Fake surrender results in American casualties...


The story is also available from numerous other sources.

Do the run of the mill Iraqi soldiers not know or not care that they have just made life a LOT more difficult for soldiers who are REALLY trying to surrender.

Do you think the soldiers responsible for the ambush already have resigned themselves to death and just want to take a few Yanks with them, or do they think this was a really productive development in their battle plan?

Well, I think this is an extremely clever and devious move on the part of the Iraqi leadership, assuming they were the instigators and it wasn’t some schmoe with initiative. Anyways, it has the following effects:

  1. Demonstrates that coalition forces aren’t invulnerable. American casualties are good propaganda for Iraq.

  2. It will make coalition forces much more cautious in accepting surrenders, with the result that surrendering Iraqi troops will slow down coalition forces even more than they do now.

  3. It will make Iraqi regulars less likely to surrender, because they will be worried that coalition forces will just shoot them to avoid being ambushed.

All these results would be seen as possible by the Iraqi leadership. So, to answer the question, they do know, and that’s precisely why it was done, unless I’m badly mistaken.

I suspect that was one of their incentives rather than it being a case of not knowing / caring.

It may have been a way to stop Iraq soldgers from surrendering by removing that option (thinking we would no longer accept a surrender after this).

Ack. “would be seen as positive by the Iraqi leadership”

I’d wager those incidents were carried by the Republican Guard special units that were moved to the area recently.

What better way for Saddam to discourage his troops from surrendering?

Well, if you can, try to see it from the Iraqi perspective: they cannot fight us in a conventional war. The only way they can possibly fight us is to use “unfair” tactics, such as ambush and faux-surrenders. They may consider it to be a legitimate tactic.

But one that is also a war crime. The officers who ordered this particular stunt could end up facing a firing squad after the war. Lissa, think about why this would be considered a war crime. If you allow pretended surrenders, pretty soon no one will take prisoners any more, they will just massacre anyone who tries to surrender.

This wasn’t a tactic to attack US troops, this was a tactic to try to get US troops to massacre future surrendering Iraqis.

That’s a very good point. It’s foolish in the extreme to assume that this will be a clean war.

There are many Iraqis for whom removal of Saddam is a death sentence. They will fight to the death, and make all effort to misinform other Iraqi troops as to the nature of the US invasion.

All the Coalition can do is to try and make this a quick war, while holding onto its ideals of clean warfare.

Argh, someone posted before me. I was addressing my post to Lissa.

What kind of irks me is that this is exactly the sort of thing that that guy did in the War Games did when he beat off the U.S. invasion. And the military, instead of paying attention to it and conceeding defeat, cancelled the game and accused him a playing dirty.

This is not a new tactic. The Vietnamese, Japanese and others have used it. In guerilla warfare, it’s pretty common.

It’s a “good” tactical move for them in that it will slow the American advance, because they will have to be much more careful when taking prisoners. I don’t think the Iraqis seriously believe this incident will lead us to massacre surrendering soldiers. They know our efforts to avoid whole-sale slaughter (which is why they use “human sheilds” hoping that our squeamishness will keep us from attacking a target.) I don’t think that ths was their intention: their intention was to attack while our guard was down, pure and simple.

These fucking clowns have been wearing civilian clothes and fighting us and uk GIs. Then, when civilians start dying, the world will condemn a group of fighting men and women who cannot always tell civilian from GI. Don’t exptect a group of conscripited, underpaid ragtags to give a rat’s ass about the rules of engagement, the geneva convention or anything else. They are going to save thier own asses come hell or high water. And I hope there is a way to prevent truly innocent civlians from being mistaken for dressed-down Iraqi military men.

Sick bastards.



How about you gain/buy/borrow a clue and realize that the United States military has zero conscripts in it? Also, from what I’ve heard and seen of the United Kingdom’s military, they also are quite professional.

My twenty years on Active Duty included quite a few sessions of what the Geneva Convention and Rules of Engagement are all about.

I’ve re-read your posting maybe one hundred times now, trying to interpret your comment about “underpaid ragtag” as applying, somehow, to other than the US & UK military. The way you wrote it does not provide for such a reinterpretation.

What, exactly, did you mean to say?

I think that “fucking clowns” refers to Iraqi soldiers, Monty; thus, the conscripted ragtags are the ones pulling fake surrenders, who don’t care about etc. etc. etc. Kankle is ranting against those Iraqis who are deliberately confusing the issue for U.S. and U.K. soldiers and making it harder for them to carry out campaign with minimal collateral damage.

That’s my impression on first reading, anyway.

With all due respect Monty it’s fairly obvious on first reading he means the Iraqi army.

You just read it too quickly and sloppily and embarrassed yourself with a pop off response.

Maybe so, astro. But look at the way that comment’s thrown in his posting. There’s a concept in the English language known as antecedent. Go look it up.

And embarrassed myself when I asked, “What exactly did you mean to say.”

Too bad this ain’t the pit so I could tell you what I think of your comment at the moment.

I had no problem understanding Kankle’s post. Looks to me like you jumped the gun there Monty.

I think it would be obvious I was referring to this remark in your original response to him

The U.S. Army may be many things, but “rag tag” they are not. You gave a newbie an undeserved slap because you were reading too fast. Why not just apologize to him and move on.