Comments on: The End of Snipers http://www.captainsjournal.com/2007/09/25/the-end-of-snipers/ News & Commentary on Warfare, Policy and Counterterrorism Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:08:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Herschel Smith http://www.captainsjournal.com/2007/09/25/the-end-of-snipers/#comment-22912 Herschel Smith Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:06:42 +0000 http://www.captainsjournal.com/2007/09/25/the-end-of-snipers/#comment-22912 Well, let me parse my response carefully (or try to keep track of the issues carefully without conflating them). Regarding the case you say is going on in "A-Stan right now," this is the subject of my previous post on General Kearney and the two U.S. snipers in Afghanistan. This article and the present one are meant to be read in tandom; they are companion articles. Now, it is a mistake to see the present article as simply saying that this sort of thing might cause morale problems. It may, but that is a sidebar issue. Look for the defense of the two snipers in A-Stan to sound something like the following: "The enemy was agitated and nervous and perceived as a danger, the local Afghanis didn't have positive control over him, and thus the kill was justified." The defense will NOT be that the man was an enemy fighter and thus the kill was justified. There is an important difference between these two arguments. Now, superimpose what we know in Iraq with this story from the Post, and we have problems. As to the morality of the program, I'll let God judge that. I wans't there. As to the legality of the program, it seems to me like the Pentagon should step up to the plate rather than running for cover. But what we learn is that the brass wants the appearance of justified kills (of course they do), and that a purely offensive posture as a sniper doesn't cut it with the present ROE. This is bad news for the future of sniping operations. Well, let me parse my response carefully (or try to keep track of the issues carefully without conflating them).

Regarding the case you say is going on in “A-Stan right now,” this is the subject of my previous post on General Kearney and the two U.S. snipers in Afghanistan. This article and the present one are meant to be read in tandom; they are companion articles.

Now, it is a mistake to see the present article as simply saying that this sort of thing might cause morale problems. It may, but that is a sidebar issue. Look for the defense of the two snipers in A-Stan to sound something like the following: “The enemy was agitated and nervous and perceived as a danger, the local Afghanis didn’t have positive control over him, and thus the kill was justified.” The defense will NOT be that the man was an enemy fighter and thus the kill was justified. There is an important difference between these two arguments.

Now, superimpose what we know in Iraq with this story from the Post, and we have problems. As to the morality of the program, I’ll let God judge that. I wans’t there. As to the legality of the program, it seems to me like the Pentagon should step up to the plate rather than running for cover.

But what we learn is that the brass wants the appearance of justified kills (of course they do), and that a purely offensive posture as a sniper doesn’t cut it with the present ROE. This is bad news for the future of sniping operations.

]]> By: fumento http://www.captainsjournal.com/2007/09/25/the-end-of-snipers/#comment-22911 fumento Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:11:25 +0000 http://www.captainsjournal.com/2007/09/25/the-end-of-snipers/#comment-22911 I think you're going a bit overboard on them. I read the full WaPo article on the baiting and, admittedly judging just by that, I think the troops' actions were both morally wrong and wrong in the sense of making enemies among the civilian populace. It's one thing to take out a known target and then plant evidence on him to shut up the authorities. But it would appear some of these people were picking up stuff the value of which they're not sure. Even if they planned to sell it to the insurgents, I think that because of the hearts and minds stuff they need to leave these people alone. Conversely, there's a case going on in A-Stan right now in which apparently the target WAS a known ringleader who just didn't happen to be armed at the time. If the Americans are convicted, THAT will be bad news. I think you’re going a bit overboard on them. I read the full WaPo article on the baiting and, admittedly judging just by that, I think the troops’ actions were both morally wrong and wrong in the sense of making enemies among the civilian populace. It’s one thing to take out a known target and then plant evidence on him to shut up the authorities. But it would appear some of these people were picking up stuff the value of which they’re not sure. Even if they planned to sell it to the insurgents, I think that because of the hearts and minds stuff they need to leave these people alone.

Conversely, there’s a case going on in A-Stan right now in which apparently the target WAS a known ringleader who just didn’t happen to be armed at the time. If the Americans are convicted, THAT will be bad news.

]]>