Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/22/2007 5:45:16 PM EDT
If you're not reading Michael Yon's website, you should be. If you haven't just go to the link, go the home page, and scroll down to "most popular".



www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/rubs.htm


A general emailed in the past 24 hours threatening to kick me out. The first time the Army threatened to kick me out was in late 2005, just after I published a dispatch called “Gates of Fire.” Some of the senior level public affairs people who’d been upset by “Proximity Delays” were looking ever since for a reason to kick me out and they wanted to use “Gates of Fire” as a catapult. In the events described in that dispatch, I broke some rules by, for instance, firing a weapon during combat when some of our soldiers were fighting fairly close quarters and one was wounded and still under enemy fire. That’s right. I’m not sure what message the senior level public affairs people thought that would convey had they succeeded, (which they didn’t) but it was clear to me what they valued most. They want the press on a short leash, even at the expense of the life of a soldier.


In "Proximity Delays" Yon basically wrote "Good information isn't getting out sometimes because the Public Affairs people are lousy at their jobs. They tell me not to publish things, but then send out a badly written press release that CNN botches to hell because they've got no context."

Link Posted: 3/22/2007 5:50:00 PM EDT
bump and tag because this should be on every arfcomer's radar....

Mike Yon is one of the good guys, and Big Army doesn't seem to be getting it...
Link Posted: 3/22/2007 5:53:55 PM EDT
Yon does excellent work. Click on the link for "Gates of Fire" for the other story that nearly got him kicked out of Iraq. It boggles the mind that the army would want him kicked out.
Link Posted: 3/22/2007 11:29:45 PM EDT
Not that it is particularly well observed by the other side. but while we are arresting and confining illegal combatants and having all sorts of political problems with it, tolerating illegal combatants in and around our forces is setting a precedent that we dont want to deal with.

And once our non-combatants start taking active parts in hostilities, it makes all our other non-combatants fair game.

That's probably the theory. In practice, it is nice but since the other side doesn't observe it, in practical terms it is moot.

HOWEVER, with all the anti-American politicoes all around the world, any opportunity for them to point out OUR violations of the rules of war in the world press is not helping our political war.
Link Posted: 3/22/2007 11:43:58 PM EDT
Wouldn't the Army be shooting themselves in the foot if he gets kicked out?
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 5:17:46 AM EDT
I really like his writing and coverage, but I am 100% in agreement with the Army having a problem with him picking up a weapon and helping those soldiers. Sure, he did the right thing by those soldiers on that particular day, but allowing reporters to shoot the enemy no longer makes them reporters in the eyes of the enemy. With the amount of embedded journalists in Iraq, this is a risk that the .mil can't afford as they are to some degree responsible for the embed's health and wealfare.

If he still wants to shoot the enemy, I think he got out a little early. It's got to be hard to watch men who used to be brothers in arms take fire and get wounded, but the day he traded his rifle for a camera was when he got out of the killin' business.

Dave
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 5:25:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
I really like his writing and coverage, but I am 100% in agreement with the Army having a problem with him picking up a weapon and helping those soldiers. Sure, he did the right thing by those soldiers on that particular day, but allowing reporters to shoot the enemy no longer makes them reporters in the eyes of the enemy. With the amount of embedded journalists in Iraq, this is a risk that the .mil can't afford as they are to some degree responsible for the embed's health and wealfare.

If he still wants to shoot the enemy, I think he got out a little early. It's got to be hard to watch men who used to be brothers in arms take fire and get wounded, but the day he traded his rifle for a camera was when he got out of the killin' business.

Dave


+1
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 5:34:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
I really like his writing and coverage, but I am 100% in agreement with the Army having a problem with him picking up a weapon and helping those soldiers. Sure, he did the right thing by those soldiers on that particular day, but allowing reporters to shoot the enemy no longer makes them reporters in the eyes of the enemy. With the amount of embedded journalists in Iraq, this is a risk that the .mil can't afford as they are to some degree responsible for the embed's health and wealfare.



NOTE: The don't pick up a weapon thing happened a LONG time ago, and is unrelated to this round of "we're going to kick you out" except for the fact that the head PAO hates Yon. Second of all, whether or not the Army likes it, it happens and will continue to happen. I recall one reporter with the Marines being handed a M16 during an ambush during the first part of the war. Another reporter lost part of his hand while throwing a grenade back.

Anyway, THIS round of PAO hate towards Yon has nothing to do with "Gates of Fire". The head PAO just doesn't like him.

Link Posted: 3/23/2007 5:37:23 AM EDT
This is probably nothing new-I wouldn't be surprised if there were top brass back in the day that wanted Ernie Pyle out of theater.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 5:37:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
I really like his writing and coverage, but I am 100% in agreement with the Army having a problem with him picking up a weapon and helping those soldiers. Sure, he did the right thing by those soldiers on that particular day, but allowing reporters to shoot the enemy no longer makes them reporters in the eyes of the enemy. With the amount of embedded journalists in Iraq, this is a risk that the .mil can't afford as they are to some degree responsible for the embed's health and wealfare.



NOTE: The don't pick up a weapon thing happened a LONG time ago, and is unrelated to this round of "we're going to kick you out" except for the fact that the head PAO hates Yon. Second of all, whether or not the Army likes it, it happens and will continue to happen. I recall one reporter with the Marines being handed a M16 during an ambush during the first part of the war. Another reporter lost part of his hand while throwing a grenade back.

Anyway, THIS round of PAO hate towards Yon has nothing to do with "Gates of Fire". The head PAO just doesn't like him.



Non-combatants do not lose thier right to self defense. Take for example that doctors in the crash units have sidearms.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 5:42:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/23/2007 5:46:14 AM EDT by CitySlicker]

Originally Posted By Mead:

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
I really like his writing and coverage, but I am 100% in agreement with the Army having a problem with him picking up a weapon and helping those soldiers. Sure, he did the right thing by those soldiers on that particular day, but allowing reporters to shoot the enemy no longer makes them reporters in the eyes of the enemy. With the amount of embedded journalists in Iraq, this is a risk that the .mil can't afford as they are to some degree responsible for the embed's health and wealfare.

If he still wants to shoot the enemy, I think he got out a little early. It's got to be hard to watch men who used to be brothers in arms take fire and get wounded, but the day he traded his rifle for a camera was when he got out of the killin' business.

Dave


+1


The soldiers he was with were in imminent danger. It's arguable that had he not acted, LTC Kurilla may have been further wounded or killed.


EDIT: From Michael Yon's blog:


Kurilla was running when he was shot, but he didn’t seem to miss a stride; he did a crazy judo roll and came up shooting.

BamBamBamBam! Bullets were hitting all around Kurilla. The young 2nd lieutenant and specialist were the only two soldiers near. Neither had real combat experience. AH had no weapon. I had a camera.

Seconds count.

Kurilla, though down and unable to move, was fighting and firing, yelling at the two young soldiers to get in there; but they hesitated. BamBamBamBam!

Kurilla was in the open, but his judo roll had left him slightly to the side of the shop. I screamed to the young soldiers, “Throw a grenade in there!” but they were not attacking.

“Throw a grenade in there!” They did not attack.

“Give me a grenade!” They didn’t have grenades.

“Erik! Do you need me to come get you!” I shouted. But he said “No.” (Thank God; running in front of the shop might have proved fatal.)

“What’s wrong with you!?” I yelled above the shooting.

“I’m hit three times! I’m shot three times!”

Amazingly, he was right. One bullet smashed through his femur, snapping his leg. His other leg was hit and so was an arm.

With his leg mangled, Kurilla pointed and fired his rifle into the doorway, yelling instructions to the soldiers about how to get in there. But they were not attacking. This was not the Deuce Four I know. The other Deuce Four soldiers would have killed every man in that room in about five seconds. But these two soldiers didn’t have the combat experience to grasp the power of momentum.

This was happening in seconds. Several times I nearly ran over to Kurilla, but hesitated every time. Kurilla was, after all, still fighting. And I was afraid to run in front of the shop, especially so unarmed.

Then Prosser’s M4 went “black” (no more bullets). A shooter inside was also having problems with his pistol, but there was no time to reload. Prosser threw down his empty M4, ran into the shop and tackled the man.

Though I have the photo, I do not remember the moment that Prosser went “black” and ran into the shop. Apparently I turned my head, but kept my finger on the shutter button. When I looked back again, I saw the very bloody leg of CSM Prosser inside the shop. It was not moving. He appeared to be shot down and dead.

I looked back at the two soldiers who were with me outside, and screamed what amounted to “Attack Attack Attack!” I stood up and was yelling at them. Actually, what I shouted was an unprintable string of curses, while Kurilla was also yelling at them to get in there, his M4 trained on the entrance. But the guys were not attacking.

I saw Prosser’s M4 on the ground, Where did that come from?

I picked up Prosser’s M4. It was empty. I saw only Prosser’s bloody leg lying still, just inside the darkened doorway, because most of his body was hidden behind a stack of sheet metal.

“Give me some ammo! Give me a magazine!” I yelled, and the young 2nd lieutenant handed over a full 30-round magazine. I jacked it in, released the bolt and hit the forward assist. I had only one magazine, so checked that the selector was on semi-automatic.

I ran back to the corner of the shop and looked at LTC Kurilla who was bleeding, and saw CSM Prosser’s extremely bloody leg inside the shop, the rest of him was still obscured from view. I was going to run into the shop and shoot every man with a gun. And I was scared to death.

What I didn’t realize was at that same moment four soldiers from Alpha Company 2nd Platoon were arriving on scene, just in time to see me about to go into the store. SSG Gregory Konkol, SGT Jim Lewis, and specialists Nicholas Devereaux and Christopher Muse where right there, behind me, but I didn’t see them.

Reaching around the corner, I fired three shots into the shop. The third bullet pierced a propane canister, which jumped up in the air and began spinning violently. It came straight at my head but somehow missed, flying out of the shop as a high-pressure jet of propane hit me in the face. The goggles saved my eyes. I gulped in deeply.

In the tiniest fraction of a second, somehow my mind actually registered Propane . . . FIREBALL! as it bounced on the ground where it spun furiously, creating an explosive cloud of gas and dust, just waiting for someone to fire a weapon.

I scrambled back, got up and ran a few yards, afraid that Kurilla was going to burn up if there was a fire. The soldiers from Alpha Company were heading toward him when LTC Kurilla yelled out that he was okay, but that CSM Prosser was still in the shop. The Alpha Company soldiers ran through the propane and dust cloud and swarmed the shop.

When the bullet hit that canister, Prosser—who I thought might be dead because of all the blood on his leg—was actually fighting hand-to-hand on the ground. Wrapped in a ground fight, Prosser could not pull out his service pistol strapped on his right leg, or get to his knife on his left, because the terrorist—who turned out to be a serious terrorist—had grabbed Prosser’s helmet and pulled it over his eyes and twisted it.

Prosser had beaten the terrorist in the head three times with his fist and was gripping his throat, choking him. But Prosser’s gloves were slippery with blood so he couldn’t hold on well. At the same time, the terrorist was trying to bite Prosser’s wrist, but instead he bit onto the face of Prosser’s watch. (Prosser wears his watch with the face turned inward.) The terrorist had a mouthful of watch but he somehow also managed to punch Prosser in the face. When I shot the propane canister, Prosser had nearly strangled the guy, but my shots made Prosser think bad guys were coming, so he released the terrorist’s throat and snatched out the pistol from his holster, just as SSG Konkol, Lewis, Devereaux and Muse swarmed the shop. But the shots and the propane fiasco also had brought the terrorist back to life, so Prosser quickly reholstered his pistol and subdued him by smashing his face into the concrete.

The combat drama was ended, so I started snapping photos again.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 5:44:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
I really like his writing and coverage, but I am 100% in agreement with the Army having a problem with him picking up a weapon and helping those soldiers. Sure, he did the right thing by those soldiers on that particular day, but allowing reporters to shoot the enemy no longer makes them reporters in the eyes of the enemy. With the amount of embedded journalists in Iraq, this is a risk that the .mil can't afford as they are to some degree responsible for the embed's health and wealfare.



NOTE: The don't pick up a weapon thing happened a LONG time ago, and is unrelated to this round of "we're going to kick you out" except for the fact that the head PAO hates Yon. Second of all, whether or not the Army likes it, it happens and will continue to happen. I recall one reporter with the Marines being handed a M16 during an ambush during the first part of the war. Another reporter lost part of his hand while throwing a grenade back.

Anyway, THIS round of PAO hate towards Yon has nothing to do with "Gates of Fire". The head PAO just doesn't like him.



Non-combatants do not lose thier right to self defense. Take for example that doctors in the crash units have sidearms.


No shit.. just because you have a camera doesn't mean you give up the right to self defense.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 5:50:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:

Originally Posted By Mead:

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
I really like his writing and coverage, but I am 100% in agreement with the Army having a problem with him picking up a weapon and helping those soldiers. Sure, he did the right thing by those soldiers on that particular day, but allowing reporters to shoot the enemy no longer makes them reporters in the eyes of the enemy. With the amount of embedded journalists in Iraq, this is a risk that the .mil can't afford as they are to some degree responsible for the embed's health and wealfare.

If he still wants to shoot the enemy, I think he got out a little early. It's got to be hard to watch men who used to be brothers in arms take fire and get wounded, but the day he traded his rifle for a camera was when he got out of the killin' business.

Dave


+1


The soldiers he was with were in imminent danger. It's arguable that had he not acted, LTC Kurilla may have been further wounded or killed.


Indeed, LTC Kurilla had already been shot twice and was attempting to return fire while down. Two other soldiers in the immediate area were indecisive and would not advance a third soldier arrived and attacked the haji hand to hand while LTC Kurilla was tended to.

Yon did the right thing and that's commendable. While they are busy hassling the good guys they still allow douche bags like Blitzer and Raveria in to fuck things up, go figure.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 5:53:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
I really like his writing and coverage, but I am 100% in agreement with the Army having a problem with him picking up a weapon and helping those soldiers. Sure, he did the right thing by those soldiers on that particular day, but allowing reporters to shoot the enemy no longer makes them reporters in the eyes of the enemy. With the amount of embedded journalists in Iraq, this is a risk that the .mil can't afford as they are to some degree responsible for the embed's health and wealfare.



NOTE: The don't pick up a weapon thing happened a LONG time ago, and is unrelated to this round of "we're going to kick you out" except for the fact that the head PAO hates Yon. Second of all, whether or not the Army likes it, it happens and will continue to happen. I recall one reporter with the Marines being handed a M16 during an ambush during the first part of the war. Another reporter lost part of his hand while throwing a grenade back.

Anyway, THIS round of PAO hate towards Yon has nothing to do with "Gates of Fire". The head PAO just doesn't like him.



Non-combatants do not lose thier right to self defense. Take for example that doctors in the crash units have sidearms.


That's not what happened in Yon's story if I remember it right. He rushed in to save the soldiers, not defend himself. It's been a few months since I read the article, but I believe he said "Old habits die hard".
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 5:57:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
I really like his writing and coverage, but I am 100% in agreement with the Army having a problem with him picking up a weapon and helping those soldiers. Sure, he did the right thing by those soldiers on that particular day, but allowing reporters to shoot the enemy no longer makes them reporters in the eyes of the enemy. With the amount of embedded journalists in Iraq, this is a risk that the .mil can't afford as they are to some degree responsible for the embed's health and wealfare.



NOTE: The don't pick up a weapon thing happened a LONG time ago, and is unrelated to this round of "we're going to kick you out" except for the fact that the head PAO hates Yon. Second of all, whether or not the Army likes it, it happens and will continue to happen. I recall one reporter with the Marines being handed a M16 during an ambush during the first part of the war. Another reporter lost part of his hand while throwing a grenade back.

Anyway, THIS round of PAO hate towards Yon has nothing to do with "Gates of Fire". The head PAO just doesn't like him.



Non-combatants do not lose thier right to self defense. Take for example that doctors in the crash units have sidearms.


That's not what happened in Yon's story if I remember it right. He rushed in to save the soldiers, not defend himself. It's been a few months since I read the article, but I believe he said "Old habits die hard".


Would his actions be legal back here in the states? Off the cuff I'd say yes (self defense or the defense of others).
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 5:58:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:
The soldiers he was with were in imminent danger. It's arguable that had he not acted, LTC Kurilla may have been further wounded or killed.



Yes, they were in imminent danger. They were doing their job. He stopped doing his job when he put his camera down and picked up his rifle. I'm glad things turned out the way they did, but we can't have journalists fighting for our military. Now, if journalists are present and our forces are overrun, it should be their right to be handed an M16 and face the consequences should the enemy get ahold of them.

Journalists are supposed to be there as impartial observers, not picking up after our military when the chips are down.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 6:00:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:Would his actions be legal back here in the states? Off the cuff I'd say yes (self defense or the defense of others).


The rules for war are a lot different than rules for lethal force for civilians.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 6:55:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/23/2007 6:57:04 AM EDT by Spade]

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
Yes, they were in imminent danger. They were doing their job. He stopped doing his job when he put his camera down and picked up his rifle. I'm glad things turned out the way they did, but we can't have journalists fighting for our military. Now, if journalists are present and our forces are overrun, it should be their right to be handed an M16 and face the consequences should the enemy get ahold of them.

Journalists are supposed to be there as impartial observers, not picking up after our military when the chips are down.


Two soldiers froze up and were basically ineffective, one soldier was down and wounded and the other one (Prosser) looked, to Yon, to be dead. Yon was the only American thinking and moving.

Are you saying that, as an American, you'd sit there and take pictures while the terrorist, possibly, walked out of that house and executed the Lt.Col. when his weapon went dry? "Hey, Mrs. Kurilla, sorry your husband is dead. I could've done something, but, you know, impartial observer and all."

Fuck that. That's no different from this.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 7:01:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By crurifragium:
This is probably nothing new-I wouldn't be surprised if there were top brass back in the day that wanted Ernie Pyle out of theater.


Patton wanted to put a muzzle on him...Ike over ruled him.
Bad ju-ju for morale was Ike's reasoning. And he was right.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 7:05:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
I really like his writing and coverage, but I am 100% in agreement with the Army having a problem with him picking up a weapon and helping those soldiers. Sure, he did the right thing by those soldiers on that particular day, but allowing reporters to shoot the enemy no longer makes them reporters in the eyes of the enemy. With the amount of embedded journalists in Iraq, this is a risk that the .mil can't afford as they are to some degree responsible for the embed's health and wealfare.

If he still wants to shoot the enemy, I think he got out a little early. It's got to be hard to watch men who used to be brothers in arms take fire and get wounded, but the day he traded his rifle for a camera was when he got out of the killin' business.

Dave


sometimes things are too complicated...

anyone that shoots at the enemy is fine by me.. could be mother teresa, could be chairman mao, could be al gore.

the enemy is the enemy is the enemy.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 7:16:49 AM EDT


Link Posted: 3/23/2007 7:18:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:
The soldiers he was with were in imminent danger. It's arguable that had he not acted, LTC Kurilla may have been further wounded or killed.



Yes, they were in imminent danger. They were doing their job. He stopped doing his job when he put his camera down and picked up his rifle. I'm glad things turned out the way they did, but we can't have journalists fighting for our military. Now, if journalists are present and our forces are overrun, it should be their right to be handed an M16 and face the consequences should the enemy get ahold of them.

Journalists are supposed to be there as impartial observers, not picking up after our military when the chips are down.


By that logic, if a motorist with a CCW sees an LEO on the side of the road about to be executed by a perp., it's best to just keep on driving since, after all, it's not his job to pick up after our Law Enforcement when the chips are down.

Link Posted: 3/23/2007 7:20:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:
The soldiers he was with were in imminent danger. It's arguable that had he not acted, LTC Kurilla may have been further wounded or killed.



Yes, they were in imminent danger. They were doing their job. He stopped doing his job when he put his camera down and picked up his rifle. I'm glad things turned out the way they did, but we can't have journalists fighting for our military. Now, if journalists are present and our forces are overrun, it should be their right to be handed an M16 and face the consequences should the enemy get ahold of them.

Journalists are supposed to be there as impartial observers, not picking up after our military when the chips are down.


By that logic, if a motorist with a CCW sees an LEO on the side of the road about to be executed by a perp., it's best to just keep on driving since, after all, it's not his job to pick up after our Law Enforcement when the chips are down.



Besides that, Yon isn't your run of the mill dipshit reporter. He is former Special Forces IIRC, I would WANT him to have a gun.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 7:24:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:Would his actions be legal back here in the states? Off the cuff I'd say yes (self defense or the defense of others).


The rules for war are a lot different than rules for lethal force for civilians.


The standard use of force rules (as explained by our SF-NCOIC) is defense of self, defense of others, defense of assets deemed essencial to national security.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 7:25:15 AM EDT
Do you guys think the insurgants are gonna go, hey, it's a reporter, don't kill him, he is only armed with a camera?

Yon did what any red blooded American would have done when he picked up that m-16, and thank God he did.

TXL
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 10:20:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TxLewis:
Do you guys think the insurgants are gonna go, hey, it's a reporter, don't kill him, he is only armed with a camera?

Yon did what any red blooded American would have done when he picked up that m-16, and thank God he did.

TXL

+1
Daniel Pearl was unarmed, that didn't stop the terrorists from sawing his head off.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 10:23:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CSM:

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:
The soldiers he was with were in imminent danger. It's arguable that had he not acted, LTC Kurilla may have been further wounded or killed.



Yes, they were in imminent danger. They were doing their job. He stopped doing his job when he put his camera down and picked up his rifle. I'm glad things turned out the way they did, but we can't have journalists fighting for our military. Now, if journalists are present and our forces are overrun, it should be their right to be handed an M16 and face the consequences should the enemy get ahold of them.

Journalists are supposed to be there as impartial observers, not picking up after our military when the chips are down.


By that logic, if a motorist with a CCW sees an LEO on the side of the road about to be executed by a perp., it's best to just keep on driving since, after all, it's not his job to pick up after our Law Enforcement when the chips are down.



Besides that, Yon isn't your run of the mill dipshit reporter. He is former Special Forces IIRC, I would WANT him to have a gun.


Yes, he's a retired Army Special Forces NCO.

I'm curious to hear The OtherDave's response to my inquiry.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 10:23:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/23/2007 10:25:59 AM EDT by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
I really like his writing and coverage, but I am 100% in agreement with the Army having a problem with him picking up a weapon and helping those soldiers. Sure, he did the right thing by those soldiers on that particular day, but allowing reporters to shoot the enemy no longer makes them reporters in the eyes of the enemy. With the amount of embedded journalists in Iraq, this is a risk that the .mil can't afford as they are to some degree responsible for the embed's health and wealfare.

If he still wants to shoot the enemy, I think he got out a little early. It's got to be hard to watch men who used to be brothers in arms take fire and get wounded, but the day he traded his rifle for a camera was when he got out of the killin' business.

Dave


Yup...

He gives up his 'protected' status when he does that, and it causes legal problems in what is very much a 'PR war'... Now if he was shot at first, then that's a different story...

There is a big difference between a reporter joining a firefight voluntarily, and one defending himself against enemy attack (eg Joe Galloway at LZ-Xray, surrounded & being overrun).
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 10:25:21 AM EDT
The Army is waaayyyyy too political.

When they can run a hospital the right way, they will have my support.
(I am referring to senior brass ONLY, not the guys...)

Senior Army Staff is FUBAR.

A smart Commander in Chief would put the Marines in charge of the whole deal.

(just my IMHO)



Link Posted: 3/23/2007 10:28:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KangarooAR-15A3:
The Army is waaayyyyy too political.

When they can run a hospital the right way, they will have my support.
(I am referring to senior brass ONLY, not the guys...)

Senior Army Staff is FUBAR.

A smart Commander in Chief would put the Marines in charge of the whole deal.

(just my IMHO)



Because the marines have so much experience in medical care and large-scale administration?
There's a reason the USMC is the most reliant upon other services for CS and CSS.

Please.
The problems a WRMC stem from a whole host of problems. The US Army is marginally involved in building maintenance. The guy they shit-canned was only there in six months.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 10:32:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:

Originally Posted By CSM:

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:
The soldiers he was with were in imminent danger. It's arguable that had he not acted, LTC Kurilla may have been further wounded or killed.



Yes, they were in imminent danger. They were doing their job. He stopped doing his job when he put his camera down and picked up his rifle. I'm glad things turned out the way they did, but we can't have journalists fighting for our military. Now, if journalists are present and our forces are overrun, it should be their right to be handed an M16 and face the consequences should the enemy get ahold of them.

Journalists are supposed to be there as impartial observers, not picking up after our military when the chips are down.


By that logic, if a motorist with a CCW sees an LEO on the side of the road about to be executed by a perp., it's best to just keep on driving since, after all, it's not his job to pick up after our Law Enforcement when the chips are down.



Besides that, Yon isn't your run of the mill dipshit reporter. He is former Special Forces IIRC, I would WANT him to have a gun.


Yes, he's a retired Army Special Forces NCO.

I'm curious to hear The OtherDave's response to my inquiry.


There's a legal difference...

The law of war (which we follow, even if the enemy doesn't) says reporters are non-combatants. They aren't allowed to be armed...

If we start arming reporters (or allowing them to be visibly armed and engage in combat), we break the rules - and since Iraq is very much a PR war we cannot afford to break the rules...

While the enemy does not follow the rules, that's another topic...

Anybody paying proper attention to this would publicly tell this guy 'Bad reporter - no shooting' (even if he later added a private 'but thanks for helping my guys come home')....

It's very different from a CCW (supposed to be armed) stopping to intervene in a crime (exercising a legal prerogative to defend others)...

Hey, the rules were written for a WWII style conflict - but that does not change the fact that they are the rules, and civilized nations follow them...
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 10:32:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KangarooAR-15A3:
The Army is waaayyyyy too political.

When they can run a hospital the right way, they will have my support.
(I am referring to senior brass ONLY, not the guys...)

Senior Army Staff is FUBAR.

A smart Commander in Chief would put the Marines in charge of the whole deal.

(just my IMHO)





Link Posted: 3/23/2007 10:32:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/23/2007 10:34:34 AM EDT by Spade]

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

There is a big difference between a reporter joining a firefight voluntarily, and one defending himself against enemy attack (eg Joe Galloway at LZ-Xray, surrounded & being overrun).


a)There's no such thing as protected status, unless we go to war against Canada I suppose.

b)Joe Galloway had that M-16 from his time at Plei Me (where he and another reporter manned a LMG) until probably well after LZ X-ray. When the cav was on patrol between those two actions Galloway wrote of digging a foxhole for the night and laying out his magazines.

c)He joined the firefight voluntarily when he went on patrol. I really don't think the terrorists or the gunfire cares about his protected status. Those rounds were aimed at him as much as anybody else.

d)Just beacuse he's a non-combatent doesn't mean he can't defend himself and others. He just happened to be defending a soldier.

I just can't believe there are people advocating that an American should sit there and watch other Americans die in a possibly preventable fashion without doing something.
If a reporter on a mounted patrol spots an IED should he keep his mouth shut? It's the same thing.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 10:34:00 AM EDT
Two observations from my tours in Iraq:

1. According to the terrorists, there is no protected status. The death of any of any coalition member-military or civilian-is a victory for them. Hell, even killing an Iraqi citizen deemed to be a 'collaborator' is a victory for them. If I was a civilian over there in a situation where my life or lives of the men I was with was in jeopardy and I could do something about it, f'in a, man.

2. The US has done a horrible job of selling the Iraq war. We do not commend our troops nearly enough for the job they are doing nor do we play up the successes we are having. Instead we let reporters, who rarely leave the green zone, send out releases from 2nd or 3rd hand sources. We need something like the newsreels from WWII where we constantly remind the American people of the progress we are making, because we are making progress.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 10:35:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:

By that logic, if a motorist with a CCW sees an LEO on the side of the road about to be executed by a perp., it's best to just keep on driving since, after all, it's not his job to pick up after our Law Enforcement when the chips are down.



You are comparing apples and oranges.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 10:38:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/23/2007 10:40:26 AM EDT by KangarooAR-15A3]

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By KangarooAR-15A3:
The Army is waaayyyyy too political.

When they can run a hospital the right way, they will have my support.
(I am referring to senior brass ONLY, not the guys...)

Senior Army Staff is FUBAR.

A smart Commander in Chief would put the Marines in charge of the whole deal.

(just my IMHO)



Because the marines have so much experience in medical care and large-scale administration?
There's a reason the USMC is the most reliant upon other services for CS and CSS.

Please.
The problems a WRMC stem from a whole host of problems. The US Army is marginally involved in building maintenance. The guy they shit-canned was only there in six months.


What I meant was put the Marines in charge. I am not diminishing the role of the Army at all.
I love the Army.
They should still do all the stuff they do now, but let a Marine lead.

I meant that a Marine Corps General needs to be the top dog.

The Army is too concerned with political bullshit IMHO.

And my opinion is HUMBLE as I am not .mil or a veteran.

I also said clearly that my beef was with Army brass, not the soldiers.

I said that very very clearly.



Link Posted: 3/23/2007 10:50:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/23/2007 10:53:23 AM EDT by TheOtherDave]

Originally Posted By Spade:

Two soldiers froze up and were basically ineffective, one soldier was down and wounded and the other one (Prosser) looked, to Yon, to be dead. Yon was the only American thinking and moving.

Are you saying that, as an American, you'd sit there and take pictures while the terrorist, possibly, walked out of that house and executed the Lt.Col. when his weapon went dry? "Hey, Mrs. Kurilla, sorry your husband is dead. I could've done something, but, you know, impartial observer and all."

Fuck that. That's no different from this.


Micheal Yon is not a soldier. He is working at his own risk in a COMBAT ZONE as a journalist, who is ostensibly impartial to the conflict. The Army already has armed Cameramen-they work for "Stars and Stripes" magazine. As an American in a foreign country watching soldiers who used to be my comrades being shot up and not in a position to do anything about it would be a very difficult position to be in, without question. Micheal Yon did not have the legal standing to shoot those men. He is no more legally qualified to shoot terrorists than YOU would be if you hopped a flight to Tikrit and started capping Tangos. He is no longer a combatant. Ms. Kurilla knows that her husband is a soldier and has a dangerous job. Kurilla made the decision that his marriage would be secondary to his military obligations before he ever asked to marry her. Being in the military really sucks some times... People shoot at you when you get sent off to war on days when your battle buddies freeze up. It happens, and it's why militaries train to prevent situations like Kurilla found himself in. Those excercises don't include photographers jumping in when you need a "Time Out" in a firefight. As mentioned, there would be real problems for other Embeds if this were truly a common practice, and a PR nightmare for the military if a journalist were on the nightly news with a ventilated torso and a spent M16 at his feet. You want to talk about a way to undermine a war effort-start killing off journalists by issueing them an M16 with their body armor and helmet!

At the end of the day, we make choices in life and risk the consequenses. Kurilla went to Iraq to fight, Yon went to take pictures and write about it. Both fully understood the risks of their occupation before they went. What Yon did was brave and decent toward a fellow American, but it was still the wrong thing to do.

Dave
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 10:54:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/23/2007 10:55:02 AM EDT by Spade]

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:

Micheal Yon is not a soldier. He is working at his own risk in a COMBAT ZONE as a journalist, who is ostensibly impartial to the conflict.

At the end of the day, we make choices in life and risk the consequenses. Kurilla went to Iraq to fight, Yon went to take pictures and write about it. Both fully understood the risks of their occupation before they went. What Yon did was brave and decent toward a fellow American, but it was still the wrong thing to do.

Dave



So you're saying an American should just let another American die and say "just doing my job.", yes?
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 11:00:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
I really like his writing and coverage, but I am 100% in agreement with the Army having a problem with him picking up a weapon and helping those soldiers. Sure, he did the right thing by those soldiers on that particular day, but allowing reporters to shoot the enemy no longer makes them reporters in the eyes of the enemy. With the amount of embedded journalists in Iraq, this is a risk that the .mil can't afford as they are to some degree responsible for the embed's health and wealfare.



NOTE: The don't pick up a weapon thing happened a LONG time ago, and is unrelated to this round of "we're going to kick you out" except for the fact that the head PAO hates Yon. Second of all, whether or not the Army likes it, it happens and will continue to happen. I recall one reporter with the Marines being handed a M16 during an ambush during the first part of the war. Another reporter lost part of his hand while throwing a grenade back.

Anyway, THIS round of PAO hate towards Yon has nothing to do with "Gates of Fire". The head PAO just doesn't like him.



Non-combatants do not lose thier right to self defense. Take for example that doctors in the crash units have sidearms.


The only non-combantants in the military are Chaplains. Doctors, nurses, and medics all carry weapons.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 11:02:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/23/2007 11:05:49 AM EDT by Enigma102083]

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:

Originally Posted By Spade:

Two soldiers froze up and were basically ineffective, one soldier was down and wounded and the other one (Prosser) looked, to Yon, to be dead. Yon was the only American thinking and moving.

Are you saying that, as an American, you'd sit there and take pictures while the terrorist, possibly, walked out of that house and executed the Lt.Col. when his weapon went dry? "Hey, Mrs. Kurilla, sorry your husband is dead. I could've done something, but, you know, impartial observer and all."

Fuck that. That's no different from this.


Micheal Yon is not a soldier. He is working at his own risk in a COMBAT ZONE as a journalist, who is ostensibly impartial to the conflict. The Army already has armed Cameramen-they work for "Stars and Stripes" magazine. As an American in a foreign country watching soldiers who used to be my comrades being shot up and not in a position to do anything about it would be a very difficult position to be in, without question. Micheal Yon did not have the legal standing to shoot those men. He is no more legally qualified to shoot terrorists than YOU would be if you hopped a flight to Tikrit and started capping Tangos. He is no longer a combatant. Ms. Kurilla knows that her husband is a soldier and has a dangerous job. Kurilla made the decision that his marriage would be secondary to his military obligations before he ever asked to marry her. Being in the military really sucks some times... People shoot at you when you get sent off to war on days when your battle buddies freeze up. It happens, and it's why militaries train to prevent situations like Kurilla found himself in. Those excercises don't include photographers jumping in when you need a "Time Out" in a firefight. As mentioned, there would be real problems for other Embeds if this were truly a common practice, and a PR nightmare for the military if a journalist were on the nightly news with a ventilated torso and a spent M16 at his feet. You want to talk about a way to undermine a war effort-start killing off journalists by issueing them an M16 with their body armor and helmet!

At the end of the day, we make choices in life and risk the consequenses. Kurilla went to Iraq to fight, Yon went to take pictures and write about it. Both fully understood the risks of their occupation before they went. What Yon did was brave and decent toward a fellow American, but it was still the wrong thing to do.

Dave

No, it was not the wrong thing to do. It might have been against the rules, but it sure as hell wasn't wrong.

Sometimes morality and legality aren't the same thing.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 11:08:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Spade:

So you're saying an American should just let another American die and say "just doing my job.", yes?



Unfortunately, Yes.

If you ask me, reporters have NO BUSINESS in a combat zone anyway. Wars are nasty shit. You don't need a permanent record of the horrible things you need to do to win a war, or the armchair quarterback'ing that happens when you have Embeds in a combat unit.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 11:12:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:

Originally Posted By Spade:

So you're saying an American should just let another American die and say "just doing my job.", yes?



Unfortunately, Yes.

If you ask me, reporters have NO BUSINESS in a combat zone anyway. Wars are nasty shit. You don't need a permanent record of the horrible things you need to do to win a war, or the armchair quarterback'ing that happens when you have Embeds in a combat unit.


On this I agree 100%, although again, I am not .mil....... I think that a reporter is a distraction from what i have read or heard.

I have NO persoanl experience with this so my opinion may be moot.

But from what i have read and heard, reporters that are embedded are a distraction.

Again, NOT .mil so my opinion may be 100% moot here.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 11:14:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

There's a legal difference...

The law of war (which we follow, even if the enemy doesn't) says reporters are non-combatants. They aren't allowed to be armed...

If we start arming reporters (or allowing them to be visibly armed and engage in combat), we break the rules - and since Iraq is very much a PR war we cannot afford to break the rules...

While the enemy does not follow the rules, that's another topic...

Anybody paying proper attention to this would publicly tell this guy 'Bad reporter - no shooting' (even if he later added a private 'but thanks for helping my guys come home')....

It's very different from a CCW (supposed to be armed) stopping to intervene in a crime (exercising a legal prerogative to defend others)...

Hey, the rules were written for a WWII style conflict - but that does not change the fact that they are the rules, and civilized nations follow them...


This kind of attitude is what is preventing us from winning this war. We let the lawyers and the PR asshats run the war. IMHO picking up a rifle and killing the damned savages is always the right choice. Instead, the brass wants to punish him for a technicality that has no point, as the enemy doesn't acknowledge the rules of war anyways. If we kicked out all the PR hacks and all the lawyers trying to run this war, and let a Patton go to town on the enemy, we'd be home by Christmas.

And I'm a lawyer.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 11:14:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Enigma102083:No, it was not the wrong thing to do. It might have been against the rules, but it sure as hell wasn't wrong.

Sometimes morality and legality aren't the same thing.


You need to think about this in a larger context than this particular incident, Kurilla and Yon. These 'rules' are there for a reason. Which is worse, a single dead soldier, or hundreds of dead American reporters? Al Jazeera would LOVE to broadcast that all American reporters are spies and CIA plants as it is, having them claim that Journalists are participating in the firefighting makes every journalist in Iraq a legitimate target. I know that there's not a lot of honor with regards to rules of warfare with Jihadi terrorists, but their leadership knows that the media war on our soil is being won and they would not want to go around killing the journalists that work for news agents that help them indirectly. Killing these journalists would negate their most powerful ally, but if it were widely known that Journalists were functioning as soldiers the militias and insurgents would do what they had to do.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 11:15:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

There is a big difference between a reporter joining a firefight voluntarily, and one defending himself against enemy attack (eg Joe Galloway at LZ-Xray, surrounded & being overrun).


a)There's no such thing as protected status, unless we go to war against Canada I suppose.

b)Joe Galloway had that M-16 from his time at Plei Me (where he and another reporter manned a LMG) until probably well after LZ X-ray. When the cav was on patrol between those two actions Galloway wrote of digging a foxhole for the night and laying out his magazines.

c)He joined the firefight voluntarily when he went on patrol. I really don't think the terrorists or the gunfire cares about his protected status. Those rounds were aimed at him as much as anybody else.

d)Just beacuse he's a non-combatent doesn't mean he can't defend himself and others. He just happened to be defending a soldier.

I just can't believe there are people advocating that an American should sit there and watch other Americans die in a possibly preventable fashion without doing something.
If a reporter on a mounted patrol spots an IED should he keep his mouth shut? It's the same thing.


What he *SHOULD* do and what the *RULES* say he should do are 2 different things...

The penalty for doing the right thing is getting 'in trouble' with the brass...

He's still in Iraq, isn't he?
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 11:17:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By happycynic:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

There's a legal difference...

The law of war (which we follow, even if the enemy doesn't) says reporters are non-combatants. They aren't allowed to be armed...

If we start arming reporters (or allowing them to be visibly armed and engage in combat), we break the rules - and since Iraq is very much a PR war we cannot afford to break the rules...

While the enemy does not follow the rules, that's another topic...

Anybody paying proper attention to this would publicly tell this guy 'Bad reporter - no shooting' (even if he later added a private 'but thanks for helping my guys come home')....

It's very different from a CCW (supposed to be armed) stopping to intervene in a crime (exercising a legal prerogative to defend others)...

Hey, the rules were written for a WWII style conflict - but that does not change the fact that they are the rules, and civilized nations follow them...


This kind of attitude is what is preventing us from winning this war. We let the lawyers and the PR asshats run the war. IMHO picking up a rifle and killing the damned savages is always the right choice. Instead, the brass wants to punish him for a technicality that has no point, as the enemy doesn't acknowledge the rules of war anyways. If we kicked out all the PR hacks and all the lawyers trying to run this war, and let a Patton go to town on the enemy, we'd be home by Christmas.

And I'm a lawyer.


Thats's fine, I agree-we are being too PC and treating the insurgents with Kit gloves. Americans are shitty occupiers-we are just too damned nice to do what's needed.

Ok, so we agree on that.

All I am saying is that if Yon wants to go kill terrorists in a PC or un-PC manner he needs to get back into uniform.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 11:21:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:

Which is worse, a single dead soldier, or hundreds of dead American reporters?


A single dead soldier. Is this a trick question or something?

Seriously though, if we were even a little clever and rutheless, we'd do everything in our power to get the terrorists to shoot the reporters. Maybe then the local CNN asshat wouldn't always side with the enemy.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 11:22:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:

Originally Posted By Spade:

So you're saying an American should just let another American die and say "just doing my job.", yes?



Unfortunately, Yes.


Huh.

I was raised to think I was an American first, and whatever I happened to do for a living was a far distant other number. But, *shrug*
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 11:24:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:

All I am saying is that if Yon wants to go kill terrorists in a PC or un-PC manner he needs to get back into uniform.


No. Its a stupid rule likely created by some asshat in Washington. I don't know how any honorable American could stand by and watch a fellow American be killed by the enemy and not come to his aid. The journalist did the only honorable thing under the circumstances.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 11:26:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Spade:

Huh.

I was raised to think I was an American first, and whatever I happened to do for a living was a far distant other number. But, *shrug*


Yon made the choice to be impartial when he went over there to cover the war, I'm sorry but we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
Link Posted: 3/23/2007 11:29:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:

Originally Posted By Enigma102083:No, it was not the wrong thing to do. It might have been against the rules, but it sure as hell wasn't wrong.

Sometimes morality and legality aren't the same thing.


You need to think about this in a larger context than this particular incident, Kurilla and Yon. These 'rules' are there for a reason. Which is worse, a single dead soldier, or hundreds of dead American reporters? Al Jazeera would LOVE to broadcast that all American reporters are spies and CIA plants as it is, having them claim that Journalists are participating in the firefighting makes every journalist in Iraq a legitimate target. I know that there's not a lot of honor with regards to rules of warfare with Jihadi terrorists, but their leadership knows that the media war on our soil is being won and they would not want to go around killing the journalists that work for news agents that help them indirectly. Killing these journalists would negate their most powerful ally, but if it were widely known that Journalists were functioning as soldiers the militias and insurgents would do what they had to do.

I understand all that, and you have very valid points. I just took offense that you said that saving those two Soldiers was "wrong". Wrong denotes immorality (in my mind), what should be said is that what Yon did was against the rules, yes, and those rules have a reason. But saving the life of another is never wrong.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top