<p>
</p>
<p>I have reread my posts twice, forwards and backwards, and I cannot find where I made any speculation or opinion whatsoever, biased or personal. Once again, opinions are being made with absolutely nothing to back them up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suppose a corollary of this line of reasoning would be that, with any military action which resulted in the death of soldiers, sailors, or airmen, there would be no post-action critiques, since they could be "disgusting, offensive, condescending, and insulting" to those who had lost their lives.</p>
<p>Does anyone know whether killing the civilians was allowed within the ROE. I have no knowledge of spec ops, however from my experience the ROE may or may not have allowed specifically what interdiction was allowed in this case. I have no problems on a philisophical level that the killing of civilians has been historically a necessity in certain cases. (Hiroshima saved millions of American lives) The Lt. may have been following orders that were within the ROE as far as contact with the civilian population.
MOH vetting is one of the most highly scrutinized areas. If there were any doubts of the recipient following orders, or any other glitches I don't think he would have been awarded it.
One thing is certain.
No one here will ever know for sure about anything that has been included in suppositon in the previous few posts.</p>
<p>
<p>The Lt. may have been following orders that were within the ROE as far as contact with the civilian population.</p>
<p>MOH vetting is one of the most highly scrutinized areas. If there were any doubts of the recipient following orders, or any other glitches I don't think he would have been awarded it.
</p>
<p>The fact that, according to the survivor, Lt Murphy brought the civilian execution to a vote by the team members, caused many to doubt that it would ever pass MOH vetting. That it was brought to a vote lends credence to it’s acceptability, whether in the ROE, or not. However, Bob Kerry, ex SEAL, MOH recepient, and congressman, endorsed the fact that it would not be unusual for a leader to ask the advice of more experienced junior members in a case such as this.</p>
<p>^^^^^
If you want to know about LT Murphy's mission and how he made his decision that resulted in the death of three SEALs, I suggest that you read Lone Survivor.</p>
<p>The answer to your question is yes, LT Murphy and his team could have killed the goat shepherds. His mission was compromised and his utmost responsibility was to protect the lives of his men.</p>
<p>LT Murphy went down the path of taking political considerations into account when making the decision. If his team had killed the civiliams, he would have been required to file a report which would be available to the press. Also, he was concerned that the Taliban would use any killings in propoganda. In the end, LT Murphy put the decision up to a vote.</p>
<p>^^^^^^^^^Of course this is all hearsay from a guy trying to sell a book.</p>
<p>I would rather keep it on the hypothetical. Fresh out of Bancroft, in the rice paddies and jungles of South Vietnam, performing clandestine missions with SpecWarGru, I could have found myself in this very situation. I know then that I would have had problems pulling the trigger. Nothing at USNA prepared me to make that decision. Now, I don't think I would give it as second thought. The ethics dept at USNA was formed during my son's first class year, actually he was on the midn steering committee. I have met and had several great discussions with the Marine Colonel who formed it, but am not really familiar with the curriculum. It would be great if it did somehow prepare grads for difficult decisions such as this.</p>