Shhhh! Be vewy vewy qwiet

we’re hunting insurgents - with bait!

Apart from concerns about the legality and morality of the tactic itself, there’s the issue of what sort of slippery slope it puts those involved with it on:

Within months of the program’s introduction, three snipers in Didier’s platoon were charged with murder for allegedly using those items and others to make shootings seem legitimate. Though it does not appear that the three alleged shootings were specifically part of the classified program, defense attorneys argue that the program may have opened the door to the soldiers’ actions because it blurred the legal lines of killing in a complex war zone.

Today’s followup.

“When they pick up the bait, that’s when we aim for their hearts and minds,” explained a sniper.

Bang bang, he shot me down
Bang bang, I hit the ground
Bang bang, that awful sound
Bang bang, after picking up the det cord that I found.

Sorry, couldn’t resist a funky song lyric quote. What a strange program to have made in the first place. Who the hell thought that would be a good idea?

Some parent walks by and sees something potentially dangerous to the kids playing in the area, he reaches down to pick it up so he can dispose of it safely and he gets his brains blown out.

Charming stuff.

Gotta love the military!

It’s a sad comment on the lack of logic employed by the planners. They honestly couldn’t think of any scenarios where innocent people would pick up live ordnance laying on the ground? Bullshit. They just didn’t care. Let me go sprinkle a few boxes of ammo, some shotgun shells, and a can of black powder around the nearest playground, we’ll see if only criminals deign to pick it up.

H.

Military Intelligence!

If they weren’t such idiots, they would have just left specially engineered backwards firing guns or put a gps inside the detonator cord spool to see where people take it. It’s funny that the United States Armed Forces are dumber than the DEA.

Here’s a better idea, just leave nice things, with a note that says, “Hi, I’m a sniper in a nearby building. Everyone else wanted to leave some bullets here as a form of bait, and shoot you for taking them. But not me. Here’s the thing, I left you some nice stuff, in particular enjoy the clean water and scrumptious desserts. If the killing continues, I am going to get caught and they are going to arrest me. Then the genius who wants to leave a box of grenades in the street outside your house and shoot at people for trying to move a box of goddamn grenades out of the street where cars are driving and children are playing gets his way. If it doesn’t, tomorrow there will be pizza and fresh strawberries. Don’t make me look like an asshole. Oh yeah, do you want green peppers on your pizza? I like them, but not everyone does. I can see you from where I am hiding, so, wave your hands if you want green peppers.”

If only the effeminate guy from Family Guy would join the army, become a sniper, and go to Iraq…

Generally speaking, booby trapped weapons and equipment are frowned upon although employed in certain, very specific scenarios. There’s simply too much room for error and the obvious problem that insurgents tend to be extraordinarily suspicious of anything near where an American has been. As in, paying children to go pick it up first.

I can’t imagine what would lead anyone to think the tactic in the OP was a good idea. Iraq is a salvage environment: not a single thing in a blown up building that could conceivably be used again goes to waste.

Yeah, I know. I just like the idea of a backwards firing gun. Just doing what the DEA does, or even what regular police officers do, tagging something and watching people try to steal it, would probably work a lot better.

I just wonder, did the guy who came up with this ever see, “Mom and Dad Save the World?”

Or for a more humanitarian slant, just double-charge the ammo. That way they have to pull the trigger, so you know you’re likely getting a relatively bad guy, and it 99% only blows up the chamber/barrel without hurting anyone. One less weapon on the street, minimal collateral damage. It’s surprising how effectively most weapons soak up a hot load without hurting the shooter.

H.

Actually they should leave defective ammo around that is designed to malfunction disastrously. IE: Gun ammo will explode in the gun as soon as it is fired, hand grenades that will explode the second the pin is pulled, etc…

That or fake ammo that looks real but doesn’t do anything, such as non-lethal bullets.

Erm, look up.

H.

This thread has jumped the T Rex.

Since there is NO legitimate use for ammunition EVER, I heartily support this idea.

We should also do this in redneck neighborhoods in the USA. Obviously, anyone who picks up free ammo is planning to kill people.

We should do this in high schools with DVDs of Grand Theft Auto.

You know it’s only a matter of time until those kids freak out and go on a mad killing sprees.

I am not sure what I missed. There were similar things, but not exactly the same things I was talking about.

Anyway, as a refinement to this idea of fake ammo.

A small percentage of the ammo would actually destroy the weapon it was being fired from.

Most of the ammo should ‘fire’ (although still be non-lethal) so it seems like it is legit stuff. The idea is that it gets mixed into the normal ammo supply and thus they lose track of where it came from. The longer they take to connect the fact that this ammo they find is bogus, the better the first part can work out.

At first I was going to post something along the lines of “Wow. Just… wow”, but I realize the error of such an endeavor. So, instead, you get this.

DeepT: This idea has already been mentioned and discussed for a couple of posts before you swept in.

Secondly, the idea works for about 24 hours. The truth is that the stockpiles of weaponry in Iraq, from what I gather (LK might come and <citation needed> me), there were massive stockpiles of weapons and ammunition. Iran’s sponsorship means that this flood of weaponry isn’t coming down. The Iraqis simply don’t NEED the ammunition being left out on the field. Isn’t the mainstay caliber for the U.S. forces different from what the Iraqis would use? 7.62 vs 5.56 or something like that?

Furthermore, the fake ammo would be found out, if indeed someone meaning to USE it in the first place, in about the time that it’d take to shoot the neighbor’s goat.

The bottom line is that this ‘bait’ concept was probably effective for about a day. And, what’s more, it probably led to innocent deaths rather than actual ‘kills’, so to speak. With all due respect to the American Forces on the field, but it takes more than a yahoo with a Kalishnikov to kill a marine.

There are specific entrapment scenarios where it could be useful, especially dealing with higher level munitions. The ones described in the OP and the subsequent Theodore Rexitizations are not those things. What they are is a flagrant subversion of our rules of engagement in a war where we don’t even report body counts most of the time (not that they would matter), so I can only infer the purpose was to terrorize the local citizenry. That’d be the part where Stephen Colbert would clap slowly. Bravo!

The truth is that the stockpiles of weaponry in Iraq, from what I gather (LK might come and <citation needed> me), there were massive stockpiles of weapons and ammunition. Iran’s sponsorship means that this flood of weaponry isn’t coming down.

Yeah. There are problems in insurgent supplies, especially in terms of quality, compatibility, training, and location, location, location (of supplies), but none of those are capitalized upon by the tactic in the OP.

The Iraqis simply don’t NEED the ammunition being left out on the field. Isn’t the mainstay caliber for the U.S. forces different from what the Iraqis would use? 7.62 vs 5.56 or something like that?

Something like that. The attacks that succeed nowadays use small arms just for cover and distraction (and personal defense after the fact). The main focus is the weapons that can really hurt us, anyway.

Furthermore, the fake ammo would be found out, if indeed someone meaning to USE it in the first place, in about the time that it’d take to shoot the neighbor’s goat.

The bottom line is that this ‘bait’ concept was probably effective for about a day. And, what’s more, it probably led to innocent deaths rather than actual ‘kills’, so to speak. With all due respect to the American Forces on the field, but it takes more than a yahoo with a Kalishnikov to kill a marine.

You can what if it to death. The point is that it represents an obvious deviation from what is understood as the hostile intent/hostile act philosophy guiding modern American rules of engagement, and they are not even bothering to come up with utilitarian reasons for it. That’s a goddamned shame. The rules work; this isn’t Beirut circa 1983.