West immediately informed his commanding officer. "I accept responsibility for the episode," West told Scarborough, "but my intent was to scare this individual and keep my soldiers out of potential ambush. There were no further attacks from that town."
West was not instantly charged. Only after an overall "command-climate investigation" of his brigade did an Army prosecutor cite him for assault. The prosecutor offered him a choice: resign before qualifying for his pension (which occurred last Saturday), or face court-martial.
West refused to resign. "I accept being retired at the grade of major and paying whatever fine required, but resignation and prison seems an attempt to destroy me," he told the Times.
He now faces an "Article 32" inquiry, which will determine if there is cause for the threatened court-martial.
Putting this warrior on trial would be a travesty. If West's actions were technically illegal, they were not immoral -- and are the perfect candidate for prosecutorial discretion from up the chain of command. Faced with a lethal threat against his men, West used less than lethal force to
protect them. His intention was to preserve, not destroy, life. It was justifiable self-defense.
During the Cold War, the U.S. embraced Mutual Assured Destruction to deter a Soviet nuclear attack. That worked, too. Do we regret it? If a captured terrorist knew today the location of a weapon of mass destruction hidden in New York, would we applaud -- or indict -- an FBI agent who used Lt. Col. West's tactic to find the device before it detonated?
Americans don't believe the end justifies any means. Lt. Col. West's means, however, were proportionate to the threat his men faced. Secretary Rumsfeld should say so and grant West retirement at full rank and pension.