A plausible scenario. Especially after the first time someone picked something up and got killed.
Moderator’s Warning: RedFury, taunting, personal insults, and “let’s you and him fight” posts aren’t appropriate for this forum. Tone it down or open a Pit thread.
how do they come up with these ideas?!
“gee, look at all these bloody iraqis just walking around and we can’t do anything about it!”
“just kill them.”
“no, the pesky PCs at home will cry murder.”
“just plant some evidence on them after they’re dead.”
"that’s not moral. pause aha! let’s just plant some bait then! that way our hands won’t be dirty. "
Will do, Sir. But not for a minute was I suggesting I wouldn’t get in the scrap. IOW, it may have come off as “let’s you and him fight,” but that certainly wasn’t my intent.
Apologies anyway.
Meanwhile: The Empire Is Over
Good luck.
Of course it does. By the way, Bear_Nenno, thank you for your service.
This is on the Internet now and Iraqis DO actually talk to other Iraqis ,they have radio stations and everything believe it or not !
So everyone knows what might happen if you choose to pick up weapon useful material.
So unless you really have a reason to want it you most certainly aren’t going to pick it up no matter how civic minded you are.
Do you REALLY, REALLY think that any innocent passerby is going to pick up weapon useful gear (obviously to hand in to a Yank or Brit )if he knows what might happen to him?
The word is all around Iraq now .
Of course it might lead to Iraqis with evil on their minds NOT picking up such material when it has been genuinlly been abandoned and thus save a few more lives ,probably Iraqi.
Your liberal,lawyerese mind set isn’t helping the Iraqis but is actually getting them killed ,just as it is killing Yank and Brit squaddies .
There’s no “civic minded” about it. You have no job and no money, but you know a guy at the street market who will pay you for detonator cord. You see some in the street. What do you do?
And you yourself say that if all Iraqis know better than to pick up random objects on the street because they might get shot that actual insurgents know better. Or at least know enough to send a civilian dupe to get it and bring it back - it’s a win/win for them, after all: if the civvie brings it back, they get free detonator cord (or whatever). If it’s a trap, it’s a civilian who gets killed by the occupying army, not an actual insurgent.
Tell me again how this helps Iraqis. And I honestly have no idea what you mean with your last sentence. There’s no “liberal, lawyerese mind set”, there’s just Coalition troops leaving bait that is not an immediate danger (det cord needs something to detonate to be militarily effective) and shooting whoever grabs the bait, regardless of who, when, or why. How are “Yank and Brit squaddies” going to get killed if they aren’t allowed to do this any more?
It’s OK providing you subscribe to the tenets of American conservatism:
1 - It’s OK if the US does it.
2 - Americans’ lives matter more.
Because these are your principles there’ll never be agreement between you and most of this board. It’s why you can’t see that its a far, far better thing for Any American Serviceman to return to the USA crippled and disfigured, living out his days an affront to the public eye, than otherwise survive to insult innocent Iraqis.
Other than providing medical care or spiritual guidance, aiding the enemy makes you the enemy. Period. There is no legitimate excusable reason. I don’t care if you’re poor or just gullible. Working in an enemy bomb factory, running weapons, or just playing gopher for some tricky insurgent all make you the enemy.
Free? Do you realize how insulting your scenario is? Do you think the Iraqi people are all just boneheaded morons? Not only are they going to recruit the poor jobless folk to be gophers, but they’re also going to get them to do it for free? Does this sound plausible in your head?
“Hey, mister!? Would you please go over there and fetch that 155mm mortar for me? I can’t be bothered to walk all the way over there.”
“Sure thing, duhhhh do de dooo”
That kind of thing is simply not going to happen. It doesn’t make any sense. More likely there will be people who know that they can sell munitions and IED making materials to certain people. And if they happen to find some laying around, they will know that if they take it to said certain people, they’ll get some needed cash. Well that’s still working for the enemy. Which makes them the enemy. And like I said before, an enemy doesn’t need to be an immediate threat. This isn’t cops and robbers, it’s war.
Even if this sentence were true, it would still be irrelevant. Det cord by itself is still a pretty serious explosive. If you got a lot of spare det cord after preparing an ambush, you can line the dead zones–where the enemy who survived the initial claymors will try to take cover (like a small road ditch)–with det cord and create a secondary localized blast that will fuck up anyone there. The det cord alone will seperate limbs and halve torsos, so I wouldn’t say it’s not military effective without additional explosive.
It’s not about immediate survival. It’s not like someone is about to die right then. But we’re not talking about cops and criminals. The goal is to win the war and get the fuck home. Every enemy does not need to be an immediate threat. A future threat, or even a PAST THREAT is enough!!
If you’re a door gunner in a helicopter and you notice some guy selling an IED component, you’re not going to be able to “capture” him. The question at hand is “Do the laws of war allow you to shoot him”. The answer is “Yes”.
If you see someone who is a known ring leader of some EFP factory innocently driving home from work, can you shoot him? The answer is Yes.
Sure, capturing some people in some situations might be more beneficial to everyone involved. But the point is, it’s not mandatory to use less lethal force on combatants simply because they are not an immediate threat.
And to answer your question about saving yank and brit lives? It’s obvious that the sooner we control the insurgency, get some damn peace in that country and finish rebuilding the infrastructure, the sooner we can get the fuck out of there and the less people will have to die. Every month we’re there creates more coalition casualties. The sooner we leave (without quitting, packing our shit and leaving), the sooner people will stop dying and the more lives will be saved.
So, even if indirectly in your mind, it does save lives!
The fact that we are the bad guys in this is a “legitimate excusable reason”, as is the fact that we are their enemies, regardless of what they do. It is the duty of the Iraqis to harm and hinder us.
We can’t win, short of killing every last Iraqi. Do you want that ?
They are ALL threats, thanks to our behavior. Again, do you intend to kill them all ?
No, it doesn’t. Killing people isn’t going to make this stupid war one moment shorter, unless the people dying are Americans. Massive American casualties would probably give even the Democrats enough spine to force Bush to pull out; no amount of Iraqi casualties will shorten the occupation; even extermination, since the oil would still be there. And we aren’t ever going to “finish rebuilding the infrastructure”, or ever actually start, for that matter. Nor will there ever be peace while we are there, nor will we ever control in insurgency. We are killing out of own self indulgence, nothing more.
And we can leave when we feel like it. We are there because we chose to be, and we can leave when we choose.
Many Iraqis feel it is their duty to fight the insurgency, restore order, and combat terrorist suicide bombers along side the American led coalition. They feel they’d like to create a thriving democracy and be governed by individuals they elect. I guess those guys just have a twisted sense of duty in your mind, huh?
But either way, I don’t think the reasons (or lack thereof) for the initial invasion are relevant in this thread. Even if all of the following points are true:
-We’re evil monsters who invaded a soverign nation to take control of their natural resources and intimidate their neighbors.
-We enjoy killing non-Christians so much that we started a war with millions of them.
-We tricked countries all over the world into joining us.
-Our war is totally immoral, unjust, and disgusting.
That still doesn’t mean these other relevant facts are not true. Such as:
-We are legally at war.
-We can legally kill combatants.
-They can legally kill us.
This thread would be more productive if we could concentrate more on the last three solid facts, instead of the 4 debatable views above them. There’s pleanty of other threads in which you can spew your repetitive, “America is Evil in every possible, conceivable way” crap.
Good luck over there. I hope you come home safe.
…and this statement here is why, despite the billions of dollars invested in this “war”, you will loose. You simply have no idea what is going on from the perspective of the Iraqi people-and labeling everybody that is not on your side as an “enemy” regardless of circumstances is an extremely stupid idea. Can you prove the guy picking up the Det Wire know what he is picking up? Can you prove that he is selling it to an insurgent?
Can I suggest killing people under these circumstances while the United States is a “guest” of the Iraqi government isn’t wise? Do Iraqi soldiers operate under the same Rules of Engagement? Do you think they should?
I think that the Iraqi people are living in a failed state, occupied by foreign troops with poor and liberal rules of engagement. I think that it is extremely hard for Iraqis to know how to stay alive around American Troops who apparently can shoot people for picking up stuff. Can you explain how to surve an encounter with US troops?
Rules for surviving an encounter with US Troops:
-Don’t drive too fast: they will think you are an insurgent
-Don’t drive too slowly: they will think your an insurgent
-Don’t drive normally: they will think your an insurgent
-Don’t talk to your cousin: they might think you are trying to sell him an IED and use that as an excuse to shoot you
-Don’t help the US troops: it will give your cousin an excuse to shoot you
Do you have any other helpful tips?
You know, when you phrase it all stupid like you did, of course it sounds stupid. Does swallowing condoms filled with heroin and smuggling it to a country that executes drug smugglers make any sense? Of course not: I wouldn’t do it, and neither would you.
We are fortunate that we don’t live with the circumstances that force people to do really stupid things. We don’t have to use a hammer to break into the cities waterlines in order to get water to drink. We don’t have to drive down roads where one wrong move can be interpreted as the actions of an insurgent. Just because an action doesn’t make sense: doesn’t mean that people don’t do it.
Your probably right. What does det cord look like? If I saw some lying in the street outside my house, would I know it? How about the average Iraqi?
Why aren’t we talking cops and criminals? Why are we talking about winning a war?
The future threat is the key problem here: but your solution for dealing with it is what will hurt the war against terror. The next great terrorist threat to face the world in the near future probably isn’t even over the age of fifteen. They are the sons and daughters of Falujah, or some of the millions of people that have taken refuge in the borders of friendly countries like Syria. And they will be motivated by memories of having their country occupied by American Troops who thought that it would be smart to set bait traps and kill their parents.
Really? In Iraq? Can you cite the current rules of engagement, and explain exactly what would give him the right to shoot in this situation? How do we know that the door gunner didn’t just take a shot at the guy for “fun” or because he was scared or because he was mistaken? What consequences should there be in any of these cases?
Again, you seem supremely confident of this. Do you have a cite to the Rules of Engagement that would allow this? Are the Iraqi government aware that US Troops have the right to commit lawful executions?
Again, can you quote what the current Rules of Engagement have to say on this issue? Can you show me what the Iraqi government have to say on this issue?
When is the United States going to start the reconstruction process? Billions have been spent, the metrics say that after four years literally nothing has happened. Potable water has decreased. Electricity production has decreased. The amount of people no living as refugees now equals half the total population of New Zealand. The death rate since 2005 of Iraqi civilians has skyrocketed. So how well is the current strategy working? What tangible benifits does the average Iraqi see?
Ultimately, these soldiers are on trial for murdering three people and planting evidence. The US Military should be complimented in this case for getting the case this far and if the soldiers are indeed found guilty I hope they are punished to the full extent that is possible. I note that the revelations of this “baiting” programme were revealed by a witness testifying for the defense. I can only hope that his testemony was exagerated and that “baiting” programmes don’t exist and that we are debating an extreme hypothetical. Because the thought that anyone from the US Military would think that this is a good idea and actually implemented it in Iraq would make me sick to the stomach.
You misunderstand the difference between Rules of Engagement and Laws of War.
The Laws of War are those international standards–both written and nonwritten–that govern how militaries should conduct themselves. They include, but are not limited to, the various Geneva Conventions, Hague Convention, etc…
The Laws of Armed Conflict do not change overnight. The Rules of Engagement can, (and do) though.
The Rules of Engagement are a set of directives issued to soldiers which explain when and how a soldier will engage the enemy, and what their limitations are. The ROE can and does change based on mission, location, optempo, current threat, civilian population, and numberous other factors. Rules of Engagement are what leaders use to ensure that (as in the scenario) door gunners are not out there laying waste to every civilian and slightly possible combatant out there. That door gunner’s ROE might (and probably does) say that he is not allowed to shoot at anyone unless he is under hostile fire. In fact, I’d be suprised if a door gunner’s current ROE did not say that.
But see, that’s a limitation put on him by his commanders and their commanders. That is not a Law of War. The Rules of Engagement are put in effect so that we don’t have soldiers accidentally or intentionally violating the Laws of War.
Which is what I’ve kinda been trying to get across here. I’m just saying that a soldier can. It all depends on his ROE. The ROE for that sniper unit is much different than that of other units. But this does not mean that unit is violating a Law of War. It just means they have a different mission and different other circumstances which require a different ROE. It’s the Key Leaders’ call on how restrictive or loose an ROE is.
I’ve heard of ROE’s as open as “Anyone out on the street after curfew in this area is a combatant.” or “Anyone on the street in front of you is a combatant.”
Also I’ve heard them as strict as “Do not even return fire unless necessary to defend your life.” It can all depend on current intel, the situation, the mission, the commander’s intent, other ongoing operations (like Psyops and Civil Affairs), warning signs posted in the area and god knows what else.
Not sure if I’m making that clear. So basically, the Laws of War say that a soldier may engage a combatant at will provided the combatant is not injured or sick or surrendering. The Rules of Engagement are the directives given to soldiers to ensure that whomever they shoot is in fact a combatant.
Maybe the soldier is required to call his command before engaging a target so he can articulate exactly what he’s looking at and why he thinks it’s a target, etc.
Don’t think for a second that I believe every soldier should be out there indescrimanately shooting everyone who picks up a possible bomb part or looks at a soldier furtively. With good soldiers, good communication and a smart, effective ROE, those things should not happen. Throw in some weak leadership, undisciplined soldiers, a breakdown in communication, or ROE failures, and stupid shit like this happens.
For fun: Courtmartialed for murder. For the others? Well, it depends on his ROE, whether his fear was justified, and whether his mistaken identity was justified. Hopefully his ROE will keep him out of these situations in the first place. If his ROE said something like:
Always have the right to self-defense.
Engage personnel carrying small arms only if their firing at you.
Engage RPGs or larger after receiving permission from higher.
Fire warning shots if and only if ground personnel are acting furtively.
Or something like that. I just pulled that out of my ass, but it should give you an idea. Laws of War just say he can shoot combatives. His chain of command will put measures (ROE) in place to ensure he is in compliance.
Thank you. Seriously!
And on that note, this will be my last post for at least a week. Possibly more. So if I don’t reply in a timely manner, sorry. Hopefully I cleared up what I was getting at.
I think Banquet Bear covered my response to your response to me as well or better than I could.
I do also think that treating Iraq as a war requiring only the military response of “kill the enemy, and anyone who supports the enemy is an enemy to be killed”. is not the answer. The US forces won pretty much all the “military actions” in Vietnam, but lost on virtually every other battleground, and that cost us the war.
Regardless, I do also hope you stay safe as you serve. The topic at hand may be that the death tolls of Iraqis are far too great already, but so are the casualty lists of the soldiers serving over there.
…with respect, I think you misunderstand my point. You make the following statements:
Each of these situation that you have outlined are subject firstly to the Laws of War, and then secondly to the ROE. To make your claims without mentioning this is disgenuous. The Laws of War allow the shot to take place: but the ROE as you well know would probably not.
If you are telling me that US Troops current ROE allow them to shoot the known ring leader of some EFP factory innocently driving home from work as you so confidently claim, I would like to see a cite.
If this is allowed in the ROE, then I believe that the Iraqi people have the right to know this. This doesn’t sound like a military operation: it sounds like an Extrajudicial Execution to me. Iraq has been handed over sovereign authority, they have their own courts and police forces, and the US Military are their at the behest with the Iraqi Government. If this is what is happening in Iraq right now, I would suggest that the US Military are seriously overstepping their bounds.
As I mentioned before: how do you survive an encounter with US Troops?
You say this:
How does the average Iraqi know what the Rules of Engagement are in the location they are in? How do they know that they are in a high threat zone, or walking into a “Anyone on the street in front of you is a combatant.” area? Do you see the problems with having such flexible ROE in the middle of a sovereign country with a civilian population trying to get on with their lives?
What would you do if you saw a roll of “Det Wire” lying around in rubble in the street?
I’ve had a couple of days to think about what I would do. You state this:
I tried to imagine what it would be like living in Iraq, and what I would do if I saw this Det Wire that you state is so dangerous lying around. Would I just leave it there? What if kids picked it up? What about if the bad guys got to it? I can’t trust the police, I can’t trust the army. If I was less civic minded I would just walk away. But in my heart of hearts I am not, and I know that I would walk up and take the cord away. If this was a bait trap: how would things end up for me?
Flexible and secret Rules of Engagement in Iraq at the moment only endangers and confuses the innocent. The Rules of Engagement should be clear so that the bad guys can be found and the good guys don’t get hurt. Iraq is a nation struggling to get back on its feet after decades of rule by a tyrant and the recent occupation and disasterous reconstruction efforts by the US Administration.
The average Iraqi doesn’t get Fox News or CNN or the BBC, the news comes from a variety of other sources. I watch Al Jazirah International here in NZ (absolutely great channel): and the contrast between their broadcasts and Fox News is like watching something out of a parallel dimension. Perception trumps reality: and while Fox will triumph the “death of a known ringleader of a EFP factory”, an Arab News Network might “lament the loss of a great family man.” You are fighing not only on the battlefields, but also over the air waves. And it is a battle you will continue to loose as long as incidents like this (and to be honest: I’m still not convinced that this is anything but a defense tactic) continue to happen.
Interesting. So why weren’t you backing me up in my pitting? Sounds like you agree with me on the transfer of moral taint to everyone involved in a war.
Because that’s one of those “it’s OK if you’re an American” things. It’s OK for us to invade other countries; evil for others. It’s OK for us to kill on suspicion; evil for others. It’s OK for us to torture people; evil for anyone else.