Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
For example, I recall a story in Christine Blatchford's "Fifteen Days" which recounted Canadian protocol regarding convoy security. Basically, any cars were not allowed to enter a 100 m radius around the convoy because in the past, Taliban had used cars as suicide projectiles to damage convoys and kill/maim ISAF soldiers.
A Canadian soldier was manning the gun turret on his LAV III when he saw a car pull from a crowded marketplace and accelerate towards the convoy, he fired a warning shot across its path but it didn't deter the car. He fired the LAV's 25mm gun into the car, the Taliban driver self-detonated the car bomb, missing the convoy but killing and wounding scores of Afghan civilians.
On paper, this might look like the coalition was responsible for destroying Afghan property and killing innocent civilians. But the truth is much more complicated.
|
I agree. And from that example, people such as myself think that the responsibility put on that soldier is enormous to the extent where he's given an impossible mission. How can anyone even reasonably sit there stationary on a turret watching cars with civilians drive around while he tries to figure out which one is harboring the "terrorist." It follows that *if* we're going to put an almost insurmountable burden on our soldiers, then the cause for which they are there has to be extremely clear. Furthermore, the desired outcome has to be well articulated and of the utmost importance.
For myself, I'm unclear on the exact cause, and given the actions that the "strategy" is asking of these soldiers, it's not clear to me that the most reasonable outcome is worth the risk. These documents simply help me to form a thought process, to the best of my ability*.
* Inherent in this is that I do *not* think the release of these old items puts the current soldiers in any more risk than they're currently in.