How the Surge Is Working

According to this article from the UK Independent, partially via increasing "insurgent" casualty figures through some unsavory means:

US soldiers are luring Iraqis to their deaths by scattering military equipment on the ground as "bait", and then shooting those who pick them up, it has been alleged at a court martial. The highly controversial tactic, which has hitherto been kept secret, is believed to have been responsible for the deaths of a number of Iraqis who were subsequently classified as enemy combatants and used in statistics to show the "success" of the "surge" in US forces.

……In a sworn statement, Captain Matthew Didier, the officer in charge of a sniper platoon, said: "Basically we would put an item out there and watch it. If someone found the item, picked it up and attempted to leave with the item, we would engage the individual as I saw this as a sign they would use the item against the US forces."

Capt Didier, of the 1st Battalion 501st Infantry Regiment, said members of the US military's Asymmetric Warfare Group visited his unit in January and later supplied ammunition boxes filled with "drop items" to be used " to disrupt the AIF [Anti-Iraq Forces] attempts at harming coalition forces and give us the upper hand in a fight."

Comments

[joe]

If they run, they're VC.

If they don't run, they're well-trained VC.

Ain't war hell?

[Lamar]

Dropping an item of value into the middle of the street, then shooting whoever picks it up is the best idea I've heard all day. Only militants need guns in a safe country like Iraq.

[de stijl]

Damn your quick fingers, joe!

[joe]

It's easy, de stijl.

You just don't lead 'em as much.

[Dan T]

Man, this would be so much easier if the insurgents would agree to wear uniforms.

Where is the respect for the rules of war?

[Pro Libertate]

Is this what they mean when they talk about collateral damage?

[Dan T]

joe's the kind of guy who would eat his own guts and then ask for seconds.

[Randolph Carter]

This is... kind of fucked up. Are we running sting operations with the military now?

[Loupeznik]

It would be nice to know what the items were. 155mm artillery shell would not be something valuable an average individual would be picking up. A rifle would be.

[joe]

And then, if the people in the country with a 40% unemployment rate pick up the items which have substantial value on the black market...

We liberate them.

[fyodor]

Entrapment only without a trial. Just, heh, "engagement."

If confirmed, heads should roll for this shit.

[de stijl]

Get some! Get some! Get some, get some! Yeah, YEAH! C'mon, C'mon! Get some!

Loupeznik,

From what I read yeasterday, it was det cord.

[Reinmoose]

*pukes*

[Dan T]

we would engage the individual

In a PC war, it's actually more difficult to talk about killing someone than it is to kill someone.

[VM]

hier is URKOBOLD's take.

you know, it's kinda like that scene in Red Dawn where the Ruskies set the trap by dropping supplies out of the truck.

[de stijl]

Yeasterday is like yesterday only with a yeast infection.

[JBinMO]

USA!USA!USA!

[Russ 2000]

If confirmed, heads should roll for this shit.

Look, we employ the police and DEA agents over there so we don't employ them over here.

[Terry]

It is from the UK Independent. What does that tell you?
They hate Americans in England, especially Americans in Iraq too.
IT IS FALSE.
Why are people so stupid? I really expected better from this site, which is why I got the three year, hndred dollar deal.
Damn.

[de stijl]

Terry,

Did you notice the part of the Independent's story where they mentioned they were quoting from the original story in The Washington Post from the previous day?

[Pro Libertate]

de stijl,

The Washington Post hates Americans in England, too.

[joe]

So what you're saying, Terry, is that such behavior is so atrocious, so clearly criminal and repugnant, that to falsely accuse the American military of utilizing such a tactic would be a horrendous smear upon the honor of good men.

This is obviously made up, because the behavior is so beyond the pale. It's a smear designed to provoke hatred of America, our troops, the war in Iraq, and those who've led it and determined how it would be fought, because hatred is the natural response that a decent person would have to such activities. The devious, dishonest authors of the piece made it up, knowing that such hatred and anger would be the natural reaction of people reading about it.

Have a I got that right? Is that a pretty good approximation of what you're saying?

[Guy Watching a Movie With Terr]

No, Terry, don't!

Don't go in there!

It's a trap!

[ed]

Guilty as alleged.

[Brandybuck]

The surge remains immoral regardless of its success or failure. That they're using such fucked tactics for the success makes it doubly immoral.

p.s. They hate Americans at the Washington Post too!

[joe]

Well, obviously they hate Americans at the Washington Post.

I mean, with all of their cheerleading and urging us to get into this war, and their policy of demonizing anyone who argued against it, it's pretty obvious they hate Americans.

[Warren]

joe,
How many water buffalo do you have? Are they all certified?

[de stijl]

When I was an American in England I hated most Americans in England too. I even hated myself a little.

[Douglas Gray]

One of the main areas of disagreement between the foreign press and the U.S. is who we actually kill. Our "insurgents" are often no more than "presumed insurgents" or "Maybe they're insurgents" or "a few of those we kill just might be insurgents" or "we really don't know who the hell they are, but we get paid to kill somebody"

[TrickyVic]

"""Man, this would be so much easier if the insurgents would agree to wear uniforms.

Where is the respect for the rules of war?"""

If the US doesn't like, they should go somewhere else to fight!!!

Come on Dan, be consistant!!!

[rick]

I'll bet they blow-away toe-tapping fellows also!

[JasonL]

If this turns out to be true, it is unbelievably disgusting. If it turns out not to be true, some people should feel like crap for reporting on it.

[wayne]

What would you use det cord for?

[Fluffy]

Terry, if you read the Washington Post story about this policy yesterday, here's what you would discover:

The policy surfaced in a military court because two US snipers are being charged with murder.

Apparently these snipers shot an unarmed Iraqi, and in order to cover up their crime, they put a spool of wire in his pocket.

Their superiors caught them and said, "Hey, you guys are under arrest. We know he wasn't really carrying that spool of wire!"

This of course means that according to the US military in Iraq, if you are carrying a spool of common wire in your pocket, it's OK to execute you by shooting you in the head from a concealed position. Because the crime here was planting the wire. If the wire had really belonged to the Iraqi, it would have been a righteous shoot.

The military defense lawyers [who must hate America, since they're the ones who blew the whistle on this program] said that the snipers had been ordered to bait public areas with pieces of wire [among other items], and then to shoot anyone who picked them up, and that they just got carried away and confused by the moral strangeness of the program. They dropped the wire after the shoot rather than before, in other words.

In Iraq, when someone who has been reduced to scavenging for their subsistence picks up a piece of wire in the street, it rates a bullet in the head. Because Iraq is a "sovereign country" that we "liberated".

[de stijl]

It seems like we are bound and determined to recreate the Soviet / Afghan war with us in the role of the Soviets.

[wayne]

"This of course means that according to the US military in Iraq, if you are carrying a spool of common wire in your pocket, it's OK to execute you by shooting you in the head from a concealed position. "

If it is in their pocket, how would the sniper know they had it?

[joe]

What would you use det cord for?

I'd probably sell it for cash, so I could buy my family bus tickets out of the country.

How about you, wayne. If you were an Iraqi and you saw some military equipment, what would you use it for?

Kudos, btw, for engaging the thought experiment of putting yourself in Joe Iraqi's shoes.

[wayne]

"The military defense lawyers [who must hate America, since they're the ones who blew the whistle on this program] said that the snipers had been ordered to bait public areas with pieces of wire [among other items], and then to shoot anyone who picked them up, and that they just got carried away and confused by the moral strangeness of the program. "

The defense lawyers, who are trying to win their case assert it, so it must be true?

[henry]

You know, stories like this would not be so problematic to folks if people would first put away the the irrational need to hold "the troops" above reproach. They are not above reproach--there are likely as many shitheels and dirtbags in the armed forces as anywhere else. Trying to imbue "the troops" collectively with a fucking supersized halo is positively infantile.

The cult of militarism is about the puzzling phenomena I can think of. Even lefties feel the need to give it lip service. The military is just another arm of government--its most deadly, undemocratic arm. Why should we embrace it any more than any other aspect of government? Because (supposedly) it is filled young idealists who are willingly engaged in self-sacrifice? Well, sure, there is some of that. There are also plenty of troops who just have their head up their ass ("Saddma ordered 9/11"), were looking for "excitement" against bad guys, or who made a ill-considered decision to join they now regret. In short, there is no "the troops"--it is a goddamned fiction.

Like I do for most other folks, I'll just evaluate "the troops" individually, thanks--and "the troops" engaged in the activities described above are fucking scum.

[wayne]

I am in Iraq. When I see military equipment laying on the ground, I give it wide birth.

[wayne]

To whom would you sell the det cord, Joe?

[adrian]

most f'd up article in a while here. thanks!

[wayne]

Henry,

I could not agree more.

[wayne]

"Their superiors caught them and said, "Hey, you guys are under arrest. We know he wasn't really carrying that spool of wire!"

Why would their superiors arrest them if, as you seem to believe, they (superiors included) are just a bunch of murderers?

[thoreau]

I'm with joe. If I were stuck in that chaotic place, I'd sell whatever I could find to whoever would give me enough money to get my family out. Whatever happens next would be irrelevant to me, as long as my family was safe.

That's what happens when chaos rules.

[TrickyVic]

"""If the wire had really belonged to the Iraqi, it would have been a righteous shoot."""

I disagree. There are many uses for wire. I'm for most methods that get the bad guys killed but this isn't one of them. This could attract various people for various reasons, such as something to trade for food, or resell to buy food.

"""To whom would you sell the det cord, Joe?"""

How do they know it's det cord? Ever seen it before? It looks like you could use it to tie stuff up with, which you can. One could tie their front door shut after the troops have kicked their door in.

[Fluffy]

No, Wayne, but it certainly moves the discussion from "The Independent is making shit up!" or "The Washington Post is making shit up!" to "Military personnel are making shit up!"

[wayne]

You guys are jumping to conclusions that are not warranted, I think. What a surprise!

[wayne]

Suppose the "bait" is placed in an area that is known to harbor Al Qaida?

[Fluffy]

"Why would their superiors arrest them if, as you seem to believe, they (superiors included) are just a bunch of murderers?"

Because their superiors define murder as "killing an Iraqi who wasn't really carrying wire".

This means that they do not think it's murder to kill an Iraqi who IS carrying wire.

And if the sworn testimony of defense witnesses is true, those superiors don't think it's murder to kill an Iraqi who has been BAITED into picking up wire.

See? Different definitions of murder. Those superiors are apparently not yet deranged enough to fail to regard planting evidence on a dead man as blameworthy. They're only a little deranged - enough to see baiting someone and then executing them as salutary. [Again, if the testimony about this program is true.]

[wayne]

There are lots of "strange" rules over here. For example, you don't want to be caught carrying a shovel, especially at night.

[TrickyVic]

""""I am in Iraq. When I see military equipment laying on the ground, I give it wide birth.""""

How do you know it's not an IED trap? The point of the item on the ground could be to get you to move toward the device.

[wayne]

"...to "Military personnel are making shit up!"

Military personnel who are on trial for murder. I would probably make up a story too.

[wayne]

TV,

You don't know it's not an IED. That is why you give it a wide birth. (Am I spelling birth correctly?)

[John]

I guess after you shoot a few people word will get out to stop picking shit up. You know what you call someone who picks up a det cord? An insurgent. You know what you call someone leaves the detcord alone? A diciplined insurgent. War just sucks and is brutal as hell. I am not sure what to think of this to be honest with you. If some air force pilot drops a bomb and misses by a couple of hundred feet and blows up a grade school it is called colateral damage. If some sniper mistakenly shoots a scavenger picking up an RPG, it is called murder. Yeah I know as well as anyone the distinction between targeting civilians versus acidentily killing them. But on the other hand, if baiting really worked and was effective at stoping IEDs and lowering insurgent activity, how are the wrong kills not just collateral damage in some ways.

[wayne]

John,

Good points, all.

[QuietReaderGirl]

So what if it was? Unless Al Qaida members are somehow identifiable, there's nothing to distinguish someone who picks an item up with the intent to kill Americans with it from someone who picks it up with the intent of selling it or using it against Al Qaida or just can't figure out what it is and wants a closer look.

[wayne]

"How do you know it's not an IED trap? "

Maybe you know because you are the insurgent who plants the IEDs in that area, and you did not plant that one.

[wayne]

There are not many people left in Iraq who are just curious about military stuff lying in the street. Kids probably, but presumably the snipers would not shoot them.

[TrickyVic]

"""You don't know it's not an IED. That is why you give it a wide birth. (Am I spelling birth correctly?)"""

I think so, spelling it close enough for me.

My point was that the IED would be on the side of the road. The purpose of putting the object in the street would be so you would move over or next to the IED you didn't see.

[joe]

wayne,

I forgot you were serving there.

Nevermind. Trying to put yourself in the other guy's shoes isn't what you're supposed to be doing.

[wayne]

Insurgent activity is down. IED detonations are down.

[Syloson of Samos]

Given the looting that went on at the end of the Ba'athist regime and the sorts of things that were looted I can easily see how "det chord" might be seen as something of value to sell.

[wayne]

"My point was that the IED would be on the side of the road. The purpose of putting the object in the street would be so you would move over or next to the IED you didn't see."

Some IEDs are planted right in the middle of the road. Some are flat like a pizza box; they detonate when your vehicle passes over them sending half inch ball bearings through the floor of your vehicle. Yes, they do plant diversionary IEDs just as you describe as well.

[TrickyVic]

"""Maybe you know because you are the insurgent who plants the IEDs in that area, and you did not plant that one."""

That one big maybe. Besides, the complaint is about shooting innocent people, not insurgents. If your "maybe" was correct, I doubt we would be talking about. Successful things rarely attract attention, unlike the unsuccessful.

[henry]

QRG--

Putting aside those who were dirtbags already when they joined up, war tends to make many of the combatants morally and emotionally calloused, so they begin to not care much about such distinctions. Hopefully they "get better" when they get home.

That is one of the many fine reasons for avoiding "wars of choice"--let's try fucking up as few of our young people as possible with such harrowing experiences. Obviously the Cheney/chickenhawk (if I may be redundant) arm of this administration just doesn't shit about such things, however.

[Syloson of Samos]

wayne,

I suspect that a (the?) major reason that things have calmed down a bit (if that is indeed the case) is due to the ethnic violence itself. It is my understanding that neighborhoods have become far more heterogenous there and thus there are fewer oppurtunities to attack someone of a differing ethnicity, religious sect, etc.

[joe]

John, wayne,

Once upon a time you used to tell us how much our military was helping those poor people, and waggle your finger at us for not being humane enough to support the war.

Now you're looking at Iraqis and asking, "How do you know that guy isn't al Qaeda?"

This is why we didn't think your "humanitarian" war was a very good idea.

War is hell. Yeah, no shit. And what the people who made this war happen have done is bring hell to Iraq, and send a million of so Americans into hell.

And five years later, your standard is "How do you know that guy isn't al Qaeda?"

[wayne]

"Besides, the complaint is about shooting innocent people, not insurgents. "

Allegedly innocent, and allegedly not insurgents.

[TrickyVic]

"""Obviously the Cheney/chickenhawk (if I may be redundant) arm of this administration just doesn't shit about such things, however."""

For other people, I agree. But when it was Cheney's time to go to war, he cared enough about self-survival that he got 5 deferments.

[wayne]

"I suspect that a (the?) major reason that things have calmed down a bit (if that is indeed the case) is due to the ethnic violence itself. It is my understanding that neighborhoods have become far more heterogenous there and thus there are fewer oppurtunities to attack someone of a differing ethnicity, religious sect, etc."

Certainly that is part of it. Another part is that the surge troops are disbersed throughout Baghdad and live in small outposts and protect the surrounding neighborhoods from the AQ and insurgents.

[joe]

Pentagon casualty figures. Nice chart.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_09_23_archive.html#5918012621441410241

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"Allegedly innocent, and allegedly not insurgents."

In other words, shoot first and then determine if they're insurgents afterwards.

[joe]

wayne has to think like that. If he doesn't...wayne has to think like that.

Just be safe, wayne.

[Chris S.]

But on the other hand, if baiting really worked and was effective at stoping IEDs and lowering insurgent activity, how are the wrong kills not just collateral damage in some ways.

By "worked" if you merely mean lowering insurgent activity and stopping IEDs, then Sadam's brutal tactics also "worked." Sadam's murder of Kurds and dissidents was for the purpose of stopping insurgent activity, and they were gloriously effective in that regard.

The question is whether this promotes our end goal, whatever this might be. (I don't think that "stability," in and of itself, is our end goal. We could have had stability under Sadam.)

[TrickyVic]

"""Allegedly innocent, and allegedly not insurgents."""

Funny how you apply that only to innocents. If you agree to that, shouldn't you say allegedly guilty or allegedly insurgent for whom we shot?

My point was, if we are killing only bad guys. It wouldn't be an issue.

[wayne]

"War is hell. Yeah, no shit. And what the people who made this war happen have done is bring hell to Iraq, and send a million of so Americans into hell."

This war did not begin with the purpose of liberating Iraq. After the successful invasion we could not just pack up and leave. There was a moral necessity to bring some order to the country.

But that is beside the point on this thread.

[Lamar]

Maybe Huckabee is right, this kind of thing brings honor upon our military.

[wayne]

"My point was, if we are killing only bad guys. It wouldn't be an issue."

Sure, I agree with that. But there is no practical way to eliminate collateral damage.

[Syloson of Samos]

wayne,

Given the heavily segregated nature of Iraq these days the targets of oppurtunity have become limited. Particularly since roughly four million Iraqis are now refugees (half of whom live largely in Syria and Jordan).

[Lamar]

"But there is no practical way to eliminate collateral damage."

Except, of course, avoiding fuzzy wars with no definite purpose.

[wayne]

"Given the heavily segregated nature of Iraq these days the targets of oppurtunity have become limited. Particularly since roughly four million Iraqis are now refugees (half of whom live largely in Syria and Jordan)."

I am not sure I agree with you TOO statement. The Iraqis who have left are the upper and middle class. They weren't AQ or insurgents to begin with.

[Ken Shultz]

"......In a sworn statement, Captain Matthew Didier, the officer in charge of a sniper platoon, said: "Basically we would put an item out there and watch it. If someone found the item, picked it up and attempted to leave with the item, we would engage the individual as I saw this as a sign they would use the item against the US forces."

I don't know what you guys are cryin' about. We said from the very begining that this was a preemptive war.

[TrickyVic]

"""But there is no practical way to eliminate collateral damage."""

This is not collateral damage. You're purposefully shooting THAT individual. Collateral damage is damage to something OTHER than the intended target.

[wayne]

"Except, of course, avoiding fuzzy wars with no definite purpose."

Granted. We should not have invaded Iraq. I have always thought that, even before we actually did. But we are in Iraq now, so that comes under the heading of "if my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle".

[TrickyVic]

"""But we are in Iraq now, so that comes under the heading of "if my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle".""""

Then why are we still there trying to put balls on your aunt?

[wayne]

"This is not collateral damage. You're purposefully shooting THAT individual. Collateral damage is damage to something OTHER than the intended target."

I agree. The collateral part comes in to play when an innocent takes the bait. If you are fishing for bass and you snag a crappy then the crappy is collateral damage.

[Lamar]

"if my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle".

Agreed. If there was a purpose in remaining in Iraq, I might be behind it.

[wayne]

TV,

"Then why are we still there trying to put balls on your aunt?"

If you saw my aunt you would keep your balls far away, I think.

[Dan T]

I was very much against the invasion of Iraq, but part of me thinks that once you commit to war you can't spend too much time worrying about the moral technicalities of who can and cannot be killed. Has any war ever been won this way?

[wayne]

I think the judicious use of snipers is a good idea. It is precise, and it has tremendous psychological impact.

[The Owner\'s Manual]

Your link is no good, but if I had to guess, I'd say this article is written by the Independent's American-hating, aptly-named Andrew Buncombe.

[TrickyVic]

"""I agree. The collateral part comes in to play when an innocent takes the bait. If you are fishing for bass and you snag a crappy then the crappy is collateral damage.""

Then you disagree. You can't see the fish you are trying to catch. If you did, you wouldn't get the crappy. When you kill someone you intend to kill, it's not collateral. There is nothing collateral about killing the person who picks up a item. You intended to kill that person. Insurgent or not, is not a factor.

[wayne]

TV,

The person you saw, in your ten power telescopic sight, picked up that det cord and started to walk away with it. That is the definition of a legit target.

[TrickyVic]

"""I think the judicious use of snipers is a good idea. It is precise, and it has tremendous psychological impact."""

Absoulutely.
Until you start killing innocent people. Then it has a different psych impact, and not in your favor. But is this judicious?

[Art-P.O.G.]

Henry's definitely right. There are all sorts of people in the military. Some exceptional, most ordinar and decent, some are true sociopaths and scumbags.
My own feelings toward the Army are complex. I appreciate it and regret it at the same time.
The problem with wearing a uniform, particularly this one, is that people stereotype. Some people treat the troops like we're all heroes, other people like we're all war criminals.
And it seems damn difficult to simultaneously focus on the good the military's done and the bad and keep it all in perspective.
Large military, "fog of war" and all that.

[wayne]

TV,

How do you differentiate innocents from insurgents? The innocence of the victim is determined after the fact. As John pointed out, it would not take long to figure out that you should not pick up "bombish" looking stuff. Actually, anybody in Iraq who "picks stuff up" either has not been there long or won't be there long.

[TrickyVic]

"""The person you saw, in your ten power telescopic sight, picked up that det cord and started to walk away with it. That is the definition of a legit target"""

If you're not concerned with whom your killing, I would agree. But then let's not call it collateral, nor should we pretend to kill only bad guys.

If picking items off the street means you're a bad guy, who do the garbage collectors work for?

[Chris S.]

I was very much against the invasion of Iraq, but part of me thinks that once you commit to war you can't spend too much time worrying about the moral technicalities of who can and cannot be killed. Has any war ever been won this way?

I know I shouldn't be feeding you, Dan, and I know you're deeply committing to trolling, but please try a little bit harder to make sense. Every war this nation has ever fought has involved some sort of rules of engagement, whether formal or informal. These rules wouldn't always stand up to modern moral norms (in some instances, they might exceed our current standards), but there have always been 'technicalities' about who you can and cannot kill.

The "there are no rules in love and war" line has pretty much always been b.s., except maybe the first part.

[TrickyVic]

"""The innocence of the victim is determined after the fact."""

A death sentence without a determination of guilty should be reserved for the Saddam days.

[John]

"And five years later, your standard is "How do you know that guy isn't al Qaeda?"

God you are humorless Joe. The joke about a "diciplined" insurgent is from Full Metal Jacket. Whether this strategy was a good idea or even a war crime has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of the war in general. War crimes happen in every war. To link this one incident as some kind of indictment of the entire war is just bullshit, which seems to be the exclusive purview of Reason pieces on the war.

My point was that before we go condeming these guys as murderers we might want to think about the overall situation they are in. Further, no one has a right to be shocked by the brutality of war. Why Reason considers this story even newsworthy is beyond me. Ohh Big story there is a war on and people are finding ingenious ways to kill each other. Go figure.

[wayne]

"who do the garbage collectors work for?"

Most likely Muqtadr Al Sadr.

We don't pretend to kill only bad guys. We definitely TRY to kill only bad guys. I will agree with Art and Henry, there are undoubtedly some sociopaths in the US military, and they are probably happy to shoot anybody, but they do not define the US Army.

[joe]

If you are fishing for bass and you snag a crappy then the crappy is collateral damage.

And if you're using a net, you plan on bycatch from the beginning.

And that's rather the point of this particular blog post; shooting people who pick up American military gear is more like casting a net than a line.

You know Bush has said you can't come back until the success of the political part of the war, right? How do you think using tactics that "catch crappy" help out with that?

[VM]

Tricky - same with the torture chambers.

this fucking blind, all-excusing, non-critical viewing of US actions this operation was old in 2002 already.

[wayne]

"A death sentence without a determination of guilty should be reserved for the Saddam days."

TV, this is a shooting war.

[DangerMan]

FYI, because this stuff will keep me up at night, (like knowing I'm shooting someone in the head for picking up litter), it is 'wide berth', like on a ship.

TrickyVic, I agree. It would be collateral if your shot went through your intended target and hit a bystander behind him.

Point of Order: al Qaeda means "the Base" and is really just a name that gets picked up and used by whoever needs it. The "AQ In Mesopotamia" group has no real ties to Osama or any other al Qaeda groups, such as the ones in Malaysia or Indonesia. They just use the name. Westerners don't seem to understand this and perpetuate the idea of a massive, well organized group a la SPECTRE, which is incorrect. So, saying that an Iraqi who fights an occupying army is the same as a jihadist who would actually attack mainland US targets is also incorrect.

[wayne]

"You know Bush has said you can't come back until the success of the political part of the war, right? How do you think using tactics that "catch crappy" help out with that?"

I agree with Bush on this point. Every mistake we make costs us. Every mistake AQ makes costs them. AQ made a few too many mistakes in Anbar. Every innocent killed by Americans costs us. Petraues (excuse me, BetrayUs) knows that too.

[wayne]

"'wide berth'"

Thank you, I knew I was misspelling it but I could not put my finger on the error.

[TrickyVic]

""TV, this is a shooting war.""

No shit!!

But some fail to see the difference between how you conduct war against a country you're trying to defeat (Germany, Japan) and a war to liberate. We were not trying to liberate the citizens of Germany or Japan, our intent was to kill them. This is not so in Iraq.

[joe]

John,

I got the joke. I made the joke. I was talking about your point.

Ingenious? That's what you call this?

My point was that before we go condeming these guys as murderers we might want to think about the overall situation they are in.

I don't think snipers in a neighborhood who carry out these orders are murderers.

The ones who give those orders to set this up, I'm not so sure about. You shouldn't let the policymakers hide behind the guys with combat assignments.

[wayne]

"But some fail to see the difference between how you conduct war against a country you're trying to defeat (Germany, Japan) and a war to liberate. We were not trying to liberate the citizens of Germany or Japan, our intent was to kill them. This is not so in Iraq."

Yes, that would explain why we are not detonating trucks laden with explosives in publice places.

[TrickyVic]

""" Every innocent killed by Americans costs us."""

If you really believed that then shooting innocents would concern you, but justify it instead.

[wayne]

"Ingenious? That's what you call this?"

I would call it tactics to counter an assymetric enemy.

I am not sure it is all good, but I am equally unconvinced it is all bad.

[TrickyVic]

"""Yes, that would explain why we are not detonating trucks laden with explosives in publice places.""""

What's the difference between killing 20 of them by truck or by sniper?

[wayne]

Shooting innocents does concern me. I believe that US forces are pretty disciplined in that regard, but it is not possible to eliminate unintended casualties.

[wayne]

"What's the difference between killing 20 of them by truck or by sniper?"

One big difference is that placing a car bomb in a market is clearly an intentional attack on innocent Iraqis.

[TrickyVic]

I don't know wayne. It seems you've been arguing the it's all good side. You can't argue that is wrong to shoot innocent people, but it's ok to shoot innocent people.

[joe]

But the problem here is not one that the tightest dicipline will have an effect on, wayne, because they are doing exactly what their orders tell them to do, or authorize them to do.

We're not talking about pshycos and breakdowns in discipline here, so stop throwing them out. This is about official policy and doctrine.

Which means that the case you make about the moral culpability of the snipers themselves isn't really the question people are concerned about for the most part.

[TrickyVic]

"""One big difference is that placing a car bomb in a market is clearly an intentional attack on innocent Iraqis."""

How do you know they are innocent?

[TrickyVic]

The people you blew up in the market could have been insurgence passing information for an attack.

[wayne]

Joe,

I am not convinced this "baiting" is a bad idea depending on how and where it is employed. I don't think the facts have really come out. The news story implies that US forces sprinkled lures willy-nilly, maybe school yards and playgrounds. I seriously doubt that. I would bet the lures were placed in locations that intel indicated would be "good" places to attract insurgents.

[joe]

Breakdowns in discipline and sociopaths in the ranks worry me a lot less. That's the kind of matter the military handles just fine.

[wayne]

"You can't argue that is wrong to shoot innocent people, but it's ok to shoot innocent people."

And you can't argue that it is right to shoot insurgents, and right to let insurgents escape.

Shooting innocent people is regretable and every thing short of surrendering should be done to prevent it.

[wayne]

"The people you blew up in the market could have been insurgence passing information for an attack."

TV, I am glad you are just an anonymous HNR commentarian.

[TrickyVic]

""" I believe that US forces are pretty disciplined in that regard, but it is not possible to eliminate unintended casualties"""

Again, it's not an unintended casualty. But if one was concerned with innocents or not, they surely wouldn't use a tactic that requires an extremely low bar of what guilt is.

When someone shoots at you, it's a no brainer. But to kill someone just because they picked up an item such as wire, you can't really argue a concern for the innocent, you're looking for an excuse to kill anyone. You don't really care if it was a bad guy or not.

[prolefeed]

If you think the Second Amendment is being whittled away in America, try Iraq, where exercising your right to bear arms is subject to the death penalty.

Can't imagine why any of them would resist the occupation liberation.

[wayne]

Mostly I am just saying that this is the "first" report. Never believe the first report.

[wayne]

"When someone shoots at you, it's a no brainer. But to kill someone just because they picked up an item such as wire, you can't really argue a concern for the innocent, you're looking for an excuse to kill anyone. You don't really care if it was a bad guy or not."

Shooting a scavenger in TrickyVicVille is a bad idea. Iraq is not TVV.

[TrickyVic]

"""TV, I am glad you are just an anonymous HNR commentarian."""

I would say the same about you, but I know what a BS general statement it is. But it was a nice dodge to the judgement of innocents of those in a market.

[wayne]

Iraq does not have second amendment rights, but I would strongly suggest that you not bear arms against a US military unit in Iraq. Foolhardy, that would be.

[wtf?]

So we're killing Iraqs for taking stuff on the street and arresting 1 out of every 361 US inhabitants for pot possession.

Is pot smoking legal in Iraq?

[wayne]

TV,

If you want to argue that Iraqis in public places should be blown up, go ahead. I am willing to read the unfolding debate. You might try reading some of the Jihadi web sites as I believe they are doing just that.

[joe]

wayne,

I agree, the facts haven't entirely come out.

And also, that there could be times when using bait to draw somebody out would be a good idea.

And that scattering around playgrounds or places where an ordinary civilian could be the one picking it up.

It would seem to me that they would need specific knowledge, and think, "Hey there he is" when the right guy came out, for this to be remotely a good idea. You can't make the deliberate killing of someone who may well be a civilian the definition of successfully carrying out the mission.

[prolefeed]

I was very much against the invasion of Iraq, but part of me thinks that once you commit to war you can't spend too much time worrying about the moral technicalities of who can and cannot be killed. Has any war ever been won this way?

Back to trolling again, Dan T.?

Are you seriously suggesting that the U.S. military should abandon its practice of trying to sort out civilians from soldiers? Are you seriously suggesting that no war has ever been won unless the winner simply slaughtered as many people on the other side as possible?

[wayne]

"Is pot smoking legal in Iraq?"

Nope. Rhymes with "Dope".

[TrickyVic]

"""Shooting a scavenger in TrickyVicVille is a bad idea. Iraq is not TVV."""

AHHHH. Scavengers are the enemy!! Now it makes sense.

I'm only half-snarking that comment. The issue does go to whom we are killing. If the Surge was working so well, what the value of using a questionable technique that risks keeping the peace with those we are trying to protect, namely innocent Iraqis? I think baiting is one of those things that sounds good in theory, but not so well in practice.

[wayne]

"It would seem to me that they would need specific knowledge, and think, "Hey there he is" when the right guy came out, for this to be remotely a good idea. You can't make the deliberate killing of someone who may well be a civilian the definition of successfully carrying out the mission."

And US intel might have that kind of specific information, i.e. they might (probably are) looking for specific individuals. I don't think it is possible to eliminate wrongful killings though.

[wayne]

"I think baiting is one of those things that sounds good in theory, but not so well in practice."

That might turn out to be the case. My guess is that insurgents will be unlikely to pick up any "free" det cord from here on.

[joe]

wayne | September 25, 2007, 4:06pm | #

"I suspect that a (the?) major reason that things have calmed down a bit (if that is indeed the case) is due to the ethnic violence itself. It is my understanding that neighborhoods have become far more heterogenous there and thus there are fewer oppurtunities to attack someone of a differing ethnicity, religious sect, etc."

Certainly that is part of it. Another part is that the surge troops are disbersed throughout Baghdad and live in small outposts and protect the surrounding neighborhoods from the AQ and insurgents.

Why are we doing that, wayne?

Can you give me both a moral reason, and a political-strategic reason?

[TrickyVic]

"""If you want to argue that Iraqis in public places should be blown up, go ahead."""

I was using your logic. That it's ok to kill anyone if they, or someone near them, are engaged in suspectable insurgent activity.

[joe]

My guess is that insurgents will be unlikely to pick up any "free" det cord from here on.

Really?

You think that'll stop 'em?

Cuz I don't think that's gonna work out.

[joe]

They seem to be fairly determined people.

[wayne]

This is my last post tonight.

"Why are we doing that, wayne?

Can you give me both a moral reason, and a political-strategic reason?"

Morally, it seems to me that restoring peace and tranquility should be our goal.

Politically, we must demonstrate to the Iraqis that we won't abandon them thus making it rational for them to align themselves against the insurgents. This is one are where I don't think we have a good job at all. I think most ordinary Iraqis are thinking, "The Americans are leaving soon and that leaves me to face the Jihadists alone..."

[TrickyVic]

"""My guess is that insurgents will be unlikely to pick up any "free" det cord from here on."""

That might be true. We gave them ample opprotunity to raid Saddam's conventional weapons depots at the start of the war. But hey, it's not our fault if they used that up.

[wayne]

"That might be true. We gave them ample opprotunity to raid Saddam's conventional weapons depots at the start of the war. But hey, it's not our fault if they used that up."

TV, it is too bad we didn't have you around to foresee all of our mistakes. Well, you were around, but you weren't prognosticating then.

[wayne]

"Really?

You think that'll stop 'em?

Cuz I don't think that's gonna work out."

Well, I guess we can keep shooting them until they learn, or we can let the Washington Post make it politically incorrect to shoot them.

[shecky]

I'm still not sure why the general population would get the idea that picking up stuff off the street would be an inherently risky behavior, unless someone notices this occurring several times a day and sees a pattern. All any casual observer would know was that someone just got unexpectedly blown away from a presumably unseen sniper somewhere. They probably wouldn't know who's side the sniper was on, let alone why.

Normally, we would call such occurrences terrorism.

[joe]

,i>TV, it is too bad we didn't have you around to foresee all of our mistakes.

They're not your mistakes that let that happen, wayne. It couldn't have gone otherwise, given the leadership. Boy, they loved to show maps of how fast you were moving at the press briefings.

Well, I guess we can keep shooting them until they learn

How peaceful, and tranquil.

It sure must do a good job keeping them from joining up with bad guys.

You keep talking out both sides of your mouth, because what you're talking about doing doesn't make any sense.

[DangerMan]

I would posit that the difference between an "Ordinary Iraqi" and an "Insurgent" is totally subjective. We want Iraqis love freedom, but not to fight an occupying army. We want them to have a democracy, but only as long as they elect people we like.

Red Dawn was mentioned earlier. If America was invaded by a U.N. (or E.U. perhaps? hmmm.) force bent on regime change, would you fight? I would. Joe Q. Sixpack, who only ever took pot-shots at a deer before, might consider offing a couple of blue helmets if he had the chance. Does that make him an insurgent?

[de stijl]

Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.

[DangerMan]

"Well, I guess we can keep shooting them until they learn"

I guess I couldn't say it any clearer than that, Wayne. Kill 'em all and let God sort it out. Just 'engage' anything that looks like it hates freedom. They'll learn to love us real quick like that.

[Fluffy]

Wayne -

When the war began, on its very first day, the President announced that we had no long-term intentions in Iraq and would leave immediately after removing Saddam and installing a democratic government.

The insurgents didn't believe the President, and starting insurging.

For a long time I couldn't understand this. "Why don't they realize that we just want to leave?" I would ask myself.

And then one day W announced that troops would not leave Iraq at any point while he was President, and that the long-term presence of US forces in Iraq was subject to negotiation between the US and our puppet government.

On that day, I realized that the Iraqis who didn't believe W were 100% correct, and I had been 100% wrong.

When W said we had no long term intentions in Iraq, he lied.

When Iraqis decided they didn't believe W, they were right.

These facts will never change until our overall policy changes, and until our INTENTIONS change. And if the facts don't change, the insurgency won't end, no matter how many people the snipers take out.

That is why I am as offended as I am at this policy. Since we haven't been able to beat the insurgents, we're ratcheting up our tactics. And it's just completely senseless. The tactic is offensive on its own merits, but it's doubly offensive when it's employed as a spiteful measure born of frustration at a populace that doesn't believe W's bullshit and has been proven right over and over in their disbelief.

[Ken Shultz]

The shootings will continue until morale improves.

[NotThatDavid]

Collateral damage is when you aim for the enemy and miss, or when you aim for the enemy and hit civilians too. This is setting the bar low enough that you don't care whether you're aiming at an enemy or a civilian. That's not remotely the same thing.

[Terry]

de stijl posted "Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one."
You forgot to credit Nietzsche.
Fuck you. Take that sophomoric mental shit, and shove it back up your ass.
The STORY IS FALSE. Okay, understand that.
Simple common sense. Snipers are the cream of the crop, NOT idiots. They are fully aware that anyone who picks up is NOT an insurgent.
That is when you consider that, the Washington Post wants us to lose, along with the UK Independent, BECAUSE THEY HATE AMERICA, and they have published false stories before about American war crimes, this story loses all credibility.
Got that?
Probably not because you are a shithead.
I really expected better from these postings.

[highnumber]

Oh, god. This had better be a mix-up, a misunderstanding. This did not really happen, I hope. This is one of the most fucked-up things I have ever heard. Our soldiers doing this? No. No. No. No. This is like a fucking nightmare.

[JBinMO]

"My guess is that insurgents will be unlikely to pick up any "free" det cord from here on."

They dont need to pick it up if they are being funded by outsiders.

[NotThatDavid]

Simple common sense. Snipers are the cream of the crop, NOT idiots. They are fully aware that anyone who picks up is NOT an insurgent.

This is about the orders being stupid, not the snipers, genius. Nobody said the men pulling the triggers came up with this "strategy".

[John-David]

wayne | September 25, 2007, 5:18pm | #
This is my last post tonight.

A pity you didn't stick to that policy, much like it's a pity the Army you serve refuses to stick to the rules of war.

[joe]

Terry, your naivete would be cute, if it weren't for all the dead bodies.

[Fluffy]

Terry missed the part where a Captain commanding a sniper platoon - a man not charged with anything - testified about the existence of the program.

Do you really think this is all a lie, Terry, or do you secretly accept the possibility that it's true, and just want the media to not talk about it?

In a sworn statement, Captain Matthew Didier, the officer in charge of a sniper platoon, said: "Basically we would put an item out there and watch it. If someone found the item, picked it up and attempted to leave with the item, we would engage the individual as I saw this as a sign they would use the item against the US forces."

Capt Didier, of the 1st Battalion 501st Infantry Regiment, said members of the US military's Asymmetric Warfare Group visited his unit in January and later supplied ammunition boxes filled with "drop items" to be used " to disrupt the AIF [Anti-Iraq Forces] attempts at harming coalition forces and give us the upper hand in a fight."

[TrickyVic]

"""TV, it is too bad we didn't have you around to foresee all of our mistakes. Well, you were around, but you weren't prognosticating then."""

You must be running out of material since your moving to personal attacks. Plenty of people in the military saw the same problems I did. It wasn't tough.

Fluffy, you can win against a guy who thinks the people who were there are full of it and wrong, and what the Washington Post says matters.

[wayne]

let me make a clarifying point.

When I said, "Well, I guess we can keep shooting them until they learn" I was referring to insurgents and not to ordinary Iraqi citizens. It was late, and I was tired. In the light of day, my quip sounds bad, but it was not meant that way.

I was responding to Joe's post "...Cuz I don't think that's gonna work out." where he opined that shooting the insurgents would not stop them from taking the bait.

With that clarification, I stand by the post.

[wayne]

And then one day W announced that troops would not leave Iraq at any point while he was President, and that the long-term presence of US forces in Iraq was subject to negotiation between the US and our puppet government.

Fluffy, the Iraqi government was elected by Iraqis in the first (and maybe only) free election in Iraq this (and last) century. That ordinary Iraqis were sufficiently prescient to choose the puppets we wanted is astonishing and surely must reflect God's will :-). I don't know where you get this stuff, but you do yourself a disservice by not thinking things through.

Your other points are a little better, but still pretty weak. By way of comparison, why do you think US troops are still stationed in North Korea?

[wayne]

In a sworn statement, Captain Matthew Didier, the officer in charge of a sniper platoon, said: "Basically we would put an item out there and watch it. If someone found the item, picked it up and attempted to leave with the item, we would engage the individual as I saw this as a sign they would use the item against the US forces."

Capt Didier, of the 1st Battalion 501st Infantry Regiment, said members of the US military's Asymmetric Warfare Group visited his unit in January and later supplied ammunition boxes filled with "drop items" to be used " to disrupt the AIF [Anti-Iraq Forces] attempts at harming coalition forces and give us the upper hand in a fight."

What is wrong with that?

[wayne]

"...troops are still stationed in North Korea?"

Duh... South Korea.

[Sean Healy]

As a purely tactical matter, isn't it better to give our side more killing latitude in light of the fact that we are fighting an enemy which is highly adept at regulatory arbitrage? That is, our military should be principles-led rather than rules-based so as to limit the number of legal gaps the enemy can exploit. Do we really want an army that has to run complex algorithms before pulling the trigger?

[BakedPenguin]

I blame the politicians more than the Army officers who came up with this. The Armed forces exists for one reason: to kill people that they're ordered to. Trying to use them as a police force is moronic.

Also, in a guerilla war situation where it's impossible to tell a civilian from a fighter, they don't speak the language, and they see friends die from unseen enemies, it's not surprising that they will develop nasty tactics of their own.

Ultimately, none of this would have happened if the Bush administration hadn't put them there in the first place.

[wayne]

As a purely tactical matter, isn't it better to give our side more killing latitude in light of the fact that we are fighting an enemy which is highly adept at regulatory arbitrage? That is, our military should be principles-led rather than rules-based so as to limit the number of legal gaps the enemy can exploit.

Yes.

Do we really want an army that has to run complex algorithms before pulling the trigger?

No.

[Dave Woycechowsky]

Yes, that would explain why we are not detonating trucks laden with explosives in publice [sic] places.

The US military allegedly does not do this. If there are suspected Al Queada members who come to the marketplace, then maybe they do. We cannot know one way or the other because the state of war would make such a tactic a secret if it were used.

My point is that you can't assume that the US military does not do this, even if you are in the US military in Iraq. This kind of thing, if practiced, would be need-to-know basis.

[Fluffy]

Wayne -

I refer to the Iraqi government as our puppet because, by our own admission and theirs, that government cannot police its own territory and needs us to do it for them.

According to the pro-war faction, if we withdrew the government would immediately collapse and Iraq would descend into a vortex of competing factions and civil war.

This pretty definitively indicates that, despite its purple-finger origins, the current Iraqi government is not really an organic feature of Iraq. "Puppet" government might not be 100% correct, since we don't seem to be able to get that government to do every last thing we ask it; perhaps "Potemkin" government is better. A larger and more complex [and mor expensive] version of the potemkin markets surrounded by blast walls that Petraeus brought journalists to.

[wayne]

Dave W,

The US military allegedly does not do this. If there are suspected Al Queada members who come to the marketplace, then maybe they do. We cannot know one way or the other because the state of war would make such a tactic a secret if it were used.

My point is that you can't assume that the US military does not do this, even if you are in the US military in Iraq. This kind of thing, if practiced, would be need-to-know basis.

True enough, although just because we don't know it to be false it is a HUGE stretch to assume it true; but judging by many comments here it is probably safe to say that every bad assumption is warmly embraced by many.

Frankly, I would categorize this line of thinking with the 911 truthers, and the "the US invented AIDS to exterminate black people" crowd.

[wayne]

Fluff,

"Puppet government" is a very loaded term. I would not use it to refer to a government set in place by a free and fair election. To me that term seems incorrect, but hey, they were your words, not mine.

[David Woycechowsky]

it is a HUGE stretch to assume it true

No, it is easy to imagine them doing this and it is equally easy to imagine them not doing this. This is war. Armies sometimes do this kind of thing in war and sometimes they don't. We have no way of knowing if our army is or not.

If you are pretty confident that you can flip a local leader into betraying Zarqawi or someone like that by making him think that AQ bombed the marketplace where his family hangs, then maybe the end justifies the means.

Or maybe not. We just can't know.

[Fluffy]

I think that regardless of how a government is set in place, if there are limits or bounds to its policy decisions due to the presence of a foreign occupying army, there is some puppetitude there.

If the current government of Iraq announced that it had invited in the armed forces of Iran to assist in providing security, we would remove that government.

The current government of Iraq can't even exclude one group of our mercenaries from its territory without the Bush administration bringing the hammer down.

There's a reason why the question, "Should we remove Maliki?" is casually debated in the pages of the New York Times and Washington Post. It's because if the administration wanted to, it could. And everyone knows it.

It's a loaded term, sure. And since there is a range of action we still allow the Iraqi government, I concede that it isn't a complete puppet. But it sure isn't a completely sovereign government either.

[loupeznik]

Our US Military is a blunt trauma weapon used in WAR. Why do we continue to believe that when we bring war on a country we are doing them a favor. I understand that wars have rules. I also understand that those rules have to be ultra simple for the lowest grunt to be able to follow them in the split second it takes to defend his life and the lives of others around him. Oops has to be an allowable excuse at least for the first few times (/lives). Horrible isn't it. That is the point. War is horrible. It should be a last resort in national self defense. I don't think is national self defense (by us, not the Iraqis). Our troops and indeed our military complex are killing machines and not police and should only be used at last resort.

[wayne]

Here is the military.com version of the story. A few more details, but only a few.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,150440,00.html?ESRC=army.nl

interesting discussion about the whole thing from a grunt's perspective.

http://forums.military.com/1/OpenTopic?a=dl&f=672198221&s=78919038&x_id=150440&x_subject=U.S.%20Snipers%20'Bait'%20Iraqis&x_dpp=Y&x_link=http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,150440,00.html

[David Woycechowsky]

interesting discussion about the whole thing from a grunt's perspective.

A lot of grunts seem to think that even planting evidence on the dead is okay. I guess that is interesting, if a bit predictable.

[TrickyVic]

"""Here is the military.com version of the story. A few more details, but only a few."""

It's mostly referencing the WP article. So, if Military.com repeats it, does it add credibility?

""" if there are limits or bounds to its policy decisions due to the presence of a foreign occupying army, there is some puppetitude there.""""

I understand what your saying. Not sure if I agree yet. How the Iraqi handle Blackwater will determine how much I agree. That is a test of their sovreignty. But having said that, there is a difference between someone pulling your strings, and someone forcing your actions at gun point. It may be that our government is acting more like Tony Soprano than Jim Henson.

[TrickyVic]

A grunts perspective is easy. "Why can't I kill with impunity, isn't that why I'm there?"