Golly, the administration sure are a bunch of whiners. Didn't they start off the war with an assasination attempt?

And the war is taken as warcrime itself.

"But read that last line from the AP again. It says, 'U.S. forces would continue to accept Iraqi surrenders.' Make of that what you will."

We have no choice, Stephen. We are the USA. We cannot violate the laws of war just because out enemy does so.

I know, George -- and while it may cost us lives, it lets us keep our honor.

Those who don't understand that, fail to do so on purpose.

And it lets us keep our SUVs!

"We have no choice, Stephen"

We do have a choice, we always have a choice. We could decide to shoot them on site because they may pose a threat, but we don't because we aren't the blood thirsty military that many Americans and citizens of other countries beleive us to be. That's what I found impressive.

I'm not sure how not murdering those attempting to surrender--despite the increased risk that it may be a ruse--makes it easier to keep one's SUV's. Indeed, the opposite is true.

And "an assassination attempt"--that is, targeting the commmand center of an enemy with which you at war with precision munitions--is not a war crime. Staging a surrender, taking advantage of the fact that the enemy is honorable and will obey the rules of war, as a "ruse" is.

I don't recall that many japanese prisoners being taken during WWII, there is certainly precedent for a no-quater fight.

It's very simple. If America is seen to be indiscriminately slaughtering Iraqis, the Arab world would be up in arms. The House of Saud would probably be overthrown. Israel would probably become involved. Obviously, there would be a highly negative effect on oil prices.

I'm sure in Vietnam we had similar problems with the Viet Cong and NVA not fighting by the rules. The British undoubtedly felt that way about the revolting colonists in New England.

If the U.S. ever felt outgunned and outnumbered on our home turf, I'm sure we'd try to trick the superior forces facing us - although not necessarily with the same tactics.

This Iraqi deception sucks but it seems only natural - considering the circumstances, who we are dealing with and what we are there to deal with in the first place. I agree we should continue to follow the accepted war rules, because it is moral, it is politically acceptable, and it helps maintain control of operations.

In fact, we used similar deception against the British during the American Revolution. They weren't dressed as natives during the Boston Tea Party because it was halloween.

George Peery writes:

[We have no choice, Stephen. We are the USA. We cannot violate the laws of war just because out enemy does so.]

Actually, if the Iraqis are unwilling to respect the laws of war, we are released from the obligation to do so. We certainly don't have to accept their surrenders, if the soldiers that "surrender" end up killing ours.

That said, it's probably best for us to continue to accept surrenders. For one thing, the majority of those surrendering seem to really give up, and willingly submit to searches and being handcuffed. Also, if we start gunning down surrendering soldiers, they will all fight to the last, making it that much harder. In fact, I'm sure the whole idea behind the few times that a surrender is staged and then turns into an ambush, is for this very thing to happen.

Exactly what bearing the Geneva Conventions -- signed in the 20th Century by nation-states to regulate the affairs of established militaries -- has to do with a band of hooligans performing a little patriotic vandalism remains to be seen.

OK, I'm really done with Trolling Mike now. We return you to your regularly-scheduled blogging.

Given that the US prisoners seem to have been executed with a shot in the head, I am not suprised at Saddam's latest war crime.

Executed by a shot in the head? Sure the Administration would like you to believe that but, ask yourself, aren't prisoners worth a whole lot more alive? Your know they are.

If you kill Iraqi prisoners, that will get back to the other Iraqi soldiers, and they will be less likely to surrender. Instead they'll fight to the death. So it is to our advantage to treat their prisoners well: an enemy POW is less dangerous than an enemy in the field.

Like any good troll, Michael starts up with the conspiracy theories.

[Executed by a shot in the head? Sure the Administration would like you to believe that but, ask yourself, aren't prisoners worth a whole lot more alive? Your know they are.]

So I guess Iraqi television, al-Jazeera, and Abu Dhabi are all part of the conspiracy, eh?

And not all prisoners are worth more alive. The captured soldiers were not combat officers; they were mechanics. Not much to find out from them, really. The thugs in the Iraqi "leadership" might decide that killing them would be worth more, as a morale booster, or to make others talk (especially if truly valuable troops are captured later).

Gee, "E nough," a conspiracy? Wow. So let me get this straight: these solders are driving in their trucks and the Iraqis open fire on them. You think nobody would be hit in the head? Do you think the Iraqis do not have orders to capture Americans alive, if possible? Would not live prisoners be worth far, far more for propaganda purposes?

I contend that they would be worth more far more alive and thus I am suspicious of reports that they had been "executed." However, "e Nough" believes everything he hears.

I agree we should continue to accept surrender. But what happens to those perpetrating the false surrenders? If we give them a hot bath and the twinkies from our MRE's I think we are sending the wrong signal. They, and those caught fighting in civillian clothes, can be shot, and probably should. (My karma will suffer for even saying this. But I'll say it again. Shoot them, publicly, so word gets back that any who perpetrate this should be prepared to have their desire for martydom accommodated.)

Michael,

Maybe E-Nough believes everyhting he sees; as in ACTUAL film of executed POW's. You may "contend" all you wish, the film (and still photos) are out there. Don't believe me? Use Google.

Dear Xenophobe: How about a link?

Michael Frum (and Ted Drcar),

While you're waiting for the link, you might also read a little history, such as about the American Revolution.

1. The colonists who dressed as Indians did so during the Boston Tea Party, which PREDATED the American Revolution. They did so to disguise themselves, as they were acting in a CRIMINAL manner. (Ben Franklin offered to pay for the tea out of his own pocket, or so the story goes.) If the British had captured any of them, they'd have well been within rights to punish them (although one suspects that hanging might've been a bit much for larceny/felony).

2. The Americans used guerilla tactics against the Brits. That is NOT the same as violating the Geneva Convention. As Braddock found out (much to his shortened dismay) in the French&Indian War, not everyone fights in neat lines. That does NOT constitute a war crime, and the Brits, while frustrated, would not have charged the Americans with atrocities for not fighting in lines.

American colonists, however, were in rebellion and, in the eyes of the Crown, committing Treason. THAT is a different matter than HOW they were fighting.

My god, can't stupid assholes like Michael Frum just get banned? It's trolls like him that made web discussion so painful. Moderation is a good thing.

My word, can't foul-mouthed, closed-minded blasphemers like Brent M Krupp get banned? It's people like him that make wars so painful.

Dear Michelle Frum

You obviously believe that indiscriminate shooting at a vehicle must have more than a one-in-a-million chance of striking five occupants directly in the middle of the forehead.

Either way, E.Nough is obviously much smarter and more well-versed on this issue than you are. Executing "some" POWs to make the others co-operate is far from rare.

And considering that these POWs were captured by Saddam's most loyal dogs (your kind of people)... people who have spent years tackling these sort of terrorists have concluded that they want to make American troops treat Iraqi POWs in kind. The end-result would make Iraqis far less likely to surrender.

Capiche, Michelle?

Dear Mart: Still waiting for that link. Do you have it, or not?

There are actually other circumstances where, in fact, you might NOT want to keep your captives alive.

For example, you might shoot one or more, in order to make others talk by terrifying them.

You might shoot one or more, in the hopes of sapping enemy morale. This would be the same logic that would lead someone to haul a body through the streets of Mogadishu, for example.

As Martin Knight notes, you might want to shoot prisoners in order to precipitate a similar response (in the case of Iraq, this may make some sense, if you are worried about excessive numbers of your own troops deserting/surrendering).

You might shoot prisoners because you're a sadistic/criminal guard/officer/interrogator. We have seen examples of this in most recent wars, on all sides.

Or, you might shoot prisoners in the heat of battle to prevent escape. Or out of vengeance. Although shots to the head tend to be associated more w/ political officers' activities.

Indeed, if keeping prisoners alive were the general norm, you wouldn't really NEED a Geneva Convention to say that you're supposed to keep them alive.

Don't feed the trolls.

*Still* waiting for the link. Does anyone have the link that shows what was described?

By the way, Dean, that last post was quite well thought out. Those are all possible (though, of course, indefensible) reasons for killing prisoners. And a sadistic guard is always a possibility. But if organized terror was the intention, imagine how much more effecive it would be if the killings had been caught on video, as they (almost) were in Mogadishu. That's why I'm skeptical.

Your assumption is unwarranted.

For example, shooting prisoners in order to induce others to talk---why would you necessarily want to film that? Especially if you could not be certain that the Allies WON'T win the war?

Similarly, shooting prisoners in order to induce your opponent to effect atrocities--again, filming yourself DOING it doesn't necessarily serve your purposes (for the same reason).

Notice how few Nazi officials actually signed orders regarding the Final Solution. And that was when they thought they were WINNING the war.

But just as the absence of Hitler's signature by no means absolves him of ordering (and being responsible) for the action (unless you're David Irving), so, too, does the absence of a literal smoking gun not absolve the Iraqis of at least significant suspicion of having executed American fighting men.

Given the conduct of the Iraqis during the last war, it is certainly not unreasonable to question whether they did so, and to presume that it is quite likely that they did (the behavior of the person displaying the corpses would reinforce that suspicion).

Why isn't this a question of michael frum's patriotism?

"And "an assassination attempt"--that is, targeting the commmand center of an enemy with which you [are] at war...is not a war crime."

So the piloting of a small plane with explosives into the white house would not be a crime? I hope this is not true.

I think people forget we faught much of the revolutionary war as guerillas. US "minutemen" wore no insignia or uniform, and simply would come out shoot at British soldeirs who were in unifomr and in columns, and then return home to go out the next day.

Doesn't the great american war movie "the longest day" have a french woman in civilian clothes walk up to a german soldier with her arms up while a fellow french partisan (also in civilian clothes) then shoots the soldier.