A Better Mousetrap
Hunting had ceased to be what you call 'a sporting proposition.'
It had become too easy. I always got my quarry. Always.
There is no greater bore than perfection.
I hunt the scum of the earth: sailors from tramp ships--
lassars, blacks, Chinese, whites, mongrels--
a thoroughbred horse or hound is worth more than a score of them."
--The Most Dangerous Game, Richard Connnell
_________
From the WaPo:
"A Pentagon group has encouraged some U.S. military snipers in Iraq to target suspected insurgents by scattering pieces of "bait," such as detonation cords, plastic explosives and ammunition, and then killing Iraqis who pick up the items, according to military court documents.
"Capt. Matthew P. Didier, the leader of an elite sniper scout platoon attached to the 1st Battalion of the 501st Infantry Regiment, said in a sworn statement. "Basically, we would put an item out there and watch it. If someone found the item, picked it up and attempted to leave with the item, we would engage the individual as I saw this as a sign they would use the item against U.S. Forces" (U.S. Aims to lure Insurgents with "Bait").
Engage being military-speak for kill, many questions arise for these "engaged individuals":
- Does it count if they are under five feet tall? Must you pass up the shot?
- Do you get extra points for an Imam? Bonus points if it's in a burkha?
- Do two kids = one adult in the body count?
- If the engaged individual doesn't have a rifle, does that count as a confirmed kill? Are they only "suspected" bad guys after we've killed those particular engaged targets?
- Can you fix them when they are within three feet of bait? How long must they finger the bait before you can take them out?
- Have they considered putting some pheromones on the bait to up the attraction?
- Doesn't this count as shooting over a baited field? If so, then this counts as sport, yes?
A Sporting Proposition
This last point is rife with troublesome implications for the Army.
It would cause a blurring of the concept of military versus civilian arms, a popular topic with opponents of the 2nd Amendment. This might rule out the use of certain weapons. In this particular endeavor, should the military therefore use civilian weapons?
Will we need to introduce game wardens into the theatre of operations to keep this a sporting proposition? According to classic theories of hunting over a baited field, you must bait the field all year long in order to legally hunt there.
There must also be declared open seasons. Generally, you are not allowed to shoot bucks and does at the same time.
These thoughts arise because if we are introducing democracy, we must go all out with the concept. We must have a sportsman package that is game.
Moon over the Euphrates
Will there be bag limits? If you bag the highest number of fair targets within a certain period, do you win a good sportsmanship prize?
Here's a big thought both for beefing up our forces and helping finance the Iraq undertaking:
Ranger proposes selling hunting junkets to the Guns and Ammo crowd. They've hunted the Big Four; they've been on safari to Africa. Now, they could be enlisted to hunt the Ultimate Game. They would sign responsibility waivers, they would provide their own gear. The opportunity of a lifetime for some decked out, Lee Greenwood-listening hunters just chomping at the bit to do their patriotic duty.
Just a thought.
Did Vice Vice President Dick Cheney, avid sportsman that he is, advocate this policy? It is certain that his attorney did not.
Labels: a sporting proposition, snipers bait Iraqi insurgents, the most dangerous game
posted by rangeragainstwar at 2:48 PM
6 Comments:
this thoroughly and utterly disgusted and alarmed me. on many levels. the only thing this will accomplish is to up the body count, which i thought was a discredited measurement. using this as a tactic also takes a sniper out of their primary role on the battlefield that of observation and selection.
it's not war, it's murder. pure and simple.
i fear for their souls. even righteous shoots take their toll as the years roll by and the nights get darker. there's something about the taking of life from distance and hiding that is patently against our essence as human beings. it should not be taken so lightly. and never, ever, in sport.
(i still do elk and deer season, mostly because my son is learning to be a professional guide. the last several years we've gone out during the black powder season, with flintlocks. way more hunting, not all that much shooting)
This isn' exactly new. I know that as much as six months ago, I heard about a story of a very PTSD'd young veteran whose main complaint was the placing of items to attract targets. In that case, it was less lethal items...things like phony cameras or cellphones. But yes, they shot whoever picked up the bait. The upping the ante with explosive related baits....well, cops would have to call this 'entrapment' and even good Catholics would call it creating an "occasion to sin" and frown on it. And that w/o shooting the prey!
labrys,
I'm glad they just frowned upon me, and didn't shoot my ass.
MB,
I went to sniper school in '73 at Ft. Benning but I never understood the concept. If a sniper can take a one-round shot, why not just have him call in an artillery battery five. This would be much more effective than his rifle.
Certainly this is not a classic combat scenario in which artillery is being employed; it also seems doubtful that snipers should be employed.
In the Vn War, Carlos Hathcock had 93 kills, but a great proportion of them were civilians moving around at nighttime. Generally speaking, Army snipers only engaged armed targets. This should be the same std. in Iraq--no rifle, no target, unless the target is with a group of armed individuals.
In VN, an unarmed individual accompanying an armed group usually indicated political cadre, making him first target. This is well w/in the rules of land warfare.
As they say in Lonesome Dove, if you travel with thieves, you hang with 'em. Obviously in Iraq, there are no political cadres with the fighters.
This entire concept is unsettling, as you indicate. It's just another example of Americans trying to be cute, creating a new sort of game. And being cute is not one of the principles of war.
i agree with you ranger, although there are times where the effectiveness of the sniper is undeniable. back before silencers and muzzle breaks there was the whole mindfuck of the impact of the projectile, the shower of blood, an involuntary jerk and fall, and then that big huge BOOM. Sometimes right after the boom somebody would look up into the scope with the realization of "there's another one on the way right now" written all over their face. . .for taking out single targets, like "tax collectors" for shadow government, or officers at the head of a moving column, or ripping the commo out of the equation before springing the ambush, snipers have a role to play.
a sniper in a covering position can be a comfort to folks trying to get the hell away from a big pile of stuff about to blow up.
there's a whole big weird trip about "surgical" ops lately that baffles the shit out of me. i think the snipers play into the fantasy world of lots of damage without lots of killing.
sensibly deployed and trained a sniper can be a powerful tactical tool.
these guys are being used as hit men. it's not sound practice. it is certainly unethical, possibly criminal. those are not shots i would be comfortable taking. or living with later.
MB,
My sniper comments were predicated upon normal theatre Army operations, and echelons above corp. scenarios//Snipers are generally tied to their home stations with radio communication, whichh can bring down company, bn, and bdge fires upon all observed targets. This is much more effective than a rifle bullet//
Most sniper proponents say snipers cause terror in enemy units. The mission of the infantry is not to terrorize the enemy, but to kill him, which is best done with indirect fire, which is the biggest killer on the battlefield.--hence my comments.//
Your use of snipers is in the Spec. Opns. arena, and I concur totally./My comments were based upon normal infantry opns.//Your usage could dovetail with the old concept of designated marksman within a unit. This person need not be sniper-qualified, but simply an expert riflemen.//A SAW gunner would be appropriate to use in the mode you describe.
Jim
Post a Comment
<< Home