Mosul fight gets dirty
Mick sends us a link to Fox News which reports that the holdouts in Mosul are sending in their women rigged with bombs, and that female snipers are using their own children for human shields;
The militants’ use of human shields has repeatedly slowed Iraqi advances throughout the nearly nine-month offensive to retake the country’s second largest city, and the commanders’ frustration was on display as they watched surveillance footage from the front lines.
“The women are fighting with their children right beside them,” Lt. Gen. Sami al-Aridi said as he was briefed by an officer holding a tablet computer showing drone imagery. “It’s making us hesitant to use airstrikes, to advance. If it weren’t for this we could be finished in just a few hours.”
Another officer in the command post suggested using Iraqi artillery, which would not require approval from the U.S.-led coalition. “They’re all Daesh, just kill them all,” the commander said, referring to the IS group by its Arabic acronym.
Yep, you can kill them now, or kill them when they grow up. ISIS set the parameters of decency in this war and the only way to bring it home to them is fight it the way they would. Yeah, yeah, “we’re better than they are”, but you can’t win the war if the enemy doesn’t know he’s been beaten. That’s why we’re still in Afghanistan, that’s why we’re in Iraq…again (for the third time) and that’s why we’re fighting in Somalia.
Category: Terror War
“They’re all Daesh, just kill them all,” the commander said, referring to the IS group by its Arabic acronym.
You can’t get any plainer than that.
Paraphrasing General Curtis LeMay again today:
‘Bomb ’em until the rubble bounces’
“Yep, you can kill them now, or kill them when they grow up.”
GEN Mattis is so going to steal that line….
You’re either in it to win it, or you’re not.
If the local OIC says ‘all Daesh’, wouldn’t he know what he’s talking about? Or am I just being cynical again?
Sounds like they need to bring in Clay Higgins.
I’m not sure I understand the concern at all…We burned German and Jap kids with relative impunity at one time…perhaps some of these people need to read up on Curtis LeMay. He has some good advice for how to proceed with a total war.
Some sniveling whiny a.h.’s complained because some GI’s pissed on dead bodies…I guess pouring pigs blood on them and scaring the shyt out of them is out of the question? Stopped the A.H.’s in the phillipines for 20 years or more!!
M.O.A.B.
M.O.A.B.s
/ftfy
//18 left or so.
ISIS set the parameters of decency in this war and the only way to bring it home to them is fight it the way they would. Yeah, yeah, “we’re better than they are”, but you can’t win the war if the enemy doesn’t know he’s been beaten.
Strategically and historically, this makes a lot of sense. Legally, however, it is no longer allowed. Actually targeting civilians…i.e., “fighting the way they would”…is forbidden under the modern Law of War (since 1949 or so) — as described in Army Field Manual 27-10 and other places.
“Reciprocity” and “reprisal” don’t apply here and you can see why they wouldn’t–“they kill innocent civilians, so we will be revenged on them by killing other civilians.” The modern Law of War doesn’t recognize civilians (persons taking no active part in the fighting) as part of the enemy’s war capability that can be targeted. Maybe it should, but it doesn’t.
There is a strong case to be made that the Law of War should be changed. WWII is the last big war we won decisively and that is also the last big war in which we could bomb cities and ravage the countryside. But until it does change (and that would probably require a major new treaty revising the Geneva Conventions of 1949) we are stuck with the laws we have.
“Legally, however, it is no longer allowed. Actually targeting civilians….”
Do you even understand how ludicrous that is?
It’s okay for ISIS to target anyone and everyone, but no one can take arms against them, period, to stop them for good.
That’s what you’re saying. Since when did reason enter into this mess? WE didn’t create it. THEY did.
Do you even understand how ludicrous that is?
Complain all you want. It’s the law. The U.S. Armed Forces don’t get to disobey the law because you, or they, find it “ludicrous.”
It’s okay for ISIS to target anyone and everyone…
No, actually, it’s a war crime. They commit war crimes constantly. Whether any of their fighting men, or leadership, survive to be prosecuted for war crimes is a separate question.
…but no one can take arms against them, period, to stop them for good.
No, we can do that, we just can’t target their civilian population or civilian objects.
That’s what you’re saying.
Read harder.
Civilian casualties are nothing new to the U.S. military when the decision has been made to proceed.
True. But I’m pretty sure those are now by Federal law subject to the balancing test (military need weighed against collateral damage potential).
We can’t simply say “eff it” and slaughter noncombatants and combatants alike simply because they’re together. The military utility of the collateral casualties incurred must be outweighed by the military need.
Don’t forget: per the Constitution, treaties that have been ratified by the Senate have force of law, just like Federal statutes. When we ratified the Geneva Conventions back in 1949, we signed up to “fight fair” – e.g., IAW the 1949 Geneva Conventions. They’re now binding law on US forces, whether we like it or not.
An argument can be made for withdrawing from the Geneva Conventions. But until that happens, we’re stuck with them. And I’m not sure I’d support the US doing that anyway.
“We can’t simply…”
Of course. Didn’t mean to imply otherwise, though my comment was partially typed from a “fukk em” sort of frustration. 🙂
I get tired of seeing casualty reports.
Understood, and thanks for the clarification. Wasn’t quite sure where you were going with that.
I get tired of reading about US casualties, too. But deliberately disregarding current US law doesn’t seem like a good long-term strategy, either.
A “wicked problem”, indeed.
US law doesn’t apply to our allies.
That is true. While I was referring to US actions above, actions by a different nation’s forces would not be covered under US law.
However, Iraq is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. Their adopting a “kill ’em all, let Allah sort ’em” stance would be problematic in terms of war crimes. And the US providing direct support for operations in which they did so could be a problem.
In fact, Iraq is not only a signatory of the 4 basic Geneva Conventions of 1949 – they ratified Protocol I in 2010. So it’s difficult to argue they haven’t accepted the basic Geneva Conventions because they were signed by a different regime. Protocol I is an addition to the basic 4 Geneva Conventions.
Forces that fail to qualify as “lawful combatants” do not enjoy the protections fo the conventions.
As an internal conflict / insurrection, the rules for -Iraq- are also somewhat different.
Also, we did -not- ratify a bunch of the “addditional protocols” that were meant to hamstring resistance to (then soviet backed) revolutionary movements.
We are not as “tied up” as many people think. Some folks who want us to lose just keep saying it, over and over, until many folks believe that lie.
“Legally, it is no longer allowed…”
Name ONE jihadi who is in the military: ZIP ZERO NADA NONE
They are ALL civilians.
As the article informs us, the ISIS women are using their own children as shields while taking potshots at the opposition. They do not give a damn about legal or illegal. They are doing whatever they want to.
Do you actually think for one second, Alberich, that any of them give a flying fart in space about war crimes or legalities?
What you said is a massive disconnect from the reality that is going on in Iraq. They don’t give a crap about legal, illegal, war crimes, or anything else that “civilized” care about.
ALL of Daesh or ISIS or whatever is CIVILIANS. Try harder.
Doesn’t matter what Da’esh does, Ex-PH2. Adherence to the Geneva Conventions is mandatory under US law, since we’ve signed a treaty saying we’ll do exactly that.
Point of order: Civilians directly and actively aiding combatants in are -not- protected by the conventions to which we are signatory and ratified.
A subtle thing to discern, but if the folks are actively screening for the fighters, they are -not- “non-combatants”.
So in plain English, Hondo, they are free to murder anyone they see, and we just have to put up with it.
Unfortunately, that’s about the size of it – just like criminals can commit murder (and risk going to jail or execution if later caught), but cops aren’t allowed to do the same to the criminals’ families.
Sometimes the law sucks. But I’m not sure the available alternative(s) are any better.
I’d like to point out the fact that these ‘criminals’ are perfectly willing to murder their own families right in front of us, and gloat about it.
You’re just identifying the main challenge of soldiers is identifying militants from civilians. Our conventional forces are so powerful they use our laws and morality to gain advantage.
But read about partisans in Poland, Ukraine, and Russia in WW2. The Wehrmacht made little to no effort to distinguish civilians, which made their problems with partisans worse.
It mirrors my experience that the better we treated locals, the less violent our sector became.
I’m not arguing that point. I’m simply pointing out that they place no value at all on life of any kind. If they ever had any moral brakes, those have long since rusted away.
Pol Pot eliminated millions of Cambodians by recruiting the children of those adults to murder their own parents. There is no difference between him and the rest of these scumbags.
Bullshyt! who is going to try muslims for war crimes? But the bastards damned sure prosecute our people for killing the enemy…several in prison right now I could name!
Bam!! And Bingo!
If I am not mistaken, the “protected” status is lost when misused by combatants. A church used as an ammunition magazine is not a protected place, despite the religious markings and accouterments still present.. An ambulance APC is fair game. The subhuman slime firing from a crowded schoolyard is -not- immune from return fire.
The reason it is a “war crime” to hide behind civilians, is that the civilians tend to get killed when the attackers kill the cowards behind the innocent.
The Law of War was not intended to hand a triumph to the ones that most ruthlessly violate it. It would be both immoral and stupid to try to enforce it that way.
Correction “an ambulance used as a combatant-troop-carrier is fair game”
APC in this case meaning an infantry carrier, not a casualty carrier.
For equipment and physical infrastructure, that may be the case; I’ll defer to Alberich on that point.
For civilian noncombatants, no. Even when they’re being used as human shields, they’re still noncombatants. Balancing military need against potential collateral damage is required before they can be targeted with lethal force that will reasonably cause their death or injury. And you can’t use disproportionate force, either – if you have one sniper in a town, blasting the entire town into rubble isn’t generally an allowable solution (but targeting the building in which the sniper is holed up with a JDAM likely is).
If those civilians are -actively- helping the combatants, they are no longer “non combatants”.
-willing- human shields are -not- protected.
Also, keep firmly in mind -which- treaties we actually signed and ratified, versus the ones we follow as courtesy. We are not -bound- by the latter.
Our policies and regulations -far- exceed the written, signed, ratified treaties. That was a -political- decision.
A kid walking up to you with a grenade.
IMO likely legit; ditto if the kid is holding a weapon (unless it’s slung muzzle-down – that might be iffy).
But a kid without either, simply because he might have a grenade or pistol hidden in his clothing, and absent any indication he does? Wouldn’t recommend that course of action.
Both NVA and Daesh recruit children to engage in this ‘warfare’ slaughterhouse. There is NO other term for it, and you know it.
Frankly, since there a plenty of photos of 6 and 7 year olds holding weapons and severed heads, if one of them approaches me, I will suspect the worst and act accordingly.
The kids are awesome. They will point out IEDs for you, and when they’re gone it’s as good as an early warning system as you get. All they want is some candy.
Personally, I think I would prefer to remain one of the “good guys”. War is bad enough without having to remember killing women and children “just in case”.
‘The kids are awesome.’
Are they still awesome when they’re wearing an IED belt?
‘killing women and children’ – Do you even vaguely comprehend that your viewpoint (they must ALL be innocent/noncombatant) was well understood by the North Vietnamese government, which is why young women were used as spies, and the reason the Apache in Vietnam was so successful at trapping US troops and torturing them to death? Or that Daesh women are using their own children as shields, because they know you won’t kill them?
Pol Pot recruited children to kill off their own parents. Two million dead Cambodians later….
Does Hitler’s Youth Movement ring a bell, even a tiny one?
Your naivete is appalling.
Yes. I have first hand experience.
I have a more nuanced take because my units had quality leadership that internalized counter-insurgency doctrine. Its a trade-off: we are exposed to have our decency exploited. But we’re never going to win cooperation if we treat children like enemy combatants.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/world/middleeast/suicide-blast-by-woman-in-iraq-kills-8-others-57-are-hurt.html
This is the one I remember, although I don’t remember hearing she was disguised as a man (as reported there). I recalled they let her past first security screening because she was a woman. Rumors or bad reporting, who knows.
Then there was a child who tossed a grenade in a courtyard.
So for the twelve months we were there, those are the only two incidents (I recall) where women or children were combatants. And the rest of the time more helpful than not.
Its a trade-off.
Okay, I accept your response, but having seen the real results of exploiting women and children to win a conflict or take over a government, my viewpoint is based on those histories.
We all have our own experiences and perspectives based on that.
I respect your experience left you with a different opinion.
Yes, I vaguely comprehend that my viewpoint was well understood by not only the Vietnamese Communists but also by all Communists. Bourgeois morality was to be used against the bourgeois Capitalists, one strand of that rope that Lenin said the Capitalists would give Communists.
“We stand for organized terror – this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution.”
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Quotes/leninkeyquotes.htm
I also vaguely comprehend that the Koran and the hadiths prescribes similar terror and duplicity to all infidels.
I also vaguely comprehend the principals and values that are the basis for Western civilization and this country. That is why I consciously choose to live by the values of Western civilization and Christianity and not Islam or Communism.
It is not naivete, it is a choice based on knowledge and experience, with at least a vague knowledge of the possible consequences of either course.
You are free, of course, to make your own choice.
“We need to fall back and nuke it from space”
GEN George S. Patten
an unused weapon is a useless weapon 🙂
I’ll let you sell that to the CG, USSTRATCOM. (smile)
A fellow I know has his home defence pistol loaded with one hard ball round in the tube and the magazine loaded with golden sabres or black talons. He has told all of his family that if they are being used as a shield they can expect to get shot. It will hurt like the dickens but probably not be a fatal wound. The bad guy will not be so blessed. People make very poor bullet traps.
“The women are fighting with their children right beside them,”
And some people think this is going to end with the retaking of Mosul and Raqqa? Or a little more “training” for “friendly” forces?