 |
LTC Allen B. West 4th Infantry Division, Iraq Allen West Defense Fund
|
Intro
Letters & Essays Index News Links Player Contact Info Feedback / Contact Back to YAP's front door |
|
LTC Allen B. West 4th Infantry Division, Iraq Allen West Defense Fund
|
Intro
Letters & Essays Index News Links Player Contact Info Feedback / Contact Back to YAP's front door |
Sign the Petition on behalf of LTC West
Letter sent to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz on Sunday, 2 November, 2003, via DoD feedback form at http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/comment.html. Letter modified here only by the addition of hyperlinks to outside web sites that are referenced (clicking a link to an outside web site will open the link in a new browser window). Steve Harrison is a combat veteran who served in SEA as a Army Infantry Officer and Recon/FAC Aviator in the O-1 "Birddog." Mr. Harrison recently retired a career as a field and research biologist and laboratory analyst in Illinois.Please submit responses to this and other articles on this web site by using our Feedback Form.
To: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz;
Subject: Lt. Col. Allen B. WestSirs -- I am writing to appraise you of the ground-swell of rage that is afoot on the several networks of military veteran and active duty Internet users to which I am subscribed.
The subject Lt. Col. West controversy has struck a VERY volatile chord among the vast majority of these "been there -- done that" individuals. It is massive and white hot in scope.
Many of these veterans have experienced combat circumstances that afford a certain qualified understanding regarding the actions taken by Col. West in attaining the life-saving information that he did -- even AS he did.
None, zero, of us are willing to sit idly by and see Col. West swing in the wind for what appears to be actions that, while perhaps a bit untoward if this incident were set in a domestic context, should be considered not at all out of place or in violation of any Convention of War in a combat zone.
If you are prepared to "de-classify" Iraq from being a combat zone to now being viewed as a "domestic peace-keeping mission," by whatever euphemism, you will surely become the darling of all Democrat presidential hopefuls by verifying their current drone/whine about President Bush having "declared the war to be over" (THEIR rhetoric), and by so doing, has put our troops at enhanced risk.
Of course, we understand that's as false and as trumped-up of a charge as that being leveled at Col. West... isn't it? Their complaint seems largely to stem from a willful misinterpretation of the "Mission Accomplished" banner flown on the USS Lincoln as it was steaming back to home port in the USA -- having accomplished its mission relative to the initial invasion and hostilities.
Charging Col. West with "Aggravated Assault" under the UCMJ must surely require an equal degree of willful misinterpretation.
Collectively, we are left to presume that the parties who have initiated these charges and actions against Col. West are no more familiar with, or appreciative of, combat expediencies than former Assistant Secretary of the Army Sara Lister, as evidenced by her amazing chastisement of the US Marine Corps as being "extremist" and not fit for polite society. Surreality is fine for the National Lampoon, but not so funny when it is reported by one of the few credible news sources.
The majority of [quite heated] opinion on these email networks is that it should be the 4th ID Adjutant General and the CG of the 4th ID on the carpet, giving their best explanations as to why Col. West is being persecuted for his battlefield accomplishment in this matter, even regarding the manner of the matter.
Quite frankly, sirs, these networks of combat veterans are not so politically correct as to equate the life of even one American troop with that of the emotional sensitivities of our enemy -- even if it means frightening some of them on occasion into revealing lethal ambush plans against US troops.
Please don't mistake the anger I am describing as that of believing Col. West has been "falsely" accused. Col. West agrees that his actions have been accurately reported, even as charged. We simply cannot believe that such charges are at all appropriate when applied to a combat context.
Col. West is being charged with "Aggravated Assault," which is defined by UCMJ Article 128, which is sandwiched between Article 127 "Extortion" and Article 129 "Burglary." Not at all the stuff of a combat zone ROE (Rules Of Engagement).
Clearly, these Articles are intended as defining causes for punitive action in a domestic context, unless you're prepared to agree that other troops should be brought up on charges of Article 129 Burglary, as example, for their forcible no-knock entry into some of Saddam Hussein's palaces. Why not "Aggravated Burglary," since we're trumping-up nonsense charges anyway? They were, after all, armed to the teeth and very likely exhibiting threatening body language that could have done some downright grievous emotional scarring to the more socially timid Saddam Fedayeen.
Col. West doesn't even qualify for "common" assault under Article 128, let alone aggravated assault. For common assault (sub-part "a"), a person has to: "...attempt or offer with unlawful force or violence to do bodily harm to another person, whether or not the attempt or offer is consummated..."
Col. West obviously did not "attempt or offer" to do bodily harm to the detainee -- he purposefully fired his pistol AWAY from him. To say that still qualifies Col. West as having "attempted" to cause the detainee bodily harm is to challenge the Colonel's pistol marksmanship to a extraordinary degree.
In fact, the Colonel's actions, as defined in and by the charges brought against him, testify that he attempted and succeeded in NOT causing the detainee any bodily harm. Failing to qualify for even common Assault (a), there can be no charges of Aggravated Assault (sub-part "b"), since Aggravated Assault (b) depends on [common] Assault (a) for the base definition of "assault" as the premise.
Further, there is the matter of what may be considered "unlawful" force or violence in a combat zone. Surely, the physical contact Col. West made with the detainee did not breach any War Convention's definition of what may be considered "lawful" force for combatants. If it is "lawful" for a soldier of one uniform to shoot a soldier wearing an opposing uniform, then Col. West's conduct would surely fall within those bounds and there is no infraction.
The whole story, as far as what "factual" information has made the news to date, reeks of ass-covering, at a level higher in rank than Col. West, for a perceived affront to Political Correctness, and the willingness to sacrifice the careers, and even endanger the lives, of subordinates to secure one's own military-political future/s. MANY veterans are painfully familiar with that "crime," and are livid to think that Col. West may be destined to become yet another victim of it.
The overwhelming majority of military veterans with qualified and personal experience to speak on the matter describe one Maj. Gen. Wesley Clark in precisely those same terms, and believe they are seeing more of the same despicable stuff from the 4th ID CG, Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno.
If that is the way things are, and matters are allowed to proceed as described for Col. West, it is the considered opinion of all networked individuals mentioned that your office will have fostered a backlash that could cost President Bush the vast majority of military veteran (not to mention active duty military) support in the coming election. It is, seriously, that serious.
If there IS more story to be told about what Col. West did, and how he did it, that would sway opinions to agree that he did, indeed, cross some line not permissible even in a combat zone (which would need to be considerably more violent and, well, rude, than as reported to date), it would surely behoove the office of the Secretary of Defense to provide a full, detailed and factual statement to the press, explaining in very convincing detail why the legal actions initiated by Gen. Odierno, to include the relieving Col. West of his command, are endorsed by your office by way of your allowing those actions to stand and proceed.
Indeed, if I am successful at convincing you of the considerable depth and intensity of emotion (read: "rage") among military types regarding this story, you might favorably consider an emergency press conference to do exactly that.
Note: it'd better be good. Some of the veterans (silverbacks thru recent retirees) on the networks I mention include law school professors, practicing attorneys and a couple of judges. ALL are intimately familiar with the UCMJ and ALL are entirely without explanation as to why a charge of "aggravated assault" would even be considered applicable regarding the actions of Col. West, a US military officer in a combat zone.
If the circumstances as to how Col. West attained the vital information he sought are as they have been reported in the general news media to date (2 Nov., 2003) -- that he fired his pistol twice, purposefully NOT AT the interrogatee -- then please do understand and believe the grassroots shitstorm that is headed your way if matters as they are presently aimed at Col. West are allowed to proceed.
Unless you can do a magnificently convincing job of selling these thousands of hardass combat veterans on the notion that the charges against Col. West are at all proper, they are, Sir, prepared to march into battle once again -- to DC -- in support of one of our own. To borrow a line from the movie "Red October" -- "This thing could get out of control." The presumed consequences of letting "that thing" get out of control in the movie were quite serious.
Right now, it would seem Col. West has been wounded by "friendly" fire (or a knife in the back) and left on the battlefield to fend for himself. It is well that you understand the attitude of combat veterans about leaving one of our own behind, Government policy or orders be damned.
Those of us who were participants in the war in SEA, where Government micro-management of even local combat tactics cost MANY U.S. lives, are not about to allow that sort of thing to happen again without taking civic participation in the political process to startling new extremes. By that same measure, a Government that would fail to oversee and, if necessary, manage a legal-political situation such as has befallen Col. West, would be equally culpable.
The massive 1932 "Hooverville Bonus Bill" march and encampment on Washington DC was "only" about veterans' bonuses. Estimates range between 22,000 and 80,000 participants. The "thing" at issue today, represented by all aspects of the Col. West case, including facts, actions and players, puts the very concept of Military Justice in the balance.
If "this thing gets out of control," the unruly gathering you may see along Pennsylvania Avenue assuredly will be considerably larger in number, and no doubt quite a bit angrier than the Bonus Bill plaintifs.
Thank you, sirs, for your consideration. I write this for your benefit, advantage and opportunity as one who believes it his duty to appraise you of such a massive and heated ground-swell of opinion and seemingly pending action.
We are, Sirs, quite absorbed and obsessed with this matter. To dismiss all this as just so much tempest in a teapot, or as the ravings of a lone malcontent, would be to risk that dismissal going down as an historically significant error in judgement.
Respectfully;
Steve Harrison
Charleston, IL###
Feedback and Contact ~ Back to YAP's front door ~ Letters and Essays index ~ News Links ~ Intro ~ Player Contact Info
©opyright since 2003 by Steve Harrison. All rights reserved.