Army LT Gets 20-years in Prison for Violating Rules of Engagement

Making decisions, taking responsibility, this is why LTs get paid the "big bucks". I too cannot comment on this specific instance. I have no first hand knowledge and must depend on the strange ways of justice to sort it out. However, whenever I see the phrase "rules of engagement" I cringe.

All too often the rules of engagement are merely a political cop out. Politicians send our military to kill people and break things (as one popular commentator describes it) and then tempers their judgement with rules of engagement to make sure that we do it nicely. The problem is that few politicians understand war in any form (a remarkably small percentage of Congress is comprised of veterans) and the President not only doesn't have any experience with war, but also none with foreign relations, economic management, or anything else. (BTW, don't jump on me for my opinion. That's fact!)

Thus, another life is taken. Another life is ruined. All because we can't select political leaders with the brains and experience to make good decisions and the balls to stand behind them, and military leaders are left to sort it all out

Much like many of you, I can't make a complete judgment call without the AAR. However, any individual who has been in direct combat can feel the situation can warrant a thousand different possibilities. That is exactly what makes leadership what it is. Did he make the call out of fear? Maybe. Did he make the call to protect his patrol? Who knows.

During my second deployment to Iraq, the TTP of using children and mentally handicapped PBIED/suicide vests were all the rage. You can imagine the mental anguish of having to look at every kid as a potential threat. If the TTP is a three person motorcycle crew, I can see where this LT could see them as a threat.

Again, without AAR, I refuse to pass judgement and I would hope many of you to operate in the same manner.

Stuff like this is why I wont pick a combat MOS. ROE is crazy now a days...

I don't have the necessary information to Monday Morning Quarterback this one. I will say war is hell and in a heated scary environment, stuff happens that wouldn't happen normally. If you are manning a check point and someone approaches to fast, you don't know if they are carrying a bomb or bear you ill will. Also there are plenty of examples of Mai Lais. It is very rare that Military Men are brought up on these kind of charges. Having functioned as a Master at Arms and working within the Military Justice system I will say that the Military Evidence system is the worst and definitely doesn't help the accused but in the sentencing with the "Fairness Doctrine" if you are found guilty you can have a better outcome than if you were found guilty by the Criminal Court.

MSG
My initial thoughts are its complete BS and heavily influenced by politics.

However, I have not read the AAR, nor have I really dug into the situation that much.

That being said, having been a hard charging, door kicking, trigger pulling grunt back early in my career. I can see it having detrimental effects on the troops that are BoG. If they are consistantly being second guessed, or monday morning quarterbacked by politicians, lawyers, etc, they will err on the side of caution and could potentially drive up the death toll of friendly forces.

There are definitely some situations where murder charges are completely appropriate however, e.g. ff a prisoner is in custody and is subsequently shot in the back of the head while restrained and it was not an execution ordered by a military tribunal.

Good morning

does anyone know what the charge is for breaking ROE?

This is insane. How was he to know the intent of those on the motorcycle? There have been many killed by people wearing explosive vests. He had a choice wait for them to approach, putting his soldiers at risk, or stop them. Rules of engagement such as this are too arbitrary.

Free this man

Killing civilians is not just an ROE violation. It is a war crime. It's tough, but if there was any doubt he probably would not have been convicted. I imagine his military counsel (who are almost always more experienced than the prosecutors) would have presented evidence of enemy TTPs to justify his actions, if any existed. Otherwise, what justification would he have to shoot some guys on a motorcycle?