Howdy, Monty, ExTank, Gus, UncleBill, Diane and everyone I didn’t specifically mention that I should have.
This thread and the thread it budded off from were pointed out to me. I don’t know if my credentials are all that valid. I don’t remember much of the Rules of Land Warfare and I cannot cite the Geneva Convention. I did serve in a dismounted cavalry (like infanty, but we were Cav: we were better) unit in II Corps in South Viet Nam in the early 70’s. I was just a mere PFC when I got there. As time passed, I gained experience and attrition occured, I was made a CPL and asst squad leader and ultimately I was a SGT and squad leader. I generally spent my time there taking nature hikes and trying to interdict the movement of NVA troops, equipment and supplies from north of our operating area.
I don’t care to list the all decorations I was given because, frankly, my Squadron Commander thought handing out medals was great for the moral of the troops and the Regimental Awards Officer had a BA in English and was warming up for his “Great American War Novel” on the award citations. But I’ll say that 2 of the purple hearts and the CIB were certainly warranted.
After I returned home, I went to school for a while and then I enlisted in the US Coast Guard. I was an Electronics Technician. And when I was assigned to a ship, I was further assigned to the Law Enforcement Boarding Party.
I’m not writing that stuff to brag: just to let you know where I’m coming from. You can put as much weight on what I have to say as you want to. Hell, you will anyway. And this is the first time I’ve ever posted to the Pit and my most recent previous post on the SDMB was easily 3 years ago.
Um, Monty? I’m glad you were not assigned to my squad, platoon, troop or squadron. Unless I was given a mission to take prisoners, I just can’t see me placing the well being of an enemy soldier over my assigned mission or the lives of the men in my squad. I’m amused at your idea of calling a mission off because a unit has taken a prisoner. I hope your hypothetical chain of command has the same respect for the GC as you do.
Ok, this is the first time I’ve posted in the pit. Is it required for me to curse at someone or make a personal inslut? If so, Gus, your mother runs like a old woman.
Jeff: You are absolutely incorrect in your appraisal of my course of action. I would not subordinate the welfare of my squadmates. Nor would I haul off and murder the prisoner. Read the responses in the linked thread and you’ll see that’s what some folks thought was the right idea. Murder ain’t right.
So, Metal: What do the mods think about you now calling me, for the 2nd time, a troll? This time, you did it after a mod warned you not to do it.
Monty, none of the people worth arguing with here have advocated killing the prisoners. I think the real debate is whether tying the prisoner up is or is not a decent compromise. I know the original thread is about the law but the law does need interpretation and I think many of us believe that it would be a fair way to be treated ourselves should we be put in the same situation
Monty’s squadmates would be safer under what I saw as his course of action, and the prisoner would be safe and taken care of in accordance with human dignity and international law. The bridge would stay up, the tanks would rearm, and the kiddies that his mission would have saved would die.
Just a hello? Rats, I was hoping for a huge hug and a smooch from you, sweetie.
I’ve been driving the big rigs from OKC to Indiana and back lately. I don’t get online much anymore. But I do fondly remember you and miss you too.
Monty, I did read what you said. It boiled down to: you’d declare the mission compromised, terminate the mission and bring the prisoner back to the Detaining Authority on the assumption that a contingency plan would be executed in order to have someone else complete the mission.
“Look, Captain. We’re supposed to completely block the flow of enemy personnel and equipment down Ho Chi Minh trail. Well, unless we can go into Laos and Cambodia or have the Haiphong harbors destroyed along with the bridges along the Chinese/North Vietnamese border destroyed, it’s not going to happen. So the mission is compromised. So send me fucking home now, Sir!”
Again, I’m glad you weren’t assigned to my unit. Armchair generals and barracks lawyers have their places. But I don’t think a proper place for them is in the bush.
Jacksen, it’s very clear that you’ve never been in combat. It’s trying to select the least bad decision out of a selection of lousy choices in a brief amount of time with the knowledge that lives hang in the balance. Training only takes you so far. Sometimes you have to use judgement.
UncleBill, I agree with your analysis of the situation. But it occurs to me that if the enemy’s mission is to destroy my unit’s headquarters (it could happen) and if by withdrawing with my prisoner my unit allows my headquarters to be destroyed, that means that my squad will be behind enemy lines even longer as we try to find our way back to a higher headquarters.
Someday, the US will have to go to war with England or Canada or some other country that not only has signed the Geneva Convention, Hague Convention, etc… but will actually follow it.
Isn’t killing a pow a war crime? I read the GC articles that dealt with pows. Sounded pretty straightforward. I never saw anything about judgement or interpretations. It gives a short list of what can be done with a pow.
Also, no mention of leaving them tied up so you can carry out the mission.
In Special Forces training do they tell soldiers to do something different?
I didn’t want to appear too foward, but what the hell - -
HUGE HUGS AND SMOOCHES TO YOU, RANGER JEFF!!! Don’t be a stranger!
I couldn’t agree more. In my almost 15 years of working with disabled veterans, it still amazes me the vast difference between the way a combat vet thinks and the way non-combat vets think the combat vet should think.
**Armchair generals and barracks lawyers have their places. But I don’t think a proper place for them is in the bush. **
Everybody has a role to play.
Are you saying that the soldiers in combat should take actions that are illegal? I am neither an “armchair general” or a “barracks lawyer”. Nor do I wish to be in “the bush”… but I think soldiers should abide by the Geneva Convention less they come out of the bush and find themselves before an armchair general and in need of a good barracks lawyer on their way to Leavenworth.
Hey, GusNSpot, you’re totally full of shit. You claimed that Monty is lying about his military service (one of the lowest things a person can be accused of) and then when Monty dares you provide evidence you slither away like a pathetic coward. Go fuck yourself.
Here’s something I learned in the navy: those who steal are quick to accuse others of stealing, those who cheat are quick to accuse others of cheating, and those who groundlessly question another man’s past are usually making up their own.
Training gives you the background and knowledge to be able to use your judgement when the situation was not covered in training.
I, in the case I laid out in my scenario, would break the letter of the Geneva Convention, and at the best, disarm, search, and tie up the enemy and leave him alone while the surviving members of my squad continued with the mission. I would report his position to higher HQ when possible.
The situation I envisioned in creating my scenario was more like Bosnia, and my infantry company was not allowed to directly engage either side (Serbs vs. KLA), but only intervene when killing was happening. We were not equipped to stop the armor, but dropping the bridge (with no casualities) was possible. Intel told us this armor column was headed to that village, and we were the only boys in town. The KLA was not in the area, but the Serb armor was rolling on that Muslim town. If anyone thinks this is so far-fetched, it ain’t, in my opinion.
Thanks for clearing this up. I think this is an interesting topic. I am wondering why this issue is not spelled out in writing somewhere. Or… is it? I am convinced that this situation could occur. I do not know how deeply an incident like this would be investigated but what if HQ dispatched a unit to fetch the prisoner and could not locate him? They dispatch another unit and find him dead from dehydration, still tied and unarmed. Do you think it would be investigated as a possible war crime?
