While the media pundits began to criticize the "rescue" as "bungled" they are right but for the wrong reasons. The chance meeting engagement was NOT a deliberately planned hostage rescue that went bad. The bungling was in the training and equipping offered to the Philipinos stemming from U.S. political self-imposed stupidity.
When I joined the U.S. military in 1981, a lot of sound tactical, lessons learned from the Vietnam war were still being used. We knew to gain fire superiority and we carried loads of tear gas grenades to break contact and scatter the enemy in event of a chance contact. We carried field protective (gas) masks on our legs and it was always fun when we got the drop on another unit and gassed them with CS "tear" gas.
However this tactical technique evaporated when President George Bush Senior unwisely signed a treaty denying the U.S. military the use of riot control agents like CS.
I doubt if many of those media pundits criticizing the death of 2 of the U.S. hostages recently realized that it was some of their avant garde advocacy years before banning "chemical agents" as "evil" that swayed President Bush and robbed the U.S. military of non-lethal CS tear gas that its advisees (the Philipine Army) could have used to scatter the terrorists and save ALL of the hostages who would have went to ground choking but would have lived.
Every Police Department across America has tear gas...but not its military locked in combat against terrorists that his behind civilians as "human shields"....whatever happened to common sense? Has it departed the politically correct (and stupid) American psyche? Is it a wonder we have 9/11 attacks?
http://call.army.mil/products/handbook/02-8/02-8ch2.htm
"All team members should carry a mixture of fragmentation, CS, and WP grenades on their belts for the following reasons:
Fragmentation grenades are good for inflicting casualties.
CS grenades are ideal for stopping or slowing down enemy troops and dogs pursuing your team and are effective in damp and wet weather, whereas CS powder will dissipate.
WP grenades have a great psychological effect against enemy troops and can be used for the same purpose as CS grenades. The use of CS and WP at the same time will more than double their effectiveness.
Thoroughly train and test your indigenous troops in grenade-throwing, particularly WP. Not all of them might be adept at baseball-style throwing or be able to get much distance.
Violet and red are the smoke colors most visible from the air.
Notify aircraft before signaling with WP. Gunships or fighter-bombers may mistake it for a marking rocket indicating an enemy position and attack you.
Camouflage smoke, CS, and WP grenades, using black or OD spray paint."
Its too bad, CALL is right, the Army is wronged by the executive branch which sends them into battle without the tools it needs despite promises to the contrarary by President Bush Junior.
A SF Soldier writes:
"As to non-lethal munitions (CS, CM civilian vomiting agent), we're stuck on the horns of a dilemma: we're signatory to a bunch of treaties that, although well-intentioned for the most part, were drafted by people not our friends ratified by politicians (under pressure from NGOs) altogether unconcerned with our military requirements necessary to accomplish the missions they thrust upon us.Some time ago, in *Eastern Europe*, my team deployed to "stop a riot." There were three of us, and a translator. Our MP support convoy didn't show, and our infantry support platoon never appeared. Go figure. So, 'no shit, there I wuz...'
In response to a funny feeling in my gut, I grabbed a 203 and raided the arms locker for rounds, only to find that someone had "turned in" all of the smoke rounds. Realizing that non-lethal munitions might be necessary, I grabbed the only alternative non-lethal round at my disposal: 40mm HEDP.
Locked and cocked, I was the only member of my team that could do anything besides kill rioters if the situation got out of hand - so long as I shot them from 15 meters or less, before the grenade spin-armed...
Fortunately, no shooting (only shouting) proved necessary. After that, a couple of smoke rounds ended up in my butt-pack for the duration...
Reason the smoke was squirreled away?
"Soviet doctrine dictates that use of smoke will be considered use of chemical munitions, and we don't want to start an NBC conflict."
Ditto for riot agents.
We weren't fighting Soviets, but the doctrine was still in consideration. Geneva Convention concerns also played a part ("Hey! That stuff could *kill* somebody?" What, and my M16 couldn't?).
In Somalia, CS might have made a big difference, especially if delivered by mortar/artillery. There we would have been able to have our Rangers continue the fight and treat casualties without forcing them to go to MOPP 4. The only problem was, we didn't have artillery, and we didn't have CS. Aside from that, it would have worked fine launched even from on-scene M203 grenades launchers and by hand...
We now have a mine treaty that limits our use of claymores and anti-pursuit mines, further disadvantaging our *always* outnumbered forces; I'd have two claymores in every fireteam if I had my way. Yet another limitation designed to force others' compliance that simply hampers our operational abilities while not making the bad men stop.
Ah, well.
The bad guys are going to start using smoke and gas as soon as they feel comfortable in promasks. Right now, however, we're getting a respite because promasks are uncomfortable and restrictive. If we face another actual army, however, especially one built on Soviet doctrine, they will use non-lethal agents and bank on our forebearance (and lack of assets) to keep us from responding. In my opinion."
Now that George Bush Junior is President in a war against terrorists who will likely intermingle with innocents he should reverse the bad decision of his father and follow through on his promise that our Soldiers will be given EVERY TOOL they need to win the fight, to include non-lethal riot control agents.
Airborne!
BACKGROUND
From Military.com website
http://www.military.com/NewsContent?file=FL_gas_030303&ESRC=dod.nl
Associated Press
March 02, 2003
Tear Gas May Violate Treaties
San Francisco - Army Maj. Gen. David Grange is proud to have ordered his troops to use tear gas on hostile Serb crowds in Bosnia six years ago.
"We didn't kill anyone," said the now retired Grange. "It saved lives."
His only complaint was that red tape prevented him from using tear gas more often.
The Pentagon is drafting guidelines under which American soldiers could use riot control agents such as tear gas and pepper spraying Iraq to control unruly prisoners and separate enemy soldiers from civilians, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress earlier this month. Problem is, soldiers who use so-called "non-lethal agents" in combat outside their own countries are violating the very chemical weapons treaties the United States accuses Saddam Hussein of flouting.
"We are doing our best to live within the straightjacket that has been imposed on us on this subject," Rumsfeld said on Feb. 5. "We are trying to find ways that non-lethal agents could be used within the law."
Legal issues notwithstanding, the Pentagon has also explored developing other, far more exotic and powerful chemical agents that could be used in conflicts.
While countries may use non-lethal chemicals domestically for law enforcement and crowd control, the Chemical Weapons Convention that took force in 1997 and has been ratified by 149 countries including the United States, specifies: "Each state party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare."
That provision was hotly contested during the 15 years it took to craft the treaty. It arose as an objection to the United States' reliance on tear gas to flush out Viet Cong fighters and kill them during the Vietnam War.
The convention does allow, however, for riot control agents to be used for "law enforcement." Whether "law enforcement" extends beyond a nation's borders is a matter of fierce international debate. The concept will be discussed in April when the treaty comes up for international review in The Hague, Netherlands.
Weapons-control activists cite myriad reasons for banning non-lethal chemical weapons in war.
The agents can actually kill, they argue, when used in war environments. They could also put militaries on a slippery slope to use nastier, deadlier chemicals.
Irritants such as tear gas and pepper spray are tame in comparison to other agents under development.
The U.S. military has explored mind-altering drugs such as opiates, along with genetically engineered microorganisms that can destroy objects like runways, vehicles and buildings.
The research is spearheaded by the U.S. Marine Corps' Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, which was created in 1997 to equip soldiers on overseas peacekeeping and other non-combat duties.
The directorate's mission is to help troops deal with panic-stricken or hostile crowds, like those faced in a failed peacekeeping mission in Somalia.
In one 1993 street battle in Mogadishu, 19 U.S. soldiers and more than 1,000 Somalis were killed. Some military experts say the death toll would have been far lower had soldiers fired non-lethal chemical weapons.
A Pennsylvania State University institute prepared a 50-page report with Pentagon funding in October 2000 that explored a range of drugs - including Prozac, Valium and Zoloft - for use as "calmatives" for crowds.
The researchers found "use of non-lethal calmative techniques is achievable and desirable.
Despite the endorsement, Marine Capt. Shawn Turner of the non-lethal weapons directorate said the military stopped "calmative" research because such drug-weapons may violate international law.
Turner said much of the directorate's $25 million annual budget is spent developing "directed energy" weapons such as laser or microwave guns that stun rather than kill.
"With all these technologies starting to surface in security and the military, maybe there is a real need to revisit these international conventions to reassess if they are still applicable," said Andrew Mazzara, director of the Penn State institute that prepared the calmative report.
But even boosters of non-lethal technology concede that the United States has a perception problem on its hands if it uses chemicals on Iraqis.
"The initial emotional and visceral response are that chemical weapons are bad," said retired Col. John Alexander, a member of a National Research Council panel that urged the United States to continue non-lethal weapons research. "And it's so contentious because one of our big points is that Iraq has chemical weapons."
Weapons control activists, though, see more at stake.
"I wouldn't be surprised if the Bush administration pushes against the treaty as far as it can," said Barbara Rosenberg, chairwoman of the bioweapons group for the Federation of American Scientists.
Rosenberg and others fear the U.S. military wants to weaponize more dangerous chemicals - like the drug used in November to end a hostage crisis at a Moscow theater.
Russian special forces pumped knockout gas, thought to be an opiate, into the theater and then stormed in, killing all 41 hostage-takers.
But the gas proved to be far from "non-lethal." Some 129 hostages also died, almost all from the effects of the gas.
FEEDBACK!
