Guns and Gear

Protecting Those Who Protect Us

Guns and Gear Contributor
Font Size:

By Maj. Gen. Jerry R. Curry, US Army (Ret.)

Under questioning by the CIA, Green Beret war hero Major Mathew L. Golsteyn volunteered that he had shot and killed an unarmed Taliban terrorist bomb maker in Afghanistan in the heat of battle, according to Army documents A few days earlier a Taliban bomb had killed two U.S. Marines and wounded several others. Bomb making materials had been found in the suspect’s home and an Afghan tribal leader identified the bomb maker as being a member of the Taliban terrorists. He said that if the bomb maker were released, he feared for his own life and the lives of his family.

This was the predicament Major Golsteyn apparently found himself in: if he let the terrorist go the lives of his own soldiers would be in danger as would be the lives of the Afghanistan tribal leader and his family; if he killed the bombmaker he would be violating the U.S. rules of engagement and could be punished accordingly.

He decided to protect friendly lives by executing the terrorist and then turning himself in for punishment. Throughout those intense days of combat action, Golsteyn’s personal heroism was so selfless and exemplary that he was recommended for the nation’s second highest award for bravery and valor, the Distinguished Service Cross.

It is at this place in the story where some of Golsteyn’s personal bravery on the battlefield needed to have been transported to the desk heroes back at the Pentagon. Army Secretary John McHugh withdrew Golsteyn’s heroism award and threw him under the bus accused of violating the rules of engagement in combat and demonstrating a lack of honorable conduct. Soldiers risking their lives in the defense of their country in combat can’t depend on the Army staff to “get their backs.”

Today, throughout all our armed forces this battle rages.  Do commanders on the battlefield put saving the lives of their troops first or, before taking any type lethal action that will result in enemy casualties or deaths, or do they first ask the military’s lawyers for a legal opinion, or do they take care of their own? One wonders whether under these current rules of engagement the Battles of Bull Run, Gettysburg or Yorktown would have been fought and won.

When the most difficult thing you have to do is attack your inbox or get through the Pentagon cafeteria line, it is easy to find fault with and critique the actions of those facing death far away on a mid-east battle field. It is time that the Army staff relearned  that when a man or women does something heroic on the battlefield, you don’t pull back and nullify their heroism award just because they later do something you think inappropriate.

It is past time when the Secretaries of the various services and of Defense should go as far out on the limb as the situation will permit and declare their support for all our service men and women under all conditions. If the President or some member of the administration wants to nitpick a combat action, let him first answer this question, does the Department of Defense stand by its political rules of engagement or by the lives of its troops? I believe they should stand up for America’s combat troops even if it means they will be fired. Their motto should be, “We Take Care of Our Own!”

If the terrorist hadn’t been identified as a Taliban bombmaker he wouldn’t have been singled out for retribution. His past actions in killing American soldiers are what made him a threat to the tribal leader and his family and other Americans. It seems the current rules of combat engagement are designed more for the protection of terrorists and enemy soldiers than for U.S. troops.

Mr. Curry is a retired Army Major General, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Carter administration; Acting Press Secretary to the Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration; and Administrator of the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration in the Bush Sr. administration.

Guns and Gear