Actually, Coldy, there is.
Leave No Man Behind. It’s a rule.
I’m aware of that rule, E-Sabbath. But if you’re outside an Iraqi city that’s about to fall in days anyway (assuming for the sake of the argument that the Fedayeen were still in town, which seems to be in dispute), do you send in a team to unearth bodies now, or do you wait a few days until the town is safe® to get to the bodies?
And as an aside: how strictly is the “leave no man behind”-rule adhered to, in cases of severe danger? Surely, you won’t get courtmarshalled for leaving a body behind when you’re running for your life?
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think equipping a portion of the rescue forces with blanks would be absolutely frigging brilliant. Grab a quick can of paint and paint the muzzle cap black and arm a small percentage of the rescue group with blanks. They aren’t exactly sure what they’ll be up against, but they do know this is a hospital, not an enemy base. There may or may not be enemy troops inside, but there will absolutely, definitely be civilians. Not just any civilians, doctors and nurses, critical civilian infrastructure providers. You have to have lethal capability in case there are soldiers in there, but firing a few blanks is a pretty good way to get the civilians to drop and cover. The guys with the live ammo hold back until they see a legit target.
Remember, this was a rescue, not a combat sortie. The hospital was NOT a combat zone and blanks to lay down “supressing” fire with and make the civilians hit the deck without actually running the risk of killing some of the undoubtedly far too few native medical care providers seems absolutely frigging brilliant if that is what they did. It isn’t like they would ALL have blanks. A fair number would have live ammo and would rotate to the front if resistance were encountered. In the meantime they’re protecting civilian lives and doing the rescue with a minimum of danger to themselves(by making everyone duck and cover there is less traffic in the hallways and they already know where they’re going thanks to Mohammed) and a minimum to the staff of the hospital.
Enjoy,
Steven
Lets take a look at this. Say it took eight hours to plan this mission (not unreasonable). Like I said before, Special Forces do NOT go in half-speed, they go in like they are expecting resistance, with overwhelming force and causing confusion and fear. That’s how they do it. Shock and Awe on a smaller, more intimate scale. The intel on no Fedayeen Saddam in the area was a day old. Did that doctor who told them there were no Fedayeen around then turn around and beg the Fedayeen behind the wall not to shoot his children? Or did he himself report to Fedayeen Secret HQ with this nugget of info to plan an ambush? There is a very small, yet legitimate possibility that this type of thing could have happened, and if there is even a 10% chance of an ambush, you do NOT walk in with blanks.
They go in fast and furious, secure the area, position observation posts on the perimeter, and ascertain there are no bad guys inside the perimeter THEMSELVES. Maybe takes ten minutes. If they met resistance, they get the live POW and get out (to address your aside). BUT THEY DID NOT MEET RESISTANCE. They got the live POW out and gone, then their plans change from a snatch-and-grab to a calmer recovery effort. I understand they were there for quite some time (four hours in the Toronto story).
Nobody’s life was in danger when they dug up the other bodies. They got a mission order modification to get those soldier’s remains while they were there.
And Mtgman, your lack of military experience or understanding is dramatically displayed by that post. That plan is asinine. You protect civilian lives by not shooting them. Flash Bangs subdue them quite nicely without bloodshed.
Guilty as charged. If there is anyone less suited to all things military than me I can’t imagine who it would be. Still I can’t see where I said it was part of the plan to shoot civilians(the guys with blanks would be doing the shooting and getting people to scatter). Could you re-post the place where I suggested shooting live ammo outside of the point where actual combatants(meaning Iraqi military who may or may not still be in the hospital) appear? Please?
Enjoy,
Steven
You must be new here. After all, us long-time december-watchers can guess that, if faced with such a tactic, december will simply smear the contradictory blog as “propaganda from the extreme left,” then handwave it away.
I did not say that you suggested anything of the sort, your reading comprehension skills may be above your military IQ, but perhaps not top of the class, either.
Perhaps my point would have been more clear if I hard written “It is best to not fire your weapon AT ALL, even with blanks, unless there is a distinct enemy target. You can accomplish the goal of getting people down and out of your way with Flash Bangs and verbal and physical commands. In the practice of not shooting at civilians AT ALL, their lives are protected”.
Clear?
Mtgman: To simplify: Brandon Lee, son of Bruce Lee, and heir to his legacy, was killed by a pistol loaded with blanks. It’s still got gunpowder.
I have mentioned Flash Bangs a few times without elaborating on what they are. They are also known as “Stun Grenades”, and produce a very intense flash of white light, accompanied by a thunderous boom (about 2.5 million candlepower, and 175 decibels at five feet), designed to stun the targets into momentary confusion and submission, allowing an invading force to gain the advantage and sort out the situation without facing organized resistance. They can injure or even kill if they detonate in someone’s hand, under someone or very near a person, but they are classified as Non-Lethal.
What’s a Flash Bang?
:dubious: Ok, how the hell does one misinterpret “You protect civilian lives by not shooting them.” as anything other than a reubttal to a plan which would have entailed shooting civilians?**
Ah, I see. Thanks for dumbing it down for me. I can clearly see how the two statements are identical and any misunderstanding must be my own failure. I appreciate you pointing it out in such a polite manner.**
:dubious: Ok, an assumption on your part that your audience knows the properties of “Flash Bangs” and their typical use and somehow confusion on our part is still our own fault, is that about it? Verbal commands may be inadequate, we’ve got a language barrier here. With embedded journalists along for the ride the physical “commands” may end up spun as brutality. Plugging the barrels(and thereby avoiding the possibility of the type of accidents which cost Mr Lee his life) and firing blanks to produce the same type of crowd-control effect as a “Flash Bang” seemed eminently reasonable. It also fit the facts as reported by the article of the eyewitness reports claiming that “Blanks” were used.
Now is there any reason you can think of that your knowledge of military ordinance and procedures(which, if you think about it, you will surely admit is not universal, and as you have acknowledged when you posted an explanation of the properties and use of “Flash Bangs”) couldn’t have been shared without the condescending attitude? Or was it personal and it was only me that would have gotten such a reply? If this is the case, please let me know what it is I have done to earn such scorn for a simple misunderstanding.
Enjoy,
Steven
Well, because you’re now in the range of bad action movie conspiracy. Clearly, they weren’t using the blank adapter. Therefore, the rifles would only fire one round before jamming.
So they must have plugged the barrels. Which, interestingly, is exactly the part of the gun that, if I recall correctly, killed Brandon Lee, propelled by the gunpowder in the blank. Not to mention that plugged barrels are not part of standard military gear. Or Special Ops standard gear. Plus the guns would then be useless in case of things going wrong. Also, they’d still only fire one round. Flash-bang grenades would be the more logical choice, as they are standard issue.
In short, you’re violating occams razor. Which is a good way to foul up a military operation.
It’s more likely that either they fired in the air or only used flash-bangs.
Hindsight. 20/20. Do the math.
The prog. did not say the rescue wasn’t needed. It wasn’t staged as in all the people were put there intentionally.
The prog. just said that the troops went in way to heavy with a camera to make good TV and reports of Lynch being tortured, shot and not being given medical care were incorrect.
Lump me in with those who:
- Really don’t believe the troops would go in with blanks
- Didn’t find the evidence presented for the above convincing
- Don’t see anything wrong with a bit of stage management to achieve propoganda/morale victories.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/19/sprj.irq.bbc.lynch.dod/index.html
Says the pentagon did not ever say she was shot and it was the Washington Post and other media who made up the story. What is clear is that someone is guilty of making up stuff. Whether it is the Pentagon or the Washington Post they should bear responsibility
Either do I but I also don’t see what’s wrong with calling attention to it after the fact.
Why should I have seen what I’m not talking about? I’m not talking about the documentary, but about the notion itself. (Note that the subject of my topic sentence was “the notion”.) Because the documentary is based entirely upon the notion itself, the documentary — whatever it contains — is on the same level as the documentaries about moon landing hoaxes. And I haven’t seen them either.
You have said that it stinks to high heaven. Indeed it does.
Libertarian a doctor at the scene said “blanks”. The doctor may be wrong but the docu. was just showing the witnesses interview. The docu. also asked the US military spokesman and a Dept. of Defence spokesman about these things but they wouldn’t answer anything about the operation. Why does this put the prog. in the same world as moon hoaxes?
I’ll join you there. Must be a sub-division of the Imperialist Oppressor’s Club.
Of course, it is also useful to point out the more dramatic qualities of the event may not have been fully factual.
Of course, the mere issue of the blanks seems to be something of a red herring insofar as I understand it, it’s not central to the BBC coverage and implication that the rescue was somewhat staged.
Eh… so hopefully this will do us the service of sparing us an over-the-top syrupy “Jessica” movie, which would be a win-win for all concerned I think.