Was this soldier treated fairly?

N

Natoma

Veteran
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3840267/

Pogany, an Army interrogator assigned to the 10th Special Forces Group, was charged with cowardice Oct. 14 after suffering what he described as a panic attack from seeing a mangled body of an Iraqi man who had been cut in half by American gunfire in Iraq.

After he asked for counseling, Pogany’s commanders sent him back to Fort Carson to face a court-martial on a cowardice charge, which can be punishable by death. The Army later replaced it with the lesser dereliction-of-duty charge, which could have put Pogany behind bars for six months.

The Army dropped that charge Dec. 18 and offered Pogany a hearing on nonjudicial punishment, called an Article 15, for dereliction of duty. Instead Pogany requested a court-martial, which is much like a civilian trial in which a judge or jury decides the suspect’s fate.

.....

Pogany is a five-year veteran who had a stellar service record until this fall.
Click to expand...

Any military people want to comment? This seems like a very normal reaction on Pogany's part. I'm rather shocked that the army responded in the manner it did.
 
Prefaced with: I'm not military.

It seems harsh, but wartime reaction to cowardice, desertion, and insubordination has always been harsh and unforgiving. If you can't rely on a soldier to do his job when the going gets tough, then he's of no use.

That being said, It still seems harsh to me. (But I'm not relying on this gentleman to cover me when bullets start flying.)
 
Yea I thought that at first, i.e. regarding the need to be "tough" when the bullets are flying, but his position is army interrogator. I would think people like that would normally never be on the front line, and that maybe he was going into a battle scene, post fight. Dunno.
 
Shawshana Johnson was a cook. She ended up taking a bullet in the ankle.

No matter what the job in the army is, you're <a> soldier first.

If you can't be, then you shouldn't be in <the> Army.

EDIT: heh. left out a few articles. Strange how the mind skips over them sometimes.
 
The article is vague. We don't know the details of what transpired, nor where we there.

So its always a little hard to judge fairly.

Regardless, panic attacks are an anxiety related disease that can be treated. However its probably best for this officer to be reprimanded and discharged.

Think of it. If he was not punished you give the feelgood shrink scapegoat to everyone. All of a sudden you'd have hundreds of soldiers suffering from panic attacks, depression, insomnia etc when the going gets tough.

Thats dangerous business in war, and puts lives at risk.
 
yeah, but cowardice punishable by death? WHAT THE HELL? We so often talk about how horrible other militarys are when they shoot a soldier who retreats, but when people aren't looking we do the same thing!?
 
Sage said:
yeah, but cowardice punishable by death? WHAT THE HELL? We so often talk about how horrible other militarys are when they shoot a soldier who retreats, but when people aren't looking we do the same thing!?
Click to expand...

His cowardice could of got others killed. He should be shot. It is too bad training did not weed out this pansy.
 
I know a soldier's job in the army during war is to kill, but frankly the idea of divorcing oneself from the horror of war in order to do a job is, well, horrifying in and of itself. I hope I never acquire the mentality and the skills that someone who serves in our armed forces during a time of war must possess in order to be successful in that hierarchy. It's so inhuman.
 
Cowardice is a reasoned behaviour, and if one thing isnt appreciated in grunts it is reasoning, panic isnt.
 
divorcing oneself from the horror of war
Click to expand...

You don't... at least most don't..

Its like being afraid to speak infront of people and being forced to give a speech.. you can either wet your pants and run off stage or you can maintain some self discipline, focus, and do what needs to be done reguardless of your personal feelings... the fear is still there but giving your speech is more important than feeding into it.

The same is true of this situation.. you have to decide whats more important; crying over a dead body or focusing on keeping your fellow soldiers alive and getting yourself home. The pity / disgust / horror is most likely still there, but you do not let these whimiscal emotions direct your behavior.. Many people in the world today would benefit from a better understanding of duty and self discipline.
 
Well said, Sariden!

As I was reading through this thread, I was preparing my response in the back of my mind... then I got to Sariden's post (above). I couldn't say it any better myself, Sariden. You hit the nail RIGHT on the head.

Not allowing yourself to have an obviously human reaction to seeing a man cut in half by gunfire doesn't mean you're not human. It also doesn't mean that you're not horrified by what you saw. It means that you have enough self-control to not act in any sort of way that could be viewed as "coward-like" while you're on the battlefield (interrogator or not, he was on the battlefield at the time), and other people's lives are at stake. The lives of your fellow soldiers are priorities #1 through 1,000,000 when you're in this situation.
 
All I know is that it wouldn't make me happy if the guy who's supposed to be covering my back is going to panic as soon as he sees a mangled body. Death may be a bit harsh but those people simply don't belong in the army.
 
If the representation in the media that his superior charged him well after the incident and in a non combat situations is accurate, I would guess his superior is just a mini-Patton which doesnt believe PTSD exists. PTSD is not something which you suffer from from choice, noone chooses to have their brain functions measurably changed and potentially a lifetime of suffering from an illness ... some people simply arent fit for the military.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top