Excellent article on Marine peeing on corpse

[Koshinn]

Who covering whose ass?

What that quote talks about is Unlawful Command Influence in an official investigative and punitive process, which is plainly against the UCMJ.

Ames covering his own.

[Arctic1]

Filming it was their only indiscretion IMHO.

Pissing on enemy corpses is not behavior one should encourage in any fighting force.

Use all the tricks in the book, and every weapon in your arsenal to kill the enemy. When he is dead, he is dead, and should be treated accordingly.

If you think this is ok, you cannot really get angry when the other side does despicable things either.

[brickboy240]

Piss on them all you want...just don't FILM it...ok?

Lesson learned...the hard way.

-brickboy240

[Arctic1]

And what exactly is achieved by pissing on their corpses?

Does it make them more dead?

[ABNAK]

He did the opposite of a slap on the wrist...


Sounds like ass-covering to me.

Holy crap! "Protect the institutional integrity of the military justice process"? By doing ONLY what the Commandant wants done? Seems that the word process implies that there are a number of steps to be taken to ensure "justice", not a railroading dog-and-pony show reflecting the Commandant's personal opinion. Sure, he's the Commandant of the Corps but isn't the "system" supposed to be free from bias and such? Wow.......

That comment about he wanted them "crushed" is not becoming a general officer, unless he's referring to the enemy.

[ABNAK]

And what exactly is achieved by pissing on their corpses?

Does it make them more dead?

According to the article it was a form of payback for desecrating a Marine's corpse. I don't expect our guys in mortal combat to see things from the "Moral High Road" of sitting here at home. Payback is payback.

Look, IIRC you've served in Afghanistan, correct? Kudos to you; I haven't. However, you really think this is the first time in warfare this type of thing has taken place? Surely pissing on a dead Taliban is a lesser indiscretion than cutting off body parts or similar. I tend to give a generous amount of leeway to our guys shy of walking up and capping a civilian for no reason (not collateral damage from shooting/bombing back at an enemy who has taken position among them; that's different).

I really don't care about alienating the enemy.....they are, after all, the enemy and probably couldn't hate us much more anyway!

[Koshinn]

Holy crap! "Protect the institutional integrity of the military justice process"? By doing ONLY what the Commandant wants done? Seems that the word process implies that there is a number of steps to be taken to ensure "justice", not a railroading dog-and-pony show. Sure, he's the Commandant of the Corps but isn't the "system" supposed to be free from bias and such? Wow.......

That comment about he wanted them "crushed" is not becoming a general officer, unless he's referring to the enemy.

This whole story spiraled way out of control, having rammifications all the way up the chain.

If this were a movie, I'd imagine it'd be a legal movie like A Few Good Men. The story of the hunt, capture, and subsequent urination would be told in flash backs, viewings of the (recreated for the movie) video, and testimony. But I don't know how it would end since it hasn't actually ended.


Arctic1 - The only positive gain from doing so is a temporary morale boost for those involved. However, the negatives far outweigh those paltry gains. That being said, if no one knows about it, I'd say there's technically only gain (morale) and no downside. But the risk of a video showing up is far too great in a risk-vs-reward sense.

[glocktogo]

It's quite simple really. This country never had the intestinal fortitude to do what needed done, to control the battlefield with an iron fist and crush the enemy in a decisive fashion. No, we have to "help" the enemy see the error of their ways and rehabilitate them, or take their toys and send them to bed without supper.

I really don't have an issue with treating the enemy kindly and rebuilding their infrastructure, but only AFTER an unconditional surrender and complete control. We never got either of those in that shithole. Those filthy savages act like complete animals, ignore every international law on modern warfare and indiscriminately target civilians in unspeakable ways. So be it.

I'm all for striking our enemies with missiles and planes, but I will never again support putting a single boot on the ground anywhere in the world unless the overwhelming majority of the American population is calling for the total annihilation of the enemy and salting their earth.

[Arctic1]

According to the article it was a form of payback for desecrating a Marine's corpse. I don't expect our guys in mortal combat to see things from the "Moral High Road" of sitting here at home. Payback is payback.

Look, IIRC you've served in Afghanistan, correct? Kudos to you; I haven't. However, you really think this is the first time in warfare this type of thing has taken place? Surely pissing on a dead Taliban is a lesser indiscretion than cutting off body parts or similar. I tend to give a generous amount of leeway to our guys shy of walking up and capping a civilian for no reason (not collateral damage from shooting/bombing back at an enemy who has taken position among them; that's different).

I really don't care about alienating the enemy.....they are, after all, the enemy and probably couldn't hate us much more anyway!

I know that bad things happen in warfare. That does not mean that we should approve or accept that it happens.

Cool, they were pissed off and wanted some payback. They got their payback when they killed the bastards dead. The moment they decided to piss on the corpses of their defeaten enemy, they disrespected the uniform and hurt the effort that has, unfortunately, cost us many lives over the last 12 years. Do you not think that these kinds of incidents do not put US servicemen and women at risk for green on blue attacks?

This isn't all out existential warfare; win or be conquered, this is a security assistance mission to the government of Afghanistan. Acts like these don't exactly help increase support, on either side.

It is also an example of low-level leadership failure, someone there should have had the fortitude to tell these guys to knock it off as soon as he saw what was going on.

[Arctic1]

Arctic1 - The only positive gain from doing so is a temporary morale boost for those involved. However, the negatives far outweigh those paltry gains. That being said, if no one knows about it, I'd say there's technically only gain (morale) and no downside. But the risk of a video showing up is far too great in a risk-vs-reward sense.

No downside? What about the integrity of those Marines? It still hurts the fight; there were others there who witnessed what happened, even if no camera was present. Some might think that Afghans are stone age people, but word gets around even without internet or cell phone access. People would still know.

Again, why wasn't it sufficient payback to kill these guys? Is pissing on the guys you just killed worth it if it leads to a US or allied serviceman or woman getting killed by either a real ANA soldier or an impostor?

Controlled aggression is good; uncontrolled is not good. Kill them has hard as neccessary, then stop.