Replies

Good points. Here are my thoughts -- let me know if you have a reaction.

First, our rules of engagement are carefully scrubbed by military lawyers -- guys who do this for a living. I have no desire to second-guess them.

Second, as a soldier who is a non-lawyer, my understanding of the law of land warfare is a little different than yours.

(A) I think you're statement that it's not okay to shoot the wounded is not right at all. For example, if a wounded soldier has a weapon and is engaged in hostilities, the mere fact that he's wounded does not give him any special protections. He can (and should) be shot again.

(B) A wounded enemy soldier (or any enemy soldier) may attempt to surrender by throwing down his weapon or otherwise ceasing hostile acts, and making a signal (like raising his hands). I believe we'd then be obligated to respect his surrender attempt, but ONLY if the surrender could be put into effect. Since it's not practical for an enemy terrorist to surrender to an aircraft (because there's no way to put the surrender into effect) the aircraft is not required to accept the surrender. They can continue to engage in hostilities.

These terrorists took their chances by engaging in hostile actions. As you can see, they have to live (or die) with the consequences of their actions.

Let me know if you don't agree.

I am sorry to be imprecise in my post.

Of course I was speaking about wounded no longer in the battle.

So, the guy that gets nailed and is clearly wounded and is crawling away from the truck is what I meant...

And, I am not sure about your claim that aircraft may kill all wounded on the ground merely because they cannot accept their surrender.

Would it be okay to strafe a military hospital?

Also, more language issues, when did ALL Iraqi combatants become "terrorists"?

If they are fighting on the battlefield, they are combatants, if they are blowing up innocent men. women, and children in order to make a poltical point rather than for some military objective they are "terrorists."

Probably better to just use the term "soldier," "insurgent" "guerilla" or, my preference, "enemy" for those actually on the battlefield engaged in military operations.

While I certainly do not think we need to have our apache piltos giving out sweets and smiley faces to bad guys, I am also a bit uncomfortable portraying all Iraqis engaged in resistance to US forces as "terrorists."

I do not think it is a good tactic to portray all Iraqis as "terrorists" worhty of extermination. Such an attitude will make the war tougher rather than easier in my view.

Were the roles reversed, I am quite sure many freepers would be fighting for the USA. We would not be "terrorists," we would be rebels, guerillas, the resistance, or something.

I know this is just language games, but it seems obvious-- to me at least--that at this point there are a lot more fighters in IRaq that are just nationalist locals pissed off and fighting the occupation.

They are nto all "terrorists," "regime remnants," "criminals," etc.

This refusal to deal with this reality on the part of the Bush Administration is dangerous in my view. It smacks of the sort of denial that was so evident among policy makers during Vietnam.

Whenever I read any reports from the front these days, it seems that one gets far more respect for the guerillas on the part of the GIs.

To deal with Iraq effectively, politicians need to quit deluding themselves or trying to scam the populaiton by portraying all of the resistance as the acts of Al Queda, Zarqawi, etc.