It probably is not spelled out in US doctrine, although Spiny Norman said it was part of his Danish Army (no joke intended, I think this is what it is called) training. It was not part of my training to do that. It MAY be spelled out in Special Forces manuals, but I have none to reference at the moment.
Training cannot cover all the bases, all of the possible eventualities of combat. Mission Orders, no matter how detailed, only work if the enemy is kind enough to be where you want him to be and do what you want him to do, something they tend to avoid doing. Part of my training DID include “No Good Answer” scenarios to develop these judgement skills, and there were discussions afterward to describe the reasons behind decisions. The “School Book Solution” is not a term that was used to talk about a good decision. A lot of things go from Black and White to Shades of Grey as soon as you have dirt under your boots instead of pavement, and unlike the former Soviet Army, ingenuity and creativity are respected traits in the US Armed Forces (within reason).
As for the guy dying before he was found, technically it should be looked into, but #1) it probably wouldn’t be, and #2) the intent of the leader of that squad would weigh heavily in any decision to pursue it, in my opinion. This smacks of the Blue Wall of Silence, or whatever the term was, and I agree, but I would guess this would weigh heavily on the minds of those involved, and no more. If everyone tried to do their best while still fulfilling the mission, and the guy died, nobody is going to hang, in my opinion.
Monty, I am with you 100% on that GusNSpot thing. I have no idea where that comes from or why, but I trust that you are telling the truth about your military service, and that whatever details you have not mentioned are irrelevant to this discussion, or any discussion unless you purposely misrepresent yourself, which I have NOT seen.
Oh, Gus is probably just peeved because I’m not impressed by him. Folks with weak egos get that way. At least that’s my best guess and a guess is all it is.
You know, if one wanted to temporarily incapacitate someone, if you had your first aid kit handy or a properly equipped medic, you might just give him a syrette or 2 of morphine. That would probably give you at least a 12 hour window to get the hell out of dodge.
Gus says; ANYONE who has been on active duty anywhere is a VETERAN.
So it is not a lie.
IMO, It is willful and deliberate misleading on what his everyday duties are / were.
Polishing tanks in Germany in the 70’s or whenever and taking prisoners or being in the position to have to do so is a whole different thing. But he can and does yell, “Murder” at those who ask what about real life situations. Yepper, I think he is being dishonest.
Monty says;
I was not in Germany. My Son was, as a scout.
Now, tell me Monty, what did you actually do while in that dangerous place? Bwhahahahahah… cough, cough, … sorry… Served you country well? I am sure you did. I have never said you didn’t. But it sure sounds dangerous the way you state it. Bwhahahahaha… cough, cough, … sorry… This is ‘honest’? info about why you are so qualified to yell murder in the face of a COMBAT vet?
Yep I did. I paid more attention to the combat veterans who were teaching it and to the ones who were also my Sergeants in my unit who all said, "That is what the books say. This is really how it works. “I am so old that those Sergeants s were Korean combat veterans at that time.” As I have stated before about my relatives in the service, most all branches really, we be a big family, the book and combat are not all that close. And yes, bad stuff has happened and men were Court Martial over it. Some were sacrificed to the media and to cover higher-ups asses over it. As someone (combat vet) who has been there said in this train wreck, glad Monty was not in my unit.
On an aircraft carrier? This makes you more informed about the reality of PERSONAL combat and the taking of prisoners in real combat situations?
Uncle Bill says
Okay, one more time. Monty, you served your country well. I did not ever say you didn’t. I have been questioning your lack of details about what YOU have done to make you qualified to call people who were in combat “Murders” when real combat does not go by the GC most of the time and especially when the opponents do not abide by it.
I asked if Monty if he had lied to the people whom he told what his actual day to day duties were while he was in the service. Those people sure did not say anything to me about his combat experience. I am just trying to have Monty stand up and say I did this and that. I will not bring them (unaffected people) in to it. I don’t care how anny times Monty says they do not exist. well just go with the idea that Ilied about them,okay. Does not change anything.
I never said Monty lied about what he did. I did say he ‘LIED BY OMMISSION’ in never saying what he did. Being on an aircraft carrier in a combat zone and being a grunt behind the lines is two VERY different things. IMO.
I apologize for using the word liar.
You (Monty) have been most reticent about what you have done. That is all I have ever questioned once the discussion got away from the blind rules and in to the real world of actual combat.
So, I did not call him a liar, I asked if he had previously lied to to other people.
Hey, nitpicking, not truth, is the order in here right? Bwahahahahah… cough, cough… sorry…
“Untested virtue is meaningless.”
I contend that your black and white statements are BS because you have never been there.
When Tank and Ranger showed up, Monty, you did not call them ‘murders’. Why? They disagreed with you. Yeah, they have actual combat experience but you have claimed all along that YOU will never break the rules and that the rules and good Mission Orders will cover all contingencies and blah blah blah. I say they don’t. Heck, Uncle Bill, you even said they don’t.
I have gone back over these two threads and the quotes are the only ones I can find about what Monty did in the service. Nothing wrong there. They just don’t say anything. A civilian might not understand the lack of info here but having been in the military, you (UncleBill) seem to think this is a truthful way to show that a person has the proper quilfications to talk about what determines a “murder” concerning people who have been in combat. I disagree. I think that Monty does this with malice of forethought and deliberate intent.
No, I will not bring in people who have nothing to do with this. All I have asked is for Monty to say straight up, what did he do in the military. What gives him the morally superior position ? I do not see one.
Do you still know anyone on active duty who works in personnel? I have a folder that I seemed to collect as I went through the military and I don’t see “Top Secret” on it. Maybe Monty’s has it stamped on his. I don’t get that impression.
So My calling Monty for this stuff is the 100% worst thing a fellow military person can do to his comrades?
I say Monty has deliberately – by omission – and lack of information - deliberately misled the readers of this forum.
By Vic Ferrari;
I make of it that you don’t read well. So what? See above.
Yep. Monty was in the Navy for some of his military career. His ship was in a combat zone. In your opinion, does that make Monty the authority on what should happen in ground combat behind the lines by foot soldiers and make him the authority that in real life conditions that they do it BY the rules with no exceptions or that Monty should yell again and again, “MURDER”?
Glad you stand up for you fellow sailor. To bad you don’t do that for your fellow service men like Ranger and Tank. You and Monty have been prosecution witnesses for the court marital how manny times? You were in a position to give testimony? Oh, if you had ever been in combat you would have. I get it now. You were never there. Monty never was either according to his truthful statements.
Bwhahahahah, the uninformed leading the trolls of agenda
past the emotional righteous with those unaffected cheering them on.
Words of condemnation flow freely on the blood of the other’s ox
while shoes of white prance on second floor balconies.
Charge on McBeth, charge on … !!!
Liar!!! I only apoligised for the use of the word. (nitpick) I did restate it as LIES of OMMISION — Bwhahahahahha
*Originally posted by GusNSpot * I make of it that you don’t read well. So what? See above.
You seem to have retracted your claim that Monty lied about his military service, good for you. In the future, you shouldn’t make up things about people.
Yep. Monty was in the Navy for some of his military career. His ship was in a combat zone. In your opinion, does that make Monty the authority on what should happen in ground combat behind the lines by foot soldiers and make him the authority that in real life conditions that they do it BY the rules with no exceptions or that Monty should yell again and again, “MURDER”?
Who said I agree with Monty about the prisoners thing? Very few things are black and white in wartime, and the Geneva conventions leave a lot to be desired.
The only reason I posted here was to point out how low it was for you to call Monty a liar without evidence.
Glad you stand up for you fellow sailor. To bad you don’t do that for your fellow service men like Ranger and Tank.
If some scumbag had accused them of lying about their military service then I would have.
Actually, I’m retired (well, Fleet Reserve, but it amounts to the same thing).
Nope, but it sure had the information regarding the Privacy Act protection inside of it. I suppose I should be flattered that “these people” (assuming they exist) feel the need to keep a dossier on me, even if that’s illegal.
Who are those people? You’ve yet to answer that.
Search the boards and you’ll see that I’ve already said what I did.
Actually, you posited their existance in the first place. I’m just curious as to who these mysterious “those people” are.
I’m guessing you’re making them up.
Sure does, actually.
Nor did I do that.
That’s actually irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Imho, this line of thinking leads to the kinds of actions that made the leaders of the day put heads together and attempt to write some “rules of warfare”. This was and is the intent of the Geneva Conventions… to give some guidelines to those soldiers that find themselves in the real life situation. I think it defies reason to suggest that one should conduct themselves in a way that ignores the law… and right behind that, excuse the illegal act because it occurred during a “real life situation”.
So, when should a good soldier follow the law and abide by articles of the Geneva Convention? When is combat ever routine or predictable? This is precisely why the guidelines / laws are there, because in the heat of battle, soldiers may not be capable of acting in a way that is consistently humane. I would imagine that a soldier would be tempted to murder an enemy soldier that they watched kill a member of his platoon. In the heat of battle, I would imagine, this reaction would be instinctive. I do not think soldiers should act instictively . That could lead to all kinds of torture and illegal acts.
Also, for the record, I have no combat experience yet I feel that I am perfectly within my rights to share my opinion on this subject. Shouldn’t this be about discovering the truth? It seems that some people are more concerned with discrediting the opinions of others instead of presenting a convincing position. YMMV
No need, Monty. I don’t view this as defending you as much as I view it as attacking incoherent stupidity.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by jacksen9 ***
**Also, for the record, I have no combat experience yet I feel that I am perfectly within my rights to share my opinion on this subject. Shouldn’t this be about discovering the truth?
Everyone’s opinion does count jacksen9.
It seems to me that GusNSpot is more interested in discrediting Monty’s military service than discussing the point at hand.
And since I know GusNSpot is dying to find out, I slung a rifle through the god-forsaken streets of Somalia for four months, I got shot at (by bullets and rockets!) and I was involved in situations that I’m sure the drafters of the Geneva convention never imagined. (what do you do when the enemy throws old women or children in front of your convoy to make it stop so they can ambush it?) Whether that qualifies as “combat”, I have no idea.
Jacksen, a guideline is simply that. A guideline: In this situation, this is the way it that some authority prefers/suggests/recommends that you act.
A good battle plan/operational order rarely lasts 5 minutes after the first shot is fired. Situation A, which is covered quite well by guidelines, etc… can rapidly become Situation B which was not quite taken into account.
There is a difference between reacting to a situation and deciding how one will respond to a situation.
Sometimes, you have the luxury of having the time to make a well informed decision. Sometimes, in the fog of battle, all you know is that you don’t know enough to make the best decision and the time is not available to gather that information. The only thing you really know is if you don’t do something right now you’ll certainly be dead.
My Opinion: Nobody knows how they will react in combat until they’ve been there. Nobody who has been in one battle/fight knows what they will do in the next one. Yes, you have the right to have an opinion and to express it. I understand you’re a reservist. Army? Maybe you can understand it this way… in matters of combat and what one should do, I’d value the opinion of one buck private with a Combat Infantryman Badge over the opinions of a platoon of staff sergeants with Expert Infantryman Badges, jump wings and Ranger Flashes.
I agree with your analogy. I know in the work that I do, I get pretty frustrated by people who sit around a table and “make policy” instead of “making sense”. Also, theory on the drawing board take a whole new form when it is operationalized. Still, I think there should be rules of warfare and they should be adhered to. I think most international law is yet to be written. It seems that as we live in a more global world we are seeing more need for international law. I think the U.S. generally follows the law when convenient. When it suits our purpose to do otherwise, we do. In the long run, this will delay meaningful progress in all areas… trade and warfare.
As for my service record… nothing exciting. I was thinking I was doing something when I survived summer camp at Fort Hood. I had the great privilege of serving with several good folks that saw combat in Panama and a few that had spent some time in S. Korea. And yes, time in these hot spots makes them more credible. However, “They serve also who only stand and wait”.
BTW… thanks to you and all who have sacrificed in one way or another to serve this nation.
pv
Can’t agree with this for a couple of reason, Ranger. One: how likely is it that the PV1 will have combat experience and the SSG won’t? For another: the PV1 could decide that he’d rather follow his own orders instead of the NCO’s order. “Should do” is a matter of training in what’s supposed to be done.