False Surrender & Civilian Dress Pentagon Condemns 'Deadly Deception' WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Pentagon officials lashed out Monday at the "deadly deception" of the Iraqi regime on the battlefield, saying that Iraqi troops are engaged in "serious violations of the laws of war" by falsely indicating their willingness to surrender or by fighting U.S. and allied troops in civilian clothes. [damn that pesky "n" key on my keyboard.]
Unfair. They should wear redcoats and walk in a line so they are easier to pick off. This is war, and we are trying to take over their country (thier point of view). Deal with it.
This is war. However, the situation of falsely representing yourself is directly putting civilians in harms way. Might I add that the civilians are their fellow Iraqis. It is war, however, there are still rules to follow if you want to protect inoccent people. If you do not care about bystanders, the rules are off... The redcoats comment makes one think. How many of our early wars were won by Americans playing by the rules?? Does this make it right for Iraqis to not follow the rules now?
I was thinking the same thing about the red coats when I read this report. I mean we DO sound an AWFUL like the British did during the revolutionary war when they complained bitterly about our un-gentlemanly approach to warfare.
The previous post used an outrageous response to answer an absurd post by Dan “I’m down on my knees to Surrender” Loney. Mr. Cam's rules of War and Engagement in the Iraqi Theater of Operations. The U.S. should announce on Al-Jazera and Iraqi television the following policy change: To increase the security and safety of all concerned CENTCOM will now aggressively enforce the following rules. These rules apply to all people in Iraq regardless of their age, ethnic group, language, race, religion, sex, tribe, or national status. 1. CENTCOM promises that all Iraqi soldiers that surrender under the guidelines as stated in CENTCOM’s publically distributed leaflets will be treated according to the Geneva Convention as a minimum standard and allow the Red Crescent to talk with Iraqi POW’s to ensure their humane treatment. 2. From this date forward all Iraqi military personnel captured in battle and or that voluntarily surrender under the guidelines as stated in CENTCOM’s publically distributed leaflets will be taken to POW CAMPS. 3. Any individual, group, or unit of Iraqi soldiers and civilians alike, that uses the White flag of surrender as a means to attack, ambush, or harm coalition soldiers and or equipment in any way will be summarily executed. 4. Any individual, group, or unit of Iraqis as well as all foreign nationals that use civilian clothing as a means to conceal themselves and attack coalition soldiers and or equipment in any way with any type of weapon will be considered illegal combatants and summarily executed. 5. Any individual, group, or unit of Iraqi soldiers caught trying to change into civilian clothing as a means to conceal themselves and attack or escape from coalition soldiers and or equipment in any way will be considered illegal combatants and summarily executed. 6. Any individual, group, or unit of Iraqi civilians or military personnel, as well as all foreign nationals that use or attempt to use American uniforms as a means to attack coalition soldiers and or equipment in any way will be considered illegal combatants and summarily executed. 7. Any individual, group, or unit of Iraqis civilian or military, as well as all foreign nationals that use chemical or biological weapons or poison as a means to attack coalition soldiers and or equipment in any way will be considered illegal combatants and summarily executed. 8. Any Iraqi as well as all foreign nationals that abuse coalition soldiers and or equipment in any way will be summarily executed. 9. Any Iraqi as well as all foreign nationals that commit any terrorist act against any coalition soldiers and or equipment in any way will be in any way will be considered illegal combatants and summarily executed.
It's wrong, not because it puts our soldiers in danger, but because it puts their civilians in danger.
Who are the eight idiots who voted that this is "not OK"? Not OK for us, maybe, but it's a goddamn war, people. Next time, make sure that all sides have read the Marquis of Queensbury rules before we invade.
"All's fair in love and war." - anonymous It sucks, sure, but hey, these guys are going to use any means at their disposal to attack back at us.
So should we use chemicals? Of course not. There is a line. Not sure where it is, but there is a line.
I'm one of the people who voted this is not OK. It's expressly against the rules of battle for a reason. It puts civilians in even more danger than they are now. It's tantamount to using civilians as human shields in tactical operations (which the Iraqi's are now reportedly doing) and it is something that no self-respecting soldier would ever do, ever. Think about the stance that our soldiers must now have because of the tactics employed by some of the Iraqi's. We must assume now that all surrenders are suspect which I'm sure will result in some legitimately surrendering Iraqi's being killed. We must also assume that any group of Iraqi's (civilian or otherwise) approaching US formations is hostile unless clearly proven otherwise (see previous sentence) and this will also undoubtedly cause civilian casualties. We will not deliberately shoot civilian non-combatants but mistakes will be made and these actions just increase the margin of error. Is it an effective tactic to slow us down, erode confidence, and cause bad PR? Yes. But is it also unconscionable and criminal? Yes. Why you ask? Because the people they are endangering the most are civilian non-combatants who are happen to be their fellow countrymen.
Well, no, it's not okay. But it's certainly not surprising. What did you expect? "Marry my daughter"?
Combatants who dress in civilian clothes put civilians at risk. I think it's 'legal' to shoot them on the spot. But like others have said, they would be crazy to fight conventionally.
I have a better idea to preserve innocent civilian lives: Let's not invade countries who pose no threat to us. My point is, that in going into this war, we have implicitly accepted the fact that we will kill many civilians as a byproduct. So how can we be hypocritical and not expect a far technologically inferior opponent to abide by more stringent criteria for wartime protocol?
No they don't. The American military has this thing called the "Uniform Code Of Military Justice" which makes it illegal to kill troops who surrender.
This is debatable and also ignoring the fact that civilians in Iraq were dying in large numbers before this war began because of actions perpetrated by their own goverment. You make it sound as if we say "Yeah we're going to kill civilians but hey, it's all cool as long as we get what we want". I'll tell you with the certainty of having been one of the guys on the ground that we are going out of our way to protect civilian lives. The byproduct of that is that there are soldiers dying right now that wouldn't have to die because we are going to those great lengths. We can be "hyprocritical" as you call it because the critera we're insisting they follow is for the preservation of the lives that they supposedly are fighting to protect. The very fact that their government doesn't give a ************ about their people is evident in their use of these tactics. Some rules of war are in place to protect soldiers from undue torture and barbarism. When those are thrown aside because of desperation it is despicable but not out of the realm of comprehension. Those are the risks we take. Others, like the one we are discussing, are there to preserve innocent lives and ensure that combat is between soldiers and not against civilian populations. Those rules are involate. That civilians die in battle is an ugly truth in modern combat because the modern battlefield has grown immense in its scope and the firepower employed by single platoons dwarfs that employed by whole armies as little as 200 years ago. If you truly want to envision what the horrific outcome would be were an army to become jaded towards the preservation of civilian lives I would tell you this. Start at Dresden, take a detour in Bosnia, and let your imagination lead you to horrors that are beyond imagining.
There's a huge ************ing difference between not standing in line and getting shot up, and pretending to surrender and then attacking. The latter is simply a war crime.
What Mike said.... Strangely enough, that's twice in two days I've found myself in complete agreement with Mike. I may be coming down with something
OK, this Iraqi tactic is unfair. Is it any more unfair than the US using its overwhelming technological and economic superiority? If so, why? Look, US military and political doctrine is for the US to fight unfairly. The Powell doctrine is about overwhelming force. It is now our doctrine that we won't allow any nation to achieve military parity with us. We have nukes, but we're willing to invade Iraq to make sure they don't. Frankly, terrorism and "cheating" is an inevitable consequence of the US' historically unique military dominance. We get to bitch about this if we scale back our military so that it's actually possible for us to fight a fair war. Nobody wants that.
It's not unfair to us. It's unfair to the civilians. This tactic has nothing to do with our technological supremacy. It's treachery and perfidy of the basest nature. It's the wartime equivalant of not throwing the ball back when the other team kicks the ball out for your injury. Not only that, your injured teammate then jumps off the stretcher as it approaches the other teams goal, shoves the physio into their goalkeeper and then scores the winning goal in golden goal overtime. It would be treachorous and perfidous if we did that against St. Vincent or Brazil.