SF Snipers charged with murder

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

UPDATE: I spoke with CPT Staffel's attorney and this thing smells a whole lot. I will follow up with more info soon.

FORT BRAGG, North Carolina: From his position about 100 yards away, Master Sergeant Troy Anderson had a clear shot of the Afghan man standing outside a residential compound in a small village near the Pakistan border last October. And when Captain Dave Staffel, the Special Forces officer in charge, gave the order to shoot, Anderson fired a single bullet into the man's head, killing him instantly.

In June, Staffel and Anderson were charged with premeditated murder. On Tuesday, in a rare public examination of the rules that govern the actions of special operations troops in Afghanistan, a military hearing will convene at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to weigh the evidence against the two Green Berets.

There are so many factors that would determine whether this was a proper shooting that it is near impossible to make any judgments. The one that I am comfortable making based on  my experience and the professionalism of Army Special Forces is, the men in question believed they were authorized to take the shot. The bigger question is what kind of Rules of Engagement are they operating under, and if they car not authorized to kill known terrorists, then why not?

I don't know LTG Kearney, but so far he is 2 for 2 in piling on our Spec Ops troops. He is the same one who booted a the first Marine Company to deploy as part of SOCOM after they were involved in an ambush shoot-em-up. I don't have enough info to call either situation justified, but I like to think there is an assumption of innocence and I wonder about LTG Kearney.

I am contacting PAOs at CENTCOM, SOCOM and at Ft. Bragg, anyone with contacts in the Stan, or with CENTCOM please ping them with a WTF request. I'm interested in the ROE, LTG Kearney and the previous incident with the Marine company. Gracias for any assistance which as always is as confidential as necessary. USASOC seems to be the controlling authority, so once again if you know someone there, or at Bragg in any SF unit ping 'em.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/21775097

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference SF Snipers charged with murder:

Comments

[Teresa]

We're at war... right? We are at war... at least the last time I checked.

What the hell are our guys supposed to do? Wait until they're dead to fight back? I am so sick of this I want to scream. If the Generals don't even want to fight this war, then why is my son in harm's way? Why are any of our soldiers having to defend themselves for doing their jobs?

You don't fight a war by letting the enemy kill you and make plans to kill even more of you because "it wouldn't be right to kill them first". If I ever end up in the same room with Kearney - I'll have to leave so I don't just knock his ass on the ground.

[SouthernRoots]

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." - George S. Patton

"We win, they lose" - Ronald Reagan

It would be nice if we had more Generals and Politicians that shared these sentiments.

[Lands’nGrooves]

While obviously there is a lot that we don’t know to this story, I have just one simple question; was the man killed a terrorist? If yes, than drop the investigation now!

Good luck MSgt. Anderson & Cpt. Staffel. Some of us actually believe in what you are doing.

UJ, please expand/link regarding the Marine SOCOM incident, I don’t remember that. Thanks.

[Deltabravo]

Such thinking would have thrown WWII to the Nazis.

No good can come of putting these men on trial of any sort. Information on policies and procedures will leak and cause damage. It will hurt morale of our SOF personnel and make them second-guess themselves into an early grave (see: Lone Survivor) And it will embolden our enemy because he will be sure our guys have their hands tied.

(Unless they don't really, and this is a masterful psy-ops ploy to lure more into the open. Oh, please tell me this is a stroke of psy-ops genius and it's all thought out and it's a show trial for ulterior purposes, and that our operational commanders haven't really taken complete leave of their senses!) I really need to believe there is intelligent design behind all of this. Someone tell me. Lie if you have to.

[Deltabravo]

Looking back, maybe it is a trial for the UCMJ to set a new legal precedent and expand the ROE in the face of the uncertainties documented by PO Luttrell. The only good thing that can come out of this is a complete acquittal and the assumption that our snipers and others can proceed full speed ahead in the future.

Again, I have to believe there is some intelligent purpose to this seeming complete miscarriage of justice in the making.

[bthun]

LnG, here's a bit o background.

Like Uncle J says, I can not find much on the LTG, but I'm beginning to wonder if he is, as Hackworth called them, a Perfumed Prince.

[Mr.Sparkle]

As for the British perspective on this matter it's a long standing belief of our forces that the 'US soldier' (as a stereotype) is not well governed enough and too trigger happy.

the following is part of an article that I posted from the Sunday Times:

"When seizing an insurgent - a “hard arrest” - British special forces are not allowed to kill unless they encounter resistance. By contrast, the US special forces call such operations “kill or capture” missions.

Annoyed by their lack of progress in hunting down America’s enemies, Donald Rumsfeld, the then US defence secretary, in 2002 directed them to “find, fix and finish” terrorists. This order was secretly backed up by President George W Bush. Lethal force was declared legal, with or without resistance – although in some eyes this contravenes international law."

Lands’nGrooves according to this information if the man had been a terrorist it would be an authorised assassination. Chances are they found out he was an innocent civilian and wished they'd picked him up instead.

[Uncle Jimbo]

I spoke to CPT Staffel's attorney and this thing stinks. I will have a full piece tomorrow.

Cordially,

Uncle J

[Lands’nGrooves]

bthun,

Thanks, I found this interesting “The case revolves around differing interpretations of the kind of force that the Special Forces team that hunted and killed the man, Nawab Buntangyar, were allowed to use once they found him, apparently unarmed.” “… those rules allowed the killing of Buntangyar, whom the American Special Operations Command here has called an "enemy combatant.".

And later it says, “Buntangyar had already been "vetted as a target" by U.S. commanders, as an enemy combatant who could be legally killed once he was positively identified, Waple said.”

Mr. Sparkle,

So according to the article it wasn’t a matter of the wrong, i.e. innocent, man killed but rather an interpretation of the ROE. Also, please don’t insinuate that our troops are trigger happy; everything I’ve seen/heard implies just the opposite. If you have any proof, less this INVESTIGATION, please provide link/proof, otherwise bugger off.

UJ,

Look forward to the rest tomorrow.

One last thing, “Premeditated” murder ??? WTF, that implies more than faulty ROE.

[MajMT]

"When seizing an insurgent - a “hard arrest” - British special forces are not allowed to kill unless they encounter resistance. By contrast, the US special forces call such operations “kill or capture” missions."

Mr. S, that is exaclty one format where operations between GB and US forces differ and always will...we still understand to a great degree that this is about killing the enemy; many others in the EU seem to think that this is a law enforcement exercise. Our job is to close with and kill or capture, not play patty-cake. The intent is still to win the game by making the other side either not want to fight or not put enough players on the field. Period. It is about that nasty business of killing, attrition, destruction, elimination, annhilation etc etc etc. And when dealing with the type of enemy we are dealing with here, there is even less need to "arrest" them. We do this because that is how you pull victory from the jaws of defeat.

And pulling out the same tired (left leaning) TIMESONLINE articles from Mr. Smith gets arduous for several reasons. One, in respect to Mr. Smiths background, is the fact that I have personally witnessed Brit troops in their full glory doing exactly what you and Mr. Smith rail against. Trigger happy or not, when you are involved in the game of dealing death, there is only one winner.

With regard to the incident involveing the target and the two SF troopers, we simply do not know the details of what transpired so anything said on this blog, pro...con...or otherwise, is conjecture. However, at least we still live under rules that say "Innocent until proven guilty" as opposed to international perceptions and the World Court view. Thank God Mr. Rumsfeld and President Bush understand this.

[MajMT]

And one other thing, please read the scenario presented in this TOL article about British forces: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2461368.ece

This appears much like the exact same scenerio CPT Staffel and MSG Anderson engaged. I noticed the esteemed TOL gives British forces a pass on any wrongdoing.

[Doninsocal]

Any bets on when the arrests of Vietnam era B52 pilots will begin?

Will their crews be charged as accessories?

Their CO’s on conspiracy charges?

Hell, Sen. Clinton voted for military action in both Iraq and Afghanistan…shouldn’t she be arrested for being a willing accomplice?

This is sheer madness, since we have an all volunteer military, why the hell would anyone want to sign up today. I enlisted in 1984 and my stepson a mere 2 yrs ago. If I could have foreseen this I would have not allowed him to enlist.

DS

[jordan]

Surprise, surprise, but alot of these stories are initially reported in a very quick, sketchy manner. The victims are tagged as civilians, and that's continued in all further reporting, with no more due diligence or investigation to clarify their status.

For example, in the Blackwater incident, two victims were interviewed in the hospital, and described what happened. One was a thirty-something male with a Cheshire cat grin. The other looked slightly older, and beefier. His interview ended with a direct vow of revenge against the perpetrators. The two were not bewildered, hapless pedestrians that inadvertently walked into a bad situation.

Is there a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) for such incidents? I would think the Special Forces soldiers were in a combat zone, conducting combat operations. If something like their case can be prosecuted, every military engagement of this war that resulted in any deaths can be prosecuted as illegal as well.

If that's the case, we stop fighting, come home, and leave the Iraqi and Afghan governments to Al Queda's tender mercies.

[Mr.Sparkle]

Hello Lands’nGrooves, thanks for reply. I think you're right - there isn't any decent evidence he was innocent yet, it looks like this general might not have gotten the memo from Rumsfeld.

I'm not trying to insult US soldiers, I think Iraq is a nightmare to work in and those people are doing the best in the circumstances.

Hey MajMT, the Brits can be extremely violent - but one of the main concerns expressed by Brit forces is the danger to "hearts and minds" by the way US forces operate wholesale. With that article the expressed difference is that the bombers were armed with belts and heading towards their proposed target. According to the sketchy information this man was unarmed and waiting to be arrested when he had his brains shot out.

Smith might not express the views of the military exactly but I think these "concerns" have been expressed mutltiple times by senior British commanders.

P.S. The Times is actually a centre right paper and probably the most credible newspaper in the world, all other newspapers with Times in the name have used the name of this paper!

[Lands’nGrooves]

Mr. Sparkle,

Regarding “According to the sketchy information this man was unarmed and waiting to be arrested when he had his brains shot out.” That’s not what war is about, I could be wrong, but I believe was to kill thy enemy. As Maj. MT has already said -

“Our job is to close with and kill or capture, not play patty-cake. The intent is still to win the game by making the other side either not want to fight or not put enough players on the field. Period. It is about that nasty business of killing, attrition, destruction, elimination, annihilation etc etc etc. And when dealing with the type of enemy we are dealing with here, there is even less need to "arrest" them.”

Sound good to me. Please remember this was a bad guy responsible for roadside bomb attacks, not shopping lifting the local 7/11.

[Lands’nGrooves]

...Ah, that would be shop lifting... Sorry.

[Just_A_Grunt]

For what it is worth, Bill O'Reilly did a segment on this last night on his show.

[Piper17]

I can't help thinking back to 1969 and the war in Vietnam when the Army charged Colonel Rheault, commander of 5th SF Group in country and others in the group with the killing of a Vietnamese double agent who worked for Det B-57. The CIA had proof that he was working for the North and wanted him killed. Special Forces carried it out. Gen. Abrams didn't care much for Special Forces and charged the colonel and others involved. The Army finally dropped the case when the CIA refused to cooperate with the prosecution. It finished the careers of the colonel and the others.

[MajMT]

Mr. Sparkle, we need to look at both instances in the proper context:
The SAS hit three targets that were confirmed to be part of a bombing plan...however the instant before the triggers were pulled, not one person actually saw the bombs as they were covered in layers of clothing. The individuals as part of the bombing plot, however, were identified, confirmed and hit: “Targets preparing to exit.” The snipers readied themselves. When all three bombers were in clear sight, the commander gave the order to fire. The sniper rifles were barely heard as the bombers jerked and hit the ground."

CPT Staffel and MSG Anderson did exactly the same thing. Nawab Buntangyar was a known HVT, and guidelines for dealing with such high-level enemy targets "...allowed them to kill Buntangyar, whom the American military had designated a terrorist cell leader, once they positively identified him."

Textbook target interdiction in both scenarios.

[Davod]

Instead of killing him they were supposed to walk in and arrest him. I thought the villages close to the border were more likely to be Taliban friendly.

Why would you expect these guys to arrest in such a situation?

[mindy1]

Just a civilian, but aren't soldiers allowed to kill the enemy? Particularly snipers? What are they supposed to do?

[The Wolf]

From his official file:

SOURCE OF COMMISSIONED SERVICE USMA

MILITARY SCHOOLS ATTENDED
Infantry Officer Basic Course
Armor Officer Advanced Course
United States Army Command and General Staff College
United States Army War College

EDUCATIONAL DEGREES
United States Military Academy – BS – No Major
University of South Carolina – ME – Education Administrative

Feb 77 to Feb 80 Rifle Platoon Leader, A Company, later Scout Platoon Leader, later Executive Officer, Combat Support Company, later Battalion Motor Officer, later Commander, A Company, 1st Battalion, 8th Infantry, 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Carson, Colorado

Mar 80 Oct 80 Student, Armor Officer Advanced Course, Fort Knox, Kentucky

Oct 80 Jun 82 S-5 (Civil-Military Operations), later S-1 (Personnel), 2d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Lewis, Washington

Jun 82 Apr 84 Commander, A Company, 2d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Lewis, Washington and OPERATION URGENT FURY, Grenada

May 84 May 85 Student, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina

Jun 85 Jul 88 Tactical Officer, United States Military Academy, West Point, New York

Jul 88 Jun 89 Student, United States Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

Jun 89 Jun 92 Liaison Officer, later S-3 (Operations), later Executive Officer, 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia and OPERATION JUST CAUSE, Panama

Jul 92 May 93 Senior Liaison Officer, later Interim Commander, 3d Ranger Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia

Jun 93 Jun 94 Commander, 1st Battalion, 501st Infantry (Airborne), 6th Infantry Division (Light), Fort Richardson, Alaska

Jul 94 Jul 96 Commander, 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia

Aug 96 Jun 97 Student, United States Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania

Jun 97 Dec 97 Chief, Joint Military Commission, Multi-National Division (North), OPERATION JOINT GUARD, Bosnia-Herzegovina

Mar 98 Mar 00 Commander, Separate Infantry Brigade, United States Army Southern European Task Force (Airborne), Vicenza, Italy

Apr 00 Jun 02 Director of Operations, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina and OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan

Jul 02 Sep 03 Deputy Commanding General (Operations), Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina and OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan and OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM, Iraq

Oct 03 Feb 05 Assistant Division Commander (Maneuver), 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Riley, Kansas to include duty as Special Operations Command Liaison to the Commander, Multi-National Force-Iraq/Commander, Joint Inter-Agency Task Force-Former Regime Element, OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM, Iraq

Mar 05 Jul 07 Commander, Special Operations Command Central, United States Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida to include duty as Commander, Joint Forces Special Operations Component Command, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan and OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM, Iraq

US DECORATIONS AND BADGES
Defense Superior Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
Legion of Merit (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Bronze Star Medal (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
Meritorious Service Medal (with 4 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Army Commendation Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
Army Achievement Medal
Combat Infantryman Badge
Expert Infantryman Badge
Master Parachutist Badge (with 2 Bronze Stars)
Ranger Tab

Not what I'd call an 'overly distinguished' career- compared to say, Petraeus, he's 'average joe'. For someone who's JSOC, not having an SF background is noteworthy. Lots of tactical time, but he, more than anyone, should know what those guys were facing, both with the ROE and the enemy...

as UJ says, something smells, and it ain't the fish...

-W

[Uncle Jimbo]

Actually Wolf,

I would credit his combat jumps into Grenada and Panama fairly highly on the experience chart, but you point out his lack of Special Forces experience. The Ranger Regiment is an amazing unit and full of the baddest people no one ever wants to tangle with, but it could hardly be more different than a Special Forces Group or deployed team.

No offense to any of the gazillions of great Ranger Batt officers, but of the three O's that I had major isues with in Group, two came from Ranger Batts. They both wanted discipline and respect in ways that just wasn't gonna happen, and they hated that.

Cordially,

Uncle J

Great quotes coming from the lawyer soon

[Uncle Jimbo]

I'll add no offense to the many excellent officers who came from the Rangers who I did work with in Group.

Just a couple of anal-retentive authority cases.

Cordially,

Uncle J

Heck I skipped Ranger school 'cuz I heard it was hard.

[Cannoneer No4]

Lands n Grooves

Marine Special Operations Company Expelled from Afghanistan

Haditha
MARSOC
Blackwater

non-kinetic kill through information operations

[Francis Marion]

It looks like this all boils down to the same problem SF has faced since it's inception. A commander jealous of the attention and independent nature of an SF team and completely ignorant of the capabilities of an A-team.

[MajMT]

Interesting take on what has happened to the SOF and SF communities over the years. The "Glamor Mission" and "Action Guy" aspects of SOF has come to the forefront mainly because it breeds good press. Nothing like success to puff up a budget. Not a bad thing if managed with some common sense. Unfortunately, it comes at the expense of the other SF specific missions that are long-term investments rather than quick-kill payoffs. The downside is that not only the public perception of SOF changes, but the leadership strata and cross-section morphs as well.
A good article in AFJ:More than door-kickers: Special ops forces are misused as man-hunters, critics say (By Sean D. Naylor)

"For the United States' special operations forces, these should be the salad days. In late 2001, a relatively small number of Army Special Forces (SF) A-teams worked with the CIA and U.S. airpower to topple Afghanistan's Taliban regime in what was universally seen as U.S. special operations forces' finest hour. They followed this triumph with a superlative performance during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, during which multiple joint special operations task forces managed to fix far larger Iraqi conventional formations, facilitating the rapid seizure of Baghdad." more...

I always argued that the biggest mistake SF made was becoming its own branch. It lost a good measure of cross-fertilization with both conventional and the other SOF communities, the "general population" airborne communities and become a self licking ice cream cone that left officer and senior NCO advancement sort of lacking. And UJ, I am not making this as a disparaging comment against SF.

[warvet48]

This ia just the thing Marcus Luttrell spoke so succinctly of. The hande are tied. Even when it's a good kill it's not. You run the risk of being brought up on charges and hung by the MSM, Our ROE sucks. How do you fight a war like this? I am flabbergasted for want of a better word. I hope the are acquitted and sent back out to their posts to carry on. if they can.

To those of you who think its part of some greater plan, well Ima gonna wait and see but not with baited breath.