Rewarding "Courageous Restraint"=Way to Cut Civ Cas?

[Greymatters]

Political correctness was being pushed on military members when I joined and was still there 20 years later. Its just political and civilian oversight of military activities and culture, and it will still be there in another twenty years...

 

[McG]

Soldiers' restraint risky Proposed medal honouring those who don't fire unnecessary -- and foolish
Peter Worthington
The Calgary Sun
23 June 2010

This may puzzle and shock old soldiers of past wars, and even some of our soldiers today, but NATO and the U.S. are considering establishing a "courageous restraint" medal for soldiers who risk their lives by not shooting civilians in Afghanistan.

The idea was probably born from bad publicity that is inevitable when mistakes are made, and civilians are killed in error by NATO troops. But awarding a valour medal for not shooting in a dangerous situation is risk-taking of another sort and would likely result in more casualties among our soldiers.

Although the intentions are good, the idea seems not only unnecessary but foolish.

Trained soldiers do not shoot indiscriminately, and usually opt for caution.

Soldiers do not like killing the wrong people and don't need the incentive of a medal to be ultra-careful.

British Maj.-Gen. Nick Carter, commander of NATO forces in southern Afghanistan, apparently came up with the idea of a "courageous restraint" medal, which Gen. Stanley McChrystal is said to be considering for U.S. and NATO forces.

The proposal is still in the "conceptual stages." It smacks of a public relations gesture to offset inevitable civilian casualties, by awarding frontline soldiers special recognition if they show courage by risking their lives by not shooting first and asking questions later in dangerous situations.

This is what good soldiers do anyway -- are trained to do, and in countless unpublicized cases have shown uncommon restraint.

Rules of engagement before pulling the trigger are already so stringent that in many cases they can cost the lives of our soldiers.

Battlefield valour awards are already given to soldiers who sacrifice themselves to save others in the face of the enemy.

The Victoria Cross, arguably the world's most respected valour award, has only been given out 1,352 times in 154 years, and a third of those VCs have gone to soldiers who sacrificed themselves to save others.

Only three men in history have won the VC twice, and two of them were officers who risked their lives to save others on the battlefield.

Well-trained soldiers are not necessarily quick on the trigger. But life-and-death decisions often have to be made instantly.

Delay, or the wrong decision, can mean the death of one of our guys. And that's not what war is all about.

In Afghanistan, a car speeding toward a roadblock with a driver refusing to stop could well be a suicide bomber -- or a frightened local.

Does the soldier shoot -- or take a chance?

A judgment call and the wrong decision for a Canadian or American soldier could mean a solitary journey home in a coffin -- with a medal.

The aim of a "courageous restraint" medal is obviously to save civilian lives and deter criticism when such casualties occur.

But are we willing to accept an increase in our own casualties to encourage restraint against an enemy who uses civilians at every turn?

It's the Taliban who kill the most civilians in Afghanistan, not U.S. or NATO troops who get blamed every time there's an incident or mistake.

I suspect most soldiers won't welcome the news of this proposed medal.

They'll likely see it as cynical and unnecessary.

It's virtually a given that soldiers are prepared to sacrifice themselves for their comrades -- or civilians in danger.

Awarding a bravery medal for restraint, when restraint is ingrained in soldiers anyway, sends a wrong message -- to the soldiers, to the enemy, to civilians, to families back home.

I suspect McChrystal -- a fighting soldier -- knows this better than most.

The British know it, too.

A medal is no substitute for training and fire discipline.

So mark it down as yet another idea that shouldn't be implemented, but may get support from politicians who hunger for brownie points.

From previous articles, I did not get the impression that the intent was to create a new medal but to use existing medals (like the medal of bravery) when recognition may be due.

I would agree that creating a new medal sends the wrong message, but I don’t see anything wrong in positive recognition within the honours and awards that we already have.

 

[Pusser]

The list of people I have not shot over the years is long and distinguished.  ;D

Whether to shoot or not is a question of judgement and professionalism.  People should be recognized for doing the right thing, which could be shooting or not shooting, depending on the circumstances.  Our current system of honours will cover this.  No new medal is required.

 

[Foxhound]

This might fit in here.

From the Globe & Mail.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/asia-pacific/canadian-afghan-sweep-in-panjwaii-uncovers-ied-caches-militants/article1618094/

Canadian and Afghan troops have wrapped up a successful five-day military operation in the Panjwaii district without firing a single shot. [Emphasis added.]

The operation, which began Monday, involved the 1st Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment, along with Afghan security forces near the village of Chalghowr in the Panjwaii district west of Kandahar.

The mission was to push the Taliban out of the area, about nine kilometres from Kandahar city, and to keep it under government control.

(I still wish they would learn to capitalize the word "The".)  Never pass a fault.  ;D

 

[tomahawk6]

While there has been a drop in civilians killed - something like 44% maybe higher, there has been a corresponding increase in coalition casualties. The civilians dont feel safer when the taliban can attack without retribution. The taliban know the ROE's and are using them to their advantage. In WW2 there were no ROE's.

 

[mariomike]

The taliban know the ROE's and are using them to their advantage. In WW2 there were no ROE's.

Canadians showed "courageous restraint" during the war. The people of Revigny, France were spared because of it. Bomber Command was ordered by SHAEF to bomb the rail yard at Revigny, in support of the soldiers in Normandy. Before they could bomb however, the people of Revigny had to be warned to leave each afternoon of a night attack by BBC broadcasts: "Nous allons rendre visite a Maginot ce soir."  It was one of the conditions for bombing French railway centres. It was not difficult for the Revineens to work out the meaning of the message - Andre Maginot, the French Minister of War who gave his name to the famous "Line", had been born in Revigny.
They made three trips to Revigny. But, it was only on the third an final trip that visibility was clear enough for them to drop their bombs safely. Of course, the Luftwaffe was waiting and they paid a high price. 41 Lancasters ( 22 per cent of the Lancasters involved ) were shot down at Revigny. ( Revigny was still under German occupation ) But, they destroyed their target. Five civilians were killed, three others were slightly injured.

 

[tomahawk6]

No such warnings were issued to the Japanese and German populations that we were going to firebomb their cities. Occupied areas were warned because we needed their help when it came time to invade.

 

[mariomike]

No such warnings were issued to the Japanese and German populations that we were going to firebomb their cities.

"the United Stated showered the Japanese cities of Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and 33 other potential targets with over 5 million leaflets warning civilians of the impending attack.":
"Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend":
http://www.damninteresting.com/ww2-america-warned-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-citizens

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/world-war-2/6086189/World-War-2-Text-of-note-to-German-people.html

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWstrategic.htm
Please scroll to (7) on the link above.

"We in Britain know quite enough about air raids. For ten months your Luftwaffe bombed us. First you bombed us by day. When we made this impossible, they came by night. Then you had a big fleet of bombers. Your airmen fought well. They bombed London for ninety-two nights running. They made heavy raids on Coventry, Plymouth, Liverpool, and other British cities. They did a lot of damage. Forty-three thousand British men, women and children lost their lives; Many of our most cherished historical buildings were destroyed.

You thought, and Goering promised you, that you would be safe from bombs. And indeed, during all that time we could only send over a small number of aircraft in return. But now it is just the other way. Now you send only a few aircraft against us. And we are bombing Germany heavily.

Why are we doing so? It is not revenge-though we do not forget Warsaw, Belgrade, Rotterdam, London, Plymouth and Coventry. We are bombing Germany, city by city, and even more terribly, in order to make it impossible for you to go on with the war. That is our object. We shall pursue it remorselessly. City by city; Liibeck, Rostock, Cologne, Emden, Bremen; Wilhelmshaven, Duisburg, Hamburg - and the list will grow longer and longer. Let the Nazis drag you down to disaster with them if you will. That is for you to decide.

In fine weather we bomb you by night. Already 1000 bombers go to one town, like Cologne, and destroy a third of it in an hour's bombing. We know; we have the photographs. In cloudy weather we bomb your factories and shipyards by day. We have done that as far away as Danzig. We are coming by day and by night. No part of the Reich is safe.

I will speak frankly about whether we bomb single military targets or whole cities. Obviously we prefer to hit factories, shipyards, and railways. It damages Hitler's war machine most. But those people who work in these plants live close to them. Therefore, we hit your houses and you. We regret the necessity for this. The workers of the Humboldt-Deutz, the Diesel-engine plant in Cologne, for instance-some of whom were killed on the night of May 30 last-must inevitably take the risk of war. Just as our merchant seamen who man ships which the U-boats (equipped with Humboldt-Deutz engines) would have tried to torpedo. Were not the aircraft workers, their wives and children, at Coventry just as much 'civilians' as the aircraft workers at Rostock and their families? But Hitler wanted it that way.

It is true that your defences inflict losses on our bombers. Your leaders try to comfort you by 'telling you that our losses are so heavy that we shall not be able to go on bombing you very much longer. Whoever believes that will be bitterly disappointed. I, who command the British bombers, will tell you what our losses are. Less than 5 per cent of the bombers which we send over Germany are lost. Such a percentage does very little even to check the constant increase ensured by the ever-increasing output of our own and the American factories.

America has only just entered the fight in Europe. The squadrons, forerunners of a whole air fleet, have arrived in England from the United States of America. Do you realize what it will mean to you when they bomb Germany also? In one American factory alone, the new Ford plant at Willow Run, Detroit, they are already turning out one four-engined bomber able to carry four tons of bombs to any part of the Reich every two hours. There are scores of other such factories in the United States of America. You cannot bomb those factories. Your submarines cannot even try to prevent those Atlantic bombers from getting here; for they fly across the Atlantic.

Soon we shall be coming every night and every day, rain, blow or snow-we and the Americans. I have just spent eight months in America, so I know exactly what is coming. We are going to scourge the Third Reich from end to end, if you make it necessary for us to do so. You cannot stop it, and you know it.

You have no chance. You could not defeat us in 1940, when we were almost unarmed and stood alone. Your leaders were crazy to attack Russia as well as America (but then your leaders are crazy; the whole world thinks so except Italy).

How can you hope to win now that we are getting even stronger, having both Russia and America as allies, while you are getting more and more exhausted ?

Remember this: no matter how far your armies march they can never get to England. They could not get here when we were unarmed. Whatever their victories, you will still have to settle the air war with us and America. You can never win that. But we are doing so already now.

One final thing: it is up to you to end the war and the bombing. You can overthrow the Nazis and make peace. It is not true that we plan a peace of revenge. That is a German propaganda lie. But we shall certainly make it impossible for any German Government to start a total war again. And is not that as necessary in your own interests as in ours?"

1942:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhmRrTsv55Y

 

[SeanNewman]

That message is pretty prophetic, and Rommel said the same thing about Africa.

To paraphrase, as soon as America was allowed to gain one inch of foothold anywhere they would be unstoppable due to their production capability and the war in that campaign would only be a matter of how long you could hold them off; it would no longer be about trying to win.

 

[vonGarvin]

That wasn't a warning of "flee Hamburg tonight, lest you burn", it was more "We will continue to punch you in the balls until we win this war".  It was a show of might, not restraint.  Such messaging would go a long way if we used all the weapons in our inventory.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I recall one ocasion when one of my soldiers was 'verbally assaulted' by what could be loosly described as a large, ugly, aggressive 'Irish Harpey'. She did this rather frequently, picking on one of the younger chaps on each patrol, which was amusing but got to be a bore after awhile.

She assailed the young lad in his native language, which happened to be Irish. He was black, from Dublin (yes, Black Irish). She screamed something at him, apparently, to the effect that 'now you have your (black n-words) doing your dirty work for you'.  I watched him deliver an immediate reply in Irish - he had an ';A' level from a school in Dublin of course - which caused her to run screaming from the roadside.

I asked him what he'd said, to which he replied "I told her to go eff hersel, you fat, ugly, oirish (other select adjectives) ... Sorrr'.

His reward was to see us all curl up laughing for a few minutes, in a nontactical fashion, which seemed sufficient. Odd, we never saw her again.

 

[GAP]

Courageous Restraint award
Article Link
Lions Led By Sheep
February 3, 2012


NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) countries that have sent troops to Iraq or Afghanistan are having problems with their military commanders. The generals, and the troops who served in these combat zones, are unhappy with how their politicians back home endangered the lives of troops by putting restrictions on what the troops could do, even when it was a matter of life-and-death to the soldiers involved. The generals are angry at politicians who order troops into a combat zone without bothering to learn what exactly is going on there and ignore generals and staff officers who try to explain the situation. It's getting pretty ugly and the disputes won't go away.

Sometimes the argument gets public. Last year, a retiring U.S. Secretary of Defense openly questioned the ability of NATO to survive after its very mixed performance in Afghanistan and general unwillingness of members to pull their weight. It was pointed out that the U.S. supplies 75 percent of the budget for NATO and was constantly called on to do most of the fighting. In effect, too many NATO nations were joining to obtain protection provided by the American military, without making a contribution in proportion to the size of each member's economy and population.

NATO was originally created to protect Western Europe from the very real threat of Soviet invasion. But that threat disappeared when the Soviet Union dissolved two decades ago. Now, NATO is supposed to help protect member nations from more distant threats. In this case, Islamic terrorism and unrest in nations that supply NATO states with oil. But what's the point of having NATO, or the United States being part of it, if each nation can choose the degree to which it will participate.

American leaders are not the only ones unhappy with these disparities. Six years ago, NATO commanders in Afghanistan were openly complaining about all the strings attached to their authority by politicians back home. At that time, the ROE (Rules of Engagement) for NATO troops contained over seventy restrictions on how the NATO commanders could use troops assigned to them. Most of these have to do with where national contingents could be moved and how much danger they could be exposed to. The NATO troops are good at what they do but they could do more, and at less risk to themselves, if the NATO commanders had fewer strings attached to who can be used where and how. That would seem impossible, given that three dozen NATO nations had troops in Afghanistan. But it's only the major contributors of combat forces that NATO commanders are really worried about. By going public with complaints about the ROE problem the NATO commanders were setting up the politicians back home to take the heat for any casualties in Afghanistan. It also put pressure on the politicians to ease up on the ROEs, which were created mainly to win political points back home.

The complaints six years ago led to some restrictions being lifted but most remained. This led to some ludicrous situations. Two years ago European NATO commanders recommended that NATO establish a combat award recognizing soldiers who risk their own lives to avoid Afghan civilian casualties. This would be called the Courageous Restraint medal and the first few would probably be awarded posthumously because the most obvious cases would involve NATO troops holding their fire when the enemy uses civilians as human shields. This enables the enemy to kill their better trained and equipped opponents. The best example of this occurred in 1993 when 24 Pakistani troops were killed by Somali gunmen using civilians as human shields. Those dead Pakistanis would be eligible for the Courageous Restraint medal. The only problem with this is that the troops are none too happy with this use of human shields or getting killed because of it. American troops have permission to do whatever it takes, if American lives are endangered. Other NATO troops have similar escape clauses (but sometimes not as robust as the American one) in their ROEs.

What commanders were trying to do was inspire the troops to sacrifice their lives in order to avoid civilian casualties. But the troops can do the math and realize that the bulk of civilian deaths are at the hands of the Taliban. That, however, is not news (in or out of Afghanistan). Any Afghan civilian dying at the hands of foreign troops is news. Most troops are not willing to die to help their boss avoid some unfavorable press.

Meanwhile, the traditional military awards for battlefield valor are still being earned for the usual reasons, to help one's fellow soldiers in a dangerous situation. This sometimes involves saving the lives of civilians, who are also being threatened by Taliban violence. But the NATO commanders were proposing the Courageous Restraint award for actions that go far beyond this into territory troops are reluctant to travel. Since troops who win medals for valor never think about winning a medal when they do what it takes to earn one, it's difficult to understand how a Courageous Restraint award will be anything but a propaganda ploy inflicted on the families of soldiers who die because of restrictive ROE that allow the Taliban to take shelter behind human shields and continue to shoot at NATO troops. The courageous restraint medal idea did not last long but the fact that it was even proposed put the spotlight on what a burden politically inspired ROE had become for the troops.
end

 

[jollyjacktar]

That makes me feel sick and very angry all at the same time...  :rage:

 

[OldSolduer]

That makes me feel sick and very angry all at the same time...  :rage:

Quite right. The good idea fairy was at work. Glad someone smacked it.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The only 'restraint' that works is to bring the troops home, of course. P.S. The idiots!

 

[Kalatzi]

The funny thing is - that it did work ...


In Northern Ireland to be exact ...

The British Army took more losses than if inflicted.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The funny thing is - that it did work ...


In Northern Ireland to be exact ...

The British Army took more losses than if inflicted.

Here are the stats.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/book/

If we took casualties, I can assure you that it wasn't because we were following a practice of 'courageous restraint'. If any of my commanders had suggested we follow a practice like that, I would have invited them to lead me out the door of the base, then again, I wouldn't have trusted them to do that job either.