Medal for 'courageous restraint' plan get mixed review from troops Read more at the

Dealers/ Manufacturers/ Regional/ Info Trash
1

I bet this medal will be granted posthumously far too often.

This medal would not even be dreamed up as a cruel joke during WWII

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/world/Medal-for-_courageous-restraint_-plan-get-mixed-review-from-troops-93007014.html

Medal for ‘courageous restraint’ plan get mixed review from troops
By: SARA A. CARTER
National Security Correspondent
May 7, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

scarter@washingtonexaminer.com

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/world/Medal-for-_courageous-restraint_-plan-get-mixed-review-from-troops-93007014.html#ixzz0ntCdAE8z

2

Guess what? It ain’t WWII.

This is counterinsurgency. For any soldier to complain about being turned into “a police force” is for that soldier to admit that they don’t understand the first thing about counterinsurgency. Of COURSE you’re being turned into a police force, dumbass; that’s what the military DOES in a counterinsurgency!!!

After debating this online on every other forum I’m on, I’ve come to a conclusion: We simply do not have the right Army or political system to fight and win a counterinsurgency.

The question is, do we just allow insurgents to win and basically cede most of the world to their control? Are we really willing to allow that part of the world to recede farther and farther into the camp of the Iranian style crazies?

Alternately, we could just declare unlimited war on that part of the world, bombing and killing at will. I wonder what the mid- and long-term consequences of that would be???

Or… maybe we just need to have two armies. A conventional army for defense of the US and it’s direct interests, trained to kill everything coming over the hill and an unconventional army that has the mindset to fight and win counterinsurgencies. The thing is, the fight we have right now is not one you can win by just killing folks. Currently, the conventional minded folks are not only worthless, they are counterproductive.

I weary of constantly going over this shit. As fun as it sounds to call for blood, no-one is going to kill their way out of this one.

3

Sorry, I will do my damned best to ensure my wife doesnt get a folded flag.

If I have a reason to show “courageous restraint” I have an even a better reason to shoot to kill, call in an air strike, launch hell fires or whatever.

Even worse, courageous restraint could get your team members killed. That’s not what I was trained for, and it is certainly not why I enlisted.

ROE first. Bullshit PC medals later.

4

Huh, that’s funny. And here I thought we signed folks up to accomplish missions, and obey the orders of them above them. Good to see you got an “opt out of those things you don’t agree with” option.

5

Brother, you do what you have to do.

We’ve all got to live with the consequences of our decisions. If you feel the need to put yourself and the people around in the position where you earn the courageous restraint medal, posthumously or otherwise, that’s your call.

6

Of course, this assumes that a Warfighter is just going to sit around exercising “courageous restraint” so that they can get another medal.

I am sorry, but I just don’t see that happening. After 15 years, I haven’t met a Soldier yet (even a bad one) who would put themselves or others unnecessarily at risk for the sake of a stupid medal.

At the same time, if an American Warfighter is of the “spray and pray” mindset, and without concern for collateral damage, they’re really no better than the bad guys. That is not to say we need to take unnecessary risks or not defend ourselves with absolute lethal and final force, but there is a balance to be struck between taking calculated and measured risk, which we have done our best to mitigate, and “blowing everything away” without concern for the folks who inevitably get in the way. Heck, if that was the way it should be, let’s just pull all of our guys and gals out, and turn the whole place (Iraq too) into a giant litter box.

The battlefield is asymmetrical and the bad guys don’t wear uniforms anymore. But they do hide behind women and children now. Collateral damage happens everyday under the fog of war, but that doesn’t mean that we should condone it, regardless of how many bad guys we shoot in the face.

7

This is worth quoting and stating again.

8

I respectfully disagree. Though restraint must be shown (circumstances depending), the US military is not Afghan’s police force. A counter-insurgency is not a police action. A counter-insurgency is a process to legitamize one form of government over another in the eyes of the people. Policing the nation is one small part of that process. The military can support the police effort, but US troops are better off when doing there MTOE mission. There are places in Afghanistan that it is still very appropriate.

I was an advisor to Afghan National Civil Order Police (ANCOP) when they first started. We were combat oriented. I worked with Dyncorp trainers when training the ANCOP. The Dyncorp guys were all SWAT instructors etc from civilian police departments stateside. They were (mostly) good guys. But they were totally lost in a warzone (even the relatively quiet Kabul).

The military has a defined role and is equipped and trained to accomplish it. Plus, encouraging the enemy with lack of response to threats is very counter-produtive.

9

That’s complete bullcrap.

If you are in a direct fire firefight because the enemy has ambushed you in a populated area (from houses, behind walls) and you engage with HMG, AGL, and rifle fire you are going to “spray and pray”. The fault lies entirely with the enemy for picking the ground AND with the local population for tolerating the enemy. In some areas Taliban lost support because of the collateral damage done in fights with us. The locals are not dumb. They knew that if Taliban started a fight all hell was coming their way.

10

To pile on to this:

The idea that somehow American troops are dying in droves because we aren’t killing civilians that bad guys are hiding behind is asinine.

The American troops dying right now, are by and large doing so in pretty unrestrained combat in the south and in the east.

There is, and was, the unrestrained killing of civilians on the off chance we might “get” a bad guy. As we can see by what little impact “killing bad guys” has had on their operations (even leadership) there is no justification for killing civilians just to get a couple bad guys.

No bad guys are key enough to the war effort to take the risk.

On the other hand, the bad guys hide behind civilians not as protection, as to induce us to kill civilians. Because our killing civilians serves the bad guys’ strategic purpose.

In closing, “professionalism” is not a coat one can take on or off as it suits. There is a fine line between bitching about things and advocating open mutiny.

11

I agree with you.

12

The military has only had a defined role since WWII. If the Army doesn’t want to be flexible, fine. Defund it, put the “warfighters” out onto the street, and replace it with some force that will do the job. Personally, COIN shouldn’t be run by the military to begin with.

I agree with this. But not for the reasons you state. COIN forces should already BE in those areas; albeit in small numbers, and we shouldn’t be granting the enemy this ground.

Edited to add: The attitude that it’s the local population’s “fault” for “tolerating the enemy” is an attitude shared by every single force to ever lose a counterinsurgency. It’s as idiotic as company reps coming on here to argue with customers about why they are wrong.

13

Bingo!

14

My response in blue.

15

The military is only part of COIN. I agree it should only focus on the military role.

Fine. We can fire about 2/3d of US servicemembers, and hire folks more useful in COIN, because COIN is what we are fighting. Unless, of course, you want to rethink what our military’s role should be. BTW, other military’s have been able to successfully transition to COIN.

It is impossible to deny every bit of ground to the enemy. The goal of COIN is to provide the locals with the motivation and means to do it themselves. Sometimes the motivation is when their house gets bombed because the Taliban occupied it. Remember why the Sunnis finally turned on the Al Qeada in Iraq.

The Sunnis finally turned on AQI over forced marriage. I don’t know what myth you were told, but “The Awakening” was the Sunni finally getting pissed off at AQI for being overly bloodthirsty plus taking the wrong women in forced marriage deals.

No COIN force has ever succeeded by making the population feel pain. What makes you think that it will work with us?

16

It doesn’t neccesarily.

1st, the Taliban has their own PA folks that supply our willing media with ‘stories’ and ‘civilian body counts’ which are grossly inflated or just made up.

That media attention is what is the bad guy’s strategic goal.

If the media spun it different, by portraying (truthfully) that the civilians are killed by the Taliban’s initiating combat amongst them it would be different.

In Tagab 2007-08 IEDs were not used. Why? The coalition just built a road into the valley and the Taliban would lose lots of support if they even touched it. Don’t be fooled by the media. The Taliban has to legitimize themselves to the Afghan people and starting fights in their backyards can make them very unpopular. The BS civilian casualties is to erode public support for the war in the US, but the locals know why it is their towns are warzones.

17

That was my point. The Sunnis figured out who was really hurting them, our COIN efforts aside. The Afghan people are just as smart.

18

Asinine. Our military better be able to confront peer forces before all else.

19

Wow. Doublespeak much? If T-ban initiate combat, and then we kill civilians, it’s the T-ban’s fault? Hell, I’m on our side and don’t buy that bullshit. The civvies that die, die because we are there conducting combat ops and we fail to target the T-ban without killing the bystanders.

In Tagab 2007-08 IEDs were not used. Why? The coalition just built a road into the valley and the Taliban would lose lots of support if they even touched it. Don’t be fooled by the media. The Taliban has to legitimize themselves to the Afghan people and starting fights in their backyards can make them very unpopular. The BS civilian casualties is to erode public support for the war in the US, but the locals know why it is their towns are warzones.

Again, blaming the population is like blaming the customer as to why your carbine is a POS. It’s always lost COIN campaigns in the past.

20

Which peer forces? Where?