Medal for 'courageous restraint' plan get mixed review from troops

[darrels joy]

Medal for 'courageous restraint' plan get mixed review from troops

By: Sara A. Carter
National Security Correspondent
May 7, 2010


A proposal to grant medals for "courageous restraint" to troops in Afghanistan who avoid deadly force at a risk to themselves has generated concern among U.S. soldiers and experts who worry it could embolden enemy fighters and confuse friendly forces.

Lt. Col. Edward Sholtis, a spokesman for Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who commands NATO forces in Afghanistan, said that no final decision has been made on the award, which is the brainchild of British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter.

"The idea is being reviewed at Headquarters ISAF," Sholtis said. "The idea is consistent with our approach. Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians. ... That restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those seen in combat actions."

However, professor Jeffrey F. Addicott, a former senior legal adviser to the Green Berets and director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio, said "It's an absolutely outrageous proposal to our fighting men.

"The implication of this award is that we do not engage in war fighting that is appropriate," Addicott said. "They're sending a chilling message to our troops that we are not complying with the law of armed conflict. It's a propaganda victory for our enemies."

Sholtis disputed that the award would limit troops' ability in the battlefield.

"We absolutely support the right of our forces to defend themselves," he said. "Valuing restraint in a potentially dangerous situation is not the same thing as denying troops the right to employ lethal force when they determine that it is necessary."

The medals proposal is consistent with NATO rules of engagement aimed at reducing civilian casualties in Afghanistan as a way to win the support of the populace. But some soldiers say rewarding "restraint" while risking their own lives is a troubling concept.

The directives "are confusing and the mixed messages from command is making it more difficult for us to defend ourselves," said a U.S. Army soldier in Afghanistan.

A U.S. Marine captain who has served in Iraq, said that he understands the intentions of the award but believes "it's just a bad idea." He said, "They teach us not to second-guess our decisions in dangerous situations. When people second-guess themselves they can be putting lives at risk."

Some soldiers shrugged at the proposal. "It's good, but just like with valorous medals, guys are going to do the right thing because it is the right thing," said Army Lt. Joseph Cooper said. "I think our year in Maiwand [Afghanistan] has shown that in frightening and confusing moments the U.S. soldier will consistently make the right choice time after time."

But other soldiers saw the medal proposal as a reinforcement of troubling rules of engagement. "Unfortunately, we are being reduced to a police force," said another U.S. soldier. "There are troops that never leave Bagram or Kandahar airfield. ... Maybe if they left us all on base and never sent us out to confront the enemy, we could all be honored [for] valor."



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/world/Medal-for-_courageous-restraint_-plan-get-mixed-review-from-troops-93007014.html#ixzz0nHouywVk

[Richard Hambley]

Why not let this British Major General Nick Carter walk point for our guys for a few months out in no man's land and see if he still feels the same way. What ever happened to our old motto of "always use a sledge hammer to kill an ant" ? That is what those primitive Afghan cave dwellers will really understand.

[revwardoc]

That proposal reminds me of that scene in Band of Brothers and Operation Market/Garden. The paratroopers spotted a German tank hiding behind the corner of a house and told a Brit tank commander about it but he refused to fire because he was given orders to avoid unnecessary damage to civilian property, and he didn't even get the chance to regret his decision.

The same thing applies here. I'm not a combat veteran but common sense tells me that the first rule of war is, there are no rules. Just kill them before they kill you.

[darrels joy]

‘Courageous Restraint’ in action: U.S. pilots find it hard not to respond when fellow soldiers are under attack

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
05/27/10 8:12 AM EDT

ABC News reporter Martha Raddatz was allowed to fly in an Air Force F-15E fighter jet on a combat mission in Afghanistan. The plane was loaded with 500-pound bombs and ready to protect coalition forces on the ground. But the guiding principle of the mission, Raddatz writes, was to exercise “courageous restraint,” that is, to not fire at the enemy if there were the possibility that civilians might be hurt or if buildings might be damaged — even if that meant that American or coalition forces were in great danger.

“Sometimes not firing can be tough,” Raddatz writes. “Pilots say it’s hard to watch their fellow soldiers on the ground taking fire.”

But that’s what they do, under orders from top American commanders. On this mission, when a French officer on the ground requested a bomb be dropped on the enemy, the U.S. pilot said no, opting for strafing instead because it would be safer for those on the ground — except, of course, for the coalition forces. From Raddatz’s account:

Our mission was to provide close air support and “over watch” for 600 French troops on patrol in Kapisa Province.

The pilot, Col. Joe Beissner, has flown about 500 combat hours. He told me one of the things stressed again and again in the briefings, is to look out for collateral damage, namely for civilian casualties. But the air crews go out of their way to not only avoid hitting civilians, but also take care to avoid hitting property.

“Our primary issue that we discuss with our ground commander is how do we establish the positive identification of the target,” said Beissner, who is vice commander of the 455th Air Expeditionary Wing. “Once that’s complete, we next ask is there any civilians or any potential of civilians being in the area of the weapons, and then we ask is there any potential for collateral damage.”

But in this war, making sure you kill the enemy — and no one else — can take far more discipline and even courage, as we would soon find out. In fact Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who is the commander in Afghanistan, calls this discipline,
“Courageous Restraint.” It means even if someone on the ground is in trouble, you have to make sure you know what your target is and that you do your best not to hurt innocent civilians.

Sometimes not firing can be tough. Pilots say it’s hard to watch their fellow soldiers on the ground taking fire.

“We have to use restraint when it’s tough,” Col. Jack Briggs said. “We’re listening to these kids on the ground, and they’re taking fire.”

When the mission began, there was little action. But after an in-flight refueling, Raddatz writes, things “took an urgent turn.”

The French air controller, called a JTAC for Joint Terminal Air Controller, who is on the ground with the French troops, says they have come under small arms fire and had a rocket propelled grenade launched at them.

“We have a bad guy with a weapon moving to the northeast!” he yells.

The JTAC does not hesitate. He asks the fighter jets to drop a 500 pound bomb, or GBU 38: “I request an attack at 340 degrees … in the treeline. …Confirm you guys are still taking effective fire.”

“They are very close … imminent attack,” he continues. “We just see one more RPG on that location. I request one GBU 38.”

But we can see from the air that a school is nearby and dropping a bomb would cause significant damage and possible loss of life. The aircraft recommends strafing, an extremely low-level attack using the jet’s powerful 20 millimeter machine gun. It’s much less likely to cause collateral damage. The French JTAC gives the go-ahead.

“You are clear, hot; clear, hot,” he yells.

The lead fighter jet dives toward the treeline and sprays it with bullets. An eruption of dust can be seen on the screen and below us, but the French ground controller is not satisfied.

“I request re-attack with one GBU, to the north 20 meters … north to south … one GBU, attacking 3-4-0,” he yells.

“Negative, that is close to the building,” we hear the lead F-15 reply. “The school to the south is too close for a GBU.” The American crews of the fighter jets sound frustrated. “They sure are antsy to drop some bombs on friendlies,” they say over the radio.

But the fighter jets coordinate with the French for a second strafing run. The fighter crew asks the JTAC to confirm that hostiles are still in the treeline. After they confirm where the strike should hit, 20 millimeter bullets pound into the treeline again. (The jet is armed with more than 500 rounds).

The enemy fire stops. The JTAC requests that our jets continue to scan for possible “squirters” — insurgents who may have escaped.

To watch Raddatz’s report, go here

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...#ixzz0pBG25Bnk