A different portrait of Chief Gallagher, darling of Fox News

[MillCreek]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/us/navy-seals-crimes-of-war.html

Always interesting to hear the other side of the story.

[Ron]

Occupations, police actions and nation building always seem to have these type of accusations/actions as part of the deal.

I have no idea whether any, all or if some of this is true.

Is putting our best and most brutal warriors into these types of police actions where they are restrained from waging total war part of the problem?

[Fly320s]

Is putting our best and most brutal warriors into these types of police actions where they are restrained from waging total war part of the problem?

Restraint is part of war.  We can't/don't go around nuking all of our enemies.

I haven't been following this case, but if the allegations are proven true, then the Chief should go to prison.  Standards exist for a reason and higher ranking people should be help to a higher standard.

[Ron]

Restraint is part of war.  We can't/don't go around nuking all of our enemies.

I haven't been following this case, but if the allegations are proven true, then the Chief should go to prison.  Standards exist for a reason and higher ranking people should be help to a higher standard.

I don’t disagree with you about standards and accountability, I just question the wisdom of using the same guys who are trained to kill people and break things without prejudice as peace keepers and nation builders.

These types of stories are told about soldiers of empires throughout all of history.

[Fly320s]

I don’t disagree with you about standards and accountability, I just question the wisdom of using the same guys who are trained to kill people and break things without prejudice as peace keepers and nation builders.

These types of stories are told about soldiers of empires throughout all of history.

I understand and agree, except I don't think we should be involved in nation-building at all.

[cordex]

Always interesting to hear the other side of the story.

The NYT version is the first one I heard (not that specific article, but the content).  I don't watch Fox News so I haven't seen that "side".  I did hear an interview or two between some other SEALs who were talking about it.  Their take was that if the allegations that he intentionally killed innocent people are true then he should go to jail, but (as I recall) the version they had heard from within the teams was that Gallagher pushed his guys really hard, that some of them really didn't like his leadership style or the fact that he worked to get his platoon involved in missions toward the end of a deployment or something when they wanted to stay safe back at base and were looking for a way to get him.

I just don't know, and I don't trust either NYT or Fox News to tell it straight.  All I can hope is that the court-martial gives a just verdict based on good evidence.

[MillCreek]

Having been on the administrative side in terms of responding to whistleblower complaints, one of the very first pages in the playbook is to portray the complaining party as a disgruntled employee who is seeking revenge and should be dismissed accordingly.

[cordex]

Having been on the administrative side in terms of responding to whistleblower complaints, one of the very first pages in the playbook is to portray the complaining party as a disgruntled employee who is seeking revenge and should be dismissed accordingly.

Does that mean it is never true?

[makattak]

Having been on the administrative side in terms of responding to whistleblower complaints, one of the very first pages in the playbook is to portray the complaining party as a disgruntled employee who is seeking revenge and should be dismissed accordingly.

It should be noted that "play" is in the playbook because some whistleblowers are disgruntled employees. The counter-charges should be treated just the same as the charges- search for the answers, not dismissed because, well, that's just what guilty people do!

It is, but it is also what innocent people do.

[T.O.M.]

The NYT version is the first one I heard (not that specific article, but the content).  I don't watch Fox News so I haven't seen that "side".  I did hear an interview or two between some other SEALs who were talking about it.  Their take was that if the allegations that he intentionally killed innocent people are true then he should go to jail, but (as I recall) the version they had heard from within the teams was that Gallagher pushed his guys really hard, that some of them really didn't like his leadership style or the fact that he worked to get his platoon involved in missions toward the end of a deployment or something when they wanted to stay safe back at base and were looking for a way to get him.

I just don't know, and I don't trust either NYT or Fox News to tell it straight.  All I can hope is that the court-martial gives a just verdict based on good evidence.

I've known a few SEALs, and this just doesn't seem like their style, in terms of sitting things out until they can go home, or making up crap to get someone in trouble because training is too hard/he's a mean leader/etc..

That said, America seeks to claim the high ground in terms of its military and warfighting.  We don't carpet bomb villages to take out a small group.  We send ground forces in at risk to those troops to minimize collateral damages.  We don't take out civilians because they are in the same area as combatants.  And, when I was in training as an officer, it was stressed to us.  We are the good guys.  It is expected.  And, it is enforced.  Like it or not, it is what it is.

[Hawkmoon]

Fuzzy recollection is that Gallagher was in the brig specifically because after his arrest he engaged in a concerted effort to intimidate witnesses.

[RoadKingLarry]

Having been on the administrative side in terms of responding to whistleblower complaints, one of the very first pages in the playbook is to portray the complaining party as a disgruntled employee who is seeking revenge and should be dismissed accordingly.

All "whislteblowers" must be believed for the same reason all rape accusation must be believed.

Seriously though, a report of wrong doing should be taken seriously and honestly investigated.
If the report is true then the reportee gets appropriate response and the reporter gets the justice they deserve.
If however the accusations are found to be false and malicious in nature (as opposed to an honest error/misunderstanding) then the person or persons  making the false claim needs to have the weight of the world brought down on their head.