghan man.
One of the soldiers being court martialled over the murder of the three Afghan civilians has already announced his intention to plead guilty to murder charges, The Wall Street Journal reported.
The publication of the pictures by the paper, which says they are just three of 4000 it has obtained, is a public relations nightmare for the US army which is still recovering from the fall-out from the shocking Abu Ghraib pictures from Iraq published five years ago.


In their statement, the US army said the photographs depicted "actions repugnant to us as human beings and contrary to the standards and values of the United States Army".

The actions portrayed in these photographs remain under investigation and are now the subject of ongoing US court-martial proceedings, in which the accused are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

source WARNING! GRAPHIC AND DISTURBING IMAGES CONTAINED IN ARTICLE!!!

[Armistead]

The photo doesn't bother me, murder would, if it were outright. We've killed thousands. Soldiers all through war take photographs and often smile and do dumb things. It's the nature of war, to show yourself a hardened killer. I'm sure some get to where they enjoy it or feel good about it, why others are posing for friends back home.

I never felt good that we charge soldiers with murder, although I understand it. They're placed in such terrible circumstances and some go off the deep end.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Armistead

The photo doesn't bother me

I put that in there to warn people that may be offended by graphic images, just a heads-up, is all.

murder would, if it were outright.

It could well be, in this case. Too early to say ofc.

Soldiers all through war take photographs and often smile and do dumb things.

That may also be the case here.

It's the nature of war, to show yourself a hardened killer. I'm sure some get to where they enjoy it or feel good about it, why others are posing for friends back home.

Like a big game trophy hunter, parading 'a la foot on the kill, chest out' type.
That also seems to be the case here.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Armistead

The photo doesn't bother me, murder would, if it were outright. We've killed thousands. Soldiers all through war take photographs and often smile and do dumb things. It's the nature of war, to show yourself a hardened killer. I'm sure some get to where they enjoy it or feel good about it, why others are posing for friends back home.

That most certainly is not the nature of war, or at least it shouldn't be, and feeling good about killing civilians is never acceptable, even if they might be the enemy.

I've witnessed my share of unnecessary civilian casualties. Some were justifiable as unintentional collateral damage. Others were definitely not; the result of poorly trained soldiers shooting out of fear or lack of discipline or sheer hate. You do not fire on civilians or risk hitting civilians unless they present a clear threat. Not a possiblethreat. Not what you think might be a threat in a moment of panic. A clear threat. You don't pull that trigger unless you are absolutely goddamn sure that your fire does not needlessly endanger innocents, even if it means endangering yourself. That's what being a good soldier is.

I never felt good that we charge soldiers with murder, although I understand it. They're placed in such terrible circumstances and some go off the deep end.

Then they shouldn't be soldiers in the first place. I have no pity for men who voluntarily swear an oath to serve honorably and then turn around and knowingly gun down civilians. That's not soldiery, that's barbarism, and I don't care why they did it or what circumstances they were faced with. Doubly true in such a low-intensity combat environment. Disgraces to the uniform, every one of them.

[Skybird]

The difference between murder and war:

In war you do the killing that you must, with a determined mind.

In a case of murder, you enjoy it, and do not mind wether the kill you did had to be done, or not.

[Ducimus]

The only thing that bothers me, is the stain this incident puts on us. Naturally they have to show those two dumbasses service photos with our flag behind them.

I wonder if this is partially a result of lowered recruitment standards. It's my understanding the Army will take just about anyone these days.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

The only thing that bothers me, is the stain this incident puts on us. Naturally they have to show those two dumbasses service photos with our flag behind them.

I wonder if this is partially a result of lowered recruitment standards. It's my understanding the Army will take just about anyone these days.

I'm with you there. Part of this mission for the last 10 years was to supposedly win the hearts and minds of the locals. Yes, a lot of these service personnel are young enough to effectively be kids, but we have seen repeated behavior that runs contrary to the stated goals of the mission.

I would also agree with the logic of the lowered recruitment standards. We're fighting two wars in the region, and the army and marine corps are probably desperate for bodies. As such, you're likely going to end up with a higher percentage of yahoos than you normally would.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

The only thing that bothers me, is the stain this incident puts on us. Naturally they have to show those two dumbasses service photos with our flag behind them.

I agree completely.

I wonder if this is partially a result of lowered recruitment standards. It's my understanding the Army will take just about anyone these days.

These days? These days!? Army recruitment requisites have always been lousy in this nation. Even in the recent past the Army accepted people who scored a 30 out of 99 (or somewhere thereabouts) on the ASVAB. In case you're not familiar with it, the ASVAB is just about the easiest standardized test ever made, and scoring a 30 on it places you just a step ahead of people who score a 15 or below and are legally unfit for military service. And there are waivers for people who score below a 30! Even my own Marine Corps, which I immensely proud of, allows ASVAB waivers and drug waivers, amongst other things.

The goal of these measures is not to produce good soldiers, but rather to ensure a steady supply of people stupid enough to perform basic tasks or willingly serve as infantry, but not so stupid that they are incapable of following orders. Then we send these same people into a culturally volatile environment and expect them to exercise sufficient discretion. And we wonder why incidents like this happen

IMO, we need to re-think the structure of our military from the ground up. What we are doing now is the national equivalent of hiring McDonalds employees. If we are to perform our assumed role as the leader of the free world we must have troops capable of representing that role. That means recruiting the best our society has to offer, or at least not the worst. The most efficient way to do that is to use PMCs. PMCsarethe private sector that steals the best recruits. Why not allow them and emulate them?

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

These days? These days!? Army recruitment requisites have always been lousy in this nation.

Yes i know. What i'm referring to, is they lowered them EVEN FURTHER in the last 5 to 8 years, if you believe that's even possible.

In case you're not familiar with it, the ASVAB is just about the easiest standardized test ever made, and scoring a 30 on it places you just a step ahead of people who score a 15 or below and are legally unfit for military service.

I scored an 98 in Mechanical.

IMO, we need to re-think the structure of our military from the ground up. What we are doing now is the national equivalent of hiring McDonalds employees. If we are to perform our assumed role as the leader of the free world we must have troops capable of representing that role.

It comes down to this man. We either hire McDonald's to represent our nation, or we reinstate the draft. The people with the mental caliber we'd want to represent us, are either:

a.) Too few in number in terms of who's willing to volunteer.
b.) Joined the Air Force.
c.) have no interest in serving in the military.

The most efficient way to do that is to use PMCs. PMCsarethe private sector that steals the best recruits. Why not allow them and emulate them?

For some reason, i find myself furrowing my brow a little at the idea of hiring mercenaries to represent our nation overseas.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Yes i know. What i'm referring to, is they lowered them EVEN FURTHER in the last 5 to 8 years, if you believe that's even possible.

Yeah, I know that's possible, hence my argument for a need to change the system.

I scored an 98 in Mechanical.

Outstanding However, that does not qualify you for a combat role. I think I scored an 88 or something in mechanical.

It comes down to this man. We either hire McDonald's to represent our nation, or we reinstate the draft. The people with the mental caliber we'd want to represent us, are either:

a.) Too few in number in terms of who's willing to volunteer.
b.) Joined the Air Force.
c.) have no interest in serving in the military.

You're making my point for me. The problem is that the people who are incentivized by (c) are not being incentivized by the military. Something needs to change. The recruiting pool is not being drawn from the proper source. You may disagree with my proposition that "mercenaries" should be used but we are agreed upon the fact that something is wrong, yes? If you have a better solution I'd be willing to consider it, but given the consistent inefficiency of the US military-industrial complex I am curious as to what miracle cure you might suggest outside privatization.

For some reason, i find myself furrowing my brow a little at the idea of hiring mercenaries to represent our nation overseas.

Naturally. I thought the same way myself at one point. The very term "mercenaries" invokes distrust and suspicion. What happens if they suddenly switch allegiance? However, this is not the case with modern "mercenaries". Today, they are private military corporations. Everything they do is noted not only by the market, but by the governments they serve. Changing sides is bad for business.

What is not bad for business is hiring combat veterans or experienced civilian techs and immediately discarding those who don't live up to expectations. PMCs are judged by results rather than intent. Where the government can unintentionally kill thousands of civilians to no effect, companies like Blackwater are forced to reorganize and even restructure because of a few civilian casualties.

[jumpy]

It's a throw away comment, but - you teach young men to kill, give them the tools and the motivation, psyche them up, like a tightly wound spring, then put them in a place where you need confirmation of the enemy before you can shoot him... sorry and all that, but what do you expect from young men trained to kill?

I know there's orders and discipline and all of that good stuff (it's ok to kill when you have 'orders'), but seriously, did anyone expect at least a small percentage of servicemen to only be all like 'milk and cookies, ma' and not the killers they've been indoctrinated to be?

As I said, it's a throw away comment, and is not representative of many military personnel, but this should come as no surprise, and when you consider some of the video footage floating about and commentary by former servicemen, it's seems easy to understand why iraqi or afghan lives are sometimes regarded as cheap.

I don't care what you say, for most people, killing another human being is not something they are prepared or willing to do, except perhaps under the most extreme personal circumstances. That's why you have to instil discipline in to your troops, so they'll obey orders and kill when told to - small wonder that kind of re-education creates more than it bargained for in some individuals.
No mistake about it, though the army does many other things besides, the front line infantryman is a tool to kill other human beings, just like the weapon he carries, morality aside, that's his job when ordered, end of story.

Not digging at any of you squaddie folks, it's just how I see it; perhaps my 'orly' sentiment is more directed at the false sense of shock in the media in cases like these - shock from a pack of hyenas in the press salivating over a story, be it about something like this, or the grandstanding of 'invasion iraq'. The only difference is the spin and what it means to us/them at the time.

[Platapus]

These two deserve a court martial where the evidence can be presented and evaluated.

If they are guilty, they need to be punished
If they are not guilty, they need to be released.

[Feuer Frei!]

It's not only the US Army that is in hot water over needlessly killing civilians:

A DATE has been set for the court-martial of two Australian soldiers over a night-time operation that left six Afghan civilians dead. Defence Minister Stephen Smith said pre-trial directions for two of three soldiers charged over the matter would be held in Sydney soon, ahead of a court-martial on July 11.
A third soldier will face a general court-martial.
Charges against the three commandos range from manslaughter to a failure to follow orders on February 12, 2009 in Oruzgan province.
The night raid on a residential compound in the country's south left six people dead, including five children.
Director of Military Prosecutions Brigadier Lyn McDade made the unprecedented decision to charge the three soldiers, provoking an outcry in defence circles.
Historically, any such decision was made by authorities who are part of the military command.


SOURCE

[Penguin]

The first of the US soldiers received his sentence: 24 years. Apparently he got "only" 24 because he cut a deal.
Source

"I don't know if I will ever be able to answer those questions," he said, adding that he believes he "wasn't fully prepared for the reality of war as it was being fought in Afghanistan."

What do the vets, who have been there, think about his statement? Have the preparations and the training been sufficent, especially in regard of the unconventional warfare which takes place over there?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Penguin

The first of the US soldiers received his sentence: 24 years. Apparently he got "only" 24 because he cut a deal.
Source


What do the vets, who have been there, think about his statement? Have the preparations and the training been sufficent, especially in regard of the unconventional warfare which takes place over there?

While in no way can I excuse his conduct, I would like to know what his chain of command did/didn't do. Where were his NCO's?