US Soldier introduces Afghans to US trad. of spree killings

[Aaron MkII]

D-13, being practical about this, there's no coupling between the two attitudes. Decision-makers who say "these things happen in war" are trying to shrug them off and carry on as if they'd never happened, and they will keep fighting wars.

At least trying to place blame on individuals (or a chain of command responsible for the individual's actions) encourages the military to act in a disciplined way, and makes it look like the people in charge actually give a shit about the people they claim they want to liberate. Whereas ignoring these things tends to make them spread.

No it doesn't. The military has a long tradition of blaming the lowest guy they can get away with. If this guy did actually suffer head truama and PTSD, you'll not see the doc who cleared him up on charges.

[Simon_Jester]

D-13, being practical about this, there's no coupling between the two attitudes. Decision-makers who say "these things happen in war" are trying to shrug them off and carry on as if they'd never happened, and they will keep fighting wars.

At least trying to place blame on individuals (or a chain of command responsible for the individual's actions) encourages the military to act in a disciplined way, and makes it look like the people in charge actually give a shit about the people they claim they want to liberate. Whereas ignoring these things tends to make them spread.

No it doesn't. The military has a long tradition of blaming the lowest guy they can get away with. If this guy did actually suffer head truama and PTSD, you'll not see the doc who cleared him up on charges.

This is true.

Maybe it would be less wrong (more right?) to say that punishing crimes allows for responsibility, while ignoring them does not, in general. When there's a chain of command, a crime can happen on multiple levels- the corporal who shoots prisoners and the captain who got him to do it can both be responsible.

Punishing grunts at least establishes that there is a chain of command which has some kind of principle in mind about discipline or something. By itself, it's not enough, but it's a necessary part of the process because you can't have an army behaving decently if the individual soldiers don't behave decently.

Punishing officers/doctors/whatever, along with the grunts, is important, though- and that's where a lot of armies fall down.

But you won't see any more responsibility for actions coming out of "these things happen in war" than you will out of "punish the guilty." Having the shit land on no one is not necessarily better than having the shit fall on the lowest-ranking person available... who in this case, was the guy who actually pulled the trigger.

[Aaron MkII]

Dude, I was in the army, I know all that. It's also why I have no faith in military justice. Pretty sure I've mentioned before that shit doesn't happen in a vacumn as well.

It's more about giving the appearance of doing something rather then say, changing attitudes to prevent war crimes or increased screening/accountability for mental health issues.

[Simon_Jester]

Sorry, I rarely write posts thinking only one person will read it.

Realistically, you're totally right, I just don't think shrugging these things off is a healthier response than denouncing them. If it actually inspired people to think seriously about whether or not they should fight wars at all, then it might be okay to 'accept' them as part of war. But it doesn't, so...

Dammit.

[Lonestar]

Dude, I was in the army, I know all that. It's also why I have no faith in military justice. Pretty sure I've mentioned before that shit doesn't happen in a vacumn as well.

It's more about giving the appearance of doing something rather then say, changing attitudes to prevent war crimes or increased screening/accountability for mental health issues.

I'm just going to leave this here

Robert Bales is not the victim
by Jason Fritz
This past weekend, DoD released the identify of the NCO accused of murdering 16 Afghan civilians last weekend. SSG Robert Bales, 38, assigned to 2d Battalion, 3d Infantry Regiment, 3d Stryker BCT, 2d Infantry Division of Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington was flown to Fort Leavenworth within the past couple of days.

Which left major newspaper outlets tripping over each other to explain why it was everyone's fault except SSG Bales' (again, assuming he committed the murders based on his apparent confession) that 16 Afghan men, women, and children ended up dead. For example:

"Afghan rampage suspect Robert Bales was a soldier strained by deployments" - Washington Post
"At Home, Asking How 'Our Bobby' Became War Crime Suspect" - NY Times
"Bales Faced Losing Houses as He Fought 6,700 Miles Away" - Bloomberg

I'm not going to pick on the NY Times article, although it was not free of the same sort of innuendo we're about to pick apart. It just was merely the least offensive of the three. So let's take a look at Robert Bales, victim of society, through the lens of the Washington Post and Bloomberg news.

1. "Years of overseas duty on a sergeant's salary had squeezed the family's resources to the breaking point" via the WaPo. Here you have an "he snapped because of financial troubles because he didn't get paid much as a sergeant" - which begins to take the onus of these crimes off of Bales' shoulders and places them on the American people for screwing down it's military.

Let's take a closer look at this. An E-6 Staff Sergeant in the U.S. Army with over 10 years of service, living in the Joint Base Lewis-McChord area would receive per month: $3243 in base pay, $1650 in housing allowance (this is tax-free), and $348 in subsistence allowance (also tax-free). At $5241 per month, SSG Bales had a yearly income of roughly $62,890. The median income for the Tacoma, Washington area in 2010 was $48,673. That's right, SSG Bales made about $14,219 more than the median income for his area because he was a soldier. In fact, his deployments would have netted him more than $750 more per month with Family Separation Allowance, Imminent Danger Pay, and in not paying Federal income tax on his base pay. Deploying is financially good for soldiers, not disadvantageous. (For more on all of this, see Jimmy Sky's excellent post on military pay and benefits.)

This is a bit in the weeds, but if you're going to say that he was near a breaking point because of his pay you need to back it up. But you can't because it's a wrong statement. I don't doubt that Bales had financial problems, but if he did his financial troubles were because he made bad or unlucky choices that had nothing to do with the Army. So no, dear Washington Post, it wasn't his meager salary due to recurring deployments that caused him to do what he (allegedly) did - your statement is factually incorrect.

2. Not getting promoted caused him stress. All three stories mention Bales' not making Sergeant First Class on the 2011 promotion list and that they were all disappointed. I'm sure it sucks not making a promotion list, but you have to be realistic about these things. All three articles mention legal problems for Bales, including arrests or charges for DUI and hit-and-run (there seems to be some info missing about convictions, etc, so it's not clear what the final disposition of these cases were, but suffice to say something happened). Staff Sergeants do get promoted with that sort of baggage, but not often. And it's getting harder and harder as personnel cuts loom. Even a passing mention of it on any of these or related issues were on an NCOER, the odds are a promotion board would not promote him. So while that may be stressful for him and his family, it was not a promotion he was owed or was due to him. Promotions are earned and blemishes on record like those suggested by these stories prevent promotions. While an interesting data point in the "things that weighed on SSG Bales", chalk up not getting promoted caveated by "may have prevented this through his own actions."

3. Repeated deployments, PTSD, TBI, etc. This is the touchiest of all the topics covered by these three stories and generally speaking they did an okay job. All acknowledge that we don't know how much these three factors interact and what exactly they cause people to do. There are some undercurrents however that the Army failed to screen Bales out of his latest deployment. First and foremost, the Army generally does a poor job of screening for, diagnosing, and treating TBI and PTSD. If the current screening hasn't changed too much, it relies extensively on self reporting. So if Bales did want to redeploy, as friends of his say he expressed that he wanted to get back into the fight, then passing the screening is as easy as pie. The Army has to screen a lot people and there just isn't a cost-effective and effective test to manage this problem. Period. Not excusing the Army for this, but there isn't a viable solution as yet. If Bales wanted to deploy, no current screening mechanisms were going to stop him. But for a bigger picture, here are some numbers: between 1 and 2 million servicemembers have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, well over 100,000 of them have deployed three or more times, and 300,000 to 600,000 are suffering from PTSD. So far only 1 person in that large population went out and killed 16 civilians.

4. "He and the family were told that his tours in the Middle East were over, and then literally overnight that changed." Apparently his lawyer said this and I can't believe Bloomberg didn't refute this. Even if some knucklehead said he would never deploy again, he was a healthy NCO in the U.S. Army. Guess what: you can't make - or believe - promises like that. It's not how the military works. Deployment orders suck and are super hard on families, but they are a reality of military life. Again, it wasn't as if the Army broke it's promise - it has no institutional ability to promise one healthy soldier it would never deploy him again.

This probably reads as nit-picking or sticking up for the Army, but it's not. Major news outlets are trying to find an angle and lens from which to view this guy and I get that. But all that's coming out are reasons why the Army is at fault for what happened - included some gross inaccuracies or outright lies, outlined here - and not SSG Bales. It seems there were a lot of factors that probably caused his state of mind that day - I can only guess that they include financial problems, TBI, PTSD, family stress, unhappiness with how his career was progressing - but most of those things fall on SSG Bales, not the Army. Could the Army have done some things differently? Undoubtedly - but stop blaming the Army for what this man did. Do your research, journalists, and stop making excuses for this guy. If the 16 dead were Americans, would we be doing this hand-wringing over why the Army screwed down the perpetrator? (I draw your attention to Fred Wellman's comments in that link.) Being a soldier is hard and while command has many responsibilities, commanders are not responsible for everything. Hundreds of thousands of troops have gone through what SSG Bales has gone through - or worse - and none of them shot 16 Afghan civilians.

This entire situation is sad - for the Army, for Bales and his family and his unit, and especially for the Afghans who lost loved ones. Let's keep perspective on that. And let's not take the easy way out and blame The Man for the actions of a man because it fits your narrative. That's not justice and it's irresponsible. Robert Bales is not the victim here - the victims are in Afghanistan.

[Aaron MkII]

Do you have a point Matt?

[Lonestar]

The point is that that guy is not the victim, even though the media and his defense team are already running with "it's the army's fault because he had TBI and PTSD"(in the articles they are also talking about 'financial stress' and him upset that he wasn't getting promoted. Total PFC Manning complex right there). As the blog entry points out, there are literally tens of thousands of US servicemen that deployed to the desert 3 or more times, and hundreds of thousands of them are suffering from PTSD. Out of that sample only one of them went on a killing spree that whacked 16 civilians.

So, it's hard for me to swallow you talking about the doc who cleared him being brought up on charges. Yeah, the military does hit the lowest ranking guy they can. In this case, the lowest ranking guy totally deserves it.

[Aaron MkII]

Did I say he shouldn't be charged?

[Aaron MkII]

Here, let me clarify for you. If it's found that PTSD had nothing to do with it, charge him. If it did, charge him and then examine why he was deployed and lay charges if necessary.

And to be honest, that's about as much as I care about this.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I didn't say that, I was predicting that he was going to be pardoned by who ever is president next year.

because of history and my total cynacysm,

[Aaron MkII]

Why the Fuck would he be pardoned?

[The Yosemite Bear]

ok, arron let's play us responds to a crisis bingo.

he's not responsible he's got PTSD
he's not responsible he has rraumatic brain injury
it's time for this nation to heal

PRECIDENT

welcome to politics, they never did prosecute Bush Senior for straffing life boats.

[Lonestar]

Bear, go back and fucking read that wikipedia article. It was a hell of a lot more complicated than "He got pardoned because the President doens't enforce responsibility", or whatever the hell your drug-fried brain is trying to say.

BTW, when the Secretary of Defense is saying shit like "Capital Punishment is a possibility" to the press, that's a bit of a dog whistle to how the Administration is approaching this.

[Aaron MkII]

Uh yeah, 1974 and President Nixon. Pardon me if I find that to be largely irrelevant to today.

[Questor]

Actually, I'm surprised that those comments are being made at that level. My guess is that aside from the whole trial part, the decision on what to charge and what to seek has already been made.

Even speaking of it is monumental. The last execution I can find under the UCMJ was in 1961, and was by hanging.

[Lonestar]

It also isn't, quite, mustache twirling Tricky Dickery here:

Ultimately, Calley served only three and a half years of house arrest in his quarters at Fort Benning. He petitioned the federal district court for habeas corpus on February 11, 1974, which was granted on September 25, 1974, along with his immediate release, by federal judge J. Robert Elliott. Judge Elliott found that Calley's trial had been prejudiced by pretrial publicity, denial of subpoenas of certain defense witnesses, refusal of the United States House of Representatives to release testimony taken in executive session of its My Lai investigation, and inadequate notice of the charges. (The judge had released Calley on bail on February 27, 1974, but an appeals court reversed it and returned Calley to U.S. Army custody on June 13, 1974.) Later in 1974, President Nixon tacitly issued Calley a limited Presidential Pardon. Consequently, his general court-martial conviction and dismissal from the U.S. Army were upheld, however, the prison sentence and subsequent parole obligations were commuted to time served, leaving Calley a free man.

[The Yosemite Bear]

1. history has an annoying talent for commng around again.
2. I may be mentally messed up, and currently off my psych meds, but I'm still a jaded it's all lying and ass covering.
3. Our government seems more interested in prosecuting th whistleblowers than the culprits.

[Lonestar]

1. history has an annoying talent for commng around again.

History doesn't repeat itself, but it might sometimes rhyme.

2. I may be mentally messed up, and currently off my psych meds, but I'm still a jaded it's all lying and ass covering.

3. Our government seems more interested in prosecuting th whistleblowers than the culprits.

Except there's a big difference in this situation, which is...anyone? Anyone? Bueller? That's right, .gov is publically saying that the murders happened and this is the alledged suspect. As far as I know the US Government isn't going after someone who "whistleblew" that Bales went on a crazy kill rampage.

[Aaron MkII]

Jesus Bear, shut up. The only thing similar here is that there was a massacre.

[Zaune]

Right now this is all idle speculation; the guy's barely even been booked into custody, much less questioned. Bales could have had some kind of mental breakdown, he could have been tripping balls on crystal meth, or maybe gunning a bunch of civilians just seemed like a good idea at the time. Who the fuck knows.

Maybe we ought to reserve judgement until some actual hard information comes to light, huh?

[Aaron MkII]

Now if we did that then what would N&P become?

[Phantasee]

No one asked their names

By Qais Azimy in Asia on Mon, 2012-03-19 14:23.

In the days following the rogue US soldier’s shooting spree in Kandahar, most of the media, us included, focused on the “backlash” and how it might further strain the relations with the US.

Many mainstream media outlets channelled a significant amount of energy into uncovering the slightest detail about the accused soldier – now identified as Staff Sergeant Robert Bales. We even know where his wife wanted to go for vacation, or what she said on her personal blog.

But the victims became a footnote, an anonymous footnote. Just the number 16. No one bothered to ask their ages, their hobbies, their aspirations. Worst of all, no one bothered to ask their names.

In honoring their memory, I write their names below, and the little we know about them: that nine of them were children, three were women.

The dead:

Mohamed Dawood son of Abdullah
Khudaydad son of Mohamed Juma
Nazar Mohamed
Payendo
Robeena
Shatarina daughter of Sultan Mohamed
Zahra daughter of Abdul Hamid
Nazia daughter of Dost Mohamed
Masooma daughter of Mohamed Wazir
Farida daughter of Mohamed Wazir
Palwasha daughter of Mohamed Wazir
Nabia daughter of Mohamed Wazir
Esmatullah daughter of Mohamed Wazir
Faizullah son of Mohamed Wazir
Essa Mohamed son of Mohamed Hussain
Akhtar Mohamed son of Murrad Ali

The wounded:

Haji Mohamed Naim son of Haji Sakhawat
Mohamed Sediq son of Mohamed Naim
Parween
Rafiullah
Zardana
Zulheja

[Questor]

What a nice guy. Apparently he enlisted to avoid answering charges.

http://news.yahoo.com/afghan-murder-sus ... -news.html

[weemadando]

As a bit of a depressing counterpoint to Phant:

In Reactions to Two Incidents, a U.S.-Afghan Disconnect
By ROD NORDLAND
Published: March 14, 2012

KABUL, Afghanistan — The mullah was astounded and a little angered to be asked why the accidental burning of Korans last month could provoke violence nationwide, while an intentional mass murder that included nine children last Sunday did not.

“How can you compare the dishonoring of the Holy Koran with the martyrdom of innocent civilians?” said an incredulous Mullah Khaliq Dad, a member of the council of religious leaders who investigated the Koran burnings. “The whole goal of our life is religion.”

That many Americans are just as surprised that what appears to be the massacre of 16 people at the hands of an American soldier has not led to mass protests or revenge killings speaks volumes about a fundamental disconnect with their Afghan partners, one that has undermined a longstanding objective to win the hearts and minds of the population. After more than 10 years, many deaths and billions of dollars invested, Americans still fail to grasp the Afghans’ basic values. Faith is paramount and a death can be compensated with blood money.

“To Muslims, and especially to Afghans, religion is much higher a concern than civilian or human casualties,” said Hafez Abdul Qayoom, a member of Afghanistan’s highest clerical body, the Ulema Council. “When something happens to their religion, they are much more sensitive and have much stronger reaction to it.”

The attack by a still unidentified United States Army soldier near his base in the Panjwai district, in southern Kandahar Province, has certainly infuriated Afghans and added to already strained relations. But the anger has been more polemical than violent — at least so far.

“We have to hold our breath here — people are jumping too fast on this idea that Afghans don’t care about 16 people being killed, compared to, say, the Koran-burning episode,” said Haseeb Humayoon, who has studied the phenomenon of mass protests.

There have been delayed reactions to past foreign offenses, like when a Florida evangelist deliberately destroyed a Koran last year. And Friday Prayers, which often touch off mass protests, have yet to take place this week. Still, the contrast with the reaction to the Feb. 20 Koran burnings is striking. Within a day of the burnings, violent protests outside NATO bases broke out, and apologies from top officials did little to stem two weeks of violence that took at least 29 lives.

In the case of the massacre in Kandahar, prompt apologies and condemnations from not only Gen. John R. Allen, the commander of the international force, but also President Obama — along with quick action by local leaders — seemed to head off violence and contain the blowback.

In Kandahar, villagers at first wanted to take the bodies of their victims into the city, but elders persuaded them that displaying them to crowds would lead to mass violence, and they desisted. Instead, they expressed their anguish to top officials who rushed there from Kabul, and in phone calls with President Hamid Karzai. In Jalalabad, university students organized a demonstration, burning Mr. Obama and a Christian cross in effigy, but despite strident demands that the Americans leave, the protest remained peaceful and disbanded without incident.

Partly, many observers say, the Americans have had a lot of practice at apologizing for carnage, accidental and otherwise, and have gotten better at doing it quickly and convincingly.

“The statement coming from President Obama, saying the killing of Afghan children felt the same as if they were American children, was reported widely by the local press,” Mr. Humayoon said. “Previously you would have a bland apology.”

The Ulema Council, which is heavily influenced by the presidential palace, had immediately issued a passionate denunciation, saying of the Americans, “The human rights violators of the 21st century once more committed a wild, inhuman and shameful act and relentlessly martyred innocent children, women and men.” But Mullah Qayoom said the quick reaction and prompt apology helped tamp down fury.

Afghan officials helped, too, by quickly paying compensation to the victims’ relatives, who are very poor and are part of a culture where “blood money” is regularly paid for even accidental deaths. A high-level delegation brought the money on Tuesday to the village in Panjwai where the massacre happened, drawing an attack by Taliban insurgents.

Still, the speed of the official response does not explain everything. Military officials quickly apologized for the Koran burnings as well, but it seemed to do little to quiet matters.

Mullah Qayoom is surprised that anyone is surprised.

“Humans were sent here to worship and protect religion,” he said. “That is what the purpose of a Muslim’s life is.”

Also, Afghans were very much aware that burning a Koran under American law normally would not be a crime, any more than burning a Bible would be — so those responsible were not going to suffer anything that Afghans would view as appropriate punishment.

In the case of murder, the military does have capital punishment, at least in theory — though no American soldier has ever been sentenced to death for acts committed in Afghanistan, including murders.

“In your laws there is the death penalty, so we are hopeful,” Mullah Qayoom said. “With the Koran burning, your people do not even respect your own books, so in the end they will say ‘sorry’ and the person will be released.”

That Afghans find Koran desecration more distressing does not mean they have been indifferent to the murders, particularly of the children. By now, any Afghan with a computer has seen the victims’ cherubic but lifeless visages on Facebook, and the images have been passed around on cellphones. Wrapped in blankets, some look as if they had just fallen asleep — the coverings hide gaping forehead wounds. A toddler in a blood-stained pinafore looks alive at first glance.

The Taliban certainly did their best to instigate a reaction to the Kandahar killings, issuing a broadside within hours calling on local residents to pour into the streets and attack NATO bases.

So far, at least, nothing of the sort has happened. Afghans are quick to recall a proverb: “You give your money away for your life, but you give your life away for your religion.” Ahmad Nader Nadery, a human rights activist, said that when the heat of the moment settled, many Afghans would be ready to see the Kandahar massacre as the criminal act of a single individual, particularly because it did not come as part of a military operation.

Perhaps most important, however, is that civilian casualties have long since stopped being the particular province of foreign military forces, who were once responsible for 75 percent of them. Now the Taliban commit 75 percent of them, according to figures by the United Nations and Afghan rights groups. As one American military official said, “When have the Taliban ever apologized for killing?”

[Aaron MkII]

Interesting perspective. Does the coalition not have cultural advisors?