Pamela Geller: Military jails hero – but he deserves a parade

If I am not mistaken Orwell said:

War is peace, peace is war
liberty is slavery, slavery is peace

In our times, he could have added:

victim is guilty, guilty is victim
hero is enemy, enemy is hero

welcome to "1984"!

And there is much gnashing of teeth and beating of breasts over the rising level of military suicides. There of course, is never a connection made between a Commander in Chief that refuses to:
A. Admit the enemy is the enemy
B. Allow the military or anyone else to name the enemy
C. Permit the troops to actually perform their jobs without fear of persecution from within

As a veteran, I am outraged by this entire charade. Don't get me started on Fort Hood. A soldier in combat looks to protect the other members of his unit, strategy be damned. Prosecuting leaders (warriors, of whom we have insufficient numbers) that lead from the front and actively seek to save their troop's lives is having repercussions throughout the military.

All this in an environment where POTUS gets credit for the Osama raid and drone strikes, as if he had actually exercised leadership. And to top it off, Soros now owns the company that will count many of the votes in November. We are so screwed.

It's getting increasingly diffcult trying to contain ones anger, when reading this and similar reports that denegrates and dishonors our Military. The accompanying frustration becomes even more agonizing every time our Military leaders do or say nothing. It started when we came home from Viet Nam and has continued with intensity, ever since.

When reading a head line that reports 'a serviceman in Louisiana, who went into a store owned by antagonist muslims, refusing to serve "HIS KIND", invokes an unappeasing anger that can't be imagined unless you've put your life on the line and seeing your fellow service men bleed and die in combat.

This abberation of an American president who is systematically deviding this country for the express purpose of dismanteling our capitalist system and replacing it with socialism, must be removed from office not in November, but yesterday !

See also http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2167103/UK-troops-told-Dont-shoot-unless-shot--Helmand-casualties-soar.html about the increasing numbers of good soldiers killed by the rules of engagement.

This is a bizarre variation of the Soviet practice in WW2 of using "blocking units", which were special KGB forces placed behind Soviet lines with orders to kill any soldiers they caught retreating from the Germans. The Soviet combat troops had the choice of being killed by the Germans if they stood their ground or being killed by the KGB if they retreated. Only a lucky few survived by being captured by the Germans.
At least in the Soviet case, the troops were being forced to fight. Now in the American case, troops are coerced into not fighting: they have the choice of being killed by the enemy or being jailed by their own side if they fight back.

Ebonystone,

Your profound observation is nothing less the brilliant. It epitomizes the dillamatic mindset of todays figting servicemen. I'm glad you shared it and commend you for it.

What a dreadful, demoralising message this sends to our bravest and best! Enemies abroad and enemies at home! It's like 'Nam again! Wherever the Left is, there is cowardice and betrayal! The current Administration does not deserve these brave soldiers!
"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark," ..

The whole affair reminds me of the vastly-underrated Australian movie, "Breaker Morant".

A small team of nonconformist, but highly-effective British soldiers during the Boer War were court-martialed and executed by the British high command using deliberately falsified evidence.

The purpose of the executions were to provide the German government just enough of a face-saving show, to prevent them from intervening against the British.

Although the British command was unprincipled, they at least were aware of the injustice of what they were doing, which seems to be far more than our present bureaucratized military command.

In fact, one cannot say the British were entirely evil, as they made the choice that it was better to sacrifice 3 mostly-innocent soldiers than to endure the additional deaths of possibly tens of thousands of British soldiers resulting from a major escalation of the Boer War.

What was the calculus made by the US government in jailing its own highly-effective soldier? A hope that the Taliban will suffer a change of heart? A hope that Pakistan will stop giving covert aid to Islamic fighters killing US troops? A hope that the court-martialing of a US soldier on trumped-up grounds will motivate Afghan tribesmen begin actually supporting the US occupation?

I fear that the US government was engaged more in political than military calculations when they made the decision to prosecute one of its own warriors.

I don't get it. I googled this case and found that the accusation was that Lt. Behenna shot an unarmed prisoner. I don't know of any war where such conduct would be regarded as heroic. These days it's regarded as criminal whether authorized or not, and this wasn't even authorized. I'd be happy to see an elaboration which exculpates Lt. Behenna, but otherwise this seems another of those occasional unfortunate ignore-the-facts-and-blame-the-Muslim stories occasionally found on this site, e.g. blame the Bosniaks for treacherously getting in the way of innocent Serb bullets.

Okay, you may now start the predictable mindless ravings that I'm a pro-Jihad troll. I like Jihad Watch (and have contributed my mite financially) but have never found any space for reasonable disagreement with other participants.

I repeat:

I mean it. I think everybody should read Vince Flynns "Term Limits. Pass it on to their kids and encourage them to join the military.....Special Forces.

Read this book and suggest it to somebody else or give it as a gift. The Government has declared war on its own people. If you don't believe that than you are fatally ill-informed.

Read "Plunder" by Greenhut and "Taken Into Custody" by Baskerville. I keep suggestion that people at least go to Amazon and read the Introduction to Baskervilles book and "The War Against Boys" by Sommers.

The lietenant killed the Al-Qaida operative in self defence while he was being transported back to his family. You may choose not to beleive the Lietenant's defence, however what is a fact is that this Al-Qaida enemy combatant, killed two American soldiers in the Luitenants squad two weeks earlier.

The Al-Qaida enemy operative's punishment ? He gets to go home to rest up to probably kill again. I agree that what the leitenant did, was not heroic, however, it was justice he is now paying a price for. I would have killed him myself.

Problem with the ' informed disagreement' to which you refer makes the fatal assumption that you will have the information one requires in order to arrive at an informed conclusion. We are fed a constant stream of bs from media in any form you care to mention.Of course some are better than others at allowing for information to be shared without reservation or editorial adaptation prior to release of that information.

Okay, here's the USA Today (if you prefer, MSM) account:

"CAMP SPEICHER, Iraq — A U.S. soldier accused in the killing of an Iraqi detainee kept the man blindfolded and bound in the back of an armored vehicle for more than two hours before taking him into the desert where he was slain, a comrade testified on Monday.

"Military prosecutors have accused 1st Lt. Michael C. Behenna of stripping the detainee naked, shooting him in the head and chest and then watching as another soldier set fire to the body with an incendiary grenade. He also allegedly tried to cover up the killing."

Doesn't exactly look like the prisoner was being taken home to his family, nor that he was slain in self-defense.

According to the account, defense attorneys' main contention is to the issue of premeditation, not to some sort of self-defense. Now USA Today could be lying but frankly I find the self-defense account more suspect. What is the source for this? I'll be happy to eat my words if any reliable source can be shown, something beyond internet rumors.

No one knows what one will do in a combat setting. Emotional mindsets like fear, anger, stress and revenge play an important role in how one will ultimately act, when confronted with the same circumstance as that of Lietenant Behenna.

As crass as it may be, I can assure you that, few would have followed orders and taken Ali Mansur home.
Unfortunately being noble was not one of Lietenant Behanna's attributes, nor would it have been mine.

Just wanted to add that I have nothing against taking conditions, state of mind and so forth into account at Lt. Behenna's sentencing. All I'm saying is that with the facts as reported by [i]USA Today[/i] (which is indeed MSM but is not exactly notoriously leftist or anti-military), it is ridiculous to call him a hero, call for a parade in his honor, or expect that his action would not result in his arrest.

Pamela Gellar's ideas about this, endorsed by Robert Spencer, are nuts. These are both good people, but on this subject they seem to have lost it completely.

There is nothing happening here which is out of the ordinary. American soldiers were supposed to deliver Nazi war criminals to their superior officers intact. Any soldier, Jewish or Gentile, who had taken early action on Goering or Himmler would certainly have been prosecuted and would have drawn shame on the U.S. military. No matter the crimes of which Behenna's victim was guilty, Behenna (apparently) neglected his duty and should undergo some punishment to deter others from similar conduct.

Geez, is no one going to call me a jihad-loving schmuck? Maybe the participants in these forums have changed for the better.