Ehh. They get what’s coming to them. Just because you’re standing in the middle of the train track doesn’t mean the train will or even can stop.
They’re going in with their eyes wide open. If anything happens to them, they have nobody to blame but themselves.
Ethical and semantic issues aside, it is possible to solve such situations tactically by incapacitating everyone (through the use of chemicals or other non-lethal weapons) and then sending troops in to remove the non-combatants.
Maybe just not cost effective?..
I dont understand where this popular notion of killing only combatants in a time of war was the hard and unbreakable rule of war. People die in war. Combatants, civilians, participants and lucklesss bystanders die at war. This is why war has to be avoided at all cost because lives are the price of war. However, once war is waged, it must be fought as brutally and as effectively as one can to achieve an end to the war. If that means killing a human shield volunteers So be it. Lets send them applications for the Darwin awards along with their human shield visa applications. Human flesh is a poor defense against a 500 lb GBU.
Involuntary human shields should be weighed against the strategic importance of the target. If Saddam is on the air in Baghdad saying that he is going to personally trigger a nuke, I would say nuke baghdad. Its just as well I dont decide these things.
Casualties, whether civilian or military, are what happens in a war. It cannot be avoided. We cannot place more importance on civilian lives than on combatant lives. Thats why refugees survive. They remove themselves from the dangers of war and not provoke any sides anger by participating in it in any way.
I think there’s a middle ground between being an enemy combatant and being a non-combatant. In the case of an enemy combatant, the specific military goal is to kill, wound or capture as many as possible. I don’t think anyone has that as their goal with these people. But OTOH, if I had a choice of harming some purely civilian Iraqi who is out there minding his own business or these guys, I would certainly rather harm these guys.
According to the website humanshields.org, the human shields are not going to camp out at SAM sites or Republican Guard units but with “the most vulnerable people such as families and children, hospitals, etc.” Depending on the Iraqis’ success in dispersing their forces throughout their population centers, I don’t think that the human shields will be much of a deterrent to a US bombing campaign that will employ a smart-bomb capability far advanced of that available in the Gulf War. Furthermore, in order to avoid a humanitarian crisis after the war’s end the US war plan specifically avoids targeting civilian infrastructure like bridges and powerplants that support the military as well.
I wonder, though, once the peace bus rolls into Baghdad how much freedom of movement the human shields will have. I can easily imagine a host of smiling security guards waiting to usher the human shields to pleasant spots under the shade of the guns, with lawn chairs, magazines, and pitchers of iced tea.
I really don’t see how they could be viewed as non-combatants. They are taking part in combat, therefore they are combatants.
AFAIK, while the Red Cross isn’t deliberately targeted, armies don’t just surrender simply to avoid harming the Red Cross. If a bunch of soldiers charge a position, and one gets wounded, and a Red Cross member rushes to the battlefield to help him, are the defenders going to stop shooting to avoid accidently hitting the Red Cross?
Seems to me the policy should be very simple: warn them to leave Iraq when (and if–there’s still a long shot that Saddam will go into exile) we warn UNMOVIC. If they don’t leave, and decide to continue their insane plan, they are traitors and should lose their citizenship (at least). Then fight the battles as if they aren’t there.
A voluntary human shield (VHS) is, IMHO, a 100% valid military target. Their purpose in being there is to try to preserve whatever target they are ‘shielding.’ Thus, a VHS who sits on top of a SAM site is trying to protect the SAM site, which is the same thing as a soldier shooting his AK-47 into the sky. I wouldn’t give the VHS any consideration at all. For Non-VHS I would make an effort to minimize casualties, but not at the expense of unduly risking the lives of my own men. If the VHS is sitting in a hospital, I don’t know what he is accomplishing. In this day and age we are unlikely to target hospitals in the first place, and you can’t deter mistakes.
First my views on these human shields. If they get in the way, kill them. It is that simple. American and Allied troops have better things to do (find and disarm traps, avoid being killed by Iraqi soldiers, make sure the guys they are about to kill are actually soldiers, etc.) than worry about a group of people obviously more attached to their political dogma than their intelligence.
That said, let me clarify. Do I think that these misguided individuals are terrible for going over there? Not necessarily – it depends on their actions. They have already given them a political coup, but that’s really not all that important since if they needed one they would manufacture one. If they keep their heads down and try to give aid to the civilians who don’t want to be involved either then fine. As soon as they start interfering with the troops however, they become unacceptable and should be removed in the most expeditious way possible. If that means relocating them to POW camps fine, if it means killing all of them that is fine too. They have chosen what their own lives means and it would be insensitive to contradict them on an issue that has such obvious meaning. Essentially they are non-combatants until they decide to interfere with combat, at which time they become combatants. I don’t think that there is any parallel to the Red Cross however. They guys don’t want to help. Either they are well meaning fools who hope that this action will make the government reconsider (wrong!) or they are glory hounds who want their 15 seconds of fame.
As far as the moral of the West is concerned, you can find 50 people to do just about any lame-brained thing you want if you know where to look. These 50 aren’t going to influence things one way or another.
USD – Encouraging people to oppose war can be a bad thing. Blind opposition of war is just as evil as blind support for war. What is needed is a rational, thought out and compelling reason why the death of these people is necessary. Would you have encouraged the USA to stay out of WWII knowing the potential consequences? How about the Revolutionary or Civil Wars? (Please note that I am NOT ADVOCATING THIS WAR NOR AM I CONDEMNING IT in this post)
Fuji Kitakyusho – The kind of chemical weapon that you are advocating is exactly the wrong thing to do. First the Iraqi’s would denounce it as a chemical attack using lethal chemicals (and trust me people would die) and the USA would be seen as (and would undeniably be) hypocrites. Second, these chemicals don’t work all that quickly so their use as a tactical weapon is significantly mitigated. As a side note, there would be deaths because the concentrations used effect different people differently. If Royal Nonesuch is correct then this problem becomes worse since the sick and the injured would be more likely to die than the human shields that are your targets. If you need empirical proof, look at the results in Russia when they gassed a theater being held by terrorists.
X~Slayer(ALE) – This particular rule came after Vietnam when there was such moral outcry at the graphic depiction’s of slaughtered Vietnam civilians by the press, however I think a more accurate statement of the rule is “If you have to kill civilians, don’t get caught and if you do make sure it was worth it.” Minimizing the civilian casualties can be extremely difficult but should be done. Remember the goal in war is to force the enemy to surrender. If that can be done without ANY casualties it works out better all around.
Well that sucks, ** Ewiser ** depicting the tragedy of war should be placed in context that it was done to put an end to war. Aside from war crimes, civilian dying is what happens. Is this generation so squeamish that a few hundred civilian dead is too much to pay to keep a madman from killing a few hundred thousand?
This may not be the right thread for this but I sincerely believe the media is just making this whole thing a lot worse. They are foisting suspicions and ennuendos as if they were Gods honest truth and emphasize the pessimistic and down side more than any positve that could be gained.
If we go to war with Iraq any of these ‘human shields’ who are current US citizens are immediately guilty of treason. They are there to specifically ‘protect’ enemy targets and/or to have their deaths cause civilian insurrection in the US. Treason is a capital offense so I think the military should & will consider them to be enemy forces and they should specifically be targeted as such.
And if any of them return to US soil they should be immediately arrested as traitors.
If only we could get Michael Moore’s, Susan Sarandon’s and Babs Streisand’s publicists to get them to volunteer… 
Yeah…thats what we should do.:rolleyes: Place our special operations forces at risk by having them launch some rescue operations to retrieve people who placed themselves in the situation in the first place.
Just revoke their citizenship. Then it doesn’t matter whether or not they die, they aren’t western citizens. If they want to play these stupid games, they deserve to die. If it comes down to saving 10 American Soldiers’ lives, I’d gladly see 100 of these “human shields” die. They are basically renouncing their country, and everything it stands for, to go on a mission for pacifism.
Sure, they may create some inbalances in the public support, but they will have no outcome on the war. They CANNOT affect US military doctrine. If they are camping outside a SAM site, then too bad, so sad. They are grown adults, and anything they do is up to them. Shame, but if it comes down to it, I say, to hell with them. Bomb em.
How are they enemy “forces” if tehy don’t carry weapons?
Great logic. I guess it follows that if I oppose the war in the US I am also a traitor, right? Because these folks aren’t doing anything, war-wise, to interfere with us winning a war. They’re just there.
Oh, I see. You would like anyone who disagrees with you to disappear. I think you’d be more at home under a dictator than a democracy.
I’m curious about where this idea comes from, that having these people over there somehow puts US soldiers’ lives at risk.
Can anyone assuming that defend it?
I fully agree that anyone who gets in the way of a just war is unfortunate, and, unfortunately a casualty. I’m not saying, and I haven’t seen anyone else here say, that somehow these people should be protected more than non-combatant Iraqis. The question is whether they get less protection than locals who are unable to make themselves refugees.
I think it’s immoral to target them specifically, since they pose no threat to US soldiers. Anyone who’s a threat (John Walker Lindh?) deserves to be specifically targeted. Any site of military value deserves to be targeted. Non-threatening people in non-threatening places should not be targeted.
Peace out.
Noggin to the extent that the VHS seek to modify American war plans from what they would be in the absence of VHS, they are seeking to put American lives in more danger than would be required in their absence.
To put it another wayy, if the military thinks a target should be destroyed because it poses a threat, but does not do so out of fear of hitting the VHS, then to the extent that the target presents a continuing danger, the VHS is responsible. Therefore, I argue, the VHS should not be considered. I would neither target them directly, nor give them the deference I might to other non-combatants who are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
That’s a valid line of reasoning.
It requires the planners to treat the lives of the HS (V or INV) as more precious than ordinary civilian non-combatants.
I prefer to believe that this is not possible, i.e. that the planners consider all non-combatant lives as so sacred that they are put at risk only when necessary, and, as many people in the thread have commented, treat the HS as any other non-combatants.
I also think it’s clear that, whether or not they could treat non-combatant lives as more precious, there’s just no way they will try to protect HS (V or INV) more than resident Iraqis. If you will agree with this, then the HS cannot put lives in danger.
I agree with Hail Ants on the traitor idea. You may disagree with your governments politics, but you dont try to actively undermine them. If they think America is such a horrible place then maybe they shouldnt come back. Let them stay in Iraq till the end of their days. Since they like it over there so much it shouldnt be a problem. I dont think that the VHS’s should be actively targeted, but if they are caught in a raid or during combat they should have to go to the POW camps with the rest of the enemy. From the way john Walker Lindh was handled, a POW camp will be kind in comparison. I do think that the press should be barred from the combat site. It is a fucking war and we dont need that jack off Wolf Blitzer makeing things sound like a rerun of the A-Team. We also dont need people reporting on every little mistake so that the viewers at home get the wrong idea about what goes on. It is war, people get killed in it all the time. It isnt tragic or sad it just is what it is. We dont need the press polarizeing the populous against Service men simply because they did what they were sent to do. It is war, you win it by killing more of the enemy than the enemy kills of you.
How much you want to bet that some of the ‘voluntary human shields’ are CIA/DIA/other operatives, doing some excellent target recon. And as long as they are not too close to said targets, they can also do strike damage assesments.
Convenient way of verifying the position of Iraqi troops that may or may not be stashed in civilian areas.
What makes you think that they think the US is “such a terrible place”? Do you believe it possible to disagree with your government at all?
Can you define “actively undermine”? Sounds like a slippery slope to me. Is civil disobedience 'actively undermining? I can easily pose a hypothetical where civil disobedience interferes more with waging more than human shields do.