Re: Mark Bowden on Bin Laden Raid
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Eric Bryant</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CS1983</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did Mark Bowden just seriously write that the team murdered people?
He provides no caveat of them being armed when shot, though having not fired upon their demise. </div></div>
No, he did not make that claim, and he indeed provided the required caveat right in the passage that you quoted in your post:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It should be noted that having encountered that initial fire, <span style="font-weight: bold">the team members had to assume that the other occupants of the house were armed and likely to shoot at them</span>, even though this did not happen. </div></div>
The only second-guessing that Bowden is engaging in here happens to be in favor of the assault team.
</div></div>
Dude, I've worked with the lower end of the technological spectrum these men used in clearing... and done it myself. You can ascertain quickly, clear as daylight, if someone is armed or not. Assume my ass. I'd expect this assumption from dumb-shit privates, not men trained to that caliber.
Either they were armed, and legit targets, or not. Assuming? No way. They weren't shadows, they would have been visible plainly and clearly. The only possible recourse to deadly force is if, though unarmed, they made moves to slow down the optempo via hand-to-hand or other moves aimed at the assault team.
Mark Bowden essentially accused the assault team of murder. Plain and simple.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do they have to be armed to be legitimate targets? I don't want to derail this thread with what the op may consider a tangential discussion, but it seems to me it is irrelevant whether they were armed, because I don't believe that is the standard for shooting someone on the battlefield.
Combatants can be shot and threats can be shot, period. Your status on the field of battle is NOT established only by holding a weapon. Our job is to take the fight to the enemy...that fight by no means needs to be fair.
I always thought that the tragedy that followed the SEAL team described in "Lone Survivor" was obviously unfortunate but also unnecessary. They were revealed by some goatherders who in my opinion were threats if not combatants. I would not see anything wrong with engaging that threat. I am not criticizing their decision necessarily, as I believe each man ought to do what he thinks he can live with, I am only saying that in a military sense sometimes non-combatant threats are legitimate targets.</div></div>
This story draws parallels:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500257_162-3811634.html
Either it's murder or not. Where does the line get drawn?