Rollingstone.com: The Kill Team, How U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan murdered innocent civilians and mutilated their corpses – and how their officers failed to stop them.

[Predicto]

I understand your POV. I really do. But consider the soldiers/leadership scenario before stating what did/didn't should/shouldn't happen....

But imagine being in country, boots on the ground. You have insurgents, by the very definition of insurgents, blending into the very fabric of everyday life in Afghanistan. You take your men out on patrol several times a day, and have experienced mass casualties over the course of multiple deployments. You don't trust the locals, even the ones you have dealt with on a daily basis, because IEDs end up going off all around the villages, and ambushes are executed all around the villages, yet the villagers swear there are no Taliban/Al Qaeda anywhere around. Your men are losing arms, losing legs and dying on an almost daily basis. You hear rumors/stories that someone in your unit killed a civilian. What do you do? A cursory check to see if the rumors are true. Soldier swears the civilian threw a grenade. Civilians swear your soldier murdered the civilian. Who do you trust? The guys that you have been protecting and have been protecting you? The guys that have come to be like children/brothers to you? People you would literally die to protect? Or the civilians that you know are harboring/providing material support to insurgents trying to kill you.

These are not simple questions to answer. There is no line between right and wrong like it seems to be portrayed as in the Tailgate. War is hell. Lines are blurred. Legality and morality lines are not nudged, but moved drastically.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but these arguments are the same ones that are brought up whenever ANY close knit group covers up for one of its own and ignores wrongdoing in front of their very face. This is what police officers always say when a rogue cop gets outed, and they suddenly all admit that they knew he was a bad cop, but he was "one of us" and "we have to protect our own guys" and "why are you taking the side of the bad guys instead of us good guys?"

And yes, the article is sensationalistic, but it is a sensational story. I don't think that all news that makes "us" look bad must be whitewashed and rationalized away as much as possible. America (including its military) does best when it genuinely holds the moral high ground, when it actually holds itself to the highest of standards. Not when it just talks about it.

[PeterMP]

I understand your POV. I really do. But consider the soldiers/leadership scenario before stating what did/didn't should/shouldn't happen....

But imagine being in country, boots on the ground. You have insurgents, by the very definition of insurgents, blending into the very fabric of everyday life in Afghanistan. You take your men out on patrol several times a day, and have experienced mass casualties over the course of multiple deployments. You don't trust the locals, even the ones you have dealt with on a daily basis, because IEDs end up going off all around the villages, and ambushes are executed all around the villages, yet the villagers swear there are no Taliban/Al Qaeda anywhere around. Your men are losing arms, losing legs and dying on an almost daily basis. You hear rumors/stories that someone in your unit killed a civilian. What do you do? A cursory check to see if the rumors are true. Soldier swears the civilian threw a grenade. Civilians swear your soldier murdered the civilian. Who do you trust? The guys that you have been protecting and have been protecting you? The guys that have come to be like children/brothers to you? People you would literally die to protect? Or the civilians that you know are harboring/providing material support to insurgents trying to kill you.

These are not simple questions to answer. There is no line between right and wrong like it seems to be portrayed as in the Tailgate. War is hell. Lines are blurred. Legality and morality lines are not nudged, but moved drastically.

I stated that the ones that did the killing committed war crimes, no questions asked. But to pin this on the leadership chain above the PLT level is unfair.

Why?

Isn't it a pretty foreseeable circumstance?

Just because of the odds of having "bad apples" and not even getting into the fact that almost by definition the army is going to attract some people that are just wired differently that some people are going to do things that are illegal and wrong, including killing civilians.

It isn't like the upper leadership didn't know that there were issues in fighting insurgents and that would likely cause frustrations amongst the troops actively fighting?

Doesn't it make sense to have some sort of process in place to actively engage and try and prevent such things? Much less aggresively pursue any evidence there was such issues.

It would be one thing if there was a single point of failure, but there appears to be at least two points of failure (the father talking to people in the US, and them not doing anything).

[Koolblue13]

I was at an inner city animal shelter yesterday. Life is disposable. Be it animal or foreigner human. It's disgusting and selfish.

[Popeman38]

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but these arguments are the same ones that are brought up whenever ANY close knit group covers up for one of its own and ignores wrongdoing in front of their very face. This is what police officers always say when a rogue cop gets outed, and they suddenly all admit that they knew he was a bad cop, but he was "one of us" and "we have to protect our own guys" and "why are you taking the side of the bad guys instead of us good guys?"

And yes, the article is sensationalistic, but it is a sensational story. I don't think that all news that makes "us" look bad must be whitewashed and rationalized away as much as possible. America (including its military) does best when it genuinely holds the moral high ground, when it actually holds itself to the highest of standards. Not when it just talks about it.

I stated that the ones accused of the killings committed war crimes, and should be tried accordingly. The Army thought so as well, when they investigated after being notified by a soldier from the unit blowing the whistle. But above the PLT level, there would not be a whole lot of leadership intervention unless requested. From the article, the LT reported a killing, and the CAPT was furious that there was no weapon found. The soldiers then searched until a "weapon" was found, given that it was planted. It was planted without the direct knowledge of the LT or the CAPT. Keep in mind the CAPT is a company level individual, not PLT. He was furious an individual died with noa apparent proof tied to insurgents. Once the "weapon" was found, from the company POV the killing is justified. Companies have to rely on PLT level info. PLTs have to rely on squad level info. From all accounts in the article, the LT was in no way involved in any of the questionable killings, and had no knowledge of the planting. Yet you want him to be held accountable for not knowing?

---------- Post added March-30th-2011 at 05:59 PM ----------

Why?

Isn't it a pretty foreseeable circumstance?

Just because of the odds of having "bad apples" and not even getting into the fact that almost by definition the army is going to attract some people that are just wired differently that some people are going to do things that are illegal and wrong, including killing civilians.

It isn't like the upper leadership didn't know that there were issues in fighting insurgents and that would likely cause frustrations amongst the troops actively fighting?

Doesn't it make sense to have some sort of process in place to actively engage and try and prevent such things? Much less aggresively pursue any evidence there was such issues.

It would be one thing if there was a single point of failure, but there appears to be at least two points of failure (the father talking to people in the US, and them not doing anything).

My issue is not with indicting PLATOON level individuals. My issue is with RS basically implicating an entire company based on one squads activity.

[Spec138]

Also, though tragic, I certain do distinguish between civilians who are killed during the course of war and civilians who are murdered for entertainment. One is collateral damage and is something you HAVE to be willing to accept if you ever go to war. The other is not and should never be tolerated.

I wonder how many wars have ever been fought without war crimes occurring. IMO this kind of stuff IS part of war.

[Koolblue13]

I wonder how many wars have ever been fought without war crimes occurring. IMO this kind of stuff IS part of war.

I agree. War crimes, innocent civilians/animals being killed and our troops having physical/mental disabilities with little to no benefits are all part of War. Yet, somehow, not supporting it makes you "unAmerican" in some peoples eyes.

[Burgold]

I wonder how many wars have ever been fought without war crimes occurring. IMO this kind of stuff IS part of war.

I'd guess none, but just because it happens does not mean we should condone or accept it. It used to be the spoils of war in ye olde days that the winning army got to rape and plunder and slake their bloodlust. Today, we say no and hopefully most of the time we live up to that higher standard.

Eventually, the military stopped this and got these guys out of there. I think the question is more about who held their tongue and could or should this have been prevented sooner. I hope no one is arguing that it's cool that it happened because of the nature of war.

[Popeman38]

I wonder how many wars have ever been fought without war crimes occurring. IMO this kind of stuff IS part of war.

Read some of the first hand accounts of WWII! It is astounding to hear what went on, and ignored by media. Prying out gold teeth from living prisoners. Executions of surrendering German soldiers. Look at Iwo Jima. Hell, dropping the A bombs on Japan was seen as a humane way to prevent millions of deaths from a mainland Japan invasion.

Now, RS wants to demonize the motorcycle incident even though the rear passenger had an AK-47 and leveled it our soldiers. The IED thermal imaging? Obviously done for entertainment, and not out of the need to prevent mass casualties.

Imagery used in the story? At least half is stated as not being able to be linked to the incidents! Why are they included in the story? To paint this as an operation wide issue when in reality it is literally below the platoon level.

Murder was committed, and that falls under war crimes. The ones responsible for the acts should be held accountable. But to act like this is a widespread issue is disingenuous at best, and more likely written with mallice and ill will. I know, shocking coming from RS....

[Predicto]

Eventually, the military stopped this and got these guys out of there. I think the question is more about who held their tongue and could or should this have been prevented sooner. I hope no one is arguing that it's cool that it happened because of the nature of war.

To judge by this thread, some people actually disagree with asking the question about who held their tongue and could or should this have been prevented sooner. :whoknows:

[Popeman38]

I'd guess none, but just because it happens does not mean we should condone or accept it. It used to be the spoils of war in ye olde days that the winning army got to rape and plunder and slake their bloodlust. Today, we say no and hopefully most of the time we live up to that higher standard.

Eventually, the military stopped this and got these guys out of there. I think the question is more about who held their tongue and could or should this have been prevented sooner. I hope no one is arguing that it's cool that it happened because of the nature of war.

No one condoned it, nor accepted it. Charges have been filed. Court Martial's are/will happen. People will spend the rest of their life doing hard time in a military prison,

working 8 hours a day in manual labor. No country club sentences will be handed out. But the witch hunt desired by RS to reach the highest levels of the Pentagon is ridiculous. This is literally a dozen or so individuals out of 4000 in the 5/2 Stryker Brigade. A dozen out of the 1200 in Bravo Company. And they want to indict the entire company like it was common knowledge. The article states that at the platoon level it should have been obvious, yet the mention Bravo Company repeatedly. Why is that?

[Spec138]

double post

[Dance04]

I can't imagine how frustrating that must be for our soldiers.

They signed up for it.

And if they were mislead, then thats an entirely larger and worse issue

[Predicto]

The IED thermal imaging? Obviously done for entertainment, and not out of the need to prevent mass casualties.

Making a music video was done out of the need to prevent mass casualties?

Imagery used in the story? At least half is stated as not being able to be linked to the incidents! Why are they included in the story? To paint this as an operation wide issue when in reality it is literally below the platoon level.

Murder was committed, and that falls under war crimes. The ones responsible for the acts should be held accountable. But to act like this is a widespread issue is disingenuous at best, and more likely written with mallice and ill will. I know, shocking coming from RS....

To act like you KNOW this was not a widespread issue is also kind of disingenous. There is plenty in that story to suggest that lots of people turned a blind eye, either intentionally or unwittingly. Either way is not good.

[Burgold]

No one condoned it, nor accepted it. Charges have been filed. Court Martial's are/will happen. People will spend the rest of their life doing hard time in a military prison,

working 8 hours a day in manual labor. No country club sentences will be handed out.

I think this is a focus. The danger I read in some defenses is that it feels like they are trying to dismiss this as normal. The last thing we want is for this to be normal or to be desensitized to it. I think by and large the military is doing the right thing now.

But the witch hunt desired by RS to reach the highest levels of the Pentagon is ridiculous. This is literally a dozen or so individuals out of 4000 in the 5/2 Stryker Brigade. A dozen out of the 1200 in Bravo Company. And they want to indict the entire company like it was common knowledge. The article states that at the platoon level it should have been obvious, yet the mention Bravo Company repeatedly. Why is that?

I think it's fair to question why something took so long to be stopped and who knew, but I agree with you that casting a net over the entire platoon is uncalled for (if that's what the reporter did. I don't have the heart right now to read the article. I remember the events these guys are said to have done.) Still, if lots of people did know and it continued for a time they are guilty of something if only in their consciences. It's like the crowd that gathers around a beating and no one tries to break it up. Each witness ought to act, but mob paralysis set in and they kept waiting for someone else to act. I don't know the truth of whether that happened, but I imagine it could have. I'm just glad that these guys are put away and will face trial for their actions.

[Spec138]

Yet, somehow, not supporting it makes you "unAmerican" in some peoples eyes.

Don't get me started

I'd guess none, but just because it happens does not mean we should condone or accept it. It used to be the spoils of war in ye olde days that the winning army got to rape and plunder and slake their bloodlust. Today, we say no and hopefully most of the time we live up to that higher standard.

Eventually, the military stopped this and got these guys out of there. I think the question is more about who held their tongue and could or should this have been prevented sooner. I hope no one is arguing that it's cool that it happened because of the nature of war.

I'm not saying it's cool it happened, I even described Morlock as a murderer earlier, I was just saying that this kind of stuff is part of war and everyone knows it. When you take an average set of young men, teach them to kill and then shoot at them for a couple of months/years, it's very likely that a few in the bunch are likely to snap. I don't think there's any preventing it, though I agree it sounds like it should have been caught sooner.

Also, in my original post I was trying to point out how odd it is that these stories get so much publicity yet chatter about civilian collateral damage remains oddly quiet. While the stories in this article are sad, I don't think they are any more or less tragic than a stray missile landing on a civilian family's home. Basically that the intent shouldn't matter.

Read some of the first hand accounts of WWII! It is astounding to hear what went on, and ignored by media. Prying out gold teeth from living prisoners. Executions of surrendering German soldiers. Look at Iwo Jima. Hell, dropping the A bombs on Japan was seen as a humane way to prevent millions of deaths from a mainland Japan invasion.

Now, RS wants to demonize the motorcycle incident even though the rear passenger had an AK-47 and leveled it our soldiers. The IED thermal imaging? Obviously done for entertainment, and not out of the need to prevent mass casualties.

Imagery used in the story? At least half is stated as not being able to be linked to the incidents! Why are they included in the story? To paint this as an operation wide issue when in reality it is literally below the platoon level.

Murder was committed, and that falls under war crimes. The ones responsible for the acts should be held accountable. But to act like this is a widespread issue is disingenuous at best, and more likely written with mallice and ill will. I know, shocking coming from RS....

I agree about the motorcycle incident and don't really have a problem with the thermal thing as long as it was obvious they were planting an IED. If I personally seemed to be saying this is widespread throughout today's military, I certainly did not mean to.

[twa]

To judge by this thread, some people actually disagree with asking the question about who held their tongue and could or should this have been prevented sooner. :whoknows:

Or some of us understand the questions have already been asked repeatedly....and answered

I regard this in the same manner as I do the birther crowd,simply sensationalistic opportunism.

[Burgold]

Then we're close to the same page, Spec. I came in late on the conversation and isolation that quote had a weird vibe.

[Popeman38]

Making a music video was done out of the need to prevent mass casualties?

That is an issue? You can't tell the identities of the individuals. Trust me, when you are hunting down guys that are planting IEDs, you would be screaming "Get Some" too when the lead started raining down. They knew what they were doing, which is why they pretended to be doing nothing. Gallows humor is gallows humor. I imagine if stuff got released by nurses and doctors about what happens in the hospital when dealing with death all around you was released, the same moral outrage would be evident. To sit in a comfy office chair and comment on what these guys do/did on a daily basis and say it is black and white is asinine. You can't apply the laws of the US to Afghanistan.

To act like you KNOW this was not a widespread issue is also kind of disingenuous. There is plenty in that story to suggest that lots of people turned a blind eye, either intentionally or unwittingly. Either way is not good.

You can not turn a blind eye unwittingly. If you know, you can turn a blind eye.

It was widespread knowledge amongst the enlisted in the PLT. Anything saying otherwise is implied by the article. Enlisted tend to keep things that can get them in trouble away from senior leadership. Senior leadership tends to allow the squad level operations run autonomously. You have to in war. Micro-management results in mass casualties, cause rank sitting in tents don't comprehend on the ground activity. They base operations on paper reports, not experience. This is not as simple as saying "the squad leader knew, therefore the PLT SGT and PLT Leader should have known, and therefore the CO CDR should have know, and therefore the BN CDR should have known, therefore the BDE CDR should have known, therefore the DIV CDR should have known"... It ain't that simple. If a fire team member kills a man outside of the line of sight of the fire team leader and squad leader, they will most likely take the soldier at his word. You have to, otherwise you end up getting yourself or someone else killed. You have to trust every member to handle their responsibility and they have to trust you to handle yours, otherwise something gets missed because you are trying to do someone else's job. In an office, BFD; in war, someone(s) going to die.

[NoCalMike]

This story has to make me wonder, were these just a group of youngsters that were turned sour by war, or is this another example of the military needing to lower it's standards as to who it is allowing into it's establishment because America continues to extend itself into more and more foreign countries and conflicts.

I didn't really get any vibe from this story that these were depressed and shattered souls, casualties of the fog of war. Nope, not these guys, the article makes it seem like a handful of them were simply bored with their mission because it didn't involve enough "action" so they devised plans to create some action and it hurt that they had a person in charge more than happy to facilitate. And as usually goes with this type of situation, it will be blamed on the lowest members of the totem poll as possible, covered up as much as possible so we all learn as little about what really happened as can be.

Just sick.

[Predicto]

That is an issue? You can't tell the identities of the individuals. Trust me, when you are hunting down guys that are planting IEDs, you would be screaming "Get Some" too when the lead started raining down. They knew what they were doing, which is why they pretended to be doing nothing. Gallows humor is gallows humor. I imagine if stuff got released by nurses and doctors about what happens in the hospital when dealing with death all around you was released, the same moral outrage would be evident. To sit in a comfy office chair and comment on what these guys do/did on a daily basis and say it is black and white is asinine. You can't apply the laws of the US to Afghanistan. You can not turn a blind eye unwittingly. If you know, you can turn a blind eye.

I have little problem with the music video, and I will accept that it was an unnecessary addition to the RS article.

My problem was with you suggesting that RS was criticizing soldiers solely for having IED thermal imaging tapes of an attack.

You said, mockingly: "Now, RS wants to demonize the motorcycle incident even though the rear passenger had an AK-47 and leveled it our soldiers. The IED thermal imaging? Obviously done for entertainment, and not out of the need to prevent mass casualties."

You may disagree with RS's viewpoint that making a music video out of such an attack is wrong, but you didn't say that. You said the opposite. You told us that RS was criticizing soldiers for having something that prevented mass causaulties. That wasn't accurate, and it bugged me.

It was widespread knowledge amongst the enlisted in the PLT. Anything saying otherwise is implied by the article. Enlisted tend to keep things that can get them in trouble away from senior leadership. Senior leadership tends to allow the squad level operations run autonomously. You have to in war. Micro-management results in mass casualties, cause rank sitting in tents don't comprehend on the ground activity. They base operations on paper reports, not experience. This is not as simple as saying "the squad leader knew, therefore the PLT SGT and PLT Leader should have known, and therefore the CO CDR should have know, and therefore the BN CDR should have known, therefore the BDE CDR should have known, therefore the DIV CDR should have known"... It ain't that simple. If a fire team member kills a man outside of the line of sight of the fire team leader and squad leader, they will most likely take the soldier at his word. You have to, otherwise you end up getting yourself or someone else killed. You have to trust every member to handle their responsibility and they have to trust you to handle yours, otherwise something gets missed because you are trying to do someone else's job. In an office, BFD; in war, someone(s) going to die.

So nothing went wrong? Nothing should be done? Further inquiries are inappropriate?

I'm not convinced.

[PeterMP]

It was widespread knowledge amongst the enlisted in the PLT. Anything saying otherwise is implied by the article. Enlisted tend to keep things that can get them in trouble away from senior leadership. Senior leadership tends to allow the squad level operations run autonomously. You have to in war. Micro-management results in mass casualties, cause rank sitting in tents don't comprehend on the ground activity. They base operations on paper reports, not experience. This is not as simple as saying "the squad leader knew, therefore the PLT SGT and PLT Leader should have known, and therefore the CO CDR should have know, and therefore the BN CDR should have known, therefore the BDE CDR should have known, therefore the DIV CDR should have known"... It ain't that simple. If a fire team member kills a man outside of the line of sight of the fire team leader and squad leader, they will most likely take the soldier at his word. You have to, otherwise you end up getting yourself or someone else killed. You have to trust every member to handle their responsibility and they have to trust you to handle yours, otherwise something gets missed because you are trying to do someone else's job. In an office, BFD; in war, someone(s) going to die.

1. This completely ignores the fact that the father made the report to somebody in the US completely unrelated to the platoon and was essentially given the brush off.

2. I KNOW the military has multiple redundant and independent systems for doing MANY things where particular outcomes are independent on a particular person doing their job (because there are multiple redunant and independent systems). If they are fighting a "war" like this where winning requires "winning hearts and mind", and there aren't such systems in place for Afghani civilian complaints, then that is poor planning and poor leadership at the top and all the way down.

If there isn't some sort of group independent of the "fighting" force that the Afghani's can make complaints about to troop behavior that than investigate those complaints that is broadly "advertised" and accessible to the Afghani's where we have active troops than that is a failure and planning and ultimately leadership at the top.

[Madison Redskin]

The story continues to develop and new details are coming to light. It's even more appalling than I thought. I honestly think Sgt. Gibbs should be handed over to the Afghans so they can dole out justice.

[grego]

i just read the story on yahoo. as a gulf war vet, its troubling (to put it mildly) that this is happening. i support out troops 100%, but we have to be better than that.

[[[ghost]]]

Why does it matter what they've done?

They'll never pay for their misdeeds. They'll be proclaimed in public, revered even. Simply because they happened to have been born in a safer part of the World.

I'd stop and wonder how many of our Hero Soldiers were like this, but I'm afraid the number would just be depressing.

[RansomthePasserby]

];8648242']Why does it matter what they've done?

They'll never pay for their misdeeds. They'll be proclaimed in public' date=' revered even. Simply because they happened to have been born in a safer part of the World.[/quote']

It does matter what they've done, because it sounds like they're being tried for their crimes. And no, those who we know are committing atrocities won't be revered. They'll be looked down upon and punished for staining the good name of this country.