Watching the documentary “Restrepo” and the sequel Korengal, it has occurred to me that there is little point in killing the “bad” terrorists who fight from the Korengal valley. Their population will just breed more, indoctrinating them in the ways of Jihad, and more will be available.
In addition, the insurgents will fire from buildings inside the village, “disappearing” whenever the U.S. troops show up to deal with them. All of the adults in the village claim not to know anything about the insurgents who were there an hour ago.
Having watched the video, I wondered if the Soviets tried something like the following :
After a blatant attack that required active participation by the residents of the village, in the morning, line all of the village adults up. Ask each one for the names and locations of the insurgents. If they claim not to know anything, summarily execute them for collaborating with terrorists. Go on down the line until either the village is all dead or you have caught the insurgents.
If the village is eliminated, you can just destroy all the buildings and shoot anything that moves. You don’t have to worry about differentiating insurgents from civilians - once the village is gone, anyone out in the open is assumed to be an insurgent and shot. Use infrared imaging so they cannot conceal themselves.
This feels like the only practical way of dealing with a situation like this. Could you justify it legally?
Or, alternatively, don’t give a damn about being “legal”.
The ancient tradition has always been, if anyone in an occupied village makes trouble, then just annihilate the whole village. It sets an clear example and keeps the villagers (in other villages) in their place, if they know what’s good for them.
Do you think you made this idea up? It’s been done in almost every war in history.
It doesn’t work, of course, because there are always more villages. At that point people start looking at ethnic cleansing or genocide to get rid of the villages.
In Vietnam, The Republic of Korea (ROK) Army were often tasked with guarding US Army forward air bases. These bases often came under attack by the Viet Cong, who either came from nearby villages or used them to “blend in” after an attack. Standing ROK policy upon any of their soldiers being injured or killed defending one of “their” airbases or on patrol, was to cut off and surround the village and completely destroy every living thing in it - man, woman, child, and beast. ROK - guarded bases were generally left alone.
Tactically, it’s something that could work under certain circumstances. It doesn’t really have a place in overall battle strategy.
Of course, depending upon who was in Congress, and who the President was, you could justify it legally.
People are easily led, when the ‘enemy’ is executed. If Obama did it, the Dems would cheer, if Bush did it, the Pubs would cheer, and nobody would bring charges if the Admin’s party was in the Congress.
Somehow I don’t think a scorched earth policy really works, all it does is make any surviving locals really really pissed off at you. Unless you can manipulate one subpopulation against another [like if you have both cathars and orthodox old school Catholics, you can get the regular catholics to inform against the heretical cathars, but not catholic vs catholic.]
Of course if all you want to do is shackle all the survivors in the other villages into coffles and sell them off as slaves back home, then it works. The ram hitting the wall total urban clearing plan does <ahem> encourage instant surrender and negotiation.
[URL=“http://www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/”]
To give another somewhat timely example, exactly one hundred years ago the Germans were trying to pacify Belgium using essentially what you propose. The leadership recognized such tactics were a bit harsh, but like you they concluded (in a brusque German fashion) that these sorts of collective punishments were simply the militarily-optimum solution to the problem of partisan warfare and that they were well within their rights.
The tactics succeeded in mostly crushing the nascent Belgian resistance movement (although whether that was actually ever much of a threat has been questioned by subsequent historians), but it also greatly hardened the commitment of France’s up to that point rather lukewarm British allies. It also turned neutral opinion rather emphatically against the Germans, which would eventually lead to US entry to the war. The argument could be made that the diplomatic costs of those tactics were what cost the Germans the war.
Let’s suppose you have a camera recording of an insurgent firing from a specific house.
If you ask the adults there what they saw, and they claim to know nothing, they are lying. You have evidence that they are lying - the video.
Suppose you make sure every adult in the village has access to a radio or a phone, and instruct them to call in any insurgents they see or hear. Insurgents fire their weapon from inside the village.
By not calling in on the radio, the adults are collaborating with the terrorists. Conspiracy to commit terrorism (that results in death) is a crime you can justify the death penalty for. A summary execution may be excessive, but you could arrest all of the adults you have evidence against, could you not?
Congrats! You’ve now motivated all the women and children to flee to refugee camps. Now someone is going to feed them, freeing up the men to fight longer and harder.
Once the people are gone you can open fire on the village with modern weaponry. If there’s no crowds of women and children around to prevent you from shooting, this becomes a simple military vs military battle. Essentially, you would use infrared sensors and kill anyone that moves with indirect fire.
Do you think the men are going to be hanging around the houses watching Oprah? Whoever you are fighting are going to go back to wherever they go when they aren’t hiding in villages.
By that logic your own military should commit mass suicide, since they are engaging in mass terrorism. Far more so than anyone who is shooting at them.
Ah, the Fallujah method; simply declare all males terrorists, then you can kill all the men while claiming you are only fighting “terrorists”.
Really, what’s the point? It’s just a massacre, you aren’t going to convince anyone otherwise who wasn’t already a supporter of the massacre.
No, you do it like we did Fallujah. You let the women, girls and young boys under ten or so out, but turn back men and boys. Then you kill them all claiming they were all terrorists because if they weren’t terrorists they would have left.
Anyone who didn’t take up arms and fight (or leave and go to a recruiting station) when they saw mobs burning people to death and declaring open rebellion is supporting terrorism…