Article

2010-10-03 Afghanistan

Women Marines in Helmand Walking the Edge of Bans on Combat Roles

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-10-03 03:38|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 This is what stands out to me.

"... a burst of Kalashnikov rifle fire came from a nearby compound. ... they could see the source of the blast: an Afghan man who had shot [aimlessly] from behind a mud wall, shielded by a half-dozen children. The women held their fire with the rest of the patrol so as not to hit a child... "

With our troops being held to ROEs like these no wonder the enemy doesn't seem take us seriously.

Posted by Guillibaldo Wheang6921 2010-10-03 10:27|| 2010-10-03 10:27|| Front Page Top

#2 ...serious enough to realize he has to use children as shields otherwise he'd been pieces all over the landscape. Obviously, he wasn't looking for 72 virgins that day because he did use shields. The gamble they all play is that one day the ROEs don't change or discipline starts to break down or the officer corps makes known that they won't convict in such circumstance no matter what the JAG people want.

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-10-03 10:46|| 2010-10-03 10:46|| Front Page Top

#3 "an Afghan man who had shot aimlessly from behind a mud wall, shielded by a half-dozen children."

That's the video that needs to get on youtube.

Posted by Penguin 2010-10-03 11:22|| 2010-10-03 11:22|| Front Page Top

#4 Where's a good sniper when you need one?

Posted by OldSpook 2010-10-03 11:28|| 2010-10-03 11:28|| Front Page Top

#5 OldSpook: That's what I was thinking: "Them gals need sniper rifles."

And while it would be unfortunate for one of the kids to get hurt when capping the bad guy, it shouldn't be punished--instead, they should give a commendation to the sniper who takes out the bad guy without killing any kids.

Because, in effect, they have performed a hostage rescue.

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-10-03 12:31|| 2010-10-03 12:31|| Front Page Top

#6 Using women and children as shields is a long tested method of Jihad.

Posted by 49 Pan 2010-10-03 13:18|| 2010-10-03 13:18|| Front Page Top

#7 It's very Islamic.

Posted by Frank G 2010-10-03 13:27|| 2010-10-03 13:27|| Front Page Top

#8 It's also "illegal" under the Geneva Convention. Of course, the Jihadis didn't sign the GC, so are not bound by it.

The US and NATO are bound by parts of it - the parts that restrict our guys from doing their job.

Posted by Rambler in Virginia 2010-10-03 14:01|| 2010-10-03 14:01|| Front Page Top

#9 She was, she said quietly, "too much of a girl to deal with these guys getting killed."
Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418

And I am "too much" of a guy to condone women going into combat to face a similar, or potentially worse fate. But that's just me.

Posted by Besoeker 2010-10-03 14:56|| 2010-10-03 14:56|| Front Page Top

#10 Then Arm them with Video Camera's. Holding these brave ~~Cowards~~ Lions of Islam up to public ridicule and international exposure might turn some minds.

I doubt the MSM will show any - it'll be declared 'Ismaophobic' or hate-speech.

Posted by CrazyFool 2010-10-03 16:42|| 2010-10-03 16:42|| Front Page Top

#11 u don't need a sniuper just a a good shot! shoot him in the bchest and the human shield afctor goes out the window

Posted by chris 2010-10-03 17:22|| 2010-10-03 17:22|| Front Page Top

#12 the Geneva Convention was signed for conventional wars. That said the rules don't apply too this situation.

Posted by chris 2010-10-03 17:24|| 2010-10-03 17:24|| Front Page Top

#13 Actually the GC HAS rules about this sort of situation, the problem is everyone IGNORES those. What they say is that those in violation in the manner that occurs with terrorists, using human shields, etc, isn't protected by the conventions and subject to summary execution.

Posted by Silentbrick 2010-10-03 18:18|| 2010-10-03 18:18|| Front Page Top

#14 Many of the points of the GC were to inhibit such behavior by stripping combatants of its protections if they engage in such behaviors. However, Justice Kennedy et al of the usual suspects in extending 'civilian law' protection to illegal combatants has undermined that entire intent of the work. However, in the classical lefty mantra, the same lawyers play 'one set of rules for us and another set of rules for you' when it comes to actions by our own people.

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-10-03 18:41|| 2010-10-03 18:41|| Front Page Top

22:51 rwv
22:51 tipper
22:41 JosephMendiola
22:24 JosephMendiola
22:17 Procopius2k
22:14 JosephMendiola
22:11 phil_b
22:07 phil_b
21:49 JosephMendiola
21:40 JosephMendiola
21:32 JosephMendiola
21:23 JosephMendiola
21:17 Omaing White7048
21:13 JosephMendiola
21:13 Anguper Hupomosing9418
21:02 Anguper Hupomosing9418
20:53 Drang
20:45 tipper
20:25 DJ Curtis C
20:07 Omaing White7048
19:50 Pappy
19:42 Spatch Speaking for Boskone8774
19:40 Pappy
19:35 Spatch Speaking for Boskone8774