PDA

View Full Version : Gen. McChrystal: We've Shot 'An Amazing Number Of People' Who Were Not Threats



SnakeBoy
04-02-2010, 11:19 PM
In a stark assessment of shootings of locals by US troops at checkpoints in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal said in little-noticed comments last month that during his time as commander there, "We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force."

The comments came during a virtual town hall with troops in Afghanistan after one asked McChrystal to comment on the "escalation of force" problem. The general responded that, in the nine months he had been in charge, none of the cases in which "we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it."

In many cases, he added, families were in the vehicles that were fired on.

Every two weeks, McChrystal participates in a virtual town hall in which soldiers in Afghanistan submit questions by chat that he answers over streaming audio.

TPMmuckraker has obtained a fuller transcript of the comments, which were first reported by the New York Times last week. The Times' Richard Oppel noted that since last summer U.S. and NATO troops killed 30 and wounded 80 Afghans in convoy and checkpoint shootings.

In response to a question about reducing such incidents, McChrystal told troops listening to the town hall:

"We really ask a lot of our young service people out on the checkpoints because there's danger, they're asked to make very rapid decisions in often very unclear situations. However, to my knowledge, in the nine-plus months I've been here, not a single case where we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it and, in many cases, had families in it."

He continued: "That doesn't mean I'm criticizing the people who are executing. I'm just giving you perspective. We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force."

Tadd Sholtis, a spokesman for McChrystal said in an email to TPMmuckraker that "the general was urging his forces to exercise courageous restraint (by suggesting that it is unlikely that erratic behavior at a checkpoint constitutes a threat) while also expressing sympathy for the confusing and threatening situations in which both soldiers and Afghans find themselves."

Sholtis added that McChrystal "works harder at reducing civilian casualties than any wartime commander in a generation."

Here is the full exchange, from the transcript provided by Sholtis:


Q: "On Escalation of force, have you considered engaging the local community on the issue? We could explain at the brigade/battalion level what behavior we find threatening, and how we are trained to react when we feel threatened. We could negotiate with the community leaders over mutually agreeable actions and reactions that are better understood by both and gives part ownership of the issue to the community and empowers them in line with our approach to reintegration."
GEN McChrystal: "That's a great point. I don't know if we have, but we certainly ought to be doing that. We have so many escalation of force issues, and someone gets hurt in the process, and we say, 'They didn't respond like they were supposed to.' Well, they may not have known how they were supposed to respond, so as they approached an area or checkpoint or whatever, they may have taken actions that seemed appropriate to them, and when a warning shot was fired they may have panicked. I think this is a great thing to do, to engage people and tell them the kind of behavior on their part that would lower the chance that they would run into problems.

"I do want to say something that everyone understands. We really ask a lot of our young service people out on the checkpoints because there's danger, they're asked to make very rapid decisions in often very unclear situations. However, to my knowledge, in the nine-plus months I've been here, not a single case where we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it and, in many cases, had families in it. That doesn't mean I'm criticizing the people who are executing. I'm just giving you perspective. We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force."
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/gen_mcchrystal_weve_shot_an_amazing_number_of_peop .php?ref=fpblg

Winehole23
04-03-2010, 02:28 AM
ISAF never had enough boots on the ground to provide the level of security needed to rebuild the country and the civil institutions, or win the hearts and minds for that matter.

But in fairness, short of reactivating the draft I don't really see how we could have.

boutons_deux
04-03-2010, 04:09 AM
I can't wait for Fox Repug News to grab this shitball and run with it. :lol

The military works for politicians who are owned by corps who own the media.

Stringer_Bell
04-03-2010, 05:42 AM
But in fairness, short of reactivating the draft I don't really see how we could have.

I think it was at least possible to secure the country and provide aid for rebuilding some of the destroyed infrastructure if the proper troop levels had been used from the start...whether it created long-term peace and the people didn't feel like electing religious zealots...well, that's not up to us to know but it's the risk you take when invading an entire country.

boutons_deux
04-03-2010, 08:51 AM
"secure the country"

it was secure before dubya destabilized it to grab the oil.

"destroyed infrastructure"

it wasn't destroyed until dubya invaded.

Iraq is a total waste of US lives and treasure, but at least the Saddam-excluded US/UK oilcos got to share some of the oil (along with Russia, France, and China).

Generations of American taxpayers got raped again by corporate greed.

Wild Cobra
04-03-2010, 10:48 AM
What are soldiers suppose to do when someone runs a check-point?

spursncowboys
04-03-2010, 11:24 AM
Normal check points have concrete barriers, with spray painted (in their language) to stop, or id yourself before moving forward or checkpoint ahead. There are more than one barrier. They curve around one area, and they get yelled at. The next area gets a weapon aimed at them followed by a warning shot. Then they reach a point of no return and a typical sop is to shoot until the vehicle stops.

Galileo
04-03-2010, 01:07 PM
bump!

word
04-03-2010, 03:37 PM
"secure the country"

it was secure before dubya destabilized it to grab the oil.



What oil ?

Winehole23
04-03-2010, 04:09 PM
Yeah. I can't believe he still says that. That thesis has been overrun somewhat by the facts. Russia, China, and Europe are getting the big development contracts, not us.

Stringer_Bell
04-03-2010, 04:41 PM
Yea, I'm not sure we've seen any benefit from oil at all. The insurgents are torching the fields right, so they make it harder to get to it...and even then, I'm not sure American companies are seeing any of it. Americans are just baby sitting it for other countries, right? Why aren't those countries nicer to us, we did them a HUGE favor even though they didn't do shit for that oil.

Kermit
04-04-2010, 11:56 PM
Our bad.

LnGrrrR
04-05-2010, 06:12 AM
What are soldiers suppose to do when someone runs a check-point?


Normal check points have concrete barriers, with spray painted (in their language) to stop, or id yourself before moving forward or checkpoint ahead. There are more than one barrier. They curve around one area, and they get yelled at. The next area gets a weapon aimed at them followed by a warning shot. Then they reach a point of no return and a typical sop is to shoot until the vehicle stops.

Is there any indication that the checkpoints were overrun?

If they were, then yes, it's understandable that they would use deadly force. However, I didn't see anything in the article stating that every instance of escalation of force was justified.

Not pointing blame at the troops; as Gen McChrystal said, working guard duty at the gate is pretty dangerous, and they've got to make split-second decisions in some cases about whether to fire or not. It could be that the signs aren't clear, or that they need to put pop up barriers further out. Tough to say without knowing the full situation.

It's yet another wrinkle in why it's so hard to occupy an area and be seen as the "good guys". For every 100 bad guys we might kill, the local populace will remember the 1 innocent person we shot.

TeyshaBlue
04-05-2010, 09:23 AM
What oil ?

boutons_crickets

spursncowboys
04-05-2010, 09:32 AM
Taliban and AQI have before sent people to try and breech check points to see if their are weak points.

ChumpDumper
04-05-2010, 01:44 PM
Taliban and AQI have before sent people to try and breech check points to see if their are weak points.How many?

LnGrrrR
04-06-2010, 02:49 AM
Taliban and AQI have before sent people to try and breech check points to see if their are weak points.

I don't doubt they have. That doesn't change the fact that the article doesn't say whether or not all the killings were justified, in the sense that everyone that was shot/killed was actively trying to breach the gate.

ChumpDumper
04-06-2010, 02:52 AM
They have also sent people to hijack planes in America. I guess it's ok if you get shot in an airport by TSA.