Mark: I understand your reaction, "This should also be dropped, in my view" but I disagree. I am an Army Infantry Officer (O-5) not a "desk-bound types" and I have recently been to SW Asia. The final non-judicial item is very reasonable in light of this officers reaction. Please keep in mind that I am judging him as MY peer, as both an officer and a combat arms soldier. IF he fired 60 shots to desecrate a body, he "snapped" and needed to be brought back from the edge, something went wrong. How will he react in the future ? I have been on that edge but have always come back. He went over. We can not have that among our officers, period. I would have different comments if this was a junior enlisted. Do not interpret my comments to mean the Officer Corp needs to be prim and proper gentlemen. What I am saying is that as an officer I am entrusted with absolute power of life and death. Because of that trust, me and my fellow officers must ALWAYS come back to basic humanity. We are asked to do things that evoke our most savage instinct BUT we can not let that instinct take total control. It is very difficult. Concerning this case I have always stated that he should ONLY by judged, both good and bad, by his peers, and those peers are fellow combat arms officers. Frankly, this will end any promotion opportunities meaning he is done with the USMC/USMCR, which is probably good. However, he faces no criminal prosecution, which is better. When he is a "promotion non-select" in a few years, he will have the opportunity to leave the Corps with his dignity intact, head held high, and this is all any soldier can hope for in the end. And yes, when he leaves in the end, if I was his commander, I would make sure he gets the Meritorious Service Medal for his years of service.

Oak Leaf,

Granted, if Lt. Patano did fire 60 times at the dead bodies, then he needs a bit of counseling and a step back from the edge...but this is something the prosecution has alleged, and we see from the news report that the central allegation of the case (that he shot them when they were no threat at all) isn't true. I am not nor have I ever served in a combat zone, so you're going to have far better experience than I...which would make me give great weight to your view; but what I have seen all too often in this war is people in the States second-guessing the men on the ground over there.

While it may be true that Lt. Patano has some problems, my greater concern is that our officers in service will start to become overly cautious in carrying out their orders for fear of wrecking a career over one judgement viewed in the harsh light of 20/20 hindsight. We are required to have officers who will make the immediate decision that seems best at the time - and unless there is an egregious crime involved, we need to sustain their decisions down the road. "Egregious crime" would be sexual depravity, killing of restrained prisoners, that sort of thing. Outside of that sort of thing, I give it a pass.

Oak Leaf,

And, as an aside, as an ex-military man I know that there are ways to ease a poor-performing officer out of service without putting a negative mark against his name. Some men are ill-fitted for the task of commanding other men, but only experience can really tell who these men are. If Patano is a substandard officer, then transfer him to the rearest echelon, pass him over for promotion a few times and then he's going to get out of the military...putting him up on charges (NJP or otherwise), just has a chilling effect on all officers, even the best.