Rule No. One

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Someone should have taught our soldiers in Afganistan that Rule No. One is to identify your target.
What's with all these friendly fire incidents? At this rate we wont need the enemy to fight. Just kill ourselves.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Muleracer:
Someone should have taught our soldiers in Afganistan that Rule No. One is to identify your target.
What's with all these friendly fire incidents? At this rate we wont need the enemy to fight. Just kill ourselves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Mule, this discussion could go either way so I am going to recognize it as such.

Good to see primary post from you again.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Apparently, this last incident was performed by Special Forces, United States Army.
I know there will be the "shit happens" crowd, defending these actions. Tell it th their families back home.
I just spoke with a retired SF Sgt about this very thing. He informed me that the very worst thing, even worse then a failed mission was firing upon your own. "There is no option. It will not be done. Ever."
These soldiers ****ed up.

[Warlady]

Mule, I took the day off yesterday so I'm out of the loop. What friendly fire incident? Is there an article on it somewhere?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

U.S. friendly fire kills 3 allies (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/06/01/friendly.fire/index.html)

BAGRAM AIR BASE, Afghanistan -- U.S. special forces have killed three Afghan allies in a friendly fire incident in eastern Afghanistan.

The troops mistook a group of allies for al Qaeda fighters and opened fire, a U.S. army spokesman told CNN on Saturday.

The shooting took place the day before in a region where U.S. and British troops are hunting for remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters.

[Warlady]

That's a tragedy but how does one tell the difference? I'm certainly no expert but I would think that would be quite a challenge.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warlady:
That's a tragedy but how does one tell the difference? I'm certainly no expert but I would think that would be quite a challenge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is especially difficult if the phyical statue is close to the same. Also some times the lack of uniform or diffent types of uniforms is helpful. It is still a judgement call unless you can be sure i.e. his life or mine.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I am sory to say that you have missed the point, War and John. In every instance of fire, the target must be identified. No guesswork. No physical characteristics. Even when fired upon, the choice is to either fire back or get away. If it's friendlies firing on you (like idiots), then you should not fire back. You should get away. It is officers and non coms that make those decisions. (Or they used to).
Fire only when the target is identified. Period. There is no room for any error.
These SF soldiers apparently (mistakenly) saw what looked like a shoulder supported weapon aimed at their chopper, so they fired upon their allies. That is totally unacceptable.
When I was in Boats, there was a First Class Gunner's mate (E-6) that fired into some bushes, thinkin he saw the enemy. Turned out it was a water buffalo. He got a Other than honorable discharge out of it. He had not properly identified the enemy.
Firing automatic weapons is not an armchair exercise. It is for real, and that's why it is (or should be) drummed into every officer's head.

[Warlady]

So Mule you are saying that if someone is shooting at you you shouldn't shoot back? What if you can't get away? What are they supposed to do ask for ID? Doesn't sound very logical to me sorry. If that's your point I'm glad I missed it.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

That's why they took women out of combat, War. They cant get the concept.

[Warlady]

Yeah I can see why. Women wouldn't let people shoot at them without shooting back. DUH images/icons/tongue.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

The guys on the ground didnt shoot. DUH.

[Warlady]

Were they pointing a large weapon at a US helicopter?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Muleracer:
I am sory to say that you have missed the point, War and John. In every instance of fire, the target must be identified. No guesswork. No physical characteristics. Even when fired upon, the choice is to either fire back or get away. If it's friendlies firing on you (like idiots), then you should not fire back. You should get away. It is officers and non coms that make those decisions. (Or they used to).
Fire only when the target is identified. Period. There is no room for any error.
These SF soldiers apparently (mistakenly) saw what looked like a shoulder supported weapon aimed at their chopper, so they fired upon their allies. That is totally unacceptable.
When I was in Boats, there was a First Class Gunner's mate (E-6) that fired into some bushes, thinkin he saw the enemy. Turned out it was a water buffalo. He got a Other than honorable discharge out of it. He had not properly identified the enemy.
Firing automatic weapons is not an armchair exercise. It is for real, and that's why it is (or should be) drummed into every officer's head.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mule Racer, I agree that what you say is according to the book. Unfortunately the guy that wrote the book was not being fired upon. I think each circumstance must be judged on its own merit. If you commit murder in Texas or elsewhere you must still go before a Judge and in some cases a jury of your peers, before it becomes fact that the perpetrator committed the murder.

I can assure you that if """"One of the men pointed a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. forces""" I am not going to say if you fire that at me and miss, I am going to fire back.

I have been fired upon and returned the fire without ever seeing who was firing at us.

A lot of water Buffalo were certainly killed in Vietnam.

[2nd_Amendment]

In the bush in 'nam is something moving. Suddenly rounds are flying your way. You...

Identify the target?

Send everything you've got his way and if the stupid **** is one of ours figure he deserved it?

Option two was the choice of more living soldiers than any other option, Mule. The rule book is nice. And in the field it makes great toilet paper.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Of course I expected you to disagree with me, 2nd. You and Desert Fox always disagree with me, no matter what I say. Just because I got a bigger balls than you do, and you two are just jealous.
To be killed by friendly fire aint cool. That's all I am sayin. And these boys will get a pass. That's the new and improved Army.
I would support the maximum sentence for a soldier that kills another on the same side. That is criminal. But, of course, in your wishy washy little world, hysterics must take over, and soldiers act like little girls. What happened to the professional soldier?
By the way, Hack says the same thing that I do. ANY professional soldier worth a damn will tell you the same thing.
You others aint got a clue.
Let me tell you something, 2nd. In Nam that little rule book WAS followed. You watch too many movies. Wipe your ass with it indeed.

[Warlady]

Like I said before I'm not military so I'm no expert and I agree friendly fire mistakes are horrible and must be avoided at all costs but we've been told that this is an unconventional war, unlike any other. Terrorists aren't so easy to ID as a conventional enemy. Seems to me anyway.

[DesertFox]

The Mule's on the money. Situations like this are why you have rules. They're rules for extraordinary times and you know they're gonna be broke when you make 'em, but you do have to make 'em and enforce 'em.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Like I said earlier. I could post that the sun is hot, and you two yardbirds would jump all over me. I aint quite got what is that
you have against me, but, you do.
As for your hero uncle, he told me to kiss his hairy ass. Now, was that nice?
Neither one of you intimidate me. So stop trying.

[Warlady]

Mule you jumped down their throats for disagreeing with you over on page 1.

[2nd_Amendment]

Disagreement is disagreement. It happens. Most don't take it personally. Virtually nobody takes it personally on every single subject. I don't take it personally that you disagree with me on many things. of course, I don't see that you and I actually disagree on most things, only in tone and certain aspects. You don't seem able to separate discussion form condemnation lately, though. And you don't seem able to speak without calling those who disagree in any fashion a variety of names, usually starting with pussy.

I'm not trying to intimidate you, Mule. I don't care enough about your opinions one way or the other anymore to bother.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Ok...fire on anything that moves, then.
Happy now?

[2nd_Amendment]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Muleracer:
Ok...fire on anything that moves, then.
Happy now?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No. Review each case fairly within the context of real world fighting conditions and fry those who screwed up through laziness and stupidity and accept that some screwed up simply because of bad Intelligence or no Intelligence at all. Oh, and hold off the public condemnations till a review board that actually sees all the facts has made a decision.

You happy now?

[Timberwolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>King later said: "As the U.S. and Afghan military forces neared the compound, they observed several armed men in the compound moving into fighting positions. They were armed with AK-47s."

A few minutes later, a special forces' element saw 10 to 12 additional armed men moving towards them in what appeared to be a flanking manoeuvre, he said.

One of the men pointed a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. forces.

"The element commander perceived... an imminent threat to his element and ordered his unit to open fire. The ensuing firefight... resulted in the death of three men, wounding two," King said.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Tell ya whut...if I'm approaching a once hostile position that is supposed to be deserted and some asshole is pointing an RPG at me while his buddies are pulling a flanking maneuver, he damned well better not be an ally, cuz he's gonna get his ass shot off. Mind you, if they were calling for our boys to identify themselves, this becomes a much different set of circumstances and YOU'D be right on the money. However, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Mule, I can't believe that for one second you'd be advocating that our boys WAIT until this no-mind actually FIRED a rocket at them. That doesn't sound like you. Acquisition/identification of target goes both ways. The Afghan allies, in this particular case, brought it upon themselves.

Like you said earlier, automatic weapons fire is a very serious thing...that goes for someone screwing around with an RPG on his shoulder, too.

[oracle]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Muleracer:
These soldiers ****ed up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But did they?

Look at the details of the incident from the
cited article:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>U.S. army spokesman Colonel Roger King said U.S. special forces accompanied by Afghan military officials were not aware of the presence of the Afghan allies in a compound where al Qaeda and Taliban leaders were believed to be meeting.

King later said: "As the U.S. and Afghan military forces neared the compound, they observed several armed men in the compound moving into fighting positions. They were armed with AK-47s."

A few minutes later, a special forces' element saw 10 to 12 additional armed men moving towards them in what appeared to be a flanking manoeuvre, he said.

One of the men pointed a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. forces.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're in a enemy camp without any knowledge of other allies being there, a group moves in to firing position while a second group appears to be trying to flank your position, and one of them points a rocket-propelled grenade at your position. Any you thinking firing at them is ****ing up?

Not me. Our men did exactly what they are trained to do. There was a threat to them and they responded.

[2nd_Amendment]

Nobody is disagreeing on the need for rules regarding many things. The disagreement is on Mules niave blanket assumption that the rules always work and that the same punishment should always be applied under all circumstances.

When a man is under fire and cannot identify his "enemy", a situation that happens constantly, no reasonable person can ask him not to shoot back. And no reasonable person can expect the same punishment to be meted out as to one who simply refuses to attempt to identify a visible target.

And no, Mule, I don't think I've ever watched a movie about 'nam, though I would like to see that new one. But I am surrounded by men who were there and from one of them comes this comment "Tell him he can kiss my hairy white ass". That would be my uncle, and if you think you have bigger cojones than him, well, I'd have to wonder how you walk.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Tell your pussy uncle to mark the spot, cause he's all ass.

[2nd_Amendment]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Muleracer:
Tell your pussy uncle to mark the spot, cause he's all ass.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


And that is the kind of statement which explains why you've gone from a serious poster to a mere sideshow, or someone whose comments are to simply be passed over and ignored.

[DesertFox]

Yep. Self-destruction, pure and simple.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

"Tell him he can kiss my hairy white ass". That would be my uncle, and if you think you have bigger cojones than him, well, I'd have to wonder how you walk".

I do believe that it was your uncle that fired the first shot.
Cant handle return fire?
All you two do is try to impress folks with your vast knowledge, of which you have very little.

[2nd_Amendment]

I wasn't going to make any further comments on this, or Mule in general, but I have to ask a few questions: Fired the first shot where, Mule? How do you know? How do you know he's a pussy? How do you know he's an ass? How do you know what punishment is deserved by whom and under what circumstances?

Impress with our "vast knowledge", eh? As opposed to you, who attempts to discredit with your vast assumptions? While we may have little of the former you have a bountiful supplly lately of the latter.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

The rule book should also apply to all these dumb asses we call police, who shoot and kill plenty of little kids who are aiming a water pistol at them.