a letter home....

[pappy]

An email I recieved and thought you guys might like to see it.   


Good Morning Everybody.

The following is an email from my son regarding the NBC report (with embedded reporter Kevin Sites), concerning the Marine who is being investigated for "murdering" the insurgent in Fallaja. I will be sending his mail to every news program's email I can find. I find it sickening that this Kevin Sites is even allowed to be embedded with our Marines, as this isn't the first report I've heard from him that took on a decidely unfriendly tone. My son also gave me permission to release it to anyone that wants to
pass it on, as long as it remains unedited.

-- Darlene
PMM LCPL Gus
TS DET

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

Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 07:27:55 -0800 (PST)
From: old tymer <email address edited>
Subject: The stories you don't hear...
To: [email protected]


This is one story of many that people normally don't hear, and one that everyone does.

This is just one most don't hear:

A young Marine and his cover man cautiously enter a room just recently filled with insurgents armed with Ak-47's and RPG's. There are three dead, another wailing in pain. The insurgent can be heard saying, "Mister, mister! Diktoor, diktoor (doctor)!" He is badly wounded, lying in a pool of his own blood. The Marine and his cover man slowly walk toward the injured man, scanning to make sure no enemies come from behind. In a split second, the pressure in the room greatly exceeds that of the outside, and the concussion seems to be felt before the blast is heard. Marines outside rush to the room, and look in horror as the dust gradually settles. The result is a room filled with the barely recognizable remains of the deceased, caused by an insurgent setting off several pounds of explosives.
The Marines' remains are gathered by teary eyed comrades, brothers in arms, and shipped home in a box. The families can only mourn over a casket and a picture of their loved one, a life cut short by someone who hid behind a white flag. But no one hears these stories, except those who have lived to carry remains of a friend, and the families who loved the dead. No one hears this, so no one cares.

This is the story everyone hears:

A young Marine and his fire team cautiously enter a room just recently filled with insurgents armed with AK-47's and RPG's. There are three dead, another wailing in pain. The insugent can be heard saying, "Mister,mister! Diktoor, diktoor (doctor)!" He is badly wounded. Suddenly, he pulls from under his bloody clothes a grenade, without the pin. The explosion rocks the room, killing one Marine, wounding the others. The young Marine catches shrapnel in the face.
The next day, same Marine, same type of situation, a different story. The young Marine and his cover man enter a room with two wounded insurgents. One lies on the floor in puddle of blood, another against the wall. A reporter and his camera survey the wreckage inside, and in the background can be heard the voice of a Marine, "He's moving, he's moving!"
The pop of a rifle is heard, and the insurgent against the wall is now dead.

Minutes, hours later, the scene is aired on national television, and the Marine is being held for commiting a war crime. Unlawful killing.

And now, another Marine has the possibility of being burned at the stake for protecting the life of his brethren. His family now wrings their hands in grief, tears streaming down their face. Brother, should I have been in your boots, I too would have done the same.

For those of you who don't know, we Marines, Band of Brothers, Jarheads, Leathernecks, etc., do not fight because we think it is right, or think it is wrong. We are here for the man to our left, and the man to our right. We choose to give our lives so that the man or woman next to us can go home and see their husbands, wives, children, friends and families.

For those of you who sit on your couches in front of your television, and choose to condemn this man's actions, I have but one thing to say to you. Get out of you recliner, lace up my boots, pick up a rifle, leave your family behind and join me. See what I've seen, walk where I have walked. To those of you who support us, my sincerest gratitude. You keep us alive.

I am a Marine currently doing his second tour in Iraq. These are my opinions and mine alone. They do not represent those of the Marine Corps or of the US military, or any other.

Sincerely,

LCPL Schmidt
USMC

 

[pappy]

"THESE ARE EXCERPTS FROM FROGGY'S RUMINATIONS
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Some Additional Reflections on Fallujah
The MSM and other TV/Radio outlets have been putting Colonels and other officers on their programs to "defend" the Marine who is being accused of war crimes by the left. By and large I wouldn't expect much in the way of solace coming from these military talking heads. Why? They are officers. With the exception of the SEAL Teams and perhaps other SOF units, officers and enlisted are trained separately. Officers are trained to be aware of their own accountability and liability for the actions of the enlisted in their command. Enlisted are trained to shoot people and blow stuff up. Enlisted people are taught by senior enlisted people, many with combat experience from other conflicts, to put security rounds into tangos after assaulting through a target. Officers are not. So don't listen to what you hear from former officers on TV, because it's not an officer's job to shoot people, it's his job to direct those in his command and to get direction from those who command him.

I have also seen a lot in the way of explaining this Marine's actions by taking into account the fact that he was wounded the day before, that he was tired, he was caught up in the "fog of war", and similar excuses for his actions. He doesn't need any excuses in my book. While all of those factors were in play, they aren't germane to the subject at hand. Combatants generally fake death for a reason. The reason is not important. That there is a reason is important. If Kevin Sites wasn't there with his camera, those Marines probably would have double tapped everybody in the room. Site's presence clearly attenuated the natural response of the Marines in that situation. Which makes the shooting of the one tango all the more justifiable in my estimation. Marines know that they have to be on their best behavior when the press is around, because chances are they were explicitly warned by their unit commander. The fact of the matter is that this Marine acted with RESTRAINT and only shot the one hostile who was acting in a suspicious manner. Kevin Sites certainly owes his life to this and many other Marines he was straphanging with last week. I glad he was able to offer them his gratitude in such a compelling way.


posted by Matthew Heidt @ 13:50  Comments (19)Comments rackback (0)Trackback   

Monday, November 15, 2004
They're Called Security Rounds
Its a safety issue, pure and simple. After assaulting through a target, put a security round in everybody's head. Sorry al-Reuters, there's no paddy wagon rolling around Fallujah picking up "prisoners" and offering them a hot cup a joe, falafel, and a blanket. There's no time to dick around in the target, you clear the space, dump the chumps, and moveon.org. Are Corpsman expected to treat wounded terrorists? Negative. Hey libs, worried about the defense budget? Well, it would be waste, fraud, and abuse for a Corpsman to spend one man minute or a battle dressing on a terrorist, its much cheaper to just spend the $.02 on a 5.56mm FMJ.

By the way, terrorists who chop off civilian's heads are not prisoners, they are carcasses.

UPDATE: Let me be very clear about this issue. I have looked around the web, and many people get this concept, but there are some stragglers. Here is your situation Marine. You just took fire from unlawful combatants shooting from a religious building attempting to use the sanctuary status of their position as protection. But you're in Fallujah now, and the Marine Corps has decided that they're not playing that game this time. That was Najaf. So you set the mosque on fire and you hose down the terrorists with small arms, launch some AT-4s (Rockets), some 40MM grenades into the building and things quiet down. So you run over there, and find some tangos wounded and pretending to be dead. You are aware that suicide martyrdom is like really popular with these kind of idiots, and like taking some Marines with them would be really cool. So you can either risk your life and your fireteam's lives by having them cover you while you bend down and search a guy that you think is pretending to be dead for some reason. Also, you don't know who or what is in the next room, and you're already speaking english to each other and its loud because your hearing is poor from shooting people for several days. So you know that there are many other rooms to enter, and that if anyone is still alive in those rooms, they know that Americans are in the mosque. Meanwhile (3 seconds later), you still have this terrorist that was just shooting at you from a mosque playing possum. What do you do?

You double tap his head, and you go to the next room, that's what.

What about the Geneva Conventions and all that Law of Land Warfare stuff? What about it. Without even addressing the issues at hand you first thought should be, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." Bear in mind that this is a perpetual mindset that is reinforced by experiences gained on a minute by minute basis. Secondly, you are fighting an unlawful combatant in a Sanctuary which is a double No No on his part. Third, tactically you are in no position to take "prisoners" because there are more rooms to search and clear, and the behavior of said terrorist indicates that he is up to no good. No good in Fallujah is a very large place and the low end of no good and the high end of no good are fundamentally the same... Marines get hurt or die. So there is no compelling reason for you to do anything but double tap this idiot and get on with the mission.

If you are a veteran then everything I have just written is self evident, if you are not a veteran than at least try to put yourself in the situation. Remember, in Fallujah there is no yesterday, there is no tomorrow, there is only now. Right NOW. Have you ever lived in NOW for a week? It is not easy, and if you have never lived in NOW for longer than it takes to finish the big roller coaster at Six Flags, then shut your hole about putting Marines in jail for war crimes. Be advised, I am not talking to my readers, but if this post gets linked up, I want regular folks to get this message loud and clear. Froggy OUT."

 

[Acorn]

My wife is very troubled when I make statements like "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6." My reaction to the Marine's actions was initially "I'm glad he didn't take any risks." Shortly after I heard about his actions, I heard about the murder of Margaret Hassan.

Frankly, my fury cannot be expressed in a public forum. I can only hope that, should I find myself in a situation confronting the sort of individual who chooses to take and murder  hostages, and behead captives with a knife, I hope that I will be able to act with the restraint of that young Marine and simply slot the bastard.

Acorn

 

[pbi]

I have always been taught that when clearing a room, the intent is to make sure the enemy inside is dead so that the room is secure. Simply because they are wounded does not excuse them from being a threat, and in the heat of combat anybody still moving is very likely to get shot. Ask any Canadian Infantryman who fought through NW Europe. We can only second guess the soldier engaged in close combat so many times before he will learn to hesitate, then he will die. There is no nice way to end things with the type of enemy who is in Fallujah. Cheers.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Trouble is of course, that Al Jeezera TV is (typically) broadcasting this clip   over and over as they have with anything that shows how awful the American are. One can almost imagine them doing so with glee as it adds fuel to the tension between their Muslim audience and "the west"

It seems strange that same audience seems to be very quiet and apparently little disturbed by the butchery of the cowardly jackals beheading completely innoncent civilians but get highly upset at virtually any "western" action.

Frankly I'm perplexed that the Muslim communities in Canada and elsewhere remain so quiet on such horrendous acts as the beheading committed in the name of Islam.   It is unfortunate that it becomes all too easy to equate such silence as a form of agreeing with such barbaric acts.

Was the solider correct or excessive? A proper military action in the situation, or murder (as some claim)?
I dunno Im a civvie but to me with my very limited understanding, I suspect in this type of situation and with the history of "insurgent" actions such as suicide attacks, its better to err on the side of saving your life and your comrades than no doing so.
As someone pointed out however, the furour over an incident like this MAY just make another soldier in a similar situation just slikghtly hesitant about taking action...and who knows but that momentary hesitation might cost him or his mates their lives.

 

[HollywoodHitman]

First thing that the press and the general public needs to be clear on the different definitions of a combatant. I cannot remember the exact wording of the Geneva Conventions, but I do believe that the conventions only apply in a combat situation against a uniformed enemy.......Those more learned in the legal nature of modern warfare please correct me if I am wrong.

The proper procedure when clearing a room or a trench after fighting your way into it is to kill whatever life remains inside. This allows for the rest of the troops to gain a lodgement inside or consolidate in order to move onto the next room or objective.

A wounded combatant is like a wounded animal. Dangerous and unpredictable. When searching wounded, it is important to keep a weapon on them while they are searched so that if they make a sudden move they can be killed to prevent further threat.

I would argue that a wounded combatant is only a prisoner when they are deemed no longer a threat. By no longer a threat I mean searched, restrained and taken out of the situation to head back to the rear lines for proper processing. Until they are searched and restrained, they are fair game if they make any sudden or threatening moves. I for one think that Marine did the right thing.

For the Marines fighting in Fallujah, best of luck to you guys. Maximum speed, maximum violence. :threat: Carry on.

TM

[Moderator Edit:   Blatantly incorrect information "struck out" - following post contains corrections]

 

[bossi]

First thing that the press and the general public needs to be clear on the different definitions of a combatant. I cannot remember the exact wording of the Geneva Conventions, but I do believe that the conventions only apply in a combat situation against a uniformed enemy.......Those more learned in the legal nature of modern warfare please correct me if I am wrong.

No.   http://www.genevaconventions.org/
(furthermore, not only do the press and the general public "need to be clear" ... it is first and foremost a moral imperative and a responsibility for soldiers to know the Laws Of Armed Conflict)

The proper procedure when clearing a room or a trench after fighting your way into it is to kill whatever life remains inside.

No.   It is NOT proper to kill bona fide civilians (i.e. non-combatants).
And, there are certain provisos on combatants.

civilian
A civilian is any person who does not belong to any of the following categories: members of the armed forces, militias or volunteer corps, organized resistance movements, and residents of an occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms. If there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 1)

non-combatant status
Feigning of civilian or non-combatant status is perfidy and prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I. Art. 37, Sec. 1)

combatant status
Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.

Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

See wounded combatants for a list of protections.

Convention II extends these same protections to those who have been shipwrecked (Convention II, Art. 13)

Convention III offers a wide range of protections to combatants who have become prisoners of war. (Convention III, Art. 4)

For example, captured combatants cannot be punished for acts of war except in the cases where the enemy's own soldiers would also be punished, and to the same extent. (Convention III, Art. 87)

See prisoner of war for a list of additional protections.

However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)

The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren't as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions.

In addition to rights, combatants also have obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)

For more protections afforded the civilian population, see civilian immunity.

Although all combatants are required to comply with international laws, violations do not deprive the combatants of their status, or of their right to prisoner of war protections if they are captured. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 2)

A mercenary does not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. (Protocol I, Art. 37)

hors de combat
Combatants who are hors de combat are out of the fight are and entitled to respect for their lives and physical and moral integrity. They are to be protected and treated humanely, without adverse discrimination. (Convention I Art. 3; Protocol I, Art. 4)

Attacking a person who is hors de combat is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 3)

Persons are hors de combat if they have been captured, if they have surrendered, or if they are unconscious or otherwise incapacitated provided that they do not attempt to fight or escape. (Protocol I, Art. 41, Sec. 2)

Parachutists who eject from a damaged aircraft cannot be attacked while they are descending. (Protocol I, Art. 42, Sec. 1)

Parachuters who have landed in hostile territory must be given a chance to surrender, unless they are clearly acting hostile. (Protocol I, Art. 42, Sec. 2)

Finally, while I am loath to be a "Monday morning quarterback", I would be remiss if I did not point out that "existing penal laws" are unlikely to condone summary executions.   Having said that, I wasn't in that room in Fallujah, and I don't know definitively what happened there.

However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)

 

[sandhurst91]

While all the facts may never be known, and while acknowledging that every story has two sides to it (the soldier's view / and the civvies view)... I would encourage everyone to read Sikes account of what happened (Open letter to Marines), and why he reported it - while I would never suggest that his job is as difficult as the soldiers' he is covering... he also has to make some difficult decisions when faced with circumstances such as these...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6556034/

Since the shooting in the mosque, I've been haunted that I have not been able to tell you directly what I saw or explain the process by which the world came to see it as well. As you know, I'm not some war-zone tourist with a camera who doesn't understand that ugly things happen in combat. I've spent most of the last five years covering global conflict. But I have never in my career been a "gotcha" reporter -- hoping for people to commit wrongdoings so I can catch them at it....

[Moderator edit:  Re-formatted to properly attribute remarks by Sikes vice sandhurst91]

 

[HollywoodHitman]

Bossi,

Let me be clear on something.......I would never and do not condone the killing of civillians. However, it is accepted that there will be collateral damage at times but it is without a doubt our responsibility to try and minimize it. When entering a room to clear it, after having fought your way through a house or a building, you would normally enter the room and eliminate the potential threats in that room.

This is often done with the introduction of a fragmentation grendade as I am sure you're well aware. Once the grenade has gone off troops move into the room and finish off the job, clearing the corners and ceilings. The bodies are then searched if safe to do so and cleared and anyone who remains alive is to receive medical attention and of course given the appropriate care, after they're secured.....Excecutions are illegal. Clearing a room of potential threats to your soldiers is not.... I wasn't in that room either, but I would give the Marine the benefit of doubt before I hung him in the press.

 

[dutchie]

I find it kind of frightening that we put the same rules on soldiers in battle that Police have regarding ROEs with a wounded criminal (sorry, suspect). These guys aren't home invaders, bank robbers, or car thieves, they are enemy combatants. The   Marines aren't policemen, and aren't trained to have this kind of restraint on their actions, nor should they. This is not a UN mission, this is not Ops other than War, and as such, the Marines (and others) should have way more latitude re: ROEs.

As so many have already said, when clearing a room, you make sure every bad guy is dead. Shoot anything that moves or makes noise. If the building was a shelter full of civies, then you change your focus and it's not 'room clearing'. But if the Marines went into an enemy held building, and some combatant gets finished off when maybe he could have survived - so sad, too bad. Maybe he should have left or surrendered from the outset.

"I surrender, don't shoot!" with him spread eagle on the floor upon entry of the Marines (or something similar) - anything short of this and your fair game, IMHO. Even then, you really couldn't fault the guy for doing what he was trained to do. The time to surrender and virtually guarantee survival is prior to the first shot being fired. After that, your taken your chances.

I haven't checked the Law of Armed Conflict on this, just going by my training.


Pappy: I really liked your original post. I was a little sceptical of the media's take on the 'shooting'. Since when did reporters become qualified to condemn the actions of troops in combat? Ridiculous.

 

[bossi]

... I wasn't in that room either, but I would give the Marine the benefit of doubt before I hung him in the press.

I have no idea how I could have been more clear - I am absolutely, unequivocally NOT second-guessing the Marine in question - as I said in my previous post:

... I wasn't in that room in Fallujah, and I don't know definitively what happened there.

However, I had to correct some very incorrect info that was posted on Army.ca (lest any readers incorrectly infer that it's acceptable to kill simply because the pop-up shoot-back target was wearing civilian clothes, or they were in the wrong place at the wrong time - again, the Geneva Convention can apply to a non-uniformed enemy, it is not proper to kill indiscriminately, and summary executions are not likely permissible under the applicable penal code).

And, I re-emphasize one last nuance:

A wounded combatant is like a wounded animal. Dangerous and unpredictable. When searching wounded, it is important to keep a weapon on them while they are searched so that if they make a sudden move they can be killed ...

... if necessary.

Yes - I was taught the old way - grenade and empty a mag into the room, and I'm more than comfortable with that in the right circumstances.
However, as an aside, I was recently informed that this was passee (both from a logistical viewpoint, as well as target identification - however, this topic is probably best covered on the new course in Gagetown ... which I haven't had yet).

But, I digress ...
As everybody here has acknowledged, we don't know beyond the shadow of a doubt if the Marine saw the Iraqui reaching for a weapon or an explosive device.
Until that is known, he should not be pilloried.

And, it's just as important to avoid incorrect information causing confusion
(i.e. to avoid somebody pulling the trigger and then saying they weren't sure about the Geneva Conventions, or that they hadn't checked the Laws Of Armed Conflict ...).

I posted several pertinent quotes, as well as the URL for the Geneva Conventions
(just in case anybody fell asleep during the LOAC lecture, or forgot, or heard from somebody's brother that he'd been taught on a course that there was an exception to the rules ...). 

For the last time - I did not, and am not passing judgement on that Marine.
I'm only trying to make sure everybody reading this thread goes away with accurate info.

 

[sandhurst91]

In response to Caesar's comment: "Since when did reporters become qualified to condemn the actions of troops in combat? Ridiculous."

From Sike's article, it appears that there was never any condemnation - simply a stating of facts. It is strange that the Marine in question chose to fire at one insurgent lying motionless while others were moving or talking...?? All I'm saying is that there could be more to this than meets the eye....

 

[Torlyn]

I think we've danced around one of the larger issues here...  What the f*** was the media doing that close to an active operation?  Are they allowed to be that close?  (I'm not sure, I'm a civvie)  I mean, if there is a problem with the way the marine handled himself, it should be dealt with by his superiors, and not on bloody national TV.  FReedom of Speech?  I don't believe the Iraqis have that in their constitution.  That marine is being shanghi'ed because of one reporter.  I think next time they should put the reporter on point...  Let him/her get the news firsthand...

T

 

[muskrat89]

I read the reporter's account. He is that close because he is embedded. Embedded closely enough, by the sounds of things, that he interracts with the platoon commander and others - almost as if he was part of the Unit.

 

[Torlyn]

I read the reporter's account. He is that close because he is embedded. Embedded closely enough, by the sounds of things, that he interracts with the platoon commander and others - almost as if he was part of the Unit.

Embedded...  So, do the americans send in reporters with their troops?  I'm a bit confused...

T

 

[sandhurst91]

Embedding reporters was initiated at the start of the War - conceived of by Victoria Clark, press secretary to Don Rumsfeld, as a ploy to ensure that the media had access to virtually everything - the good and the bad. Fundamentally, however, it was intended to show how American soldiers behaved, how Iraqi civilians would react when the Americans arrived, and to demonstrate that claims of high civilian casualties made by the enemy were false.... It was also in response to criticism from media who were kept behind the lines during the first Gulf War...

The key issue was the fear that the media, being so close to the action, and so tied to the fate of the company they were embedded with, their reporting would get skewed and become heavily biased. Luckily, that hasn't been the case.

 

[dutchie]

It has been mentioned to me that some uninformed folks (civies for instance) might read my last post and misconstrue my point. To clarify:

The LOAC restricts what a soldier may do in battle. One cannot execute enemy soldiers for instance, a la the Russian Front in WW2. I am in no way insinuating that these Marines should just lay waste to every non-US soldier they encounter.

I am, however, saying that our training (and I assume the USMCs training), emphasizes clearing the room (or trench, bunker, etc) prior to processing prisoners. Which means that until the room is 'clear', my job is to kill every enemy I see. Only when the room is 'clear', and I take control of the enemy combatant, does he become a prisoner.

Having said that, within that framework, the LOAC states that we don't fire on enemy combatants if they are clearly surrendering (not straight out of the book - paraphrase). This includes when clearing rooms, trenches, bunkers, etc. My definition of 'clearly surrendering' is limited to total submission, verbal communication of surrender, and as little threat as possible exhibited towards me. If you are in the process of putting up a fight or changing your mind, you should receive a double tap as a response.

I am not going to prejudge this Marine from 1000's of miles away, but if his actions fall within this framework, my training and common sense tells me he did his job. If the combatant was just laying there, didn't have a weapon, was face down spread eagle, didn't move, and was verbally surrendering, then it should be looked at.

 

[Torlyn]

The key issue was the fear that the media, being so close to the action, and so tied to the fate of the company they were embedded with, their reporting would get skewed and become heavily biased. Luckily, that hasn't been the case.

I suppose I can understand the desire to have a public-friendly war, thus having the media embedded, but doesn't it cause operational issues?  I mean, for y'all out there that serve, do you really want to have to baby-sit a reporter during ops?  (Do they require baby-sitting?)  I don't know that I'd be all that comfortable having someone with no training running around behind me, reporting on my every move.  I can imagine it's stressful enough when you're on ops, without having a watcher.  Easy for me to say, sitting in Canada in front of my computer, though..  Anyone out there had to deal with this in previous CDN actions?

T

 

[dutchie]

I like a lot of the footage that embedding gives me, the viewer, but would fight tooth and nail to exclude the media from my unit (not that it would help) if I were in their shoes.

Could you imagine? It'd be like having a PAFO (sp?) as a fireteam partner..... Might make you a little nervous, maybe a little hesitant? I can't think of a worse reaction than hesitation for a rifleman in Iraq.

No thanks.