I was watching a show on theh istory channel about the war in Iraq, and there was a short story about a marine sniper. He had his scope on the head of an insurgent machine-gunner for some time, requesting permission to fire. Because it took so long for him to get approval, three marines below the Insurgent were killed. Do you think it is good that we monitor our military actions so heavily, or should it be instinct, like the old days? Is this effective? Discuss
Depends on the ROE in the situation. If they needed to request permission to fire, that means that there might have been civilians near or immediately behind him. You can't pop a civilian for the sake of the gunner so says most ROE. They can't shoot the gun out of his hands because all that will do is make a messy shot, probably riochetting into his stomach and letting him bleed out. There's not much you can do in a situation like that except for get the Marines down to cover.
We shouldn't monitor the military actions so heavily. When will people finally understand that in a war situation there will allways be civilians getting killed. Thats just the way it is, period. That ofcourse doesn't mean we have to kill them, but in some cases its impossible not to kill civilians. Also, in some cases soldiers can't fire back untill they are getting fired on. Thats a terrible rule IMO. I mean, if someone is carrying a gun and walking towars you, you can't shoot ? Thats pathetic.
But that wouldn't be politically correct! What if he was surrendering (with his rifle at his shoulder, sighted in, safety off...)? In some cases, the ROE dictates that you can shoot anybody with a weapon. Others dictate not to fire unless fired upon (probably what happened with the sniper above). Still others say to only fire if there is an immediate threat to you or another person (as in a person raising his rifle). ROE is there as a band-aid for Vietnam. In Vietnam, soldiers and Marines didn't know who was whom; they could drop their weapons, run off into the jungle, and re-appear minutes later as a farmer. Some were shot, and protests were made about it. ROE comes along and puts a tight leash on every round the soldier/Marine fires.
police are quick enough to shoot someone if they think they are a threat to lives, so why cant we do the same at war?
It's different when a cop sees someone holding a gun to someone's head and a guy, dressed as any other person, is hiding a gun under his robe. Not only can you not see it, if you see a bulge under his clothing, what if it's just a cell phone? Different situations, different protocol.
I think he should of fired. Protocol is complicated and possibly needed but we are at ----in war, I dont care.
i would say shoot on instint if its war we are over there to protect and organized but sometimes you should follow instinct
Instinct is one thing. Having a mob protesting because you popped an innocent with a cell phone in his pocket is quite another. It's not black-and-white like you people make it out to be. Some ROEs state that they can't shoot until fired upon, which is what this particular situation sounds like. War, especially now, is never black and white. We're not fighting a uniformed enemy as we did in WWII. We're fighting guys that dress just like any other person, hide in towns and cities, shoot when it's convienent, and have no qualms about blowing up fifteen or so people to kill an American. It's easier for the insurgents and terrorists; shoot anybody in camo. For an American soldier, shooting an unarmed civilian, even accidentally while engaged in a firefight, can lead to a prison sentence. Having a sniper rifle and a year or so of training on how to stalk and kill DOES NOT give you the right to shoot someone because they look like a threat. If anything, you're held to a higher standard because you're observing the person through a ten-power scope as opposed to iron sights.
I'm with ferret on this one. There are too many gray areas than you guys realize. If a cop sees a person that is directly threatened by someone with a gun, they can shoot although certain circumstances apply. Some are: Is the victim directly in harm's way? Are there any negative repercussions if I shoot? Would I put the victim in a possibly worse situation by opening fire? And all of the rounds that a police officer fires go under direct investigation to make sure that the officer had no other outlet than to shoot the criminal due to the criminal being a direct threat to the officer and/or other civilians that may have been present. And it's pretty much the same dealie over in Iraq. Although our soldiers may have a clear shot at a terrorist, they can not take it unless the rules of engagement (ROE) (that are set by the mission coordinator) give them permission to do so. Otherwise they can be court-marshaled and face a prison sentence. Just because they have the shot doesn't mean they have the authority to take it. And in the case of the Marine sniper, just because he had the shot doesn't mean he could have safely taken it. If the bullet were to pass through the terrorist (I am assuming that he would be using a .308 caliber FMJ round fired out of an M40A3), it may end up hitting a civilian and then the sniper could be arrested and sent to prison. We are an acting police force over there, and in some cases, the ROE for any particular mission could be set even stricter than that of the police forces back home.
the military actions shouldnt be monitored so seriously i mean its war... civilians are gona get killed "war is hell" so deal with it
There must have been a reason he didn't have approval. If a marine shot a civillian, people would bitch, if a marine didn't fire, like the case, people will bitch.
