Lt Col Alan B West
 

Lt Col Alan B West was a battalion commander with the 4th Infantry in Iraq. He was "agressive" in his interrogation of a prisoner and probably saved some American lives. He didn't injure the prisoner, just scared the shit out of him.
You can read it here , here and here.
Now my head says he violated the rules and has to pay the price.
He had a chance to bail out and didn't take. We have to set an example for the troops.
But my gut says, WTF! What kind of pussy Army are we running now. He scared the poor Iraq policeman/resistor, oh dear... probably scared him for life. If the tables were turned the Lt Col would probably be dead or wish he was. It's a war, damn it. This is bullshit and it should be stopped right now!:angry:

In the same article:

Now, I'm not ready to debate the issue of firing a gun near someones head, but rounding up someone's family as hostages? Isn't that what we are accusing the previous regime of doing?

Bin Laden has relatives here in the US. Since we want him really badly, should we round them up?

What was the colonel going to do if the general called his bluff? Considering the cultural climate, he would lose face if he didn't shoot one of the guys relatives.

It wouldn't do any good to round up Bin Laden's relatives, because he could care less about them, and would probably kill them himself if he thought it would further his goals.

They worked the cop over for hours by the book, and were getting nowhere. So they fucked with his head a little.

Now, the rounding up of the family, that was a poor decision. As rich pointed out, if the general called the bluff, or just didn't give a shit, then the colonel would be screwed. Either he shoots one of them - even a nonlethal shot - and confirms every ounce of propaganda proclaiming Western troops as the "conquering infidel horde" or whatever, or he lets them go and weakens the position of every soldier in the country.

Unorthodox measures are acceptable, when all the orthodox ones have been exhausted, and the consequences of them turning out poorly have been thought out.

I don't think that anyone can ever truly map out the consequences of 'unorthodox' warfare. Case in point, the Phoenix program in Vietnam.

You can't run a terror campaign, win the hearts and minds of the local populace, and attempt to convince the world you are fighting a just war, all at the same time.

My guess is, of course, that this is what we will end up trying to do. After all, most of Bush's senior advisors are the same guys who won the Vietnam war for us :rattat:

If Bush tried to reinstitute anything along the lines of Phoenix in Iraq, the comparisons between him and Hussein's actions could be drawn so easily, you could use Crayola. After that, you would see a ficus plant beat out a Republican at the polls, the party would be that badly gutshot.

I don't care how many ideagogues Bush has surrounded himself with, someone HAS to see that and will put up safeguards to prevent it from happening. Not that I enjoy the thought of them having any sense or reason, but hey, pragmatism above all.

I'm not so sure. Most people know that there is no way that we would want Hussein alive. The best he could hope for is 'shot while trying to escape', since having him alive would allow for any number of embarrassing revelations, especially considering that the US at one point supported his regime.

While the US is probably not gunning for the top military individuals in the deck, noone believes that the US wants any of the missing politicals alive.

It's not too many steps from signing defacto death warrants for a dozen or so individuals to doing so for thousands, especially if the US continues to pay a price in human lives, money, and political capital.

Even now, there are other kinds of 'contractors' in Iraq than the kind who build bridges and pave roads.

I sincerely believe that the things we will see when Bush and company no longer need to consider reelection will be our own version of 'shock and awe'. Very few presidents have ever been impeached. All of the impeachable offenses stem from actions in the US. The US does not recognize any world authority for war crimes committed by the US.

Basically, if Bush jumped in a plane, flew to Iraq, and personally firebombed an orphanage, I'm not sure he would have broken any US laws or committed an impeachable offense.

Congress has already given him financial carte blanche with almost no external oversight. His adminstration has extended executive privelege to a level not seen since Watergate, and found courts willing to block legitimate investigation and inquiry.

They might think can get away with anything in Iraq. They might be right.