U.S. Army discharging decorated Green Beret after fight with Afghan commander

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For me it would depend on if he was intervening in an active assault or was he reacting to something that had already occurred?

It makes no difference to me. He was the one there, the one experiencing everything around him, the one who knew what had happened, the one who had to deal with this distraught mother, and the one who knew the only way to deal with this horrible monster. He also has to live the rest of his life with all of the crap he has seen. I don't second guess him for a minute. We should be so fortunate to have men like him in our midst. If he wants to serve us, please let him!

Would you have the same opinion if it was a police officer that did the same thing?

Police officers are apprehending someone in the clear chain of command. This green beret was trying to impress on a partner that his actions were not acceptable . We know what's happened to the green beret. What do you suppose happened to the child rapist mother beater? Anything? Or is he still on our payroll with lots of others like him?

A green beret doesn't have a clear chain of command?

[Anonymous]

Of course he does. Nothing happens when you report this stuff. He was not bringing him into custody. They were having a conversation about how he shouldnt do that, the child rapist laughed and got pushed. Ooh, rough wild west justice there.

[Anonymous]

What do you think happened to the child rapist anyhow? Do you think big military which has come down with such alacrity on this green beret has pursued charges against the rapist, taken him into custody?

[Anonymous]

Not condoning the actions of the Afghan commander. But also not condoning the actions of the green beret. What do you think is still happening to the child and mother? Did the actions the green beret took help or harm the child/mother? Was there a way to get better results working within the system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not condoning the actions of the Afghan commander. But also not condoning the actions of the green beret. What do you think is still happening to the child and mother? Did the actions the green beret took help or harm the child/mother? Was there a way to get better results working within the system?

Seriously? No, of course not. The Afghan police officer was the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not condoning the actions of the Afghan commander. But also not condoning the actions of the green beret. What do you think is still happening to the child and mother? Did the actions the green beret took help or harm the child/mother? Was there a way to get better results working within the system?

Seriously? No, of course not. The Afghan police officer was the system.

So he reported to no one? He was/is the supreme ruler?

[Anonymous]

They operate in outposts and make on the ground decisions. You are being purposefully obtuse. I'm sure whisking the green beret away and punishing HIM ( and thereby giving the green light to this behavior) Did not help the boy, or other future boys in his situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They operate in outposts and make on the ground decisions. You are being purposefully obtuse. I'm sure whisking the green beret away and punishing HIM ( and thereby giving the green light to this behavior) Did not help the boy, or other future boys in his situation.

I've no idea how the Afghan system works. But I'm guessing the green beret could of done the same thing the Afghan commander did to him...report him to his superiors. The only "real" results has to come from within the Afghan system. To think otherwise is obtuse imo.

[Anonymous]

I dont think anyone here is talking about real results except you. Real results would have been unlikely I'm guessing - since we are turning a blind eye to this practice across Afghanistan. They are talking about FIRING being an outside disciplinary measure in this situation.

[Anonymous]

By the way it's could've ( the contraction of could have ) not could of. I am not grammar police but that's a common mistake that I would hate for you to put in a work email - lest you get disproportionately disciplined like the gentleman under question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By the way it's could've ( the contraction of could have ) not could of. I am not grammar police but that's a common mistake that I would hate for you to put in a work email - lest you get disproportionately disciplined like the gentleman under question.

I guess it all depends on what the army regulations and disciplinary practices are for assaulting someone.

[Anonymous]

He's not being fired because of his fight inAfghanistan. The fight is a black mark on his record. The army is reducing its number of troops, and any with black marks are the first to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He's not being fired because of his fight inAfghanistan. The fight is a black mark on his record. The army is reducing its number of troops, and any with black marks are the first to go.

... Which is really, really dumb. Here we have a decorated member of the armed services who wants to continue to serve. Their arbitrary means of identifying who needs to go is ridiculous. Plus, I believe that reducing the ranks now is insanity. There are other ways to cut costs. Getting rid of personnel - especially highly qualified ones - is not the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... Which is really, really dumb. Here we have a decorated member of the armed services who wants to continue to serve. Their arbitrary means of identifying who needs to go is ridiculous. Plus, I believe that reducing the ranks now is insanity. There are other ways to cut costs. Getting rid of personnel - especially highly qualified ones - is not the answer.

It's like any business, you get rid of higher paid personnel and replace them with new lower paid recruits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's not being fired because of his fight inAfghanistan. The fight is a black mark on his record. The army is reducing its number of troops, and any with black marks are the first to go.

... Which is really, really dumb. Here we have a decorated member of the armed services who wants to continue to serve. Their arbitrary means of identifying who needs to go is ridiculous. Plus, I believe that reducing the ranks now is insanity. There are other ways to cut costs. Getting rid of personnel - especially highly qualified ones - is not the answer.

The problem is there are many, many, many highly qualified and decorated ones. We've been at war for 14 years.
I agree with the drawdown.