Topic: Rewarding "Courageous Restraint"=Way to Cut Civ Cas?

[milnews.ca]

Uh, am I out of whack here, but how many soldiers would hold fire or not do something just because they might get a gong?  You think they might just be, I don't know, following the rules?  Or am I missing something in the concept?

This from the Associated Press:

NATO commanders are weighing a new way to reduce civilian casualties in Afghanistan: recognizing soldiers for "courageous restraint" if they avoid using force that could endanger innocent lives.

The concept comes as the coalition continues to struggle with the problem of civilian casualties despite repeated warnings from the top NATO commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, that the war effort hinges on the ability to protect the population and win support away from the Taliban.

Those who back the idea hope it will provide soldiers with another incentive to think twice before calling in an airstrike or firing at an approaching vehicle if civilians could be at risk.

Most military awards in the past have been given for things like soldiers taking out a machine gun nest or saving their buddies in a firefight, said Command Sgt. Maj. Michael Hall, the senior NATO enlisted man in Afghanistan.

"We are now considering how we look at awards differently," he said.

British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, the NATO commander of troops in southern Afghanistan, proposed the idea of awarding soldiers for "courageous restraint" during a visit by Hall to Kandahar Airfield in mid April. McChrystal is now reviewing the proposal to determine how it could be implemented, Hall said ....

[Journeyman]

...recognizing soldiers if they avoid using force...

Finally, some recognition for the French and Germans up in RC-North.   

[milnews.ca]

Finally, some recognition for the French and Germans up in RC-North.   

Tough crowd 

[GAP]

It's a good thing we are pulling out in 2011.....next will be a medal for going potty in the correct place...

[Macey]

Finally, some recognition for the French and Germans up in RC-North.   

You owe me a new computer screen and Timmies.

[Simian Turner]

So, there is a role for conscientious objectors in the military and on ops!  Let's not forget the Dutch and Romainans in RC(S).

[MCG]

While this might seem easy to poke fun at, there are plenty of examples from within our own military across various missions where soldiers have achieved good to great things through the courage to leave them selves open while exercising restraint and still not backing down.  I don't see anything wrong with recognizing this bravery in the same way we recognize bravery when bullets are flying.

[Jim Seggie]

Question is:

Is this "policy" going to put OUR soldiers lives at risk? While I do agree with MCG and our troops have exercised restraint despite being in danger, will some make the wrong decision, show that restraint, and end up dead because of it?
While I agree with this in principle, let us not forget that there are times when our troops will have to pull the trigger.

And this came from the leadership that closed various amenities on KAF because "we are at war" and these amenities caused the troops to lose focus...

[Simian Turner]

While this might seem easy to poke fun at, there are plenty of examples from within our own military across various missions where soldiers have achieved good to great things through the courage to leave them selves open while exercising restraint and still not backing down.  I don't see anything wrong with recognizing this bravery in the same way we recognize bravery when bullets are flying.

And Rwanda is not one of them!  I agree with MAS, this Comd is becoming increasingly politically-correct.  How about punishing those who use excessive or inappropriate force, then they might create the balance necessary to minimize casualties.

[Petamocto]

I agree that there needs to be more punishment when we get it wrong and kill innocent people than rewarding when we don't.

The Oka-type scenario is what something like a Medal of Bravery would be applicable for.

There are all sorts of times when lethal force is 100% justified, but if someone says "launch a Hellfire" at a group of people who end up to have not really been that much of a threat, there needs to be more than "Well I was there and nobody can second guess me because you don't understand what it was like".

Rewarding restraint is a very dangerous slope.  Without knowing the full intent, the first situation that comes to mind is the vehicle speeding toward the convoy and ignoring the entire escalation of force spectrum to stop.  Now that soldier is potentially letting the car to within X metres instead of X+50 metres.

[Jim Seggie]

le
Rewarding restraint is a very dangerous slope.  Without knowing the full intent, the first situation that comes to mind is the vehicle speeding toward the convoy and ignoring the entire escalation of force spectrum to stop.  Now that soldier is potentially letting the car to within X metres instead of X+50 metres.

I concur.

While the motive is noble, it may put our troops lives at risk.

[MCG]

... there are plenty of examples from within our own military across various missions where soldiers have achieved good to great things through the courage to leave them selves open while exercising restraint and still not backing down. 

And Rwanda is not one of them!

No.  Rwanda was not.  But that is because Rwanda was not a capable force showing restraint - Rwanda was an non-capable force showing impotence.

I am somewhat perplexed by the apparent wisdom of some that offering positive recognition for restraint will lead to more avoidable deaths and that we should instead institute greater punishment.  Nobody is going to get themselves killed in the hopes of collecting a medal for courageous restraint, but guys will hesitate if we establish cause to fear reprisals.

Also remember that we are soldiers.  That does not mean we accept risk and casualties to kill the enemy – it means we accept risk and casualties to accomplish the mission.  If greater restraint sees casualties incurred at an increased rate but an earlier achievement of the mission, then that is the cost of business – and in the long run, the earlier victory will mean fewer casualties to the coalition and non-combatants.

[Simian Turner]

Also remember that we are soldiers.  That does not mean we accept risk and casualties to kill the enemy – it means we accept risk and casualties to accomplish the mission.  If greater restraint sees casualties incurred at an increased rate but an earlier achievement of the mission, then that is the cost of business – and in the long run, the earlier victory will mean fewer casualties to the coalition and non-combatants.

Yes indeed we are soldiers, that is not hard to forget, but what is the 'victory' you are expecting in Afghanistan?  So taking more early casualties to accomplish the mission is acceptable to you - I don't think our superiors, government or public would agree.  It would seem we are taking more casualties now than we were 9 years ago, so...is victory close at hand and our mission is near complete?

[MCG]

So taking more early casualties to accomplish the mission is acceptable to you - I don't think our superiors, government or public would agree

That is not what I said.  We need to be ready to accept a higher rate of casualties for tactics that will end the war quicker – we will then see fewer aggregate casualties.

It would seem we are taking more casualties now than we were 9 years ago, so...is victory close at hand and our mission is near complete?

Don't distorte what I've said & attack strawmen because they are easier than the argument I have actually made.  I did means the end of the war is near. 
I am saying that we should not prolong the war for the sake of risk aversion (casualty aversion).

It is not about taking more casualties to end the mission.  It is about not shying from effective tactics even if those tactics result in higher short term losses.

Our Counter insurgency doctrine tells us that that we will generate more insurgents every time we kill the wrong people.  It tells us that we win by stealing the insurgents moral support base.  It tells us we need to exercise restraint in order to win. 

We should not be punishing soldiers who could have exercised more restraint – but we should positively recognize those who do.  We should only punish recklessness – either reckless use of force or reckless restraint –  and violations of RoE & LoAC.

[Jim Seggie]

We should not be punishing soldiers who could have exercised more restraint – but we should positively recognize those who do.  We should only punish recklessness – either reckless use of force or reckless restraint –  and violations of RoE & LoAC.

This I can wrap my brain around. Thank you for clarifying that.

[Greymatters]

Our Counter insurgency doctrine tells us that that we will generate more insurgents every time we kill the wrong people.  It tells us that we win by stealing the insurgents moral support base.  It tells us we need to exercise restraint in order to win.   

I dont mean to nitpick, but this concept has been around a long time, and was common knowledge long before it got published in the COIN manual.  It also covers the concepts of using appropriate levels of force during a situation and at the right time, i.e. considering whether operational goals will significantly interfere with strategic or political goals.   

[Simian Turner]

That is not what I said.  We need to be ready to accept a higher rate of casualties for tactics that will end the war quicker – we will then see fewer aggregate casualties.
Don't distorte what I've said & attack strawmen because they are easier than the argument I have actually made.  I did means the end of the war is near. 
I am saying that we should not prolong the war for the sake of risk aversion (casualty aversion).

It is not about taking more casualties to end the mission.  It is about not shying from effective tactics even if those tactics result in higher short term losses.

I apologize if I distorted your ideas, it is often hard to interpret the written word because we can't hear the author's intra-cranial thought process.  I agree that the end of our participation in the war is near - victory is not.  Unfortunately in counter-insurgency operations we are not ready to accept the larger number of early casualties because it is impossible to foresee that there will be a decrease later in the execution of the mission.  The only way we have found to predict the future in operations is by 'wargaming' and unfortunately the actual results (casualties and victory) are not always what we were able to predict.   Many people criticized MGen Leslie in 2005 when indicated that Afghanistan would be a 20-year venture because, "every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you’re creating 15 more who will come after you.”

Ref for quote, http://briarpatchmagazine.com/detestable-murderers-and-scumbags-making-sense-of-canadas-deployment-in-afghanistan/comment-page-1/

Regret numerous edits - I wanted to get my quote relevant and correct.

[bdave]

I was given a book by a LT called "The Warrior's Way: A treatise on Military Ethics" by Richard A. Gabriel.
I'm sure some of you have read it. It deals with the different ethical dilemmas faced by soldiers.
It's a good read.

In one of the chapters, it mentions how a PC military is a very negative thing.

In one of the chapters he quotes General Walter Kerwin:

"We face a dilemma that armies have always faced within a democratic society. The values necessary to defend that society are often at odds with the values of the society itself. To be an effective servant of the people the army must concentrate not on values of our liberal society, but on hard values of the battlefield...We must recognize that this military community differs from the civilian community from which it springs. The civilian community exists to promote the quality of life; the military community exists to fight and, if need be, to die in defense of that quality of life. We must not apologize for these differences. The people...are served by soldiers disciplined to obey the orders of their leaders, and hardened and conditioned to survive the rigors of the battlefield. We do neither our soldiers nor our people any favors if we ignore these realities"

[...]The need to separate the military from the civil society has been recognized by the society's political leaders in their willingness to create within the military a set of institutions that renders it virtually autonomous and self-governing on a day-to-day basis. Thus, military establishments have their own court, codes of law and regulations, police, trial procedures, judges, court of appeals, and even their own prisons. All these institutions exist and function quite apart from the larger society and with society's approval. To a large extent, then, the social distance between the society and the profession already exists. To insist on a congruence of all but the most basic values of society and profession runs the risk of either militarizing the state, as in totalitarian societies, or civilianizing the profession to mirror the larger society as much as possible. Neither path serves the profession or a democratic civil order well.

I don't know much, but this makes sense to me. I don't understand why those who have been in service for so long wish to impose restrictions on our soldiers, and instill doubt and hesitation in their mind; something that is extremely dangerous in a battle, where split second decisions can mean the difference between life or death.

[Tango2Bravo]

I was given a book by a LT called "The Warrior's Way: A treatise on Military Ethics" by Richard A. Gabriel.
I'm sure some of you have read it. It deals with the different ethical dilemmas faced by soldiers.
It's a good read.

In one of the chapters, it mentions how a PC military is a very negative thing.

In one of the chapters he quotes General Walter Kerwin:
I don't know much, but this makes sense to me. I don't understand why those who have been in service for so long wish to impose restrictions on our soldiers, and instill doubt and hesitation in their mind; something that is extremely dangerous in a battle, where split second decisions can mean the difference between life or death.

It is a good book, but the quote you have doesn't really apply to the topic, nor to the statement you follow-up with regarding restrictions on soldiers.  We must have restrictions.  Those are a huge part of what makes us soldiers and not gang members. 

What the quoted General is getting at is that military culture and ethics will be distinct in some manner from society at large.  He is not saying that we should go around without restrictions. 

[bdave]

It is a good book, but the quote you have doesn't really apply to the topic, nor to the statement you follow-up with regarding restrictions on soldiers.  We must have restrictions.  Those are a huge part of what makes us soldiers and not gang members. 

What the quoted General is getting at is that military culture and ethics will be distinct in some manner from society at large.  He is not saying that we should go around without restrictions.

I realize that, but found it somewhat applicable to this situation.
I am alluding to politically correctness and how some are trying to implement it into the military.

[Greymatters]

Political correctness was being pushed on military members when I joined and was still there 20 years later. Its just political and civilian oversight of military activities and culture, and it will still be there in another twenty years...

[MCG]

Soldiers' restraint risky Proposed medal honouring those who don't fire unnecessary -- and foolish
Peter Worthington
The Calgary Sun
23 June 2010

This may puzzle and shock old soldiers of past wars, and even some of our soldiers today, but NATO and the U.S. are considering establishing a "courageous restraint" medal for soldiers who risk their lives by not shooting civilians in Afghanistan.

The idea was probably born from bad publicity that is inevitable when mistakes are made, and civilians are killed in error by NATO troops. But awarding a valour medal for not shooting in a dangerous situation is risk-taking of another sort and would likely result in more casualties among our soldiers.

Although the intentions are good, the idea seems not only unnecessary but foolish.

Trained soldiers do not shoot indiscriminately, and usually opt for caution.

Soldiers do not like killing the wrong people and don't need the incentive of a medal to be ultra-careful.

British Maj.-Gen. Nick Carter, commander of NATO forces in southern Afghanistan, apparently came up with the idea of a "courageous restraint" medal, which Gen. Stanley McChrystal is said to be considering for U.S. and NATO forces.

The proposal is still in the "conceptual stages." It smacks of a public relations gesture to offset inevitable civilian casualties, by awarding frontline soldiers special recognition if they show courage by risking their lives by not shooting first and asking questions later in dangerous situations.

This is what good soldiers do anyway -- are trained to do, and in countless unpublicized cases have shown uncommon restraint.

Rules of engagement before pulling the trigger are already so stringent that in many cases they can cost the lives of our soldiers.

Battlefield valour awards are already given to soldiers who sacrifice themselves to save others in the face of the enemy.

The Victoria Cross, arguably the world's most respected valour award, has only been given out 1,352 times in 154 years, and a third of those VCs have gone to soldiers who sacrificed themselves to save others.

Only three men in history have won the VC twice, and two of them were officers who risked their lives to save others on the battlefield.

Well-trained soldiers are not necessarily quick on the trigger. But life-and-death decisions often have to be made instantly.

Delay, or the wrong decision, can mean the death of one of our guys. And that's not what war is all about.

In Afghanistan, a car speeding toward a roadblock with a driver refusing to stop could well be a suicide bomber -- or a frightened local.

Does the soldier shoot -- or take a chance?

A judgment call and the wrong decision for a Canadian or American soldier could mean a solitary journey home in a coffin -- with a medal.

The aim of a "courageous restraint" medal is obviously to save civilian lives and deter criticism when such casualties occur.

But are we willing to accept an increase in our own casualties to encourage restraint against an enemy who uses civilians at every turn?

It's the Taliban who kill the most civilians in Afghanistan, not U.S. or NATO troops who get blamed every time there's an incident or mistake.

I suspect most soldiers won't welcome the news of this proposed medal.

They'll likely see it as cynical and unnecessary.

It's virtually a given that soldiers are prepared to sacrifice themselves for their comrades -- or civilians in danger.

Awarding a bravery medal for restraint, when restraint is ingrained in soldiers anyway, sends a wrong message -- to the soldiers, to the enemy, to civilians, to families back home.

I suspect McChrystal -- a fighting soldier -- knows this better than most.

The British know it, too.

A medal is no substitute for training and fire discipline.

So mark it down as yet another idea that shouldn't be implemented, but may get support from politicians who hunger for brownie points.

From previous articles, I did not get the impression that the intent was to create a new medal but to use existing medals (like the medal of bravery) when recognition may be due.

I would agree that creating a new medal sends the wrong message, but I don’t see anything wrong in positive recognition within the honours and awards that we already have.

[Pusser]

The list of people I have not shot over the years is long and distinguished.   

Whether to shoot or not is a question of judgement and professionalism.  People should be recognized for doing the right thing, which could be shooting or not shooting, depending on the circumstances.  Our current system of honours will cover this.  No new medal is required.

[Foxhound]

This might fit in here.

From the Globe & Mail.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/asia-pacific/canadian-afghan-sweep-in-panjwaii-uncovers-ied-caches-militants/article1618094/

Canadian and Afghan troops have wrapped up a successful five-day military operation in the Panjwaii district without firing a single shot. [Emphasis added.]

The operation, which began Monday, involved the 1st Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment, along with Afghan security forces near the village of Chalghowr in the Panjwaii district west of Kandahar.

The mission was to push the Taliban out of the area, about nine kilometres from Kandahar city, and to keep it under government control.

(I still wish they would learn to capitalize the word "The".)  Never pass a fault. 

[tomahawk6]

While there has been a drop in civilians killed - something like 44% maybe higher, there has been a corresponding increase in coalition casualties. The civilians dont feel safer when the taliban can attack without retribution. The taliban know the ROE's and are using them to their advantage. In WW2 there were no ROE's.