Thoughts By Lt. Col. Allen West

[Erik88]

West stained that service, and compromised his personal honor, by the actions that lead to his leaving the military. 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/12/sprj.nirq.west.ruling/index.html?_s=PM:US

 

I'm not saying that the Iraqi's should have been treated with kid gloves, but supervising a beat down and conducting a mock execution is crossing the line, especially for a field grade officer.  It's expressly forbidden under the laws of war, and both things we prepare our high risk of capture troops (pilots and special operations) for as part of SERE training because we think the "bad guys" would do it.  Even with the ambiguity of how we were supposed to treat detainees because of their unique legal status, what West allowed and did is inexcusable.

 

If it wasn't for then Major General Odierno, who's 4th Infantry Division had more than their fair share of incidents like this during their tour in 2003, West might have had a different outcome.  A different General may have put West in front of a court marshal for what he did.

 

I will give him credit for standing up and taking responsibility for his actions like a man should.  That's an element that is missing in society and even in the upper ranks of the military.

 

I just read the article you linked. It sounds to me like West has some massive balls and did what was necessary to get information from a terrorist. Undoubtedly, he saved lives by doing what he did. 

 

If you're expecting us to be outraged by his actions you might be disappointed. 

[btq96r]

I just read the article you linked. It sounds to me like West has some massive balls and did what was necessary to get information from a terrorist. Undoubtedly, he saved lives by doing what he did. 

 

If you're expecting us to be outraged by his actions you might be disappointed. 

 

No, not expecting outrage, just want people to know the kind of things the man is capable of.  He doesn't deserve to be celebrated for the honor of the service he stained, IMO.

 

It's also not undoubtable he saved lives.  By all accounts, the guy he sanctioned a beat down of, and held a mock execution for wasn't involved in the insurgency, or at least not in the plot against West.  And it was a plot against West specifically, not a general threat against his battalion this incident was in response to.  So, getting no info from someone because they don't have info to give doesn't save lives.

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/allen-west-abuse-of-iraqi-prisoner-highlighted-in-bestselling-book-6470995

 

If you think it takes balls to stand by while a number of your subordinates beat a guy and then you fire a pistol at his head while he's being held in place, we have a difference of opinion on what having balls means.

Edited July 12, 2015 by btq96r

[Erik88]

It's not undoubtable he saved lives.  By all accounts, the guy he sanctioned a beat down of, and held a mock execution for wasn't involved in the insurgency, or at least not in the plot against West.  And it was a plot against West specifically, not a general threat against his battalion this incident was in response to.  So, getting no info from someone because they don't have info to give doesn't save lives.

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/allen-west-abuse-of-iraqi-prisoner-highlighted-in-bestselling-book-6470995

 

If you think it takes balls to stand by while a number of your subordinates beat a guy and then you fire a pistol at his head while he's being held in place, we have a difference of opinion on what having balls means.

 

Did you even read the first article you linked?

 

It said,

 

 

apparently not knowing where West's gun was aimed, Hamoody cracked and gave information about the planned ambush on West's convoy, thwarting the attack.

West said there were no further ambushes on U.S. forces in Taji until he was relieved of his leadership post on October 4.

[EssOne]

Hey y'all........Confederate flag..........South Carolina............removal of same and effect on the country and its black population.

Edited July 12, 2015 by EssOne

[btq96r]

It said,

 

The sworn statements and official report contradict that, with some parts saying he gave nothing, some parts saying he gave false info, and some saying he talked.  It's a little hard to read, but the redacted names are easy enough to guess for West and Hamoody.

https://www.aclu.org/files/projects/foiasearch/pdf/DODDOACID000105.pdf

Edited July 12, 2015 by btq96r

[btq96r]

Hey y'all........Confederate flag..........South Carolina............removal of same and effect on the country and its black population.

 

Sorry for the hijack, but West's reputation that took him to Congress and made him a conservative talking head is based on his military service to a large extent.  Even on his own webpage, he has "Steadfast and Loyal," the 4th Infantry Division motto, as his own.  So, I think what he did in that service is relevant.

 

He's also off topic as far as the flag goes.  Removing it won't solve any of the problems in the black community, but that's not the point.  The point is that government use of racist, and rebellious symbology is wrong and shouldn't be.

[bersaguy]

There has been a lot of men in the heat of a theater of war that did things that were not always by the book but in all honesty I have never seen a book that can tell anyone how to fight a war without some casualties and or sacrifices. It is like writing a book telling new parents how to be parents after they have a baby. I have not seen that book either. I think any Man or Woman in command of troops under them will do everything in their power to bring home as many men serving under them as possible alive and intact. I can promise you I saw things and did things in the service of my country in Vietnam that in today's society would be considered atrocities of the worst possible kind. All in an attempt to protect men serving under them. The only real difference is back in the Vietnam War the news was not made available until it had gone through some very serious vigorous editing by the Pentagon and Joint Chief of Staff before it was released. About 2 or 3% might be edited today before the news releases it. I myself find nothing wrong with Colonel Wests actions as I saw far far worse in Nam that was never revealed to the American people...................jmho

[btq96r]

I can promise you I saw things and did things in the service of my country in Vietnam that in today's society would be considered atrocities of the worst possible kind.

 

In war, every Soldier and leader has to look into themselves and find that line that allows them to come home and still look at themselves in the mirror.  I have one incident from Iraq that makes me wish I had done more, but luckily no physical harm came to others from it, so I'm thankful I don't have that on my conscience. 

[TNWNGR]

Regrettably once an individual becomes a public figure their greatest works and accomplishments are often overshadowed or marred by past behavior. The media or political sway of the day can gloss over or omit the bad for those they favor but highlight such focus on those they fear. LTC West as I believe I've mentioned is very human with feet of clay and under a microscope. I'm aware of much of his past but prefer to take my measure of how the man is now. Its not my place to judge him and from what I've read he took his lumps and is moving forward. Returning back to the OP LTC West very forthrightly pointed out the so called Confederate's Flag removal in S.C. changes nothing for the lot of black Americans. It served only a political and SJW purpose which is divorced from reality.    

[kieefer]

Regrettably once an individual becomes a public figure their greatest works and accomplishments are often overshadowed or marred by past behavior. The media or political sway of the day can gloss over or omit the bad for those they favor but highlight such focus on those they fear. LTC West as I believe I've mentioned is very human with feet of clay and under a microscope. I'm aware of much of his past but prefer to take my measure of how the man is now. Its not my place to judge him and from what I've read he took his lumps and is moving forward. Returning back to the OP LTC West very forthrightly pointed out the so called Confederate's Flag removal in S.C. changes nothing for the lot of black Americans. It served only a political and SJW purpose which is divorced from reality.    

+1

 

"Regrettably once an individual becomes a public figure their greatest works and accomplishments are often overshadowed or marred by past behavior."

 

Unless you're a Democrat.

[MacGyver]

I think it's important to look at Allen West in light of where he exists. The comparison with Sharpton, though harsh - is not as far off as it may sound. West is no longer a "public servant" - though he remains in the public sphere. This alone is probably illustrative of his intent and ambitions.

Upon losing the election in 18th district of Florida, he accepted a handsome salary to be a pundit at Fox News. As such - his job as it exists today - isn't to serve a constituency, it's not to move the dialog on a given issue forward. Rather, it's to sell the message that his bosses - in this case Murdoch's 21st Century Fox want him to deliver to the public. Sure, he has a say in that dialog, but he makes a handsome salary delivering it.

He is in essence a foil to the likes of Sharpton, but he's a salesman all the same. This is the light within which I primarily view him as a politician.

Beyond that, I've a great deal of respect for anyone who willingly signs a contract to put on the uniform of the United States military and defend our country. I can even understand the circumstances and the logic that led to his decisions in Taji. Those decisions however, probably ought to disqualify him for any higher office. I know there's a great clammer in certain circles to get him to throw his hat in the ring for president. I just can't see a Commander in Chief who's held a mock execution for a prisoner that was under his control.

[Erik88]

I think it's important to look at Allen West in light of where he exists. The comparison with Sharpton, though harsh - is not as far off as it may sound. West is no longer a "public servant" - though he remains in the public sphere. This alone is probably illustrative of his intent and ambitions.

Upon losing the election in 18th district of Florida, he accepted a handsome salary to be a pundit at Fox News. As such - his job as it exists today - isn't to serve a constituency, it's not to move the dialog on a given issue forward. Rather, it's to sell the message that his bosses - in this case Murdoch's 21st Century Fox want him to deliver to the public. Sure, he has a say in that dialog, but he makes a handsome salary delivering it.

He is in essence a foil to the likes of Sharpton, but he's a salesman all the same. This is the light within which I primarily view him as a politician.

Beyond that, I've a great deal of respect for anyone who willing signs a contract to put on the uniform of the United States military and defend our country. I can even understand the circumstances and the logic that led to his decisions in Taji. Those decisions however, probably ought to disqualify him for any higher office, however. I know there's a great clammer in certain circles to get him to throw his hat in the ring for president. I just can't see a Commander in Chief who's held a mock execution for a prisoner that was under his control.

Damn good post. I didn't realize he was paid by Fox. Now I understand where link was going even if I don't agree with the comparison.

[K191145]

Same person told me the same thing. And because Romney didn't win the last four years are probably our fault. It wouldn't have mattered who won we would still be where we are today with the races at odds with each other, the economy still in the dumps and several wars going on. Romney was not the savior, he is just like all other politicians in Washington right now.

 

I didn't care for Romney either but I can't imagine just about anyone else doing as much damage as Obama has, seems that these days you have to vote for who will do the least damage. I think we are headed for an economic collapse soon and I hope it happens while Obama is still in office. If Hillary Clinton gets elected then as far as i'm concerned all hope is lost for America, i'll be very tempted to take a every man for themselves attitude, just do whatever i want or feel like doing till my time is up but i'm holding onto some hope right now that America can weather the storm with someone we can at least tolerate.

Edited July 13, 2015 by K191145

[10-Ring]

I didn't care for Romney either but I can't imagine just about anyone else doing as much damage as Obama has, seems that these days you have to vote for who will do the least damage. I think we are headed for an economic collapse soon and I hope it happens while Obama is still in office.

I don't disagree with you but if Hillary gets elected will we be sitting here in a couple of years thinking that Obama wasn't that bad? Man, that scares me to death to even think about.

[K191145]

I don't disagree with you but if Hillary gets elected will we be sitting here in a couple of years thinking that Obama wasn't that bad? Man, that scares me to death to even think about.

 

Well Obama has made a lot of people miss GW. I can't imagine anyone making Obama look any better, maybe the same, between Obama and Hillary is the difference between horse sh!t and cow sh!t. 

[TGO David]

Allen West is ignorant for attempting to blame the removal of the flag on blacks. That flag came down because of corporate pressure. Blacks don't have the political or financial power to dictate those types of changes.

 

Ever read something so detached from reality that it makes your eye twitch?  I just did.

[TGO David]

No, not expecting outrage, just want people to know the kind of things the man is capable of.

 

It sounds to me like he's capable of getting shit done.

[Chucktshoes]

It sounds to me like he's capable of getting #### done.

If "getting shit done" means that violating the Geneva Conventions, The Hague accords, the UCMJ, and federal law, maybe the shit he gets done isn't the shit we should want him to be getting done. Maybe we should also be cautious about putting him in a position to really get a lot of shit done if that's the way he does shit.

If you are given a small amount of authority and power and you abuse it, how can we trust you with the immense amounts of power and authority of high elected office?

[TGO David]

If "getting #### done" means that violating the Geneva Conventions, The Hague accords, the UCMJ, and federal law, maybe the #### he gets done isn't the #### we should want him to be getting done. Maybe we should also be cautious about putting him in a position to really get a lot of #### done if that's the way he does ####.

If you are given a small amount of authority and power and you abuse it, how can we trust you with the immense amounts of power and authority of high elected office?

 

There is a difference between conducting war and conducting politics.  You may think you don't want rough men on the front lines doing whatever it takes to keep our country safe, but I assure you that you do.  What is truly criminal isn't that a man like Col. West would take an enemy combatant and scare him into providing valuable information that saves the lives of coalition men and women.  Valiant, honorable soldiers have done far worse than making a hadji soil his pants.  This nation was founded by men who knew how to get #### done and who did worse than that in combat.

 

What is truly criminal is that the media has ever been allowed to expose the dirty truth that war is Hell to a week-kneed, hand wringing public who dares to armchair quarterback what soldiers do to preserve their lives, the lives of their brothers in arm, and the lives of us back home, against an enemy who uses children to conduct suicide bombing missions, rapes women, saws the heads off of anyone who doesn't believe in their god, and throws men from rooftops to their deaths because "they might be gay".  The only effective answer to violence conducted by evil men, is violence conducted by good men.

 

Further, the United States did not ratify ALL the parts of the Geneva Convention and opted to reserve the right to things like capital punishment.

 

So yeah, I support the #### out of Col. West because he seems like a man who knows how to get #### done.

 

:usa:

[Omega]

There is a difference between conducting war and conducting politics.  You may think you don't want rough men on the front lines doing whatever it takes to keep our country safe, but I assure you that you do.  What is truly criminal isn't that a man like Col. West would take an enemy combatant and scare him into providing valuable information that saves the lives of coalition men and women.  Valiant, honorable soldiers have done far worse than making a hadji soil his pants.  This nation was founded by men who knew how to get #### done and who did worse than that in combat.
 
What is truly criminal is that the media has ever been allowed to expose the dirty truth that war is Hell to a week-kneed, hand wringing public who dares to armchair quarterback what soldiers do to preserve their lives, the lives of their brothers in arm, and the lives of us back home, against an enemy who uses children to conduct suicide bombing missions, rapes women, saws the heads off of anyone who doesn't believe in their god, and throws men from rooftops to their deaths because "they might be gay".  The only effective answer to violence conducted by evil men, is violence conducted by good men.
 
Further, the United States did not ratify ALL the parts of the Geneva Convention and opted to reserve the right to things like capital punishment.
 
So yeah, I support the #### out of Col. West because he seems like a man who knows how to get #### done.
 
:usa:

I fully agree! What these panty waists call torture I call good training. If we were truly operating within our enemy's rules there would of been heads littering the sands of Iraq. If making one of them uncomfortable for a bit saved one American life it was worth it. While I won't say I am proud of everything that was done there, I won't lose sleep over it either. No permanent injuries were sustained and they at least are still breathing. Now those that stepped over the line and murdered innocent civilians I will not defend, but taking someone to the slap shack is no comparison.

[Chucktshoes]

There is a difference between conducting war and conducting politics.  You may think you don't want rough men on the front lines doing whatever it takes to keep our country safe, but I assure you that you do.  What is truly criminal isn't that a man like Col. West would take an enemy combatant and scare him into providing valuable information that saves the lives of coalition men and women.  Valiant, honorable soldiers have done far worse than making a hadji soil his pants.  This nation was founded by men who knew how to get #### done and who did worse than that in combat.

 

What is truly criminal is that the media has ever been allowed to expose the dirty truth that war is Hell to a week-kneed, hand wringing public who dares to armchair quarterback what soldiers do to preserve their lives, the lives of their brothers in arm, and the lives of us back home, against an enemy who uses children to conduct suicide bombing missions, rapes women, saws the heads off of anyone who doesn't believe in their god, and throws men from rooftops to their deaths because "they might be gay".  The only effective answer to violence conducted by evil men, is violence conducted by good men.

 

Further, the United States did not ratify ALL the parts of the Geneva Convention and opted to reserve the right to things like capital punishment.

 

So yeah, I support the #### out of Col. West because he seems like a man who knows how to get #### done.

 

:usa:

I will give that rousing jingoistic pablum the same answer I have always given the Nathan Jessups who spout off that nonsense. If you want to claim the role of "good guy" then you damn sure better act like the good guy. When you sacrifice morality in the name of expedience, you fight for nothing more than the joy of the kill. We can set aside the international laws if you want (even though the parts he violated were the parts we actually ratified, just sayin'), he still violated the UCMJ and federal law. In doing so he dishonored his uniform and country in the process. He was rightfully and justly drummed out of the service for his actions. I used to really like the guy until I read up on the circumstances of the end of his Army career. I have no beef with the man in his current role as a commentator and actually agree with him reasonably often. Still, he has no business being allowed to have access to any elected office. I'm not saying he is a bad guy. He found himself in a difficult situation and he made  a choice, a bad choice. It is because of his willingness to make the choice that he did that I cannot trust him to be in a position to make choices that can have far more of a damaging impact in so many unimaginable ways.

I will say one thing, I absolutely agree that there is a difference between conducting war and conducting politics. Politics has a far greater capacity for wholesale destruction than any war has ever accomplished.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Chucktshoes

[btq96r]

There is a difference between conducting war and conducting politics.

 

Yeah, the difference is, one is governed by rules, and it's participants are supposed to have a code of conduct, the other is politics.

 

I was in the Military Intelligence company assigned to the Brigade responsible for Mosul, Iraq in 2003.  I was involved in interrogations in a security role for a while because we didn't have any permanent facilities and all the MP's were assigned out in sector and unavailable for a while.  Basically, we had a small series of room on the logistics base set aside for our use, but it wasn't manned 24/7 until the latter part of the deployment.  Until then, we would get a call that a unit took a detainee, meet them there, the interrogators would do their thing, and we'd have the line unit return take the detainee to the division cage if it was determined he was a threat or he confessed, if it was determined he wasn't a threat, they just took him back to the point of capture.  I was in Iraq at the same time West was.  Different area sure, but we had our share of the threat in our AO just like he had his.  So, if I'm not talking about this subject from anything less than a background of direct experience. 

 

What bugs me the most about what West did is that he was in a very important leadership position, and he didn't just ignore what happened, he sanctioned it.  Think of the example his junior officers, NCO's, and soldiers would infer with "the boss" saying we aren't playing by the rules.  With that experience, they would feel free to adjust their own behavioral standards accordingly there and in the future. 

 

The problem with their methods is that the line units just don't know how to do interrogations, and they're not supposed to.  They go into it with punitive aims instead of interrogative ones and generally cock it up thinking they're going to be the ones to get the information from a guy.  The Army has an MOS for enlisted specialists and warrant officers to handle interrogations for a reason, it has to be done right.  It's also worth mentioning there are clear rules stating they are the only ones able to conduct interrogations, and all other personnel are limited to "tactical questioning" only.  

 

Take the emotions of guys on the line who spend their time getting shot at.  When they question a detainee, they tend to think they are "dispensing justice" and what not, and it becomes a downhill snowball, getting worse, and worse real fast.  By West's own admission in his sworn statement, he and his men had custody of the detainee for approximately 25 minutes.  There were four guys who confessed to assaulting the detainee, and just imagine how much damage they can do in 25 minutes of beating a guy out of frustration.  West could claim he didn't let it get out of hand, but he let it get out of hand by letting it happen in the first place.  Restricting blows to the body isn't any guarantee of health when overzealous guys start swinging on someone they think is trying to kill them and their buddies.

 

Now, I'm not saying you treat them like a kid who needs to go to their room and think about what they did with three hots, a plush cot and all the creature comforts, but the process has to be controlled by people who know what they are doing when it comes to getting information from detainees.  At the unit level, if you have to beat a guy, you failed, or you just wanted to from the beginning.  This isn't an episode of 24. 

Edited July 16, 2015 by btq96r

[Oh Shoot]

Must admit, gave David, Chuck, and BT likes on this one, can certainly see both sides.

 

I have wondered just how much our "good guy" rules of engagement might change though, if we had ever had to fight a foreign enemy on our own soil, truly the "total" war that our adversaries have faced on theirs.

 

- OS

Edited July 16, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[K191145]

There is a difference between conducting war and conducting politics.  You may think you don't want rough men on the front lines doing whatever it takes to keep our country safe, but I assure you that you do.  What is truly criminal isn't that a man like Col. West would take an enemy combatant and scare him into providing valuable information that saves the lives of coalition men and women.  Valiant, honorable soldiers have done far worse than making a hadji soil his pants.  This nation was founded by men who knew how to get #### done and who did worse than that in combat.

 

What is truly criminal is that the media has ever been allowed to expose the dirty truth that war is Hell to a week-kneed, hand wringing public who dares to armchair quarterback what soldiers do to preserve their lives, the lives of their brothers in arm, and the lives of us back home, against an enemy who uses children to conduct suicide bombing missions, rapes women, saws the heads off of anyone who doesn't believe in their god, and throws men from rooftops to their deaths because "they might be gay".  The only effective answer to violence conducted by evil men, is violence conducted by good men.

 

Further, the United States did not ratify ALL the parts of the Geneva Convention and opted to reserve the right to things like capital punishment.

 

So yeah, I support the #### out of Col. West because he seems like a man who knows how to get #### done.

 

:usa:

 

Seems to me what Col. West did was mild compared to "real" atrocities committed in the past. Those who are taking a pious stand against Col.West must agree that war criminals like General William Tecumseh Sherman should have been charged with war crimes and hanged. Also, with the debate about removing the memorial and remains of General Nathan Bedford Forrest, Shermans marker and memorial should be removed and his remains dug up and placed in a land fill, a proper place for a murdering dishonorable war criminal. If they can't agree with that then they are a hypocrite plain and simple. I personally have no problem with what Col. West did while at war with an enemy with the evil equivalent of the Waffen SS, in many ways more evil.

Also, someone here has a funny signature with a Confederate flag with a slash and it reads, "You lost, get over it". What's funny about that is that with all this stupid controversy about it now, it's the PC liberals who are all butt hurt by it, they are the ones who need to get over it. No one alive today lost anything unless there's some old Confederate soldier who is at least 170 years old.

[EssOne]

 

 

.............................I have wondered just how much our "good guy" rules of engagement might change though, if we had ever had to fight a foreign enemy on our own soil, truly the "total" war that our adversaries have faced on theirs.

 

- OS

 

I've often wondered the same thing. In my own case my actions would probably be determined by the amount of time that had passed since I last saw a child hanged by my enemy from a telephone pole, as so many Russians witnessed in World War II. In my case the Rules of Engagement would probably become "loose guidelines" about then. Y'all do what you think is right.

Edited July 16, 2015 by EssOne