I understand the logic, here, but how exactly is this going to endear American forces to the Iraqis? It’s one thing being asked to like another country’s “peacekeeping” forces, but now they can’t even go near them? Correct me if i’m wrong, but 100 yards is pretty much an entire street on the sides of the vehicle.
Who wants to bet, as well, that the signs will be in english? :smack:
English and Arabic. (I need one for the back of my vehicle here, but I digress.) I have a photo around here someplace.
One of those things, I am afraid. Iraqis have been killed right left and center for coming too close. (Michael Yon’s site recounts at least one experience.) Still, given the car-bomb threat it needs to be done.
I think the problem here, Paul, is not just whether or not this is allegedly “necessary,” but what it means about the occupation and war in general that U.S. troops are now in a position where they have to shoot anyone who gets within a hundred freakin’ yards.
American rules of engagement allow troops to shoot to kill at 100m, in broad daylight, without warning shots, at people in civilian garb with no visible weapons who are not presenting a clear danger to the force?
Necessary to stop American deaths? Yes. There’s still going to be some, and it’s only a matter of time before the people who want them dead think up new ways to attack, but I think this will, most likely, mean less USA soldier deaths.
On the other hand, this is going to mean many, many more Iraqi deaths. How many people are going to go near the vehicles before news about the sign and this new policy gets around?
I’m glad to know I was wrong about the only english signs, though; I apologise for thinking the US Army command and troops are thick. It’s just the US government that’s got it’s head up it’s collective ass.
Yep. I find it mind-boggling some TSA person can go through my underwear whenever I fly. The terrorists have changed everything. The world is not as nice a place any more.
What tagos said. Seriously, we hear all the time about how the Iraqis love the coalition troops, cheer them as they go by etc etc. This policy just looks to me as if we’re going to lose any support we did have among the population. Plus this is going to affect everyone else, too; you think insurgents are really going to care that it’s only American troops that have this policy?
But hey, look on the bright side; We’ve got rid of Saddam! No longer will average, law abiding iraqis have to fear being shot in the street at the whims of a controlling power!..Oh, wait…
No, the “terrorists” have just made a whole lot of people a lot more paranoid. The level of danger to the vast majority of people was the exact same on Sept. 10, 2001 as it was on Sept. 12, 2001. We’re just more aware of it, because the government and media are now bombarding us with “Oh my god we’re all going to die!!111one” messages.
Our cosmic-scale idiocy in Afghanistan and Iraq, especially Iraq, has perhaps increased the danger, in that a lot more people really do hate us now, and rightfully so.
Isn’t there something in the Geneva convention about, you know, shooting civilians? Aren’t we at least discouraged from doing so?
How is this policy not a warcrime? Since when can a country simply arrogate the right to kill unarmed civilians for driving around in their own country? Especially when those civilians are ostensibly our allies during peacetime.
Now, as Diogenes noted, the Iraqis are allies of the USA. They are in a formal alliance. The Iraqi Army, and police, aid the USA troops in waging the “war against terror”. Thus, they are cobelligerent. Which, worringly, seems to mean that Iraqi citizens are not “protected persons” under the Geneva Convention (Damn, I REALLY hope i’ve understood that wrongly).
Thus at the very least it’s against the convention to shoot any of these people, even if they are proctected. And I don’t think you can see identity cards from 100 yards away.
I think this part is the justification.
If this does count as war crimes, it’s against the USA government, not against the soldiers.
