"The Taliban Don't Wave" - Robert Semrau

Status
Not open for further replies.
Travis Bickle said:
This scenario is simply a magnifier of all that is wrong with the way we fight "wars" as "civilized" nations today.
How can you effectively fight and win a war against savage fanatics using guerrila tactics on their own turf while handicapped with mountains of confusing ROE's, numerous overlapping Convention regulations etc?
NATO cannot fight a true war anymore. We've signed every single international and UN tree hugging treaty that's ever been drafted.
We're handicapped by our own politicians and leaders attempts to make war kind, humane, mass media friendly and Politically Correct. Sadly those concerns take priority far and above the safety and effectiveness of our own soldiers to kill the enemy as far as our Commanders are concerned today. Semrau is proof.
War is war. You go to war to completely destroy the enemy who is posing a threat to you and all your friends because there is no longer place for negotiation and they will not back down.
That's the point of war isn't it? True war anyways. Destroy the enemy right?
I don't know what the f**k we did in Afghanistan but a lot of the times it seemed like the main objective was drifting pretty far away from that......
Click to expand...

Wrong at so many levels. First of all, this is not an issue for the military, zero issue. It seems rather emotional for some mostly due to a complete lack of understand about combat. The guys with multiple tours here on the board have no issues with the military ethos on how we fight.

Please explain to me how killing enemy wounded, and executing prisoners will effect the campaign? Or is your idea to be extra evil?

Semrau is proof that the system works. Trust me, we killed plenty of enemy during our time in Afghanistan. Read up on some of the battles. ROE, regulations and orders guide the soldiers. Obedience to orders is critical to function in combat.

At the end of the day, we are not ISIS nor Nazis. We don't kill prisoners, we don't kill the wounded.

Save the emotion for someplace else.
 
Canadian Sig said:
Well Trav. To be honest, I don't think we helped ourselves with large FOBs. I think having a few large FOBs where we could have Heliborne QRF makes sense but that the main focus should have been better spent on VSOs and an ALP program. Other than a few big fights, Medusa, Argandahb Battle etc we didn't find ourselves in set piece battles with large numbers of Talibs. Besides, SF have proven time and again that a small unit, well armed and in a good position with an indig force can fukk up a much larger force with ease.....but Big Green Army Generals don't like to hear that. They like battle groups and Bdes to play with. Large maneuver elements look cooler on the C2 maps...lol
Click to expand...

To be fair, we essentially doubled our SOF capability as a direct lesson from Afghanistan and unconventional warfare...
 
Canadian Sig said:
Well Trav. To be honest, I don't think we helped ourselves with large FOBs. I think having a few large FOBs where we could have Heliborne QRF makes sense but that the main focus should have been better spent on VSOs and an ALP program. Other than a few big fights, Medusa, Argandahb Battle etc we didn't find ourselves in set piece battles with large numbers of Talibs. Besides, SF have proven time and again that a small unit, well armed and in a good position with an indig force can fukk up a much larger force with ease.....but Big Green Army Generals don't like to hear that. They like battle groups and Bdes to play with. Large maneuver elements look cooler on the C2 maps...lol
Click to expand...

lol Aye, I saw it with my own eyes :(

There is some history being published now about the very early days and operations of Afghanistan before it became a NATO mission. US and NATO Allied SOF were sweeping house. Not very much is available still but you can check out the Airlift of Evil that ended the "grey-ish" operations going on at the time right before NATO took over officially.
 
Travis Bickle said:
lol Aye, I saw it with my own eyes :(

There is some history being published now about the very early days and operations of Afghanistan before it became a NATO mission. US and NATO Allied SOF were sweeping house. Not very much is available still but you can check out the Airlift of Evil that ended the "grey-ish" operations going on at the time right before NATO took over officially.
Click to expand...

Given I was there with the US Army at the time and deployed to Kandahar to relieve the Marines. The fundamental lesson learned is conventional forces must be available to exploit the successes of SOF. It was why two US Brigade and elements of a MEU were committed before Christmas 2001.
 
Governments and armed forces are subject to international conventions as was way of "keeping war civilized". The constraints placed on you are also what you should expect from the enemy. Unfortunately sometimes you come up against an enemy who doesn't respect the laws of armed conflict but that doesn't give you as a trained professional the right to make up the rules in return. You loose the moral high ground and risk the support of the global community for your cause.

A lot of guys ##### that rules are made up to protect the high ups, and not just in the military. However, if something happens and you adhered to directions, you're safe. Supervisors may have to deal with backlash but you as an individual should be protected.
 
Morpheus32 said:
Wrong at so many levels. First of all, this is not an issue for the military, zero issue. It seems rather emotional for some mostly due to a complete lack of understand about combat. The guys with multiple tours here on the board have no issues with the military ethos on how we fight.

Please explain to me how killing enemy wounded, and executing prisoners will effect the campaign? Or is your idea to be extra evil?

Semrau is proof that the system works. Trust me, we killed plenty of enemy during our time in Afghanistan. Read up on some of the battles. ROE, regulations and orders guide the soldiers. Obedience to orders is critical to function in combat.

At the end of the day, we are not ISIS nor Nazis. We don't kill prisoners, we don't kill the wounded.

Save the emotion for someplace else.
Click to expand...

No emotion at all.
That's just my personal opinion on it.
Also, lets talk about throwing emotion around here; since you want to compare things evenly about wars being fought as wars. You think it was just the Nazis that executed POWs and the wounded in WW2? Because us Allies were just angels over there right? As per revisionist history and Saving Private Ryan I suppose....

I don't think I'm that far off. So we'll disagree from here for sure Sir.
Cheers!
 
Last edited:
"Sharps '63

Lemme see, there was, uh, ,uh, c'mon, help me out here .... there had to be ONE case where a conventional army won against a Taliban/ISIS type guerilla war ....."

dinsdale said:
About as good as it gets is Great Britain:

Greek Civil War with Others
Malayan Emergency
Mau Mau uprising in Kenya
Aden Emergency
Cyprus
Click to expand...

Those wars were won with extrodinarily intensive invisible campaigns by SOF and internal security intelligence programs. The Mau Mau for example could never be found or defeated by conventional troops. The big green army isn't agile enough as it is constituted. Instead, the Mau Mau criminals/terrorists/freedome fighters were rolled up by unconventional infiltration with turned terrorists pretending to befriend the Mau Mau and get them to either surrender or to come out and fight. The campaigns on the Arabian Peninsula and in Malaysia had significant SAS Regiment investments to outfight the bad guys.
 
Morpheus32 said:
No worries.

But you think we should kill prisoners and the wounded? As a country and military deem that acceptable conduct?
Click to expand...

Just because the enemy was wounded in that scenario, he's still the enemy. He would pull the trigger on them in half a second if he still had the strength.
I can't support the idea of risking our own soldiers lives to pacify strange compassionate regulations cooked up and enforced by fat suit wearing politicians that make everyone feel good about the fact that we went to war to kill the enemy (the Taliban). It doesn't make sense to me.
If that makes me crazy, or "evil" then I'll have to wear it. It's just my private opinion.
I guess I'm alone on that one.
 
Travis Bickle said:
Just because the enemy was wounded in that scenario, he's still the enemy. He would pull the trigger on them in half a second if he still had the strength.
I can't support the idea of risking our own soldiers lives to pacify strange compassionate regulations cooked up and enforced by fat suit wearing politicians that make everyone feel good about the fact that we went to war to kill the enemy (the Taliban). It doesn't make sense to me.
If that makes me crazy, or "evil" then I'll have to wear it. It's just my private opinion.
I guess I'm alone on that one.
Click to expand...

He had no weapon in his hand. I know people on that patrol, in that TIC. He had been disarmed. There was no trigger to pull. This is not a case of cresting a hill and putting a round into an enemy as you advance past him so that he wont shot you in the back while you keep up with the pace of battle. This was a fighter who was hors du combat and had been disarmed.
 
Every servicemember is required to behave in accordance with the highest expectations of the country. The CF forgot how to do that along the way, and it has taken scandals, murders and major crises to remember what it means to wear the uniform with CANADA on the shoulder. Rogues and rebels are not tolerated in the military, but some people seem to believe that the rules don't apply to them. Those people get disciplined or weeded out. Those who stay learn that everything they do has consequences. In fact, it is the last assessment factor on the annual performance review. Yeah, it is taken seriously.

"Statement of Defence Ethics

The Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) have a special responsibility for the defence of Canada, its people and its parliamentary democracy. Discharging this responsibility requires, among other things, a commitment by DND and its employees, and the CAF and its members, to apply the highest ethical standards in all decisions and actions, whether at home or abroad.

Ethical Principles and Expected Behaviours
1. Respect the Dignity of All Persons
2. Serve Canada before Self
3. Obey and Support Lawful Authority

Specific Values and Expected Behaviours
1. Integrity
2. Loyalty
3. Courage
4. Stewardship
5. Excellence"

source - http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about/statement-of-defence-ethics.page
 
Travis Bickle said:
Just because the enemy was wounded in that scenario, he's still the enemy. He would pull the trigger on them in half a second if he still had the strength.
I can't support the idea of risking our own soldiers lives to pacify strange compassionate regulations cooked up and enforced by fat suit wearing politicians that make everyone feel good about the fact that we went to war to kill the enemy (the Taliban). It doesn't make sense to me.
If that makes me crazy, or "evil" then I'll have to wear it. It's just my private opinion.
I guess I'm alone on that one.
Click to expand...

Since someone mentioned Lew MacKenzie, read his book Peacekeeper to understand how badly the UN handles warfare. Read "The Lion, the Fox & the Eagle: A Story of Generals and Justice in Rwanda and Yugoslavia" By Carol Off, on Dallaire, Arbour and MacKenzie to get a sense of the f'ed up nuances of their situations. Then find Rick Hillier's books to see what a difference decades of peacekeeping did to the army, and what he did (maybe not singlehandedly) to correct that. I am glad I never wore a blue beret and I have a lot of contempt for the Peacekeeping Service Medal some "fat suit wearing politician" gave me. (And no I cannot not wear it, it is part of my uniform.)
 
Last edited:
I sure am glad that I didn't serve with or under some of the by the book 'befehl is befehl' apologists posting on this issue. There is a price to be paid for doing the 'right thing' in the face of orders, and Semrau paid that price. Good for him.

Although not on the same scale as the Semrau incident, here's an example of what I mean.

The NCO I/C of my Signals line det (4 CMBG) got direct orders from a Captain to lay the alternate lines to our Brigade HQ in the ditch on the opposite side of the road. Why? To expedite the process in order to impress the visiting OIC Royal Signals BAOR, the youngest Brigadier in the British Army at the time. This was contrary to SOP as an AFV crossing the road would take out both sets of cables, so we always used an alternate route.

After we were dismissed, I asked him what we were going to do. Answer - "Fukk him. We go by SOP and use the route we recce'd for the alternate circuits". I pointed out that we had received a direct order. Response - "If he charges me, I stand in front of the CO and tell him why I did it. End of story."

He was not charged, but a promotion in the offing was put on hold indefinitely. He shrugged it off. No biggie, but a gutsy decision for a career soldier to make in a peace time army. If it had gotten ugly over there at that time, this is a man I wanted to serve with.

Suffice it to say that we have differing points of view on this.
 
Sharps '63 said:
I sure am glad that I didn't serve with or under some of the by the book 'befehl is befehl' apologists posting on this issue. There is a price to be paid for doing the 'right thing' in the face of orders, and Semrau paid that price. Good for him.

Although not on the same scale as the Semrau incident, here's an example of what I mean.

The NCO I/C of my Signals line det (4 CMBG) got direct orders from a Captain to lay the alternate lines to our Brigade HQ in the ditch on the opposite side of the road. Why? To expedite the process in order to impress the visiting OIC Royal Signals BAOR, the youngest Brigadier in the British Army at the time. This was contrary to SOP as an AFV crossing the road would take out both sets of cables, so we always used an alternate route.

After we were dismissed, I asked him what we were going to do. Answer - "Fukk him. We go by SOP and use the route we recce'd for the alternate circuits". I pointed out that we had received a direct order. Response - "If he charges me, I stand in front of the CO and tell him why I did it. End of story."

He was not charged, but a promotion in the offing was put on hold indefinitely. He shrugged it off. No biggie, but a gutsy decision for a career soldier to make in a peace time army. If it had gotten ugly over there at that time, this is a man I wanted to serve with.

Suffice it to say that we have differing points of view on this.
Click to expand...

So you see this situation on par with executing a prisoner?
 
woodchopper said:
I've read the entire thread and don't see how this is a 'milsurp' topic


perhaps this should be in the movies and music forum.
Click to expand...

I once saw a guy with this in Afghanistan:

Taliban-weapons-enfield.jpg

Rather we close it. I really don't want to spend the week dealing with this thread. I think the point has been made...

Back to work everyone!
 

Attachments

  • Taliban-weapons-enfield.jpg
    Taliban-weapons-enfield.jpg
    91.3 KB · Views: 185
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom