PACOM bans US troops in Philippines from bars - is it a case of protecting them from themselves or mass punishment?

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 13:34:47 -0400

Is it a case of protecting the troops from the locals, protecting the locals from the troops, leadership that is not confident in the professionalism of their troops or simply a case of mass punishment?

The backstory is that recently US Marine Private First Class Joseph Scott Pemberton charged with the murder of a transgender Filipina. A spokesman for the United States forces would not say why the restrictions were imposed but conceded they came after Pemberton was arrested for the murder.

http://www.stasiareport.com/news/asia/south-east-asia/story/us-bans-troops-philippines-bars-spokesman-20150418#sthash.0RGr0qYj.dpuf

http://www.stasiareport.com/news/asia/south-east-asia/story/us-bans-troops-philippines-bars-spokesman-20150418

Asia

Asia News - Get latest breaking news & top stories today in Asia, South-East Asia, South Asia, East Asia, Australia/New Zealand at straitstimes.com.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Apr 18 at 2015 1:52 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 13:52:17 -0400

Yes. (Both)

It's international. We're guests in their country, and we violated a trust.

That said, by restricting access, we protect the locals. However, because of the incident there WILL be people looking to prey on us as well, and the easiest way to protect our folks is to restrict access. I hate to say it but it's a "win/win" solution that makes no one happy.

It stinks of mass punishment, but it's the best overall way to address the issue.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Apr 18 at 2015 1:54 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 13:54:48 -0400

I think the problem is with the Philippines ability to police their own people and not with our troops.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2015 1:56 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 13:56:59 -0400

I have to say this is an over-reaction and essentially arrogance towards enlisted men. Our Pentagon and DOD need to grow up and act like leaders.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Apr 18 at 2015 2:24 PM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 14:24:27 -0400

Sounds like mass punishment with totally unrealistic expectations, to me. I think that there are better ways to deal with this, perhaps the courtesy patrols you mentioned.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2015 2:31 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 14:31:40 -0400

CSM Michael J. Uhlig. I don't know about this trial of a marine in a local courthouse. I thought we had a status of forces agreement that would require locals to turn him over to us for UCMJ Courts Martial. Why is he in the custody of the locals? Are we are exerting economic pressure on local businesses to drop the local prosecution and return him to our custody? Sandy

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2015 2:36 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 14:36:32 -0400

As someone that has been to PI multiple times, they have certain off-limits areas, which historically are where the NCOs go and Yes, I agree any E4 and below need protection from themselves in the PI, as far as NCOs are concerned, see my comment above on that. There is a lot of indisgressions taking place here in the PI, this after just hearing that we are going back to Subic and Olongapo, not sure PI economy will ever survive without Marine and USN stimulation...just my thoughts. They did still have known enemy training camps and terrorist training camps, but the training opportunities are too numerous to count, so....with that said, tighter security is definitely warranted, to make a decision based on a PFC committing murder, obviously he was caught with his pants down before he discovered it was a transgender....shame on him on both accounts.

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made Apr 18 at 2015 3:25 PM

MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 15:25:05 -0400

I'm not in favor of blanket bans/restrictions per se but I can understand why the decisions was made. It's a shame everyone has to pay the price for a few individuals' mistakes but sometimes that's the only way to get things back on track.

The bigger question in my mind is why have our MWR activities (in particular the base clubs) become so unappealing to the masses they feel the need to go off post in the first place?

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Apr 18 at 2015 3:46 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 15:46:19 -0400

I never questioned my directives. No drinking meant no drinking, etc. If the big dog's say I can't do something because x,y,z, I figure it is for good reason. I guess I always just drank the koolaid. I joined to serve, not to be served...lol

Response by SGM Robin Johnson made Apr 18 at 2015 4:06 PM

SGM Robin Johnson — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 16:06:37 -0400

I am fairly certain there were a few factors considered in this decision. Most certainly the murder of a local by a Marine was at the forefront of everyone's mind during the decision-making process. But there are also many force protection concerns - among them, Abu-Sayaff is now aligned with ISIS and is still very active in the islands; it is no longer constraining its activities to the southern islands. It is also customary to restrict drinking during training exercises; the same restrictions are in place during exercises in Korea and they are in place for EVERYONE stationed there whether or not you are participating in the exercise.

So I don't have a huge problem with the directive for this instance and duration. If this were to continue at this restrictive level for an extended duration without review to see if there were some mitigating measures which could reduce the force protection risk for the service members and allow them access to the areas downtown (eg: the courtesy patrols mentioned), then I would raise concerns, were I the senior enlisted advisor.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Apr 18 at 2015 5:07 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 17:07:17 -0400

Best decision for a bad set of options?

Response by PO1 John Miller made Apr 18 at 2015 6:35 PM

PO1 John Miller — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 18:35:02 -0400

When I was a young E-1/E-2 on my first deployment, I had good mentors who emphasized doing a package check! Sometimes the more senior guys would also say straight up "that's a man, don't leave with him!"

On very rare occasions I've seen "immediate reaction" when said young service member refused to listen and tried to leave with a transgender prostitute. That reaction was a punch to the face resulting in service member being knocked out. Problem solved. When the guy got back to the ship any bruises were explained off as "falling down."

Now with all this being said, no one has gotten to the underlying problem. Years ago service members didn't have many of these liberty restrictions in place, yet the amount of liberty incidents were minimal, because they were handled at the lower levels. Now we have all these restrictions in place and the amount of incidents is increasing.

My solution? Treat adults like adults, and authorize the practice of enlisted disciplining their own (stop calling it hazing).

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Apr 18 at 2015 6:44 PM

Cpl Jeff N. — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 18:44:44 -0400

Well, there is no reason to go to the Philippines then.

Sounds like an over reaction to me. You could secure liberty for every soldier, sailor, airman or Marine everywhere in the world using this approach. Personal accountability. You screw up, you pay.

Anyone that has ever been to the Philippines knows what the bars are like but most go there, get in no trouble and leave. I was there twice in 1983. There were a lot more servicemen there then as we had a larger presence. There are also many other things to do like follow the Bataan Death March trail, visit WWII battlefields etc.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2015 7:57 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 19:57:39 -0400

Make the leash long enough so they can either choke themselves or demonstrate leadership and accountability. The leash gets longer with trust and demonstrated good decision-making....you screw-up, the leash gets shorter. That's been the policy in the unit I served with.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 18 at 2015 8:24 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 20:24:11 -0400

It is mass punishment, but I can understand it as the U.S. wants to expand the strategic partnership in the Philippines.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2015 10:19 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 22:19:48 -0400

It's not protecting troops from themselves, it's protecting our relationship with the Phillipines in the wake of a sailor killing a trans-gender Filipina. Not that different from the restrictions that went into place following rape accusations in Japan.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Apr 19 at 2015 12:32 AM

COL Charles Williams — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 00:32:55 -0400

Probably both, but more about protection our forces. I think this all about force protection. Troop safety = taking care of your Soldiers.

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Apr 20 at 2015 2:48 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Mon, 20 Apr 2015 14:48:07 -0400

What happened to the days where we given port briefings and told what bars / establishments to stay out of and to be responsible for our actions ashore?
Now because some dumb young Marine stands accused of murdering a transvestite everyone has to be punished.
The buddy system is a good thing, even though I do not quite like it I do respect it.
Nothing wrong with going out in town and having a few beers, listen to some music, and if nature calls and you can't resist then go enjoy your one night stand.
Just remember that not everything is as it seems so tread carefully where you go.