# US Army chief talks to bereaved father



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2010)

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-army-chief-meets-bereaved-father-14977756.html


What muppet throws a hand grenade into a situation like this? Not a stun grenade even, a hand grenade! David Cameron should have insisted that the SAS take the mission where they would have used one of the teams trained in hostage rescue.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Oct 16, 2010)

> However, speaking at the Royal United Services Institute think-tank in London, he said that it was *important not to "jump to conclusions" *until the inquiry had established exactly what happened.



Although it does sound pretty damning, it is yet to be confirmed.

It was also within the US TAOR and so right that they did the rescue.  It is important to remember that these guys put their lives at risk to rescue that person.

Having said that, if it turns out it was true, and he intentionally chose an HE grenade, then he's in big trouble I suspect.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 16, 2010)

I too pondered why they didn't get the SAS to do it and, speaking only as a civilian, why anyone would be throwing grenades in a hostage rescue.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 16, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> I too pondered why they didn't get the SAS to do it and, speaking only as a civilian, why anyone would be throwing grenades in a hostage rescue.



MOUT Training used to teach the use of grenades for building clearing as SOP. If they still do, Perhaps the soldier fell back on his training without thinking.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2010)

At first it was all over the news that it was a Taliban suicide bomber who had killed her, word has it though it wasn't even the Taliban who had grabbed her but a bunch of criminals holding her for ransom. 
One sends in the best people for the job, the ones who's job it is to rescue hostages regardless of who's territory it's supposed to be.

They may have risked their life to rescue her but it's a pointless risk if they aren't up to the job.


----------



## Brian King (Oct 16, 2010)

My hat goes off and much respect to General Petraeus for taking the time and showing the care to meet with the kidnapped slain aid workers family. 

Aid workers are to be commended for their bravery, going into war zones, going into contested areas knowing that from day one they will be used as PR pawns from all sides in this conflict, knowing that what differences they personally make will not matter in the larger picture but that they can positively bring about some small change in another persons life seems to make their possible sacrifice worth it to them. Sure many are egotistical and some are very naive and many are misguided but their bravery and sacrifices should be noted and honored. At the same time, it is my opinion that not one dollar should be allowed to be paid in ransom, and no rescue attempts should be commanded.  Vengeance yes,retaliation yes,  rescue not so much. Every aid worker or civilian should know and understand that if kidnapped no negotiations will be held and no rescue will be attempted. That soldiers and contractors risk their lives to rescue people that have purposely put themselves in danger is a possible waste of useful valuable manpower and treasure and plays into the enemies hands. Yet, as a society we in the US value lives and will risk our lives to save complete strangers and currently expect our military to do the same. It is the price paid and expected. 

My respect to the volunteer soldiers who went on this mission knowing the risks and that their every single move would be watched, analyzed and that if anything at all went wrong that they will be thrown under the bus by those that were not there that have the luxury of 20 20 hind sight and unlimited time to play back the video in slow motion thousands of times. They went in trying to make a difference and do their job knowing that every second of action would be judged by arm chair quarterbacks and went anyway. I am sure that everyone involved with the mission feels for the gals family, and I am sure each would like a do over, but mulligans are a rare thing in real life. Every action in a war zone has a victor and loser and steps should be taken to minimize the enemies victories and to minimize our loses, this includes the PR battles there on the battlefields and on the home fronts. Paying ransom or attempting rescuing of every John or Jane that gets themselves into trouble because they want to save the world is too risky and not worth the trouble. Find who kidnapped them and kill them, if the aid workers are raped as many are, find the rapists and kill them, and if they are tortured or killed find those responsible and kill them. Make the enemies actions riskier than the rewards and you might make it safer for those aid workers in the long run.

My sympathies to the young ladies family and friends. Rest in Peace.

Regards
Brian King

P.S.
Not sure if there is an British term for arm chair quarterback? Is there? It is  a phrase taken from football describing those that take apart each play of the game with the hindsight of how the actual play went down and offer their opinions on what play should have been called. They are usually positive that their rendition would have worked beautifully and as they have called it (never realizing that the other side would still have a say) They usually very firm in in their opinions and voicing their opinions boisterously with beer in hand while sitting on their wide backsides in comfortable easy chairs. If they ever played the sport in question it was back in their childhood and in minor games. Is there a British term for such folks?


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2010)

Far from being an armchair whatever, I do have experience in this sort of thing, not that I expect anyone to actually care but I wouldn't criticise without knowledge. My shift partner, ex 22 also shares my view as do others whose opinions can be described as expert. However make your own minds up from your own experiences if they include planning hostage retrieval and the carrying out of said actions. Mmm let me think, do I still do hostage retrieval drills? Oh yes funnily enough I do.

I blame the Prime Minister, his was the responsibilty to decide whether rescuers should have gone in. Current intel says not, negociations were going on ( these are documented publically btw) to retrieve the aid worker _without_ ransom I might add. The Prime Minister is cutting the military budget next week and needed something to act as a sop to his critics as he will more than likely be cutting our army off at the knees, a successful rescue mission would have been that sop. The reason the SAS didn't take the mission is not because the American were closest etc it was because we didn't have the helicopters needed. The lack of helicopters is a huge problem for our troops, it's also a very big political issue that military commanders have brought to the public notice before. Lives are being lost because of the lack of helicopters. Again the governments fault.

The Gerneral did not meet the family, he phoned them. They live in an inaccessable part of Scotland. He should be given credit though for his openess. It's believed a Navy Seal from Navy Seal Six is to face disciplinary action for his actions in throwing the fragmentation grenade. The operation was watched on giant scenes in the mission HQ.

There is far more politics involved in this that perhaps people imagine, the choice of using the American team instead of our own has bit deeply into the morale of our own troops as it's believed, as I said, we are about to be cut off at the knees by the government. We know almost certainly that we will have no capability to launch jets from our aircraft carriers and that the army is being cut by several thousand personnel. The lack of helicopters to enable us to do the job asked in Afghanistan is severely hampering the work and is costing lives, the lack of a suitable vehicle to keep our troops protected from IEDs is also worrying. The first vehicles with this capability have just been shipped to Afghan in the past few weeks. There are shortages of vital equipment that are only going to get worse after next week, recently a platoon of British soldiers had the command to fix bayonets given as they were facing being over run by Taliban, lack of ammo had them facing hand to hand fighting, luckily an Apache helicopter was scrambled but there's been reports on helicopters not being available and soldiers dying for this lack.

The troops are volunteers and should be given all kudos for that but a mistake cost a life and if someone is to blame for that it's right that there are consequences.There's the lives and trust of the other team members to consider as well as that of the hostage. Just because we admire and respect what they do doesn't mean we cover up any mistakes, this I believe the General also understands and this is why he has promised a joint open investigation.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 16, 2010)

Lord knows that hostage rescues deep in enemy territory should always result in success with zero chance of failure or error. :shrug:


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 16, 2010)

Success or failure is a different thing from a cock up.

Can't answer more at mo, watching live stream of Bisping fight lol.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 16, 2010)

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/...4393&mid=0&i=20&nmt=Linda Norgrove.....&mid=0

From one of your countrymen.



> If we landed as many grunts as the Yanks did then we would have the same number of friendly fire incidents as them.
> 
> This **** happens in conflict, but as they outnumber the Brits on the ground and the air then the raw numbers will not favour them.
> 
> ...



It appears to me that this is just a convenient excuse for a bit of Yank bashing. 

Anybody ever read THIS story?

http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/ne...t-german-medal-for-bravery-during-rescue.html

or this one?

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/03/video-us-troops-rescue-kidnapped-iraqi-man/

or...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/22/us-commandos-rescue-ameri_n_137079.html

Which was a successful rescue of an aid-worker in a very similar situation.

there are plenty more if you would like me to go on....


----------



## Ken Morgan (Oct 16, 2010)

Im assuming all of the NATO partners in combat roles in Afghanistan have their special forces in there operating. I know Canadas JTF2 have been in since before the invasion. This error could have happened to any of them. Someone made a tragic error in judgment and as a result an innocent person died. Of course it doesnt help the woman involved or her grieving family, but all our SF people are, people, and people make errors.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 16, 2010)

And as to carrying frags. People have to remember that this rescue was in Taliban held territory. Not an embassy in a Western nation. A full on battle could have ensued. This wasn't an LE style rescue in friendly territory, it was a gunbattle out in the open where the hostage was unexpectedly placed. They were not clearing rooms with frags.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/13/linda-norgrove-us-commando-disciplinary



> However, the SAS were too far away and did not have the MH-60, a Black Hawk helicopter highly modified for special forces night operations and just about capable of functioning in such thin mountain air. Furthermore, Seal Team Six had been operating in that area of northern Kunar for months. They knew the terrain and their adversaries.
> 
> The assault was launched before dawn on Saturday morning, when it was thought the insurgents would be at their most groggy. Landing the Seals some distance away and creeping of the compound on foot was impossible. There was nowhere flat to set down for miles around.
> 
> ...



And what everybody seems to ignore is that it was the integrity of a SEAL commander that brought the truth to light:



> Late on Sunday, however, the taskforce commander acted on a hunch and asked to see the video of the assault stored on the computer hard drive at its headquarters. Running through it again, he spotted one Seal, standing on the roof of one of the huts, toss something underhand into the compound. Four seconds later the screen went bright from the explosion. He called the team in and asked who had thrown a grenade. One man stepped forward.
> 
> Within minutes, the Seal Team Six commander was on a secure line to Petraeus with the bad news. It was 7.30am in Kabul, 4am in London, but Petraeus quickly made the call to Downing Street, where a defence aide woke the prime minister.



Most likely the "bomb vest" story could have been left to stand and avoided this entire controversy, but the commander did the right and honorable thing.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 16, 2010)

in the excitement the guy might have thrown the frag grenade while meaning to throw a flash bang.  I don't know and niether does anyone else here.  That is why they hold an investigation.  If he made a mistake, that needs to be determined so that he isn't put in that situation anymore and other soldiers won't make the same mistake.  Not holding anyone accountable to some degree isn't helpful and niether is willing to string the guy up withhout knowing the facts.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 16, 2010)

This was a gunbattle with the bad guys coming out into the open. Im pretty sure that the SEAL intended to frag them. Who would have expected that they had brought the hostage out with them? Flash bangs are of little use in an open area gun fight. If this was a case of tossing a frag into a room while searching for a hostage that would be one thing, but this doesn't appear to be the case.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 17, 2010)

This is hardly Yank bashing on my part when I'm blaming the British Government for not giving us the equipment we need to do the job THEY have tasked us for. 
Nobody is ignoring anyone's integrity, I commended the Generals honesty in bringing into the open the mistake but it was still a mistake that killed someone. He has promised a full and open joint inquiry. One person's mistake killed one person, the Government's mistake is killing hundreds and maiming thousands.

We don't have 'grunts' thank you that's a perjorative term here meaning a Neanderthal.

The anger here among the British military is that giving this job to the Americans has undermined us, it is bad for morale. Saying it was in the American sector doesn't wash, the SAS are out there and could have done the job but we haven't been given the helicopters needed. Btw if one of our guys had made the same mistake _yes the response would be_ _exactly the same_, it's not Yank bashing it's mistake bashing by people who have been in the same situation and not made mistakes. Peer citiciism if you like. the criticism is directed against one person, not the team or it's highest commander, I imagine this individual has already faced some tough talking to, after all he could have killed his team too. We expect a lot from our special forces as they do from themselves,there's never the room for errors which the rest of us can make with impunity. 

 Talking to some American service personnel yesterday and they knew we weren't blaming them but it was also agreed by them that chucking a grenade in wasn't best drill either. The people who know these things all say chucking a grenade in was an error. Funny though that on here it divides as always into a US v UK thing once again. The man who threw the grenade is responsible for her death, there's no doubt, only him. The enquiry however will examine the whys and wherefores. At worst he will be guilty of bad judgement or of making a mistake. There was no intention to harm, it may have been unavoidable, if found guilty he will be disciplined for his mistake. It's harsh but these people hold themselves to such high standards, higher than any of ours, that it will be deemed fair. You ask the impossible of them and they deliver most times, no one beats themselves up more I promise you when they do fail as humans must.


No newspaper knows the whereabouts of the SAS not even on a Saturday night in Hereford so there's a huge amount of speculation and also a certain amount of 'taking the government' line about the SAS not being in range etc. The truth is that the government has cut us off at the ankles, next week it will be the knees if we are lucky, the hips if we are not. Next week I will probably be looking for new employment, our force is under threat. We are working now under huge restraints, we've had no recruitment for a year now and had no replacements for those who've retired or left.there's no overtime to cover shifts so we are often lone working, a dangerous situation. Though the American pay for us at their bases lol, so thanks for that American taxpayers lol! 

Cameron is under pressure from the Defence lobby to supply our troops with what they need, he came up instead with a plan to rescue the aid worker, he, rightly, as it turned out thought that if it went wrong the Americans would be blamed as indeed they are being, If it had gone right he would have been sitting in a position where he could have paraded her around to increase his support for the Defence cuts. Ask yourself why the Americans were asked to take this, then thank Cameron for the flak you've been getting.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Oct 17, 2010)

Tez I don't want this to sound like I'm having a pop, because I'm not and you make some very legitimate points.  But do you genuinely *know* any of this to be *absolute fact*?  Helicopters being an issue in this particular mission I mean?  Also the Cameron plan thing?



Tez3 said:


> Saying it was in the American sector doesn't wash, the SAS are out there and could have done the job but we haven't been given the helicopters needed.
> 
> _Snip...
> _
> Cameron is under pressure from the Defence lobby to supply our troops with what they need, he came up instead with a plan to rescue the aid worker, he, rightly, as it turned out thought that if it went wrong the Americans would be blamed as indeed they are being, If it had gone right he would have been sitting in a position where he could have paraded her around to increase his support for the Defence cuts. Ask yourself why the Americans were asked to take this, then thank Cameron for the flak you've been getting.



I agree that this, if everything is as it seems, is piss poor.  Deep in enemy territory I agree with the lads being issued HE grenades as well as flashbangs, but they should have attached them to themselves in such a way that mistakes couldn't happen.

I still think that the US forces should have handled this whether best for the task or not as it was within their TAOR and that this poor woman should have known what she was getting into and be grateful that they tried to rescue her.  It would have been even worse for US morale if they had got British forces in to do the rescue on their patch.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 17, 2010)

FieldDiscipline said:


> Tez I don't want this to sound like I'm having a pop, because I'm not and you make some very legitimate points. But do you genuinely *know* any of this to be *absolute fact*? Helicopters being an issue in this particular mission I mean? Also the Cameron plan thing?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yes, for sure helicopters were/are an issue, it's also been repeated in several press reports as well as being the on dit at Dishforth. It actually mentions it in the Guardian report in Archangels post, we don't have the helicopters we needed for this or a lot of other missions. the House of Commons Defence Select Committe said as much.

Think about the Cameron thing, it could have been a joint mission, we could have borrowed a helicopter (again), we could have gone on alone or we could have not let the mission go ahead. It was Cameron's decision to ask the Americans to undertake it, it was his decision to let it go ahead against advice he was given in the first place. After it was announced that the aid workers death was caused by the grenade, both Hague and Cameron are busy saying 'it would be unorthodox to go against the American commander's advice' to go in and 'it was the ISAF commander's decision to go in' so therefore 'not our fault at all'. Cameron is doing a good job of deflecting the blame onto the Americans, I'm sure actually they wouldn't have minded if we'd gone in and got a British girl out, we wouldn't have complained if the Americans had wanted to get one of theirs out, we'd offer help etc but if they wanted to do it alone, why not? Cameron has also said he 'couldn't over rule the Americans when they said they wanted to do the mission'. He's playing the get the monkey off my back and get it on the Americans backs game. Sloping shoulders. If the rescue had been successful don't you think it would have been' oh well what a good decision I made' ? We know from the Expenses Scandal we can't trust any of them as far as we can throw them, if even that far!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...dmits-to-Afghanistan-helicopter-shortage.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/26/lack-helicopters-afghanistan-troops-risk

The lack of the proper helicopters to do the job has killed people. A patrol caught in a minefield and waiting for the injuried to be airlifted to safety were horrified when a Chinook turned up, this helicopter set off more mines which killed a soldier before being waved off. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7675824.stm

Two years years ago an SAS officer resigned 
"  They come at a time when the quality of military equipment is once again under scrutiny, _with the resignation last month of Major Sebastian Morley, the commander of D Squadron, 23 SAS in Afghanistan, who blamed "chronic underinvestment" by the MoD for the deaths of four of his soldiers in outdated Snatch Land Rovers"_
_http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...el-lives-put-at-risk-by-MoD-cost-cutting.html_

From the same article, two years old but nothing has changed.
"-_ Chinook Mk3 helicopters: MoD spent £259 million buying eight Chinooks_ _*for the SAS* from Boeing in *2001* but a software mistake means they have now cost £500m and *are still not in service*, despite severe helicopter shortages in Afghanistan_."

Still not in service in 2010.

We could have had the Black Hawks....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/19/mod-reject-black-hawk-helicopters


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 17, 2010)

FieldDiscipline said:


> I agree with the lads being issued HE grenades as well as flashbangs, but they should have attached them to themselves in such a way that mistakes couldn't happen.



I don't think it was a mistake.

By current accounts, it was an open gunbattle in the central courtyard at night while wearing night vision..not a situation where flashbangs really do much good. The SEAL didn't see, nor probably have reason to expect, that the hostage was dragged out the hut and into the fight by the bad guys. If the story was that they were going room to room searching for the hostage and they cleared with HE...well that would be a different matter. The only thing that made the grenade wrong in this situation is that the hostage was unknowingly killed. If she had not it would have been praised as the right thing to do IMO.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 17, 2010)

If that really is the true story, *Angel* then my heart goes out to the soldier in question too.  

Telling himself he had no way of knowing Linda was there and he made the right call for the situation as he saw it will not help his conscience much at all I am sure.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Oct 17, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> I don't think it was a mistake.
> 
> By current accounts, it was an open gunbattle in the central courtyard at night while wearing night vision..not a situation where flashbangs really do much good. The SEAL didn't see, nor probably have reason to expect, that the hostage was dragged out the hut and into the fight by the bad guys. If the story was that they were going room to room searching for the hostage and they cleared with HE...well that would be a different matter. The only thing that made the grenade wrong in this situation is that the hostage was unknowingly killed. If she had not it would have been praised as the right thing to do IMO.



I haven't followed this story very closely tbh, but if that is the case then I agree.  That scenario being one of the many that caused me to say their taking HE was understandable.   



Tez3 said:


> We know from the Expenses Scandal we can't trust any of them as far as we can throw them, if even that far!



Agreed.  This and this making the point perfectly.  I'm aware sadly of all of the stories you cited, I just didn't know if it had been proven a factor in the decision making process this time.  I think you can guess my standpoint on military funding / procurement.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 17, 2010)

I will refer you back to this post. This is the latest info on the situation:

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1330225&postcount=12


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 17, 2010)

FieldDiscipline said:


> I haven't followed this story very closely tbh, but if that is the case then I agree. That scenario being one of the many that caused me to say their taking HE was understandable.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. This and this making the point perfectly. I'm aware sadly of all of the stories you cited, I just didn't know if it had been proven a factor in the decision making process this time. I think you can guess my standpoint on military funding / procurement.


 
Following it logically, if the operation required helicopters to get there and Bob Stewart MP (remember him from Bosnia?) was told by Cameron they were essential when Stewart questioned whether they were actually needed, the simple fact is that we have no suitable helicopters for the job so it must have come into play in the decision making process. There is no way it wouldn't have influenced who went. You can have truck drivers and no trucks or you can have truck drivers who have their own trucks, guess who they'll choose.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Oct 17, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> I will refer you back to this post. This is the latest info on the situation:
> 
> http://martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1330225&postcount=12



 Thanks.  I figured I must have missed that, but I remember the bit at the bottom so apparently not.  Sorry.  



Tez3 said:


> (remember him from Bosnia?)



Bonking Bob?  Never met him, but know the reputation! 



Tez3 said:


> told by Cameron they were essential when Stewart questioned whether they were actually needed, the simple fact is that we have no suitable helicopters for the job so it must have come into play in the decision making process. There is no way it wouldn't have influenced who went. You can have truck drivers and no trucks or you can have truck drivers who have their own trucks, guess who they'll choose.



I know that there is a serious helicopter shortage, but find it very hard to imagine they couldn't have got some for a deliberate op like that.  

Very sad for all involved.  Clearly I've made a habit of missing things in this thread, so to quote Peter Jones - I'm out!


----------



## Ken Morgan (Oct 17, 2010)

FieldDiscipline said:


> I know that there is a serious helicopter shortage, but find it very hard to imagine they couldn't have got some for a deliberate op like that.


 
We ordered brand new ones from the US for big bucks because we kept/keep getting hit with IED during convoys. In the interm we leased a bunch. I'm sure the UK could have/of leased some, same as us.

Worst case senerio, the UK asks any of its allies to ferry it's SAS troops to point X. I have no doubt the Americans, the Canadians, the Dutch and whomever else has some helicopters would have said yes.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 17, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> We ordered brand new ones from the US for big bucks because we kept/keep getting hit with IED during convoys. In the interm we leased a bunch. I'm sure the UK could have/of leased some, same as us.
> 
> Worst case senerio, the UK asks any of its allies to ferry it's SAS troops to point X. _I have no doubt the Americans, the Canadians, the Dutch and_ _whomever else has some helicopters would have said yes_.


 
I'm sure they would have as well, as it was a Brit who was kidnapped it would have made sense not to risk Allies lives but deal with it ourselves in the first instance, if the Americans had insisted they didn't mind doing it that would have been very kind however it looks as if there was really little choice.

FD, I was down at Dishforth the other night and the AAC lads are not a happy bunch. Their views on what helicopters we should have and what we haven't got I believe are far more valid than the governments, but hey when did they ever listen to the guys on the ground? Ten o'clock news on, quote army to lose thousands of personnel - a cut of between 5-10,000' unquote by the Chancellor. oh great. The army to fall below 100,000.  

If I were the American spec forces I'd rehearse hostage retrievals because if another Brit aid worker is misguided enough to put themselves in a postition where they can be kidnapped as sure as eggs is eggs we won't be in a position -again- to rescue them or anyone else for that matter. 

It's so bloody depressing.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 20, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> The man who threw the grenade is responsible for her death, there's no doubt, only him.


 
No, Tez.  The ones responsible for her death are the ones that kidnapped her and put her into that situation in the first place.  He's just the one that killed her.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 20, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> No, Tez. The ones responsible for her death are the ones that kidnapped her and put her into that situation in the first place. He's just the one that killed her.


 
 If you take that line of reasoning you will end up blaming her for putting herself in that position in the first place, indeed, I've seen people do just that and for having soldiers risking their lives for her. He is responsible for her death and I'm sure whether you think it or not he is taking that responsiblity to heart, he would because I'm betting he's an honourable man. The kidnappers are responsible for taking her and holding her against her will, a grave crime but they didn't kill her at that time, I imagine they would have but they didn't.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Oct 20, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> MOUT Training used to teach the use of grenades for building clearing as SOP. If they still do, Perhaps the soldier fell back on his training without thinking.


Not anymore! Since when were grenades used in MOUT for room clearing?


----------



## BloodMoney (Oct 20, 2010)

I think its sad but honestly, she was working in a war zone, hand grenades get chucked about in warzones, people get kidnapped and beheaded etc. I mean it couldve been a stray bullet hitting her, her kidnappers shooting her, an HE nade, an NFDD/flashie going off right in her face and blinding her etc etc...it could be a million things, its Afghanistan.

I think its horrible that it happened, but I dont see that a general or anyone has to apologize to anyone. She knew the risks, and American soldiers risked their own lives, probably getting paid worse than her, and spent a whole lot of money trying to rescue her and it went sour. Not to be insensitive but at least someone cared enough to try and rescue her, I personally know of someone who was not so lucky and was abandoned by his company and his country (and was eventually beheaded by Al-Qaeda).

War is hell, if you dont want to be killed or maimed I suggest you stay the **** away from it.



			
				yorkshirelad said:
			
		

> Since when were grenades used in MOUT for room clearing?



Since soldiers didnt like dying? Seriously though, most countries teach it, its even in the SOP' in the generic Combat Encyclopedia let alone most FM's on the subject. Also, its not MOUT anymore, its UO (Urban Operations).


----------



## yorkshirelad (Oct 20, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/...4393&mid=0&i=20&nmt=Linda Norgrove.....&mid=0
> 
> From one of your countrymen.
> 
> ...


 Poxy salary!!! Trust me. US soldiers make alot more than the Brits. Rent allowance, combat pay, separation pay and of course salary make US soldiers very well paid, and rightly so.

If this guy did throw a frag grenade knowingly into a room with the hostage in it, he has no place in Seal Team 6, SOCOM, or any bog standard grunt unit for that matter. It's not Monday morning quarterbacking, it's basic logic. If I go to a Michelin starred restaurant and the chef burns my steak, he is not deserved of a Michellin star. 

Of course, we don't know for certain what happened, so we should reserve judgement. The budget cuts are troubling though. What the **** is Cameron thinking?


----------



## yorkshirelad (Oct 20, 2010)

BloodMoney said:


> I think its sad but honestly, she was working in a war zone, hand grenades get chucked about in warzones, people get kidnapped and beheaded etc. I mean it couldve been a stray bullet hitting her, her kidnappers shooting her, an HE nade, an NFDD/flashie going off right in her face and blinding her etc etc...it could be a million things, its Afghanistan.
> 
> I think its horrible that it happened, but I dont see that a general or anyone has to apologize to anyone. She knew the risks, and American soldiers risked their own lives, probably getting paid worse than her, and spent a whole lot of money trying to rescue her and it went sour. Not to be insensitive but at least someone cared enough to try and rescue her, I personally know of someone who was not so lucky and was abandoned by his company and his country (and was eventually beheaded by Al-Qaeda).
> 
> ...


I know what it's called mate, most still call it MOUT before saying "It's UO now btw". I should point out to my platoon sergeant that we've got it wrong, because the generic combat encyclopedia and you insist that we should be clearing rooms with hand grenades. Come to think about it, it would save training time. I don't think Congress or the Pentagon are gonna go with that one though.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 20, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> If you take that line of reasoning you will end up blaming her for putting herself in that position in the first place, indeed, I've seen people do just that and for having soldiers risking their lives for her. He is responsible for her death and I'm sure whether you think it or not he is taking that responsiblity to heart, he would because I'm betting he's an honourable man. The kidnappers are responsible for taking her and holding her against her will, a grave crime but they didn't kill her at that time, I imagine they would have but they didn't.


 
No, you can't.  You blame the ones that committed the *negative *behavior.  Of course, this is purely biased based on culture.  

As an example, I will use the cultural aspect of law.  I don't know about the UK, but in the United States, if a person is holding someone hostage, for instance, and during the course of the SWAT team conducting a hostage rescue, a police officer inadvertantly shoots and kills a hostage, the suspect is the one that goes on trial for that death, not the police officer.

That is because the suspect is the one that committed the act that put the hostage their in the first place.  Were it not for that singular act, then the event would not have occured.  Were it not for the act of this woman being kidnapped, she could have conducted her business without ever having been killed by fratricide.

So, once again, the U.S. soldier is responsible for killing her, but the kidnapper is responsible for her death.

And I'm sure that he is taking it hard, and my heart goes out to a difficult man doing a difficult mission.  Although I haven't been in that exact situation, I have been in something similar.  I know what it feels like to kick yourself in the *** over it every single day, second-guessing what you could have done better.  Luckily for me, it didn't end so tragically, but it could have.  I get it.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 21, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> Not anymore! Since when were grenades used in MOUT for room clearing?



In the early 90's when I went through basic.

MOUT was combat operatons not hostage rescue in those days. And if you read the thread, it's looking like the current description of the incident is that the grenade was thrown into the central compound (usually a large courtyard type of area) during a gun battle, as SEALS were inserting by fast rope, not into a room prior to entry. The kidnappers had dragged the hostage out of a building and into the fight for some reason and she was not noticed.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Oct 21, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> In the early 90's when I went through basic.
> 
> MOUT was combat operatons not hostage rescue in those days. And if you read the thread, it's looking like the current description of the incident is that the grenade was thrown into the central compound (usually a large courtyard type of area) during a gun battle, as SEALS were inserting by fast rope, not into a room prior to entry. The kidnappers had dragged the hostage out of a building and into the fight for some reason and she was not noticed.


MOUT must've been just a few minutes of training then. I can see it now "Just throw a frag grenade into every room and you're done lads!"


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 21, 2010)

It was about 3 days worth as I recall. One entire day in MOUT city complete with underground tunnel training. You have to remember that the idea was total combat in built up areas (like WWII Stalingrad) back then. Not a hodge podge of LE style room clearing and hostage rescue.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 22, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> In the early 90's when I went through basic.
> 
> MOUT was combat operatons not hostage rescue in those days. And if you read the thread, it's looking like the current description of the incident is that the grenade was thrown into the central compound (usually a large courtyard type of area) during a gun battle, as SEALS were inserting by fast rope, not into a room prior to entry. The kidnappers had dragged the hostage out of a building and into the fight *for some reason* and she was not noticed.


 
A hostage makes a good shield!


----------

