I just heard reports of Iraqi soldiers attempting to surrender this morning to special forces soldiers from the allied coalition in both northern and southern Iraq. But they were turned away and told that the conflict had not yet begun. They would have to wait to surrender. A similar thing reportedly happened about a week or so ago.
I understand that the president has not officially signed the orders yet, but still — why not just accept the surrenders as defections? These people are being asked to go back and man posts that are going to be targets of bombs and then surrender it they manage to survive. Why is it done that way?
If they accepted the surrender of Iraqi soldiers, it may establish that we are at war already. And that isn’t supposed to happen until after Wednesday night.
I hope they have enough resources to handle all the surrenders they are going to get now.
I wonder how many resources the Military has set aside for POW duties. If the regular, conscript Iraqi army is consistant with what they did in Desert Storm, this will be even worse as the entire country is about to be over-run. It’ll probably take thousands of MPs just to guard them. Does anyone know if they have detainment camps/prisons already built for them?
Even according to the story linked above, if many of the Iraqi soldiers aren’t interred, they still will have to be guarded (hypothetically, even at their own barrracks) as I can’t imagine the US would be comfortable with a few thousand “unarmed” Iraqi’s at their flank.
Can anyone provide a reliable source for these stories claiming that Iraqis trying to surrender have been turned back? I find them awfully hard to believe - not that Iraqi conscripts might try to desert, but that they would be sent back to their trenches.
Amnesty International, and the Geneva convention have outlined rules for taking prisoner’s whilst in the state of war.
As war has not been declared, prisoners can not be taken.
aside: because this is happening, and war has not even been declared, anyone want to chance a guess as to how long this will last. Especially, when members of the Republican guard are already throwing their hands up and surrendering?
I have to wonder if, in cases like this, the Iraqi soldiers are told something to the effect of: “We know you want to surrender. We can’t accept you as a POW yet, though, sorry. So you have to go back. But now that we know you don’t want to fight, we’ll give you, say, fifteen minutes grace period after the shooting starts. If you can send up this flare or flag or something in that time, we won’t bomb you, we’ll just come take you prisoner. If you haven’t indicated you still intend to surrender by the end of the grace period, we’ll assume you changed your mind.”
I mean, because otherwise, it seems kind of heartless. “Sorry, no, go back and take your chances.” You’d think it would be to our military advantage to make a note of which enemy positions are going to be less likely to shoot back, and treat them accordingly. Otherwise, what’s the incentive to surrender again?
Would you care to provide a link? I’ve searched CNN’s site backwards and forwards, and there’s nothing there that I can see. Using the Google News search feature, I can’t turn up anything besides a few columns referencing the article in the Mirror. And that article, you’ll note, relates an anecdote told to the reporter by an unnamed source, while the Ministry of Defence, which has no particular reason to lie about this, denied the incident happened.
I’m not trying to say it didn’t happen, I’d just like some evidence. If you can point me to an article that corroborates this, I’d be appreciative.
I saw it on the television. I can’t link you to that. Sometimes, news links take a day or two to go up on the web. I do notice that the FoxNews site has a link from its front page to a story that says that the U.S. Central Command is “looking into” the reports. And a quick Google search will give you plenty of stories about the week-old event.
