"Jungle lanes" what would you do?

[Canadian.Trucker]

Once I've confirmed they are no longer engaging, go over, remove weapon(s) and keep on truckin.  If said individual attempts to get up and alert others to my presence they are once again a threat and will be dealt with.

This is very easy to say and pick apart sitting in my office chair, however my actions on the ground may be very different due to the very near threat of my life being extinguished.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The scenario has you collapsing your OP and, you and your partner, trying to get back 300 meters to your defensive position.

That is your mission, collapse the OP and get your ass back as quickly as possible. Preferably in one piece.

You are constantly being engaged, as you fight your way back, by infiltrators of unknown numbers or direction of threat.

There is no QRF mentioned. If the boss wants info, he can send out a fighting patrol when you return.

I don't know about the rest, but I wouldn't be wasting time, going off the path, checking on the ones I've shot, removing weapons, looking through pockets, marking grids, offering first aid or sitting around jabbering on the radio. The longer you spend dicking around with the enemy, in Indian territory, the less your chances are of making it back.

Being actively engaged while pursuing my mission, I'd be shooting and scooting till I was back behind my wall.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I don't know about the rest, but I wouldn't be wasting time, going off the path, checking on the ones I've shot, removing weapons, looking through pockets, marking grids, offering first aid or sitting around jabbering on the radio. The longer you spend dicking around with the enemy, in Indian territory, the less your chances are of making it back.

This was one of the main points I would mention to the guys.

I didn't go into too much detail about QRF, radios etc.. I wanted to keep it as simple as possibly yet post a logic question to them.

Once I posed the question "you would shoot and kill a wounded enemy soldier" I could see the lights go on in their heads and they would start thinking about real life instead of jungle lanes #1.

If someone wanted to stop and search the positions for weapons or intel I would remind them that an unknown number of enemy are in the area and could be closing in on them, every second counts.
If they wanted to perform first aid or take the wounded with them that would slow them, down and put them in danger.
Leaving the wounded soldier and getting the hell out of the jungle (my personal choice) means they get back to their lines faster but what sort of legal ramifications "could" they face if they left wounded soldiers to die. While the military community understands the necessity of it the public may very well see it differently.

I wasn't looking for the right answer from the troops as much as making them ask questions and think- it seemed to work they got into a decent debate over it afterwards.

 

[Kirkhill]

From the idle observer's point of view:

IIRC I recall reading/hearing that the Falkland's solution as applied by the Paras and Marines was a double-tap into everybody that didn't have their hands up, as the trenches were overrun, followed by a WP into the trench.  Forward movement continued uninterrupted.

Has the world changed since 1982?

 

[daftandbarmy]

From the idle observer's point of view:

IIRC I recall reading/hearing that the Falkland's solution as applied by the Paras and Marines was a double-tap into everybody that didn't have their hands up, as the trenches were overrun, followed by a WP into the trench.  Forward movement continued uninterrupted.

Has the world changed since 1982?

Yeah, they had a few issues with that after they got home:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/on-mount-longdon-parachute-regiment-came-back-from-the-falklands-with-their-reputation-for-bravery-reinforced-but-two-years-ago-they-were-accused-of-atrocities-by-one-of-their-own-now-others-are-speaking-out-2323239.html

 

[Kirkhill]

D&B

I'm not on the same wavelength on this one.  The reference that I have (and Max Hastings comes to mind) recalls to me that the trench clearing procedure was a drill - not a matter of "frivolity".

The value of the WP was its persistence, discouraging re-occupation of the trench after it had been cleared.

I was not proposing atrocities.

 

[daftandbarmy]

D&B

I'm not on the same wavelength on this one.  The reference that I have (and Max Hastings comes to mind) recalls to me that the trench clearing procedure was a drill - not a matter of "frivolity".

The value of the WP was its persistence, discouraging re-occupation of the trench after it had been cleared.

I was not proposing atrocities.

Seen. And yes, that was a drill we used to teach. Some of the chaps DO tend to get carried away though!

 

[Jarnhamar]

D&B

I'm not on the same wavelength on this one.  The reference that I have (and Max Hastings comes to mind) recalls to me that the trench clearing procedure was a drill - not a matter of "frivolity".

The value of the WP was its persistence, discouraging re-occupation of the trench after it had been cleared.

I was not proposing atrocities.

I think with social media like facebook twitter and youtube it brings a whole new dimention to something as "simple" as a two way jungle lane.

The public absolutely loves hearing about war stories and critiquing them. 
Were this scenario to happen and soldiers left wounded enemy to die I think the media would have a field day with it.  The various political parties in our government alone would use it to further their political agenda (What ARE we teaching our soldiers! We're peacekeepers not assassins!)

Military necessity of "getting back to base asap"  aside can you imagine what would happen if something like that was captured on a drone's camera? Or worse yet, a soldier decides to take the whole video of it captured on his gopro helmet cam and upload it to youtube?

Using WP to try and clear brush in Afghanistan was taken and tried to be made into a warcrime, I would not want to imagine dropping a WP grenade into an occupied trench.

 

[Maxadia]

Were this scenario to happen and soldiers left wounded enemy to die I think the media would have a field day with it.

Sorry, but what?

What are we supposed to do...not shoot the enemy, because we might not finish them off with the first shot and they might actually die from their wounds?

Sorry, but sometimes there is a little too much thinking that goes on.  In a firefight, my guess would be that you won't be debating ethics....or you'll be sitting there discussing them while someone lines up their sights on your eyeball. The simple question that should come to mind by reflex is "Threat or no threat?"  The answer should be act or leave.

 

[MeatheadMick]

Sorry, but what?

What are we supposed to do...not shoot the enemy, because we might not finish them off with the first shot and they might actually die from their wounds?

Sorry, but sometimes there is a little too much thinking that goes on.  In a firefight, my guess would be that you won't be debating ethics....or you'll be sitting there discussing them while someone lines up their sights on your eyeball. The simple question that should come to mind by reflex is "Threat or no threat?"  The answer should be act or leave.

Excellent point! I think what ObedientiaZelum is trying to get across though seems to be the left-wing tendency of some of today's media to portray soldiers in a negative image. Support the Troops morale stories are all fine and dandy, but the public seems to eat up the controversial stories like Semrau, Americans urinating on dead enemies, or puppies getting thrown off cliffs.

Obviously the scenario is not to the same standard as the above events, but I can see where both of you guys are coming from. I guess it all matters in the end if you'd rather be tried by 12 or carried by 6.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

Sorry, but what?

What are we supposed to do...not shoot the enemy, because we might not finish them off with the first shot and they might actually die from their wounds?

Sorry, but sometimes there is a little too much thinking that goes on.  In a firefight, my guess would be that you won't be debating ethics....or you'll be sitting there discussing them while someone lines up their sights on your eyeball. The simple question that should come to mind by reflex is "Threat or no threat?"  The answer should be act or leave.

Precisely what I was thinking. Engage targets as they appear until they stop appearing/shooting at you, keep moving. There's only 2 of you. Should you come across a wounded one, in your path back to the FOB, if he does not have a weapon in his hands then leave him. Nobody made him shoot at you.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Sorry, but what?

What are we supposed to do...not shoot the enemy, because we might not finish them off with the first shot and they might actually die from their wounds?

Sorry, but sometimes there is a little too much thinking that goes on.  In a firefight, my guess would be that you won't be debating ethics....or you'll be sitting there discussing them while someone lines up their sights on your eyeball. The simple question that should come to mind by reflex is "Threat or no threat?"  The answer should be act or leave.

Regardless of how straight forward the answer may seem to you or I that will not stop the media from spinning the story or situation in any direction that they wish.  Being right won't stop everyone with an internet connection from telling you what you did wrong, it won't stop the unwanted attention (stress, harassment) and it won't stop political parties using it to their own ends.

Obviously I am not suggesting not shooting someone shooting at you in case you hurt them- you're just being silly.  What I am suggesting is that soldiers (troops) need to discuss situations like this before deploying so that privates Adam and Steve aren't standing over a dying enemy soldier on their way back from their collapsing OP debating on whether to plug the guy or do first aid.

In 1982 there wasn't a chance of the media going on a soldiers open source Facebook page and reading a status update made in jest about taking no prisoners and using it out of context.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Regardless of how straight forward the answer may seem to you or I that will not stop the media from spinning the story or situation in any direction that they wish.  Being right won't stop everyone with an internet connection from telling you what you did wrong, it won't stop the unwanted attention (stress, harassment) and it won't stop political parties using it to their own ends.

Probably not, but at least you'll be alive to explain your actions.

Obviously I am not suggesting not shooting someone shooting at you in case you hurt them- you're just being silly.  What I am suggesting is that soldiers (troops) need to discuss situations like this before deploying so that privates Adam and Steve aren't standing over a dying enemy soldier on their way back from their collapsing OP debating on whether to plug the guy or do first aid.

That's a failure of leadership, not the soldier. Soldiers shouldn't be discussing it in the moment, they should be taught how to react instantaneously and carry on.

In 1982 there wasn't a chance of the media going on a soldiers open source Facebook page and reading a status update made in jest about taking no prisoners and using it out of context.

There's the problem. Trying to get little Johnny from posting stupid shit on social media from a camera he has, in my mind, no business having out in certain situations.

More bad press and stupid shit, in the last few years, can be attributed to idiots that should know that nothing posted to the internet is private, but don't. Every electronic recording device should be turned in at endEx, patrol, whatever and vetted by the int guys, or someone higher for faux pas (is there a plural for this), before being returned to the owner.

 

[Remius]

Frankly, media awarness training and ethics training belongs where it belongs.  If I'm teaching section attacks, trench clearing or whatever, I want them to focus on doing their job and doing it right.  If they do it right, they don't have to worry about the media or what some blogger writes about when those people don't have a clue.

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

Yeah, they had a few issues with that after they got home:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/on-mount-longdon-parachute-regiment-came-back-from-the-falklands-with-their-reputation-for-bravery-reinforced-but-two-years-ago-they-were-accused-of-atrocities-by-one-of-their-own-now-others-are-speaking-out-2323239.html

I read that entire article.  Wow, lot of interesting info in there.

Not to siderail things too much but since Capt Semrau's name was mentioned a little UFI for anyone that cares is that Rob in the Para's for 3 years before joining the CF.  He told me a couple of stories once.

Story #1- His first night in the Para's he was walking down the hallway to do his ablutions and a big burly son of a gun was walking towards him.  Just as the guy was passing by Rob, Rob noticed movement out of the corner of his eye.  He reacted instantly and stopped a fist that was coming for the side of his head.  He dropped in the guy instantly, picked up his shaving kit and kept on walking to the bathroom.  I guess this was part of the initiation into the Para's to see if you could handle an @ss whoopin.

Story #2- Well not so much as a story as just interesting to note.  Every since the "Black Friday" incident with the Para's in Northern Ireland Rob told me that the Para's were basically used a threat to quiet people down.  It wouldn't always work but if the Irish were starting to mix things up, the local garrison troops/police would tell the locals "you better calm down or the Para's are coming."  Sometimes the threat was enough.
[/UFI]

Like I said before, it's always easy to sit in a chair and pick things apart when you have time to do so without any real threat around you.  However, it's true if you have 300m to go and there are a lot of enemy soldiers between you and your objective of getting back alive, you're going to move as fast as possible and keep on shooting until you're clear.  As it should be really.

 

[Maxadia]

Regardless of how straight forward the answer may seem to you or I that will not stop the media from spinning the story or situation in any direction that they wish.  Being right won't stop everyone with an internet connection from telling you what you did wrong, it won't stop the unwanted attention (stress, harassment) and it won't stop political parties using it to their own ends.

Obviously I am not suggesting not shooting someone shooting at you in case you hurt them- you're just being silly.  What I am suggesting is that soldiers (troops) need to discuss situations like this before deploying so that privates Adam and Steve aren't standing over a dying enemy soldier on their way back from their collapsing OP debating on whether to plug the guy or do first aid.

You're the one being silly.  When you are teaching section attacks, teach section attacks.  You want to teach philosophy?  Fine, do it over a beer at the mess later on. Crantor is right - the troops need to focus on reacting correctly, not being a "field tactics philosopher" whose actions are dependent on what they believe the media might think of their actions.

More bad press and stupid crap, in the last few years, can be attributed to idiots that should know that nothing posted to the internet is private, but don't care at the time and do it anyway.

Fixed that for you. 


As for plural, I believe it is the same except for this addition inserted in front: "les faux pas"

 

[daftandbarmy]

I read that entire article.  Wow, lot of interesting info in there.

Not to siderail things too much but since Capt Semrau's name was mentioned a little UFI for anyone that cares is that Rob in the Para's for 3 years before joining the CF.  He told me a couple of stories once.

Story #1- His first night in the Para's he was walking down the hallway to do his ablutions and a big burly son of a gun was walking towards him.  Just as the guy was passing by Rob, Rob noticed movement out of the corner of his eye.  He reacted instantly and stopped a fist that was coming for the side of his head.  He dropped in the guy instantly, picked up his shaving kit and kept on walking to the bathroom.  I guess this was part of the initiation into the Para's to see if you could handle an @ss whoopin.

Story #2- Well not so much as a story as just interesting to note.  Every since the "Black Friday" incident with the Para's in Northern Ireland Rob told me that the Para's were basically used a threat to quiet people down.  It wouldn't always work but if the Irish were starting to mix things up, the local garrison troops/police would tell the locals "you better calm down or the Para's are coming."  Sometimes the threat was enough.
[/UFI]

Like I said before, it's always easy to sit in a chair and pick things apart when you have time to do so without any real threat around you.  However, it's true if you have 300m to go and there are a lot of enemy soldiers between you and your objective of getting back alive, you're going to move as fast as possible and keep on shooting until you're clear.  As it should be really.

Any idea which battalion he was with? If it was 2 PARA I would discount most stories like this except for the accident at the hairdresser's.  ;D ;D

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

Any idea which battalion he was with? If it was 2 PARA I would discount most stories like this except for the accident at the hairdresser's.  ;D ;D

Negatron.  Either he never mentioned it, or I forgot.

Hairdressers?  Do tell! *grabs popcorn*

 

[The Bread Guy]

Any idea which battalion he was with? If it was 2 PARA I would discount most stories like this except for the accident at the hairdresser's.  ;D ;D

According to what looks like it might be an excerpt from his book at Scribd.com and what looks like a preview of a bit more of the book at Google Books, it was Second Para:

.... I had been in Afghanistan once before, as a member of the British Army’s Second Battalion, The Parachute Regiment, so I had a better clue than most of what we were about to get into ....

 

[Jarnhamar]

You're the one being silly.  When you are teaching section attacks, teach section attacks.  You want to teach philosophy?  Fine, do it over a beer at the mess later on. Crantor is right - the troops need to focus on reacting correctly, not being a "field tactics philosopher" whose actions are dependent on what they believe the media might think of their actions.

It's not philosophy.  It's posing a question to soldiers about their training and tactics that may very well be overlooked by the chain of command.  As recceguy said its a leadership issue but it's better to raise a question and set soldiers up for success.

We will have to just disagree, I think sitting in a mess having drinks with the boys is the worst place to discuss something as serious as what to do with a wounded enemy soldier when you're being hunted down.  No one will remember that. IMO the best time is during training in a fighting environment. Making someone think and make a snap decision based on the situation doesn't detract from their drills.