Talk:Free-fire zone

LOAC (laws of armed conflict)
Free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, and .50 caliber weapons all sound most unpleasant. Indeed to the average civilian they probably sound so horrible that they would be accepted as war crimes without question. But in reality all of these are within the Geneva Conventions and the LOAC.
 * Deliberately targetting civilians is against the Geneva Conventions, so surely any policy which fails to make any attempt to distinguish between civilians and combatants is also against the Geneva Conventions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.146.47.250 (talk • contribs)

FFZ and FFA
A free fire zone (FFZ), which is now called a free fire area (FFA) is an FCM. (Why the name change? Well, it’s often said in the military, “Every time an acronym changes, a Colonel gets his wings.”)

Operational Terms and Graphics -- Army Field Manual 101-5-1/Marine Corps Reference Publication 5-2A 30 September 1997 -- defines a free fire area as follows:

free fire area (FFA) -- A specific designated area into which any weapon system may fire without additional coordination with the establishing headquarters. Normally, it is established on identifiable terrain by division or higher headquarters. (See also fire support coordination and rules of engagement (ROE).) See FM 6-20 series.

Lanes
Here’s some background and a hypothetical to put it in layman’s terms. The Army and Marines divide the battlefield into lanes, and every unit from Corps down to Platoon has its own lane; its own slice of the battlefield. As a general rule, no one from Division A may fire into Division B’s lane without first coordinating with Division B. This is good because troops in Division A don’t usually know exactly where Division B is or what Division B is up to. Firing into Division B’s lane may cause fratricide or disrupt Division B’s plans in some way. This is also bad because if troops in Division A see the enemy in Division B’s lane, they can’t help Division B without time consuming coordination. So…

FCM
Let’s say Division A and Division B are fighting side by side. Let’s say there is a portion of Division B’s lane, in which Division B has no troops and which Division B can’t see (perhaps it’s behind a mountain). Let’s further imagine that Division A has good visibility of this area and has plenty of artillery or air support which could cover an enemy attack there. The commander of Division B will designate this area a “free fire area” meaning that Division A can fire into that portion of Division B’s lane without coordination. It does not mean that combatants are allowed to mow down anything and every thing that moves. The ROE, the LOAC, and the Geneva Conventions still apply in the FFA. It is an FCM not a war crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs)


 * Note that "FCM" stands for fire control measure. Soldiers tend to use acronyms a lot to save time. Uncle Ed 18:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Definition dance
I just read the "Crimes of War Project" page cited in the article. It insinuates that the Department of Defense defined a free fire zone in terms of:
 * declaring a suspect village a “free fire zone,” then destroying it and its residents.

The strange and disturbing thing about this, is that this comes from the opening paragraph of the page which specifically said that the Department of Defense wanted to prevent "jittery U.S. soldiers from mistakenly, or intentionally" doing this!!

I find this kind of double-talk, on the part of "anti-war" activists to be a typical smear tactic.

Later in the page, Simons refers to "Free fire zones as defined by Department of Defense doctrine and the rules of engagement" as:
 * a severe violation of the laws of war for two reasons

and yet he has not only failed to quote the DoD definition, he has sneakily and falsely implied that DoD has a definition 180 degrees opposite to the definition I finally dug up and presented in the WP article's intro.

Almost every piece of communist propaganda I've seen engages in exactly the same kind of trickery and fallacious reasoning.

They dance around the facts, assume their initial point has been made, and then refer to their initial point in support of their next point.

This is entirely illegitimate.

Wikipedia should expose this sort of thing - not support it, or worse, engage in it. Uncle Ed 21:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

With or without ethics?

 * They weren't carrying weapons, or dressed in enemy uniforms, but it didn't matter: They were living in a free-fire zone.


 * For Vietnamese civilians, it was a dangerous decision.


 * It meant they were in an area where the U.S. military could strike without warning.


 * No approval was necessary for soldiers to open fire or order air strikes on a specific region - or village - as long as two conditions were met: Troops had to be attacked, and their targets had to be military.

The above seems to strike a middle ground between a free-fire zone as a place where "everthing" or "anything that moves" is a target and the dry "fire coordination" definition cited above.

The military source implies that the "free fire" designation was used entirely for coordination between adjacent military units. The "dangerous decision" passage immediately above implies that civilians knew which areas were designated as "free fire". This in turn implies communication from US military to Vietnamese civilians somehow. (overhead radio chatter, passed on by Viet Cong? Leaflets dropped on villages? Personal contact with GIs who could speak Vietnamese?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs)

Free fire and indiscriminate fire
The real issue is whether the "free fire" designation was intended to give soldiers carte blanche to shoot and destroy anyone and anything in the zone. Regardless of whether the term in actual use with free-fire zone or free fire area - zone or area, what's the difference?

The "anti-war" folks are unanimous in asserting that free-fire meant "Kill them all". The pro-US folks pretty much say that free-fire did NOT mean this.

The anti-war crew say that killing unarmed, unresisting civilians was deliberate US policy. The pro-US folks consistently deny this and blame "isolated" atrocities on local commanders (as at My Lai).

The anti-war folks say atrocties (by the US) were routine and frequent. The pro-US side says it happened far too often, but not anywhere as frequently as anti-US side claims. Rather, they say it was the Communists who routinely did this.

in fact this is the crux of the matter, by using the big lie technique the evel side here has covered up its own crimes by blaming the US for the things the evil side actually did! Uncle Ed 22:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

(When my spelling ability disappates and my typos increase, it's time to call it a day. See you tomorrow.) Uncle Ed 22:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I will follow up on Uncle Ed's comments. The debate regarding U.S. involvement in the conflict in SE Asia can be clarified by better defining the antagonists in the debate. The so-called "anti-war" or "peace" activists had generally no problem with violence or war as witnessed by the bombing campaign of the Weather Underground and the violent nature of many street protests in the U.S., and on many American university campuses, during the time of U.S. involvement. Further, many so-called "anti-war" or "peace" activists were seen waving Viet Cong flags during their protests. How can they be "anti-war" or "peace" proponents when they are allying themselves with the violent aggressors in a long-term war pre-dating U.S. involvement?

Further, the atrocities committed by the Viet Cong are well documented and far exceed any confirmed war crimes committed by U.S. personnel. One need only look at the mass graves uncovered in the city of Hue, following the Viet Cong occupation of that city for six weeks during the Tet 1968 offensive, to understand the magnitude of crimes committed by the Viet Cong. Even when faced with documented evidence of mass executions, numbering in the thousands, of unarmed and bound political prisoners, the Viet Cong representative could only respond on camera to the PBS "American Experience" reporters with, "...well, they had it coming to them and there was nothing we could do to stop the People from exacting their revenge..."

And, the Communists were experts at framing U.S. forces for crimes, in fact, committed by VC. They would deliberately plant U.S. weapons, uniform items and other equipment at sites of atrocities committed by VC, then invite in the photographers.

If we substitute the terms "pro-Communist" or "anti-US" for the Leftist side of the debate, and "anti-Communist" or "pro-U.S." for their antagonists, the actions and rhetoric of both sides make more sense. Tom McIntosh (talk) 15:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

How is antiwar outrage legitimate in citing the Geneva Convention?
I would like to understand in greater detail the legitimacy of antiwar outrage at USA military conduct in Vietnam during the conflict period.

I see concern expressed at the actions of USA forces against those who are presumably civilian Vietnamese nationals; however, what is a soldier and what is a civilian? The Geneva Convention tells us a soldier bears distinct kinds of identification, wears certain distinct uniforms, and is attached to a Power that has acceded to the Convention. The American soldier meets all of these tests; the Viet Cong soldier fails at least one and likely all three of these tests; how therefore can any Vietnamese national be a civilian if none of them can be soldiers? The just conclusion appears to be that Vietnam had an illegitimate government which hired unlawful combatants.

Jessemckay 19:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the rhetorical question posed by Jessemckay. I would, however, clarify that the Viet Cong were not in the employ of "Vietnam," but rather were agents of the Communist regime in Hanoi, the titular government of North Vietnam. Therefore, the just conclusion appears to be that NORTH Vietnam had an illegitimate goverment. Tom McIntosh (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

POV -- one sided presentation re testimony
The section with testimony regarding FFZs is certainly one-sided. Indeed, before I did a bit of editing, the article made the conclusion that such zones, in and of themselves, violated the law of war because civilians might be in the zone and thereby killed. The whole article, not just the testimony section, could use some NPOV work. --S. Rich (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * i have cleaned it up just to be able to tell where the quotes came from and who is speaking, but it is still kind of lacking in detail, the lack of detail is making it POV. Decora (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO this is not a POV issue, it's a disproportionate amount of information concerning a narrow sub-topic within a relatively small parent article. If the Dellums Hearings are this important (and maybe they are), the content should be moved to its own article. As things stand, most of this article concerns this criticism of FFZ, not the topic itself. Dcs002 (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free-fire zone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050924182430/http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/free-fire-zones.html to http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/free-fire-zones.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)