SF Sniper

Posted By Blackfive

A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier conducts rehearsal, training and pre-operation conformation, on the MK 12 sniper rifle in Rawah, Iraq, during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Sept. 7.  Photographer: Petty Officer 2nd Class Eli Medellin, Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force.

Update:  In the Comments, there is a discussion about snipers baiting insurgents.  On a different story about snipers, both Uncle Jimbo (here and here) and Deebow (here) have commented on the SF snipers being charged with murder in Afghanistan (they are now at Ft. Bragg).

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/21877409

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference SF Sniper:

Comments

[kg2v]

Cammo up that rifle, and don't forget to install an ARD..

[mindy1]

Very Menacing-if I saw him I'd surrender

[defendusa]

Snipers accused of baiting...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070925/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_snipers
Why does anybody hae to know of what a sniper engages in as long as it gets the enemy? I know I am being naive...

[jordan]

Captain's Journal analyzes the above incident in terms of what it portends for sniping as an acceptable military tactic. He's extremely skeptical of the "baiting" article, suspecting that the "program" was approved on high, but being paid for by lower-ranking soldiers. (As usual.)

If ROE is going to be as restrictive as that case suggests it is, there's no point in training and fielding snipers. The "baiting" program, if it does exist, would have been necessary because soldiers would need evidence that the target was an insurgent, he says. So, the snipers are now basically operating under law enforcement ROE, and have to adhere to courtroom standards for evidence.

If snipers have to protect themselves from prosecution by doing this, we should simply give up sniping. You can't hand a guy a rifle and say, "Go be a sniper" and then prosecute him for being a sniper.

[Barb]

I'm still boggling that the two SF troops are up on murder charges - especially given the CID investigation cleared them. And I fear for our snipers out there in the field right now - how can they do their jobs knowing that their ROE, and worse yet their senior leadership, may not protect them.

[bullnav]

I thought only the SEALs used MK12 rifles and that Army SF wore digital cammies...

[Blackfive]

bullnav - it probably is a SEAL, but the "official description" is that it's a SF soldier. Usually, it's labeled Special Operations soldier which opens the field to anybody. Maybe, it's the DoD PAO not getting it's nomenclatures correctly. Been known to happen (often).

Depending on tier, SOF can wear and use anything...

[Swede]

I just recently got home from my second tour in Iraq. There are still plenty of Army SF guys wearing DCU's.

[Soldier's Mom]

BF and others: This is taken from an article in the Washington Post:

"The Washington Post, which first reported the existence of the "baiting" program, cited the sworn statement of Capt. Matthew P. Didier, the leader of a Ranger sniper scout platoon.

"Baiting is putting an object out there that we know they will use, with the intention of destroying the enemy," Didier said in the statement. "Basically, we would put an item out there and watch it. If someone found the item, picked it up and attempted to leave with the item, we would engage the individual as I saw this as a sign they would use the item against U.S. forces."

The Post said the program was devised by the Army's Asymmetric Warfare Group, which advises commanders on more effective methods in today's unconventional conflicts, including ways to combat roadside bombs.

Within months of the "baiting" program's introduction, three snipers in Didier's platoon were charged with murder for allegedly using those items and others to make shootings seem legitimate, according to the Post.

The Post said that although it doesn't appear that the three alleged shootings were specifically part of the classified program, defense attorneys argue that the program may have encouraged them by blurring the legal lines in a complex war zone.

The court martial of one of the accused soldiers, Spec. Jorge Sandoval Jr., is scheduled to begin in Baghdad on Wednesday. Also facing premeditated murder charges are SGT Evan Vela and Staff Sgt. Michael Hensley.

They are part of the Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 501st Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division, based at Fort Richardson, Alaska."

Now if what the CPT said is true, and they were given direction from somewhere on high, how can they be charged with premeditated murder? Jeez -- do we have to wait until one of their weapons is pointed right between our eyes before we can legally shoot them? Can someone please explain to me why civilians are allowed to develop our ROEs and except for LT Calley and cases where it was absolutely proven it was fragging, when did we start charging soldiers for doing their jobs that they were trained for? Did I miss that memo?

[jordan]

The other confusing thing is the WaPo doesn't distinguish between 1. setting out bait for someone to pick up, and 2. planting something on a person after shooting him. Are both part of the baiting program? If not, the Post is muddying the waters by mixing up something clearly illegal (2) with something that might be a questionable tactic but isn't illegal (1).

[Uncle Jimbo]

Jordan has the distinction correct. Baiting to draw someone to obvious military ordnance with no civilian use is one thing. Dropping a gun on someone you shot without one is completely different.

I spoke w' MSG Anderson's attorney this afternoon, I will have a post about that later.

Cordially,

Uncle J

[OldSoldier54]

This is such a crock. Charging snipers with MURDER???!!!

I'm definitely looking forward to your post on this, UJ.

As far as the photo, the shutterbug is a PO2 ... wouldn't he be covering SEALs? Just askin'.

[douglas]

"Baiting to draw someone to obvious military ordnance with no civilian use is one thing."

In a country where every family is allowed to own at least one AK-47 for self-defense (and rightly so), it's a little tougher to draw the line between military ordinance and objects with legitimate civilian use, no? Also, something like det cord may not be so obvious as to it's purpose to the untrained. Can you really assume that someone who picks it up and walks away is an insurgent who intends to use it? What if an off-duty IP was walking by and thought that leaving a length of det cord lying around was a bad idea?

Can't say I'm necessarily against the idea of 'baiting', but it seems it would need to be applied in rather narrow circumstances. I certainly wouldn't give it blanket approval for wide use. Am I missing something here?