Type-A hard chargers - a few eggs are going to get broken.

The SEALs are very self-promoting that is for sure. IMO much moreso than the rest of SOCOM.

The Army SF community is much more tight-lipped for instance.

As to 'bad acts' - it is a leadership imperative - regardless of how high speed the unit is - to keep the men in line and operating under proper ethics / decorum. Period.

Every instance you ever see of misconduct - is first and foremost a leadership failure.

They teach you that day one as an Officer or NCO.

Problem is sometimes - guys get so 'high speed' folks think they no longer need oversight / supervision.

--------------------------------------

Mixed feelings on this. While I have no problem with any method of killing the enemy, after the fact we do not need to be comfortable with taking scalps, cutting off ears, and canoeing corpses. While the practice of chopping off fingers for "ID" purposes might have had some legitimacy, but when combined with the rest it looks bad. Especially when it becomes the norm, and not the exception.

I know of an SF guy who was nicknamed T-1000. By all accounts he was a brutal warrior, however it wasn't too many months ago when he snapped and took his own life. I worry about the souls of these men. Can they assimilate back into society once they go down those roads? I pray that they can.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:
Type-A hard chargers - a few eggs are going to get broken.

The SEALs are very self-promoting that is for sure. IMO much moreso than the rest of SOCOM.

The Army SF community is much more tight-lipped for instance.

As to 'bad acts' - it is a leadership imperative - regardless of how high speed the unit is - to keep the men in line and operating under proper ethics / decorum. Period.

Every instance you ever see of misconduct - is first and foremost a leadership failure.

They teach you that day one as an Officer or NCO.

Problem is sometimes - guys get so 'high speed' folks think they no longer need oversight / supervision.

--------------------------------------

This is spot on. When wrong things happen both in the military and in policing, my first question always is, "where was supervision?"

With that said, those who have never been near combat tend to lose sight of the fact that the role of the military is to kill people and destroy his stuff. SOF units tend to be, pound for pound, more lethal than the rest. Point them at a target and somebody is going to get killed, that's what the instrument is designed for. Failures in leadership or failures in intelligence will eventually result in the wrong people getting killed

I agree with what has been posted about leadership failure, but I also note the point in the article that states that the officers rotate through but the enlisted guys stay for long periods of time, up to and including remainder of career.

That is a recipe for disaster. Not because they are enlisted, but because there is no different perspective ever offered to that unit, and there is no return to, or cycle through "regular soldiering". The long term guys become both the institutional memory of the unit, and its unofficial (and more powerful) actual shadow leadership. The fact that the unit conducts its own training, instead of sending its members off to schools where they are exposed to other units, and has the ability to black ball or fundamentally ignore its commanders is indicative of that problem.

I saw some similar attitudes with very senior CWO 4 and 5 guys in Army aviation. They were fantastic pilots, and knew it. And they did't listen to anything anyone said; they did it their way. Now, to some extent it didn't matter, as CWO don't lead anything, as they are specialists in their craft, in this case, flying and instructing. But their attitude did wash over outside of their unique cadre, and while it never got destructive, it did bear watching. Had they been leaders, instead of doers, it could have been a serious problem.

The risk with units like this, run the way this organization is run, is that it becomes a society unto itself, and responsible only to itself and its own standards, with the attitude of "if I do my job, leave me alone, and don't question how I do my job." If those standards get perverted, there is no check on behavior.

All of this, however still comes back to leadership failure. I am disinclined to place too much blame on the serving servicemen. People will accommodate the environment they live in. If they live in a brutal, competitive environment, they will become brutal and competitive people. If they live and work in an environment where that behavior is not tolerated, thy will not do it, or they will be tossed out. Command needs to be reasserted at the right level, and without dulling the edge necessary to do the job.

None of this is new, and there are recorded instances of similar situations from World War II, and Viet Nam. It's completely understandable, but never the less, it needs fixing.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
I agree with what has been posted about leadership failure, but I also note the point in the article that states that the officers rotate through but the enlisted guys stay for long periods of time, up to and including remainder of career.

That is a recipe for disaster. Not because they are enlisted, but because there is no different perspective ever offered to that unit, and there is no return to, or cycle through "regular soldiering". The long term guys become both the institutional memory of the unit, and its unofficial (and more powerful) actual shadow leadership. The fact that the unit conducts its own training, instead of sending its members off to schools where they are exposed to other units, and has the ability to black ball or fundamentally ignore its commanders is indicative of that problem.

I saw some similar attitudes with very senior CWO 4 and 5 guys in Army aviation. They were fantastic pilots, and knew it. And they did't listen to anything anyone said; they did it their way. Now, to some extent it didn't matter, as CWO don't lead anything, as they are specialists in their craft, in this case, flying and instructing. But their attitude did wash over outside of their unique cadre, and while it never got destructive, it did bear watching. Had they been leaders, instead of doers, it could have been a serious problem.

The risk with units like this, run the way this organization is run, is that it becomes a society unto itself, and responsible only to itself and its own standards, with the attitude of "if I do my job, leave me alone, and don't question how I do my job." If those standards get perverted, there is no check on behavior.

All of this, however still comes back to leadership failure. I am disinclined to place too much blame on the serving servicemen. People will accommodate the environment they live in. If they live in a brutal, competitive environment, they will become brutal and competitive people. If they live and work in an environment where that behavior is not tolerated, thy will not do it, or they will be tossed out. Command needs to be reasserted at the right level, and without dulling the edge necessary to do the job.

None of this is new, and there are recorded instances of similar situations from World War II, and Viet Nam. It's completely understandable, but never the less, it needs fixing.

Excellent post.

Just to add - this is not just in LE or military. I am former Army but now in healthcare.

I see it with MDs too - the bad apples get so caught up in the God-complex of being a highly regarded surgeon - at the apex of healthcare delivery- they cut corners and there is no one to hold them accountable.

It doesn't happen often, but it happens. Had a conversation about it yesterday with a internationally renowned surgeon.

There is a line from Master and Commander that says it all - 'Men Must Be Governed'... I take that to mean good leadership must take care to ensure that the team is always 'doing right' and staying on the correct path...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Igooxb4D1c


---------------------------------

Hmm …; awkward: Whom do we support? The SEALs who reportedly committed war crimes or the SEALs who reportedly objected to their committing war crimes? A conundrum.

“It is not power which corrupts, but immunity.”
— John W. Campbell (Attributed; observation on The Invisible Man by H.G. Wells.)

Assuming that some of the detailed allegations in the article are true, it’s hardly the first time similar breakdowns have occurred in secret, minimally-supervised operations and organizations. I am personally aware of formally-investigated incidents in Vietnam, in later support operations in Central and South America, and in other operations that were clearly due to lack of oversight and the development of a “We can do—and get away with—anything we want” culture. We can blame it on the stresses of the missions or the “type-A” personalities that may have been involved, but the fact is that men (in this case) are men, and men are prey to pressures and temptations. They are also subject to the powerful forces that form cohesive groups made up of members willing to die for each other, not to mention being willing to cover for each other’s transgressions.

Reading the article evoked a strong sense of déjà vu. I was in military intelligence in Vietnam, and during most of my tour our small detachment was commanded by senior counterintelligence agent warrant officers. At the end, though, a second lieutenant fresh from the Military Intelligence Officer Basic Course was placed in charge. The MIOBC was mostly intended to prepare future battalion S2s, and he knew virtually nothing about our unit mission or how it should be accomplished. We obeyed his orders about changing the oil in our jeeps and similar vital issues, but otherwise ignored him as much as possible.

I shall be eternally grateful to the fates that I and my fellow agents in our early 20s committed no atrocities or other war crimes in Vietnam. In retrospect, however, I suspect that was due more to lack of opportunity to do things we thought could be justified by the circumstances rather than a fundamental sense of right and wrong in a chaotic war zone surrounded by hidden enemies. The senior NCO agent of the unit had a cavalier attitude toward following rules and could, I believe, have convinced some junior members to cross certain lines.

The thing to remember, though, is that many military and police forces around the world are seldom held accountable for their acts, and that contributes to the living and social conditions in the third world hellholes they inhabit. The linked article above is not the first reference I’ve seen to mention how native people where they operate are fearful of “bearded Americans.” Some of them should be afraid of our special operations forces for good reason, but not all. I’m in no position to judge the validity of such fears (assuming they do exist), but history teaches us that we’re not going to be successful in the type of conflicts we’re fighting without the support of the people who live there.

As much as I disdain some of the rules of engagement I’ve read about, the reason for them is to try to foster and maintain that support. If we have forces that believe they can do and get away with anything, they’re directly undermining the efforts of the rest of our forces in the region.

Articles like the one above probably won’t have much impact on anything. The major difference between our activities today and in the Vietnam War is that no one is being drafted and casualties are far lower. The Mỹ Lai massacre wasn’t important so much because of the atrocities it involved, but because it furnished a huge drum for the antiwar crowd to beat in their efforts to get the US to pull out. The sorts of things alleged in the linked article will probably never have similar impact on us Americans, but that’s primarily because the body bags have slowed to a trickle and they don’t shroud draftees. If that ever changes, though, anyone who believes that we have a legitimate reason to fight our enemies in far-away lands rather than in our local malls won’t be happy with the consequences.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

Proper Chain of Command exists for good reason.

And from the top to the bottom and bottom to top, when properly adhered. will allow such transgressions as alleged to be dealt with.

The same professionalism from bottom to top and top to bottom ensures this.

And in that chain, there is enough of the inside, self disciplining, and enough of the outside for proper oversight. But it must be without repentance.

Letting the "chain whip sideways" always results in damage, rather than "lifting the load".

And the same goes for LE and other such uses of authority and power.

But, and it is a large one, self discipline, self control and the desire to be above reproach is incumbent on all in "the organization".

In the military and it's civilian chain, it is pretty cut and dried and clearly defined in the organization.

In the civilian world, it is rather loosely defined and not well understood.

And that is a shame.


God bless all that willing put themselves in the queue to defend and protect, no matter what uniform, or not, that is worn.

I am, a Grateful American.

(expanding the thought of my earlier post)

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
If any man is unwilling to bloody his hands, and allows another to go in his stead, his voice of argument goes with him.

Well said.

Summed it up..

quote:

Problem is sometimes - guys get so 'high speed' folks think they no longer need oversight / supervision.

Personally, I think most of the problems are because they (all the SF's) are overused these days. Instead of having to justify using an entire military for solving problems like actually winning and ending wars, politicians (both civ and mil), have this nice convenient make-the-inconvenient-problems-go-away SF groups without the understanding or caring about the long term psychological impact when it is only done by a relatively few men over and over and over. The same characteristics of people who will actually keep quiet and enforce the gov't dark secrets, is the same characteristic that will keep SF personnel dark secrets within the unit, so to bitch that the SF members aren't self-reporting issues is stupid. They were all chosen with these secret-keeping characteristic in mind.

Regardless of how patriotic they might be initially, when the civic reasons for destroying the enemy is lost (which is supposed to be about "winning" a war for God and country) and replaced merely with constant professional glory for banner and unit in wars that never end, the long-term behaviors and motivations are going to eventually veer sharply. If these men are doing anything wrong in the manner of prosecuting their profession, it's not their fault. It's the higher-up military and government's fault for the constant high-tempo of making them continuously sleep with the pigs in never-ending wars and never giving them (and sometimes forcing them) time to wash off the filth..

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
If any man is unwilling to bloody his hands, and allows another to go in his stead, his voice of argument goes with him.

Well, that does not mean these men are above reproach. I don't think anything in that article was particularly terrible, but these men represent our country and if they are out committing war crimes (which I don't believe they are, just hypothetically speaking) they need be reigned in and held accountable. We're better than that.

As for that article, I think it's definitely trying to hype everything up for publicity. When it comes to judgment calls I agree with sigmonkey - it's not for us to judge them one way or the other. As long as they can make a somewhat reasonable argument that's good enough for me.

The heathens really must think Americans are pussies.

I'd prefer our enemies fear us. At least some of us. Instead, they know they can call for a supervisor and get warriors in trouble for being too mean.

That is in-fucking-sane.

I read this article and I think of the Marine who was slayed, in public, for pissing on dead Taliban. Hilary went so far as to claim they may be guilty of War Crimes.

Personally I don't give a fuck what these SEAL's do to take out their frustration on the enemy, but I wish they'd keep their mouths shut and let rumors and speculation do their talking.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
The heathens really must think Americans are pussies.

I'd prefer our enemies fear us. At least some of us. Instead, they know they can call for a supervisor and get warriors in trouble for being too mean.

That is in-fucking-sane.

SOP of descration of corpses, is not being too mean; it is barbaric and a crime. Now we know why bin laden photos haven't been released, or leaked.

quote:

Originally posted by celticwolf:

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
The heathens really must think Americans are pussies.

I'd prefer our enemies fear us. At least some of us. Instead, they know they can call for a supervisor and get warriors in trouble for being too mean.

That is in-fucking-sane.

SOP of descration of corpses, is not being too mean; it is barbaric and a crime. Now we know why bin laden photos haven't been released, or leaked.

If it is true. Who can say but the guys in the room, and the stories don't match.

Maybe the boys need a little more ops sec and little more psychological first aid for teammates who want to write novels.

I'm of the school fuck the jihadi scalp him, chop him, I don't give a rats ass what happens to them.

I see references to the "Chain of Command" and agree with the failure of leadership being the cause for continued misconduct in a unit.

Part of the problem with that is NSW is VERY informal - Os and Es train and party together, call each other by first names in all but the most formal of circumstances. And since the Es stay in units / stay 'operational', the respect for the Os is diminished, at least from my view as an observing third party.

In general, the SEALS have the biggest egos and don't take criticism well (at all). Throw the lack of clear COC and discipline, and the stories relayed here and what I've heard from other sources don't surprise me at all.

God bless our servicemen and servicewomen. And god bless all our special operation warriors!

quote:

Originally posted by spunk639:
I'm of the school fuck the jihadi scalp him, chop him, I don't give a rats ass what happens to them.

This attitude is why we have such a hard time winning counterinsurgency warfare.

Islam is pretty strict about keeping the body whole whenever possible. Yes they desecrate our people's remains in some cases, but they aren't trying to win over us. But we OTOH are trying to win over the locals, and any sort of desecration beyond what is required for identification likely isn't going to help things.

quote:

Originally posted by celticwolf:

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
The heathens really must think Americans are pussies.

I'd prefer our enemies fear us. At least some of us. Instead, they know they can call for a supervisor and get warriors in trouble for being too mean.

That is in-fucking-sane.

SOP of descration of corpses, is not being too mean; it is barbaric and a crime. Now we know why bin laden photos haven't been released, or leaked.

I do not care. Kill them all, piss on them, and shove bacon grease up their asses. Then light them on fire.