was about to make thread on this, but saw this one so i'll just add my thread start as a post.
Some people may think 'big deal isn't that what soldiers do everyday' and other such ridiculous things, no, this is not a tragic accident, this is not even death caused by negligence of a soldier, both of which are already terrible things, this is deliberate murder.
This man has single handedly set back the NATO mission and irreparably damaged relations with not only the local people of the village but possibly the whole province and to some extent the country. For each one of his victims there will be dozens of family members now convinced to take up arms against ISAF, farmers, merchants and tradesmen all now willing to plant IED's for the Taliban or take up arms against foreign forces.
The approval and friendship of the local nationals is vital in operations such as the conflict in Afghanistan, where having the locals on side in the past has saved lives, when locals have come to FOBs and PB's to tell ISAF forces where IED's have been planted, or even warn when Taliban are in the area.
This man has thrown that all away, and in doing so risked the lives of every single ISAF member in the region.
What i would like to know is how the happened. Did he leave camp alone or as part of a patrol? If he left camp alone, why was able to do so? Military camps the world over have sentries, men guarding the entrances and exits, this is also true of those in Afghanistan, so why did the guards allow a lone soldier to go outside the wire? It is something that should not be happening.
If he was part of a patrol, why the hell did the other men in his unit not stop him? Under rules of engagement you are allowed to use deadly force to prevent the loss of human life, any soldier who observed this action was not only within his rights but obligated to prevent this, by shooting the perpetrator if necessary.
I do not think he was out on any specific approved mission since the article states he handed himself in after the attack, which makes me wonder what the hell the guys in the sanger where doing by letting him leave camp alone.
It is truly a despicable act one that harms NATO both in theatre and back home.
I am not knowledgeable about law and was wondering if someone could help me out here. Do war crimes carry a harsher sentence than a similar act carried out in a civilian setting.
For example if a soldier was to commit theft in a theatre of operations and be caught and convicted would the sentence be harsher than if he was to steal something and be caught and convicted back home?
I personally believe soldiers who commit crimes in operational theartres deserve severe punishment, their actions already crimes carry the consequence of risking the lives of their comrades and **** over any advances made in the way of peace and good relations with the locals and the local national forces.
I feel any crime committed in an operational theatre should have a war crime tag attached to it qualifying the accused for a harsher sentence, i don't know if this is already the case, but i feel it should be.
Some might mention that this individual was clearly disturbed, perhaps suffering stress or PTSD, then where the was the suppourt within unit? Why did no one spot the signs? Combat stress symptoms should have been noticed by the men working and living closely with him, there should be a welfare system in place to have dealt with him. I know from personal experience that when someone shows signs of trauma, usually after a significant event, the best course of action is usually to take them off of the front line, return them to a main operating base where they can talk it out and be checked by professionals, if you suspect someone of suffering from combat stress its for their own and your own personal safety that you have an obligation to say something and see that they get help.
This whole thing seems like it could have been prevented at so many points before it got this far.