How far does a soldier (Christian or otherwise) go to protect your own?

PFC Edgar Mosier — Mon, 14 Nov 2022 12:06:04 -0500

In all fairness, where would you draw the line to protect your own?
Your own being friends, family, or home.
Would you protect your own by calling in an airstrike on your own position to keep from being over-run, like Col. Moore ('Nam) or wipe out a complete village, much like Lt. Calley did?
Remember, there are enemies that have always used Trojan Horses...

Response by SSgt Christophe Murphy made Nov 14 at 2022 12:38 PM

SSgt Christophe Murphy — Mon, 14 Nov 2022 12:38:41 -0500

Calling in fire being within the threshold of danger close is one thing and what Lt Calley did is a complete other. Lt Calley ordered the killing of an entire village with numbers estimated from 347 and 504 unarmed villagers. Many of who were children. Women and children as young as 12 were mutlilated and/or raped in the process. Trying to compare the My Lai massacre to calling in danger close air support or artillery is a oversimplification when asking how far someone would go. I went to High School with Lt Calley's Niece and was able to speak about the incident with in depth detail. What he did can't be considered a logical military action or the prevention of your Trojan Horse.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 14 at 2022 1:23 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 14 Nov 2022 13:23:44 -0500

You're trying to compare apples to oranges. LTC Hal Moore called in danger close fire because he was engaged with identified enemy forces that vastly outnumbered his troops. LT Calley was a platoon leader that took part in the rape and slaughter of 200-500 unarmed civilians.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 14 at 2022 2:06 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 14 Nov 2022 14:06:22 -0500

The one Col. Moore called in yes.
What they claim Lt. Calley did. I would have have to be there. The reason I say this is my Dad served in Nam. Told us what Charlie did to the locals to make them serve and keep quiit that they were being used by Charlie. The rapes totally uncalled for. But to have just one person held accountable with all that was supposed to have gone on does not make sense to me. There was a lot of crap going on in Nam. Much like the wars in the middle east in that u do not know who is okay to talk to and who is out to get u.
Dad told us some of the things he saw happen and just b4 he died told us he hoped that we would never have to see some of the things he has seen.
I just know if I am out on a patrol and someone is firing at me I am firing back and not just to hurt them.

Response by LtCol Robert Quinter made Nov 15 at 2022 9:19 AM

LtCol Robert Quinter — Tue, 15 Nov 2022 09:19:55 -0500

There are three principles applicable to your question.
First is a principle of morals or humanity USA forces have been held to since our founding. We have never used deadly force against non-combatants. A non-combatant is someone who does not represent an immediate threat to your people, be they civilians, enemy personnel who are attempting to surrender, or enemies who are prisoners. Conforming with this principle means that anyone you kill must be an immediate threat to your people, not a potential or possible threat. When Calley lost control of his people and they massacred the villagers he did not satisfy his responsibility to control his unit and was responsible,
Calling for danger close fire is an accepted tactic when your unit has lost the ability to defend against or repel enemy combatants. The concept is to have your personnel take whatever self-protective measures possible against the friendly fire in the hopes more of them will survive the fire than will survive in direct combat with the enemy force which is hopefully compromised by the supporting fire.
Yes, there are instances throughout our military history when the principle of force against non-combatants has been apparent, but they are recognized in retrospect as violations of our principles. By the way, destruction of material supplies and lines of communication such as accomplished by Sherman in his march to the sea are valid military actions under the circumstances.
So far as protecting my family, I would use any force necessary, but that does not include the massacre of neighbors in their homes who are not active aggressors toward my family.