U.S. military snipers baiting Iraqis

[TheNoNamedOne]

In the U.S. we may consider this entrapment, but to think that an honorable military would bait in a country which is flooded with military weaponry and equipment and leaves out such things so that anyone who picks them up is then considered an insurgent and shot, to me is a little chilling. Humans are curious, and when in a poverty stricken land where scavenging to survive is common, there is a good chance that this baiting has killed a number of civilians.

"Baiting is putting an object out (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j1w0jKfeip0qU8GM70R5toW_Id7Q) there that we know they will use, with the intention of destroying the enemy," Capt. Matthew P. Didier, the leader of an elite sniper scout platoon attached to the 1st Battalion of the 501st Infantry Regiment, said in a sworn statement. "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 U.S. Forces."

I hope there is some accounting for this and it reaches up to the higher echelons where it sprung from.

Do you think baiting is an appropriate tactic in urban guerilla warfare? Do you think these guys should be prosecuted and convicted?

If humans are so much better and deserving than animals, then why are they being targeted and hunted as such? Baiting deer and fish are nondiscriminatory -- shouldn't hunting the enemy be a discriminatory effort?

Read the article.


-------------------------------------------------------
I will try to get a better article link up soon with more details on the case. The Washington Post is the paper that broke the story but they have just taken it off line. Perhaps for an update.

[P_chan]

Sinpers use the baiting technique all the time. Usually if a sniper gets a shot at somebody they will take it but only wound the person. That way they leave the person out in the open as bait and pick off anyone who comes out to help them. They are just using a different type of baiting in this situation. But I see what you mean, they could just be civilians who are just trying to sell the weapon for money. But then again, that weapon will probably end up in the hands of a bad guy eventually.

[Honduh]

So are we suspossed to play nice now? As mentioned, baiting is nothing new.

Snipers arent the only ones who use this tatic...

[Fonze]

Keep up the good work snipers.

[newvalor]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Ten things you didn't know about images on Wikipedia •Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Sniper (disambiguation).

Arkansas Army National Guard soldiers practice sniper marksmanship at their firing range near Baghdad, Iraq in 2005.
A U.S. Marine sniper team, with a M40 sniper rifle in 2004.
Member of the French special forces sniper team.A sniper is an infantry soldier who specializes in shooting from a concealed position over longer ranges than regular infantry, often with a specially designed or adapted sniper rifle. It requires skill in marksmanship, camouflage and field craft.

The term sniper is attested from 1824 in the sense of “sharpshooter.” The verb to snipe originated in the 1770s among soldiers in British India-in the sense of: “to shoot from a hidden place”, in allusion to snipe hunting, a game bird known for being extremely difficult to hunt. Those who were skilled at the hunting of this bird were thus dubbed "snipers".

During the American Civil War, the common term used in the United States for much the same function was "skirmisher". A Civil War army often protected itself by using such concealed marksmen, who were deployed individually on the extremes of the moving army. Generally, such skirmishers were selected on the basis of prior proven hunting and marksmanship skills. Often these were either young soldiers with promising maneuverability and field craft, or older men with refined marksmanship and tactical skills.[1] The term 'sniper' was not in widespread use in the United States until after the American Civil War.

In the last few decades, the term “sniper” has been used rather loosely, especially by media in association with police precision riflemen, those responsible for assassination, any shooting from all but the shortest range in war, and any criminal equipped with a rifle in a civil context.[2] In the Bosnian War, and for much of the Siege of Beirut, the term 'sniper' was used to refer to what were generally ill-trained soldiers who terrorized civilians, mainly by firing at them from windows and rooftops.[citation needed] During the Siege of Sarajevo, the main street of the city became known as “Sniper Alley”.


In comparison that we use bait to get the enemy to come out, in your quote it says that they wait for the person to leave with the object. that object is taken with the intention of possibly being used against our forces. Oddly enough the enemy here has done the same against us with thier sniper tactics. If you need further proof that they are doing the same you can probably find the video on YouTube. They do it all the time over here, they bait our military with wounded civilians that we stop to provide aid to and use that as bait against us. so which one should be looked bad upon? we use objects that can be used as weapons against us, or they use wounded civilians as bait to shoot us????? You decide that, since you think we're doing such an evil thing against these people.

[DougP]

You mentioned this
appropriate tactic in urban guerrilla warfare
Note something interest about what guerrilla warfare really is
Guerrilla warfare (also guerilla) is the unconventional warfare and combat with which small group combatants (usually civilians) use mobile tactics (ambushes, raids, etc) to combat a larger, less mobile formal army. The guerrilla army uses defense (draw enemy forces to terrain unsuited to them) and mobility (advantage and surprise) in attacking vulnerable targets in enemy territory.

Now using the words appropriate tactic with Guerrilla warfare in the same sentence is like using appropriate parenting with Britney Spears in another.

It is war and its a war where you can't see the enemy as clearly as they can see you. Now if it were me out there and I walked by a weapon or case of grenades I would leave that shit alone. Why? Because I have no use for them. I know better. I'm not an idiot asking to be killed for doing something I shouldn't do.

[dk]

They do it all the time over here, they bait our military with wounded civilians that we stop to provide aid to and use that as bait against us. so which one should be looked bad upon?
This is nothing new.

I've never understood rescue missions where more people die trying to save a person's life than if he were left on his own. I understand, it's the right thing to do, but in numbers it doesn't seem that brilliant to lose four people to save one. But hey, I've never been in combat (or the military) and base this off "saving private ryan"!! :D

I don't see anything wrong with baiting. It's a tactic enemies have always used against each other, and it makes sense.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Sinpers use the baiting technique all the time. Usually if a sniper gets a shot at somebody they will take it but only wound the person. That way they leave the person out in the open as bait and pick off anyone who comes out to help them. They are just using a different type of baiting in this situation.

Years ago I have read the USMC Recon Sniper guide and I never recall a chapter about baiting. Perhaps one of you can point the passage in the army or marine guide for sniping out to us that advises one to use bait.

If baiting were such an indispensable part of the tactics of U.S. snipers, then I don't think that that would not be absent from field manuals. Now, since it is absent, and I will believe it is so until someone can show the passage condoning and recommending it as a tactic, I presume that such a tactic is not necessary for the mission and that manuals do not list that because it is morally wrong to entrap and kill individuals who may not be enemy combatants, and that is what baiting leads to in a guerilla insurgent urban warfare.

But I see what you mean, they could just be civilians who are just trying to sell the weapon for money. But then again, that weapon will probably end up in the hands of a bad guy eventually.

In Iraq we have been supplying militias with weapons whose loyalties are not trusted. I find it disingenuous to even suggest killing someone for picking up a weapon we planted just because it may be used in killing one of us, when we supply many persons whose loyalties are not trusted. Look at the Iraqi police force -- said to be infiltrated and corrupt and it is suggested we disband it because of that. Since they all have weapons supplied by us which could possibly be used against us, perhaps we should just kill them all.

That is what the reasoning of your hemming and hawing of "But then again," prelude suggests in its basic form.

[DougP]

Years ago I have read the USMC Recon Sniper guide and I never recall a chapter about baiting. Perhaps one of you can point the passage in the army or marine guide for sniping out to us that advises one to use bait.

If baiting were such an indispensable part of the tactics of U.S. snipers, then I don't think that that would not be absent from field manuals. Now, since it is absent, and I will believe it is so until someone can show the passage condoning and recommending it as a tactic, I presume that such a tactic is not necessary for the mission and that manuals do not list that because it is morally wrong to entrap and kill individuals who may not be enemy combatants, and that is what baiting leads to in a guerilla insurgent urban warfare.


I know that there is no way someone as smart as you can be naive enough to honestly think that they would write down every secret and every tactic in a manual that is declassified and available for almost anyone to read. I can't count the number of manuals that I've seen all over the web. Just about every piece of equipment out there has a PDF version of it manual on the internet. Just because you don't see it in "one" of the manuals doesn't mean its not taught nor does it mean its not a tactic.

[newvalor]

Years ago I have read the USMC Recon Sniper guide and I never recall a chapter about baiting. Perhaps one of you can point the passage in the army or marine guide for sniping out to us that advises one to use bait.

If baiting were such an indispensable part of the tactics of U.S. snipers, then I don't think that that would not be absent from field manuals. Now, since it is absent, and I will believe it is so until someone can show the passage condoning and recommending it as a tactic, I presume that such a tactic is not necessary for the mission and that manuals do not list that because it is morally wrong to entrap and kill individuals who may not be enemy combatants, and that is what baiting leads to in a guerilla insurgent urban warfare.



In Iraq we have been supplying militias with weapons whose loyalties are not trusted. I find it disingenuous to even suggest killing someone for picking up a weapon we planted just because it may be used in killing one of us, when we supply many persons whose loyalties are not trusted. Look at the Iraqi police force -- said to be infiltrated and corrupt and it is suggested we disband it because of that. Since they all have weapons supplied by us which could possibly be used against us, perhaps we should just kill them all.

That is what the reasoning of your hemming and hawing of "But then again," prelude suggests in its basic form.



Field experience is something that cannot just be put in a field manual. Experience is shown and taught to one another from veterans of the job. That's why you don't see it in a manual, not because it's morally wrong to trap/kill any person. If a person is picking up the bait(weapon) thier intention is to either use that weapon against us or sell that weapon to someone that is going to use it against us. You take out the middle man you can level the playing field down to where you won't have those middle men getting in your way playing the innocent guy (while they're giving weapons to the enemy) and the enemy is running behind your back.

We bait people to take out those individuals responsible for killing troops, they use non-combatant civilians as bait to kill us while we try and provide them aid. Again you tell me which one is more violent, getting rid of a potential target that could cause harm or people who use innocents as bait to kill us......

[TheNoNamedOne]

I know that there is no way someone as smart as you can be naive enough to honestly think that they would write down every secret and every tactic in a manual that is declassified and available for almost anyone to read. I can't count the number of manuals that I've seen all over the web. Just about every piece of equipment out there has a PDF version of it manual on the internet. Just because you don't see it in "one" of the manuals doesn't mean its not taught nor does it mean its not a tactic.

Doug, if it is not a tactic that is secret and only beneifits us for having developed it and kept it under wraps by not putting it in manuals, then what reasons for not putting it in there would there be?

Wrong morally? Embarrassment? Creating an atmosphere where war crimes are committed?

Surely by deciding to not put it in there we are not assumng that the enemy is so naive that we would not do it or do not know of the practice. So, why do we not put it in there?

My answers and reasons to those questions stand above in blood red. What are yours?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Field experience is something that cannot just be put in a field manual. Experience is shown and taught to one another from veterans of the job. That's why you don't see it in a manual, not because it's morally wrong to trap/kill any person.

Of course "field experience" cannot be put in a field manual. Experience is an intangible thing. However, clear guidelines that clearly outline tactics surely can be put in a field manual.

Look. I can create somethinq quite easily understood by anyone with reading comprehension skills that would let them know quite clearly what is being meant and give them a good idea of how to go about it.

Rather than continuously stalking to find targets, one may find it advantagious to create a situation so that targets come to you. This can be done by baiting a site with materials that suspected enemy combatants my find useful to their cause. This can easily be done by placing unspent munitions and weapons (or dummy munitions and weapons) or other items that could be utilized by the enemy to draw their attention. When they approach, pick up the item, and attempt to leave, then engage the target.

Pretty clear, isn't it? Now of couse some salty member of the team or squad would bring it to life with their "do as I do" and direction, but if the tactic were a morally correct one and intuitively acceptable by the standards of our society, there is no reason why this should not be in the field manuals for our snipers. I have given the reasons in blood red in my answer to Doug as to why it is not so.

[newvalor]

Of course "field experience" cannot be put in a field manual. Experience is an intangible thing. However, clear guidelines that clearly outline tactics surely can be put in a field manual.

Look. I can create somethinq quite easily understood by anyone with reading comprehension skills that would let them know quite clearly what is being meant and give them a good idea of how to go about it.

Rather than continuously stalking to find targets, one may find it advantagious to create a situation so that targets come to you. This can be done by baiting a site with materials that suspected enemy combatants my find useful to their cause. This can easily be done by placing unspent munitions and weapons (or dummy munitions and weapons) or other items that could be utilized by the enemy to draw their attention. When they approach, pick up the item, and attempt to leave, then engage the target.

Pretty clear, isn't it? Now of couse some salty member of the team or squad would bring it to life with their "do as I do" and direction, but if the tactic were a morally correct one and intuitively acceptable by the standards of our society, there is no reason why this should not be in the field manuals for our snipers. I have given the reasons in blood red in my answer to Doug as to why it is not so.

That's what they're doing, you just owned yourself. durrrrr

And don't ever insult my reading comprehension skills when you infact can't even bring up a good debate of how the military works when you are against the military already. This post = FAIL, just like your attempt to make us look like we are evil in your own little world.

[TheNoNamedOne]

That's what they're doing,...

EXACTLY! That is what they are doing. Now, WHY isn't that listed in field manuals? I gave you my suggestions as to why it is not. You have not yet proffered any reasonable reason as to why they do not.

A field manual will tell a squad how to skirmish through individual and team rushes, which is through them and superiour firepower we overtake the enemy often, but that is not secret and is listed? Why so but not the sniper baiting tactic when that, too, is known by every military in the world and every hunter over the age of 12 years old?

And don't ever insult my reading comprehension skills when you infact can't even bring up a good debate of how the military works when you are against the military already. This post = FAIL, just like your attempt to make us look like we are evil in your own little world.

lol. Funny.

Where have I said I am against the U.S. military in general? How have I made you look evil? You mean like Satan evil? As to whether the post faills or if I am unable to bring up good debate, I am willing to let the whole body of readers decide for themselves without me having to declare the opposite of that.

[newvalor]

Because 12 year olds shouldn't be walking around with military field manuals. And again sniper tactics, ranger tactics, pararescue tactics you will never see the full broad of daylight in a manual. You put stuff like that in a manual and you've lost one of your own (I've got a target, I should consult my manual) Not gonna happen.

And by the way, This is a War last time I heard. You don't have to declare and I don't have to declare that this post has failed. Your post will show how it's failed, that's why I'm posting this final message on this. If you can't catch the concept that everything is not gonna be laid out in a manual for you, then you've got a lot to learn about the military.

[Fonze]

Let's remember also these terrorist/insurgents/destabilizers or as some call freedom fighters don't abide by the Geneva conventions. Yet the ones that are crying about these tactics are Americans that believe the war is lost and we shouldn't try and just give up.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Because 12 year olds shouldn't be walking around with military field manuals. And again sniper tactics, ranger tactics, pararescue tactics you will never see the full broad of daylight in a manual. You put stuff like that in a manual and you've lost one of your own (I've got a target, I should consult my manual) Not gonna happen.

What are you talking about. Anyone from 12 years old who has hunted or from another military understands how to bait and the whole concept behind it. There is no secret information about that. It is not rocket science. The only other plausible reason it is secretive and being done so secretively in Iraq is because it is an embarrassment and immoral to resort to such a practice that has a high probability of killing innocent civilians in such an urban environment like Iraq. And in fact it has done just that.

And by the way, This is a War last time I heard. You don't have to declare and I don't have to declare that this post has failed.

I never have, but why did you if you don't have to? Obviously you felt compelled to do so. Perhaps lack of discipline.

I would hope our snipers exercise more of that.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Let's remember also these terrorist/insurgents/destabilizers or as some call freedom fighters don't abide by the Geneva conventions. Yet the ones that are crying about these tactics are Americans that believe the war is lost and we shouldn't try and just give up.

When it is over at 2,500 dead, best to be honest and admit it rather than finally admitting it is over at 5,000 dead. A lot of families would appreciate seeing 2,500 of their loved ones come home unharmed. Arrogance, the failure to acccept defeat gracefully, and procrastination do kill, you know.

[ja_Patriot]

The story lost here is the sad plight of the families of Sgt. Evan Vela, Spec. Jorge Sandoval Jr. and Sgt. Michael Hensley.

http://sergeantevanveladefensefund.org/

Were these soldiers just following orders? Why are their families on the path to destitution and utter poverty because of a court martial against their heroes? Why are these guys on trial in the first place? Where is the soldiers’ defense fund, when we have defense and legal funds all over the place which give free legal services to the despicable dredges of society – Flying Imams, Jose Padilla, Moussaoui, etc.. Where is the chain of command in all this? Why are they not standing in trial with the men? What is happening to the Warrior Ethos – “I will never leave a fallen comrade”?

Well, general, three of your best have fallen for all intents and purposes, what are you gonna do now?

I’m not a military person but I know because I am a military parent that US MOUT tactics recognizes that it may be difficult to distinguish between a civilian and an enemy combatant. They in fact could be one and the same, except that when they’re dead, they’re always considered as civilians by the AP and our enemy from within.

Sniping is just one countermeasure and if baiting is an appropriate tactic in a particular situation and may have saved many lives, who are any of us to be armchair experts for those on the field? The fact is that the US armed services have been taking every precaution more than anything other army on earth to minimize civilian casualties. I would rather give the benefit of a doubt to our own troops anytime.

2500 dead, 5000 dead. We always see the left giddily rejoice over the number of dead American soldiers. Most of whom who paid the ultimate sacrifice by the way died because of IEDs. Never has such a cowardly tactic ever been used in such a wide scale against our troops. So its taken some time but we’ve been learning to cope. No way is this war lost. We're beginning to see some terrorists on the run. That's good news for at least 50% of Americans.

And, here at home, thanks to the United States military, we haven’t dug out another 3000 dead since the WTC attacks. Even in San Francisco.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Well, if at some time the US and its service men & women are convicted of war crimes, their leaders will have nothing to worry about.
The bill passed both houses a year ago
:(

[Fonze]

. That's good news for at least 50% of Americans.

.

According to the liberal nytiomes thats 76% of americans that believe we should stay a fight terrorist.

[ja_Patriot]

The NYT put out an unbiased poll? Sign of the times. I guess since Hill is sounded all the more weirdly pro-military nowadays.

If the new war crimes act passes, the attorneys should know what to do with cases of soldiers accused of fighting a war in a war zone.

[ja_Patriot]

Hillary is sounding..., my bad. I'm old school. I hate grammatical and punctuation errors.

[ja_Patriot]

Following my previous post, this came out today.

Top Military Officials are a Disgrace to Those They Lead
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298203,00.html

Leaving loyal soldiers hang out to dry for the sake of a career. Where is the chain of command in this? Such a disgrace. The problem is if this continues soldiers may begin to hesitate to take the shot that the squad may be counting on and may cost lives.

[TheNoNamedOne]

lol. What are you talking about? Don't you know that commanding officers are immune from criticism (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1004). They are protected.

No pointing fingers at them.

[Bones]

Here's my yen on the whole thread. T.P., knows nothing about the thread that he started. It was just designed, to generate your responses.

Or he does know, but the manuals that he has read so long ago, are so outdated that what he thinks he knows, is no longer relevant.

I retired back in 1994. But I'm pretty sure, that my people skills are strong enough to the point of when I tell you to do something, you're going to do it. So I'm confident, up to that point.

Now, if the Government decides to call me back to active duty, and let's say they put me into a combat environment, one of the first things that I would have to do, is ask questions from someone who has just returned from there. And that someone, would have to be the person that I am replacing.

The reason for asking those questions, would be that I've been out of the loop for 13 years, and by not asking those questions, some of the people that I would be in charge of, would die because of my stupidity.

I can't believe that someone out there is complaining about changing "Tactics".

NBTP

[DoctorP]

All off topic remarks have been moved here! (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1536)

Everyone do your best to keep this one on topic!

[Fonze]

I can't believe that someone out there is complaining about changing "Tactics".

NBTP

An anti-miltary person that believes in defeat would.

[DougP]

Let me see if I'm getting it straight... There are terrorists out there that would jump at the drop of a hat for the opportunity to grab weapons and anything else that could cause American troops harm. This is something we've known for years and baiting is something that's been going on for far longer than I can remember. Its no more morally incorrect than staging an ambush. If I remember correctly, the days of lining up armies across from one another on a field and retiring the commanding officers to the rear to watch and await an outcome are long gone.

We have an opportunity to use the enemy's greed and evil intentions against them and that makes us inappropriate and uncivilized? I know that by and large we want to prove to everyone that we are more human than our terrorist enemies, but simply put we don't have to prove it, WE ARE.

And if we insist on maintaining unrealistic moral high ground in a war with animals like Al Qaeda, no doubt that precious high ground will afford us a great seat from which we can witness our own demise.

We cannot continue spinning our wheels on whether or not we should use tactics like "baiting" because we refuse to grasp the nature of the pure evil of our enemy.

[TheNoNamedOne]

All well written, Doug, but I disagree on some points -- of which I will reply to tomorrow.

In the mean time get ready for a few "Thanks for this post" from several. People seem to be using that feature more as a backslapping "I agree with you" rather than a "thanks for being helpful."

[ja_Patriot]

You couldn't have said it better, DougP!

[Muku]

And if we insist on maintaining unrealistic moral high ground in a war with animals like Al Qaeda, no doubt that precious high ground will afford us a great seat from which we can witness our own demise.

We cannot continue spinning our wheels on whether or not we should use tactics like "baiting" because we refuse to grasp the nature of the pure evil of our enemy.

Well said Doug, I think you summed up and brought closure to this topic.

In my opinion no one can add anything of any signifigance, good post!

[DoctorP]

All well written, Doug, but I disagree on some points -- of which I will reply to tomorrow.

In the mean time get ready for a few "Thanks for this post" from several. People seem to be using that feature more as a backslapping "I agree with you" rather than a "thanks for being helpful."

If you don't have time to reply in full, then please don't make a post like this. It is not necessary and adds nothing to the topic.

Have a nice day!

[TheNoNamedOne]

Let me see if I'm getting it straight... There are terrorists out there that would jump at the drop of a hat for the opportunity to grab weapons and anything else that could cause American troops harm. This is something we've known for years and baiting is something that's been going on for far longer than I can remember. Its no more morally incorrect than staging an ambush.

The baiting used by snipers in Iraq engages anyone who picks up the items. That could be a 16 yr old boy just scavenging for things to try and support (or protect) his family through later sale. That could be him also just picking it up out of curiosity. It could also be picked up by a responsible person of that community wanting to not have such dangerous things like that laying around. Perhaps it could even be a person taking it to the police station or nearest check point to have the authorities dispose of it.

But then such persons with their intent through the scope of a sniper rifle are unknown. This idea comes across clearly in the articles reporting on this issue, that with a country awash in military items that could be of use to the insurgency, if everyone could be shot just because they picked up such an item, then we might as well paint targets on virtually every Iraqi left in the country.

Ambushes usually have a target well defined. Non targets are often let through the kill zone. Just entering the kill zone does not automatically trigger the ambush. The snipers in this baiting in Iraq on the other hand have testified that if someone picks up the items, they would engage them. Now, if anything entering the kill zone of an ambush triggered the attack then the two would be analogous. But these differences show us that they are not so.

If I remember correctly, the days of lining up armies across from one another on a field and retiring the commanding officers to the rear to watch and await an outcome are long gone.

Yes, it is. Who suggests otherwise, Doug? Are you saying there are to be no decent rules/laws of wars with moral considerations for the combatant parties to respect? Are you suggesting that because the enemy abandons all decency that we, too, should, and not hold ourselves to higher standards? I for one would not like to cede the moral high ground.

Again, good post. I will answer in full the rest of your post a little later when I get a little more time. Just wanted to get off a partial reply to you for now.

[DougP]

The baiting used by snipers in Iraq engages anyone who picks up the items. That could be a 16 yr old boy just scavenging for things to try and support (or protect) his family through later sale. That could be him also just picking it up out of curiosity. It could also be picked up by a responsible person of that community wanting to not have such dangerous things like that laying around. Perhaps it could even be a person taking it to the police station or nearest check point to have the authorities dispose of it.

But then such persons with their intent through the scope of a sniper rifle are unknown. This idea comes across clearly in the articles reporting on this issue, that with a country awash in military items that could be of use to the insurgency, if everyone could be shot just because they picked up such an item, then we might as well paint targets on virtually every Iraqi left in the country.

Ambushes usually have a target well defined. Non targets are often let through the kill zone. Just entering the kill zone does not automatically trigger the ambush. The snipers in this baiting in Iraq on the other hand have testified that if someone picks up the items, they would engage them. Now, if anything entering the kill zone of an ambush triggered the attack then the two would be analogous. But these differences show us that they are not so.


Actually there's a lot more to the picture then how you're painting it. There are actual targets in mind when these things are set up. They don't use baiting just to initiate target practice. Or indiscriminant target practice as you're suggesting. The other thing one has to realize is that no one in their right mind over there would go around picking stuff up that's been "left" on the ground. Not because it could be a baited trap set by snipers but because usually it could be attached to an IED. AK 47s and other misc weapons are not usually just scattered around for an easy pickup out there. Chances are if someone is going to pick on of them up then they already know its not attached to a bomb. That in my mind would make them a suspect. The kind of people you mention, the kind with good intentions would just leave these things alone.


Yes, it is. Who suggests otherwise, Doug? Are you saying there are to be no decent rules/laws of wars with moral considerations for the combatant parties to respect? Are you suggesting that because the enemy abandons all decency that we, too, should, and not hold ourselves to higher standards? I for one would not like to cede the moral high ground.

Again, good post. I will answer in full the rest of your post a little later when I get a little more time. Just wanted to get off a partial reply to you for now.

There comes a time when you can't always take the high ground. Although I don't think that "baiting" brings us down a notch nor anywhere near the level the enemy is on. There were quite a few times during the Revolutionary War that the Red Coats would continue to march in a column and not return fire at an ambush because such tactics were considered ungentlemanly. The "proper" and "moral" way to fight was done so on the battle field. Well we can see how that turned out for them.:D

[TheNoNamedOne]

Actually there's a lot more to the picture then how you're painting it. There are actual targets in mind when these things are set up. They don't use baiting just to initiate target practice. Or indiscriminant target practice as you're suggesting.

Doug, if you have been reading some of the reports and quotes on this topic in Iraq, the snipers -- not me -- have clearly said that if someone picks up the item and attmpts to leave with it, they engage the target. They did not qualify it any other way. They were very clear on the matter. Your issue is with them on how they are describing it first hand from themselves -- not me.

The other thing one has to realize is that no one in their right mind over there would go around picking stuff up that's been "left" on the ground.

Then why is bait used if no one picks it up? Are you saying that only the insurgents are lacking a good mind for analyzing the situation? Also, in a war torn country, I would imagine that there are many innocent people who are not in their right mind and do things that should not be done placing them in danger. Some would say no one in their right mind would leave the house when militia checkpoints are set up to ethnically cleans different sects from neighborhoods -- BUT -- people still do leave their houses for various reasons.

There are various reasons why someone who is not an insurgent would pick up baited items. I have already pointed those out.

Chances are if someone is going to pick on[e] of them up then they already know its not attached to a bomb. That in my mind would make them a suspect. The kind of people you mention, the kind with good intentions would just leave these things alone.

Well, we will disagree here, Doug. If war were in my neighborhood and some dangerous materials were laying on the road outside my house where my children had to occassionaly walk by and I saw that, I would certainly think about picking them up and taking them to the police station for disposal, or at least moving them away from my area and then inform the police about it. I am sure many people react differently, but to say "chances are" just does not cut it.

Geesh, chances are that after all the refugees have spilt out of Iraq to neighboring countries, all men left over the age of 18 not in the Kurdish areas are somehow connected to the insurgency or have/had a relative or friend or friend of a friend or relative in it. In that case according to the phylosophy of "chances are" we should shoot half and detain the other half. At least that way we will be playing with the odds in our favor of guilt by some association -- casual or definite.

[Bones]

Well, we will disagree here, Doug. If war were in my neighborhood and some dangerous materials were laying on the road outside my house where my children had to occassionaly walk by and I saw that, I would certainly think about picking them up and taking them to the police station for disposal, or at least moving them away from my area and then inform the police about it. I am sure many people react differently, but to say "chances are" just does not cut it.

TP, if you find any dangerous munitions lying on the ground, the last thing that you would want to do is pick them up, or move them. Mark the area off, ask for someone to watch the area, and then notify the appropriate authorities. Either picking the item up, or trying to move it, could result in some serious personal injury, or death.

Geesh, chances are that after all the refugees have spilt out of Iraq to neighboring countries, all men left over the age of 18 not in the Kurdish areas are somehow connected to the insurgency or have/had a relative or friend or friend of a friend or relative in it. In that case according to the phylosophy of "chances are" we should shoot half and detain the other half. At least that way we will be playing with the odds in our favor of guilt by some association -- casual or definite.

That sounds great, if you're sitting in the comforts of your air-conditioned living room. In a combat environment, that line of thinking will get you, or one of your brother's - in - arms, killed.

I personally don't see anything wrong either with "baiting", or "engaging" the target if he/she picks up the bait.

This is a different kind of war, and many times the enemy those brave men and women are facing over there, do not wear uniforms. They purposely try to blend in with the local population. Then if innocent civilians are killed, they will use those casualties for propaganda purposes.

As other posters out their have said, there operational parameters that the snipers have to follow. And I'm pretty sure the guys/gals with their finger on the trigger, follow them to the letter.

And to them, I say:

Happy Hunting !!!!

NBTP

[DougP]

Doug, if you have been reading some of the reports and quotes on this topic in Iraq, the snipers -- not me -- have clearly said that if someone picks up the item and attmpts to leave with it, they engage the target. They did not qualify it any other way. They were very clear on the matter. Your issue is with them on how they are describing it first hand from themselves -- not me.

I find it interesting that you now choose to take what some soldiers are being quoted as saying at face value. Like I said I believe there is more to it than what you read in the article. But of course if it isn't written it must not exist according to you.


Then why is bait used if no one picks it up? Are you saying that only the insurgents are lacking a good mind for analyzing the situation? Also, in a war torn country, I would imagine that there are many innocent people who are not in their right mind and do things that should not be done placing them in danger.

Want to take this moment to talk about the highlighted part of your statement. You're right. In a war torn country people often will do things that seem to defy logic and even what one deems to be morally correct. You just pointed out why. Because they may not be in their right mind. That being said should we be so harsh on the young men and women in the armed services over in Iraq? Should we try to be more understanding of them and what they are doing to combat an enemy that knows no moral bounds when it comes to war?


Some would say no one in their right mind would leave the house when militia checkpoints are set up to ethnically cleans different sects from neighborhoods -- BUT -- people still do leave their houses for various reasons.

There are various reasons why someone who is not an insurgent would pick up baited items. I have already pointed those out.

Yes and as you pointed out before this is a war torn country. Not a civil suburban area of the US. Most people living here are well aware oif the risk of being near abandon objects let alone touching them. Anything and I mean anything can be a trigger mechanism for an IED. An abandon car, a dead body, weapons etc. So why in the world would someone attempt to pick something up that could possibly take them and many others around them out? All in all I don't think any of the various reasons why someone who is not an insurgent would pick up baited items that you pointed out hold any ground. They just seem very unlikely for this scenario given the situation and how things have been over there for the past 4 years.



Well, we will disagree here, Doug. If war were in my neighborhood and some dangerous materials were laying on the road outside my house where my children had to occassionaly walk by and I saw that, I would certainly think about picking them up and taking them to the police station for disposal, or at least moving them away from my area and then inform the police about it. I am sure many people react differently, but to say "chances are" just does not cut it.

NBTP brought up a very good point. There is already a way of going about things when it comes to the "discovery" of a weapon or something that doesn't belong. People, as I've pointed out before, are already more than aware that these "misc" items should be reported to the right authorities. They are also more than aware that messing with things left on the ground can be very VERY deadly and not because it could be a baited trap.

Geesh, chances are that after all the refugees have spilt out of Iraq to neighboring countries, all men left over the age of 18 not in the Kurdish areas are somehow connected to the insurgency or have/had a relative or friend or friend of a friend or relative in it. In that case according to the phylosophy of "chances are" we should shoot half and detain the other half. At least that way we will be playing with the odds in our favor of guilt by some association -- casual or definite.

Well paint me a better scenario. Or a better way of going about things. Sometimes the ends do justify the means. The means may not be pretty but neither is the alternative of just leaving the situation alone.

Quite frankly the answer is very simple. If you are not a terrorist don't pick shit up that doesn't belong to you.

[Fonze]

Exactly if stuff looks suspicious they can always tell the local police or interpretors when the G.I's do there patrols.

[TheNoNamedOne]

...Like I said I believe there is more to it than what you read in the article. But of course if it isn't written it must not exist according to you.

Well, hell Doug, then if it isn't written that Dawg the bounty hunter is not flying over to Iraq on one of the Air Force 1 jets on the weekend, then I geuss we have to accept that he may be possibly over there winning the war for us on the weekends, huh? Ridiculous.

We can discuss on what information we have. To suggest that there is more, and there probably is more, but to base support for your point on the unknown then that is mere speculation. Unknown variable X decides nothing.

Perhaps Lt. Cali had more information about Mai Lai that never came out. We should equally consider him innocent of the Mai Li massacre (which I will bring up again later) due to extenuating evidence and circumstances that we can speculate on existing regardless of whether we are aware of them or not.

Want to take this moment to talk about the highlighted part of your statement. You're right. In a war torn country people often will do things that seem to defy logic and even what one deems to be morally correct. You just pointed out why. Because they may not be in their right mind.

Yes, and some are in the right mind and still take risks for various reasons. When you are in a survival situation you will often discard caution if the pay off for doing so could help you and make you or your family's situation better.

That being said should we be so harsh on the young men and women in the armed services over in Iraq? Should we try to be more understanding of them and what they are doing to combat an enemy that knows no moral bounds when it comes to war?

I don't think my harshness is aimed at the actual snipers. For the most part I think it is aimed at the ones who put this policy into place. They came from higher up with ammo boxes of bait with instructions to the snipers to use these items to spread around as bait. Those policy makers were not the ones on the front lines cracking under the duress of combat.

However, the three men who blew the whistle on this knew these tactics were questionable and only because they were going to be punished for falling asleep on a sniper mission did they come forward. They were like, "ok, you gonna ding me for falling asleep? I'm gonna go public with this bullshit I know we are doing that is going to be viewed as wrong and put the whole army in hot shit. That's our ding back to you."

So obviously the men at groundlevel also knew it was wrong if they knew they could use this as retaliation.

All in all I don't think any of the various reasons why someone who is not an insurgent would pick up baited items that you pointed out hold any ground. They just seem very unlikely for this scenario given the situation and how things have been over there for the past 4 years.

You can't see a destitue father or eldest son spying an AK47 on the ground, knowing that he could sell it for 50 bucks to get milk and eggs for his children who may be malnourished, picking it up and trying to unload it for some money? I sure can. Not a hard leap of imagination at all.

You can't see a Shia father on the border of a Suni neighborhood worried about a sectarian invasion into his home in the middle of the night, not having a gun, then seeing one laying on the ground, deciding to pick it up so that he could use it to protect his family as a possible scenario? I sure can. Not a leap of imagination at all.

I am sure there are many, and any competent lawyer could paint a hundred more. Why do you think that questionable scenarios are being given credit in the reports that these actions are blurring the lines of acceptable engagement rules? Not like I am the only one seeing the possibilities, and very real ones at that.

NBTP brought up a very good point. There is already a way of going about things when it comes to the "discovery" of a weapon or something that doesn't belong. People, as I've pointed out before, are already more than aware that these "misc" items should be reported to the right authorities. They are also more than aware that messing with things left on the ground can be very VERY deadly and not because it could be a baited trap.

Awareness does not mean one follows the safest ways. Hell, you will still find a Private Stupid Shit in just about every military unit, who despite numerous classes on safety or correct tactics, will still do something stupid to endanger his life or his brothers. I would suspect a higher rate in the civilian world where a large part of the population is desperate.

Well paint me a better scenario. Or a better way of going about things.

How about the classic art of sniper patience and discipline waiting for a confirmed target to appear that is armed? How about the classic are of sniper stalking? Sure, the latter is more difficult in MOUT conditions, but still possible.

The war is not only about killing the enemy. It is also about winning the hearts and minds of the citizens of the country. Baiting that causes innocent deaths only causes more hatred and animosity towards us and our goals. An unjust death will create the new insurgent from the sons and fathers of those unjustly killed this way. It is counterproductive to the wider picture of things here.

Sometimes the ends do justify the means. The means may not be pretty but neither is the alternative of just leaving the situation alone.

That is a big "sometimes" and you have no way to qualify that until after the fact. Hindsite is always perfect.

Quite frankly the answer is very simple. If you are not a terrorist don't pick shit up that doesn't belong to you.

And your last quote and this one brings me back to Lt. Cali and Mai Lai.

Hey, if they were not VC or supporters of VCs, then the rounds that were supposedly fired from the direction of that village, would not have come from there. If you are not a VC or supporter of VC, then don't live in VC supporting villages. The ends justified the means with Mai Lai.

That is where your reasoning takes us, Doug.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Retired Maj. Gen. Thomas J. Romig, a former judge advocate general for the Army (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092502136.html), said the group's baiting program, as described publicly, opens up the possibility for indiscriminate shootings -- based on little information -- that could lead to the death of scavengers or curious passersby. He said that when troops kill civilians by mistake, it can harm the war effort.

"In those cases where there are lots of questions, sometimes shooting is not the right answer, because it has a huge potential for being indiscriminate," said Romig, now dean of the Washburn University School of Law in Kansas.

And this has been one of the major points of my previous post. The claim that only insurgents would pick up such things is ludicrous, and a Maj. General underscores that with his comments. The potential for indiscriminate shooting could be quite real with such a tactic as baiting.

[DoctorP]

And this has been one of the major points of my previous post. The claim that only insurgents would pick up such things is ludicrous, and a Maj. General underscores that with his comments. The potential for indiscriminate shooting could be quite real with such a tactic as baiting.

Does his rank add more weight to the situation? I only ask because you made it a point to state it twice in your passage.

I seem to remember generals who were guilty of selling weapons, Presidents who had extra marital relations, Presidents who have lied to the nation, Senators who have lied, CEO's who have stolen...so why should his rank make a difference?

[DougP]

That is where your reasoning takes us, Doug.

At least I'm leaning towards something with my reasoning. I can't help but read your replies and wonder "Where is he going with this?" I know you feel compelled to play devils advocate on just about everything but quite simply I'm bored by all that stuff. What would you realistically want these young men and women to do? You really haven't painted that picture for us. Where does your reasoning take us? Where would you like it to take us?

You can't see a destitue father or eldest son spying an AK47 on the ground, knowing that he could sell it for 50 bucks to get milk and eggs for his children who may be malnourished, picking it up and trying to unload it for some money? I sure can. Not a hard leap of imagination at all.

You put it best later when you wrote.

That is a big "sometimes" and you have no way to qualify that until after the fact. Hindsite is always perfect.

I am sure there are many, and any competent lawyer could paint a hundred more. Why do you think that questionable scenarios are being given credit in the reports that these actions are blurring the lines of acceptable engagement rules? Not like I am the only one seeing the possibilities, and very real ones at that.

Less than competent lawyers can also convince a jury that McDonald's should pay out some withered old lady $480,000 for spilling her own coffee... on herself.:rolleyes: Does that really make it credible?

Well, hell Doug, then if it isn't written that Dawg the bounty hunter is not flying over to Iraq on one of the Air Force 1 jets on the weekend, then I guess we have to accept that he may be possibly over there winning the war for us on the weekends, huh? Ridiculous.

Well this one would have to be one of my favorites. If it is written it must be so. If it is omitted it must not exist. Is this what you really mean?

Does this mean the next time I find a written article about what a wonderful job the troops are doing in Iraq and how they are helping local communities it must be so? It must be the absolute truth and there is nothing going on behind the scenes? Because if it isn't in print it doesn't exist.

However, the three men who blew the whistle on this knew these tactics were questionable and only because they were going to be punished for falling asleep on a sniper mission did they come forward. They were like, "ok, you gonna ding me for falling asleep? I'm gonna go public with this bullshit I know we are doing that is going to be viewed as wrong and put the whole army in hot shit. That's our ding back to you."

This alone would make me question the credibility of anything that came out of both sides. After one party gets in to trouble and then tries for the classic "I;m gonna take you down with me." it blurs the lines of truth exponentially.

Listen, we got to take care of ourselves now. I mean who is going to protect us? I'm not saying we have to be trigger happy, but let's not be trigger sad either. I love all the Vietnam and Iraq analogies. Seriously, they're wonderful.
Since most of them seem to try to drive home the hind sight being 20/20 factor and we should learn from our mistakes one should not forget that when we split Vietnam and the killing fields happened. You're talking about 2.3 out of 7 million people in that population were cut down like with a scythe. And that's what's going to happen here, too. Never mind that baiting and other tactics you deem questionable are just a small part of the game when it comes to defeating an enemy that is so far off on the other end of the humanity spectrum its sickening.

Lastly just as the Titanic ramming the iceberg lead to the obvious practice of having enough lifeboats for all the passengers, fighting a politically correct war in Iraq will remind us that you only fight wars to win. Remember hind sight is always perfect. It is imperative that we kill the terrorists before they kill us. If that "caveman" logic makes you blanch then think of it as preemptive universal health care. There's a way to get your head around it.:D

[TheNoNamedOne]

At least I'm leaning towards something with my reasoning. I can't help but read your replies and wonder "Where is he going with this?" ... What would you realistically want these young men and women to do? You really haven't painted that picture for us. Where does your reasoning take us? Where would you like it to take us?

Yes, Doug, I showed you that your reasoning leans us towards more Mai Lais. I don't think that is the way to be leaning at all. As it pertainst to snipers in MOUT conditions, I think a practice that has the high potential for indiscriminate targeting of innocents is not the best way. My reasoning against that is that it sows animosity towards us when innocents are killed. I've explained that and how it could lead to increasing the insurgency.

Snipers without baiting can still hunt the enemy -- that is why they are trained in patience and stalking.

You put it best later when you wrote:

Quote by TheProsecutor:
"...Hindsite is always perfect."

Indeed, it is. And the flip side we use to hindsight is foresight. Foresight can easily let us see how this practice of sniping by baiting has huge potential for killing innocents. Again, I gave you simple examples that do not stretch the imagination as to probable situations.

Less than competent lawyers can also convince a jury that McDonald's should pay out some withered old lady $480,000 for spilling her own coffee... on herself.:rolleyes: Does that really make it credible?

lol. Why would you say those lawyers are less than competent. They won for their cliant, didn't they? A jury was convinced by their arguments, wasn't one? You mean, if they would have lost their cliant's case they would have been competent???

Those examples I gave you are not fantastical. They are real possibilities and therefore are credible.

Well this one would have to be one of my favorites. If it is written it must be so. If it is omitted it must not exist. Is this what you really mean?

Does this mean the next time I find a written article about what a wonderful job the troops are doing in Iraq and how they are helping local communities it must be so? It must be the absolute truth and there is nothing going on behind the scenes? Because if it isn't in print it doesn't exist.

Not at all. If there is evidence stating otherwise then both pro and con can be used. But one does not debate on just nothing and say, "hey, because it may be we must consider it equal with what we do know."

Your example of troops doing a wonderful job shown in print can be counterbalanced with stories where troops have committed horrible atrocities. Neither one can be used to paint brush the whole of the other, however, in each case there is "something" to show and that "something" is what the debate goes around, or at least it should for those who do not want to dance with phantoms.

This alone would make me question the credibility of anything that came out of both sides. After one party gets in to trouble and then tries for the classic "I;m gonna take you down with me." it blurs the lines of truth exponentially.

I agree. However, it seems that other quotes from those not on trial are trickling out on the matter as well lending support to the baiting allegations.

[Muku]

Doug wrote;

Remember hind sight is always perfect.
Doug this reply is directed to you in regards to this quote......

I understand the point you are making and would only add, that hind sight is only perfect depending on which side of the fence you happen to be sitting on.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Listen, we got to take care of ourselves now.

Yes, and having good policies that do not increase the insurgency because of animosity bad policies cause is one of the best ways in taking care of ourselves. Why wouldn't you agree to that -- a policy that does not feed the insurgency with new bodies?

I mean who is going to protect us? I'm not saying we have to be trigger happy, but let's not be trigger sad either. I love all the Vietnam and Iraq analogies. Seriously, they're wonderful.
Since most of them seem to try to drive home the hind sight being 20/20 factor and we should learn from our mistakes...

Yes, and learning from our mistakes means exercising foresight based on hindsite with each new conflict or battle. Foresight takes into probabilities and real possibilities. Hell, whole war games with contingencies are centered around having foresight into the situation and into what will make the enemy stronger or weaker. Killing innocents in a war that has enemies drawn from the civilian populace because of hatred for indoctrinal or personal reasons will create a stronger enemy.

[ja_Patriot]

The first sniper of three on trial was acquitted of murder but convicted on "misplacing property".
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,150787,00.html?ESRC=army-a.nl

He and his family has to deal with legal fees and what's left of his career.

All these just for following orders.

Col. Hunt's article (posted earlier) discusses implications and possible consequences.

Any thoughts on how this may affect individual decisions in the battlefield?


#

[DocTurtle]

1) "Baiting" see the last 20 min of "Full Metal Jacket"
2) The term "engage" does not always mean shoot. It could mean they radioed someone ahead and said grab this guy when he comes around the corner.
3) War is never pretty. Someone said earlier about how in the Rev War that the red coats would line up and stay in formation while the rebels shot at them from the trees and bushes. Sometime you have to have gurrilla tactics to stay in the fight. It's not something you want to admit, but when it's a either you die or I die situation you are going to do what you can to save your arse. Sure, it's not right. It shouldn't happen, but neither should war. On that same note, I can't remeber who said it...I wanna say Ghandi or Sun Tsu (sp?) that said."If you want peace you must prepare for war." Yea...and now I'm off topic...sorry.

Oh, by the way, Doug and TP, you both have very valid points :)

[ja_Patriot]

“Baiting”. Personally I prefer the Marlon Brando version in the first 20 min of “Last Tango in Paris”.


#LOL

[themadscientist]

It must be nice to hide behind the sheild of the same military you second-guess. They are lucky I am not running things, the land between Israel and China would be a sheet of glass. Don't bother with your cutesy debate tactics, it isn't up for debate with me, **** that entire section of the world, period.
:dead::dead::dead::dead::dead::dead:

[Asshat]

My Uncle taught me years ago that when I went to a fight, take all of my weapons, go to win and there were no rules.

yeah, baiting is legit. It is used in American society and has stood the test of the courts. Buy weed from or proposition a cop. Yer busted.

Maybe a more valid discussion would be the lack of contractual oversite by a contractor functioning in Iraq as executive protection.

Either fight the war or not, but it doesn't take long for everyone to know to leave the little bits of exploding stuff alone. After all, would anyone here dare pick up a bit of unexploded WWII or Vietnam era ordinance? If so, let me know...I'll pay you to do a bit of digging.