Missileer
Active member
This is an interesting article by author Ralph Peters. Makes sense to me.
New York Post
July 10, 2006
Kill, Don't Capture
How to solve our prisoner problem
By Ralph Peters
The British military defines experience as the ability to recognize a
mistake the second time you make it. By that standard, we should be very
experienced in dealing with captured terrorists, since we've made the same mistake again and again.
Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the
rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence
value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of them.
Killing terrorists during a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral - or even
illegal. We've imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or
judicial precedent. We haven't been stymied by others, but by ourselves.
The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal
combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans -
but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.
Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal
combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.
The present situation encourages our enemies to behave wantonly, while
crippling our attempts to deal with terror.
Consider today's norm: A terrorist in civilian clothes can explode an IED,
killing and maiming American troops or innocent civilians, then demand
humane treatment if captured - and the media will step in as his champion. A disguised insurgent can shoot his rockets, throw his grenades, empty his magazines, kill and wound our troops, then, out of ammo, raise his hands and demand three hots and a cot while he invents tales of abuse.
Conferring unprecedented legal status upon these murderous transnational
outlaws is unnecessary, unwise and ultimately suicidal. It exalts monsters.
And it provides the anti-American pack with living vermin to anoint as
victims, if not heroes.
Isn't it time we gave our critics what they're asking for? Let's solve the
"unjust" imprisonment problem, once and for all. No more Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission. With our help.
We need to clarify the rules of conflict. But integrity and courage have
fled Washington. Nobody will state bluntly that we're in a fight for our
lives, that war is hell, and that we must do what it takes to win.
Our enemies will remind us of what's necessary, though. When we've been
punished horribly enough, we'll come to our senses and do what must be
done.
This isn't an argument for a murderous rampage, but its opposite. We must
kill our enemies with discrimination. But we do need to kill them. A corpse
is a corpse: The media's rage dissipates with the stench. But an imprisoned terrorist is a strategic liability.
Nor should we ever mistreat captured soldiers or insurgents who adhere to
standing conventions. On the contrary, we should enforce policies that
encourage our enemies to identify themselves according to the laws of war. Ambiguity works to their advantage, never to ours.
Our policy toward terrorists and insurgents in civilian clothing should be
straightforward and public: Surrender before firing a shot or taking
hostile action toward our troops, and we'll regard you as a legal prisoner.
But once you've pulled a trigger, thrown a grenade or detonated a bomb, you will be killed. On the battlefield and on the spot.
Isn't that common sense? It also happens to conform to the traditional conduct of war between civilized nations. Ignorant of history, we've talked ourselves into folly.
And by the way: How have the terrorists treated the uniformed American soldiers they've captured? According to the Geneva Convention?
Sadly, even our military has been infected by political correctness. Some
of my former peers will wring their hands and babble about "winning hearts
and minds." But we'll never win the hearts and minds of terrorists. And if
we hope to win the minds, if not the hearts, of foreign populations, we
must be willing to kill the violent, lawless fraction of a fraction of a
percent of the population determined to terrorize the rest.
Ravaged societies crave and need strict order. Soft policies may appear to
work in the short term, but they fail overwhelmingly in the longer term.
Wherever we've tried sweetness and light in Iraq, it has only worked as
long as our troops were present - after which the terrorists returned and
slaughtered the beneficiaries of our good intentions. If you wish to defend
the many, you must be willing to kill the few.
For now, we're stuck with a situation in which the hardcore terrorists in
Guantanamo are "innocent victims" even to our fair-weather allies. In Iraq,
our troops capture bomb-makers only to learn they've been dumped back on the block.
It is not humane to spare fanatical murderers. It is not humane to play
into our enemy's hands. And it is not humane to endanger our troops out of political correctness.
Instead of worrying over trumped-up atrocities in Iraq (the media give
credence to any claim made by terrorists), we should stop apologizing and
take a stand. That means firm rules for the battlefield, not Gumby-speak
intended to please critics who'll never be satisfied by anything America
does.
The ultimate act of humanity in the War on Terror is to win. To do so, we
must kill our enemies wherever we encounter them. He who commits an act of terror forfeits every right he once possessed.
New York Post
July 10, 2006
Kill, Don't Capture
How to solve our prisoner problem
By Ralph Peters
The British military defines experience as the ability to recognize a
mistake the second time you make it. By that standard, we should be very
experienced in dealing with captured terrorists, since we've made the same mistake again and again.
Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the
rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence
value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of them.
Killing terrorists during a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral - or even
illegal. We've imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or
judicial precedent. We haven't been stymied by others, but by ourselves.
The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal
combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans -
but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.
Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal
combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.
The present situation encourages our enemies to behave wantonly, while
crippling our attempts to deal with terror.
Consider today's norm: A terrorist in civilian clothes can explode an IED,
killing and maiming American troops or innocent civilians, then demand
humane treatment if captured - and the media will step in as his champion. A disguised insurgent can shoot his rockets, throw his grenades, empty his magazines, kill and wound our troops, then, out of ammo, raise his hands and demand three hots and a cot while he invents tales of abuse.
Conferring unprecedented legal status upon these murderous transnational
outlaws is unnecessary, unwise and ultimately suicidal. It exalts monsters.
And it provides the anti-American pack with living vermin to anoint as
victims, if not heroes.
Isn't it time we gave our critics what they're asking for? Let's solve the
"unjust" imprisonment problem, once and for all. No more Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission. With our help.
We need to clarify the rules of conflict. But integrity and courage have
fled Washington. Nobody will state bluntly that we're in a fight for our
lives, that war is hell, and that we must do what it takes to win.
Our enemies will remind us of what's necessary, though. When we've been
punished horribly enough, we'll come to our senses and do what must be
done.
This isn't an argument for a murderous rampage, but its opposite. We must
kill our enemies with discrimination. But we do need to kill them. A corpse
is a corpse: The media's rage dissipates with the stench. But an imprisoned terrorist is a strategic liability.
Nor should we ever mistreat captured soldiers or insurgents who adhere to
standing conventions. On the contrary, we should enforce policies that
encourage our enemies to identify themselves according to the laws of war. Ambiguity works to their advantage, never to ours.
Our policy toward terrorists and insurgents in civilian clothing should be
straightforward and public: Surrender before firing a shot or taking
hostile action toward our troops, and we'll regard you as a legal prisoner.
But once you've pulled a trigger, thrown a grenade or detonated a bomb, you will be killed. On the battlefield and on the spot.
Isn't that common sense? It also happens to conform to the traditional conduct of war between civilized nations. Ignorant of history, we've talked ourselves into folly.
And by the way: How have the terrorists treated the uniformed American soldiers they've captured? According to the Geneva Convention?
Sadly, even our military has been infected by political correctness. Some
of my former peers will wring their hands and babble about "winning hearts
and minds." But we'll never win the hearts and minds of terrorists. And if
we hope to win the minds, if not the hearts, of foreign populations, we
must be willing to kill the violent, lawless fraction of a fraction of a
percent of the population determined to terrorize the rest.
Ravaged societies crave and need strict order. Soft policies may appear to
work in the short term, but they fail overwhelmingly in the longer term.
Wherever we've tried sweetness and light in Iraq, it has only worked as
long as our troops were present - after which the terrorists returned and
slaughtered the beneficiaries of our good intentions. If you wish to defend
the many, you must be willing to kill the few.
For now, we're stuck with a situation in which the hardcore terrorists in
Guantanamo are "innocent victims" even to our fair-weather allies. In Iraq,
our troops capture bomb-makers only to learn they've been dumped back on the block.
It is not humane to spare fanatical murderers. It is not humane to play
into our enemy's hands. And it is not humane to endanger our troops out of political correctness.
Instead of worrying over trumped-up atrocities in Iraq (the media give
credence to any claim made by terrorists), we should stop apologizing and
take a stand. That means firm rules for the battlefield, not Gumby-speak
intended to please critics who'll never be satisfied by anything America
does.
The ultimate act of humanity in the War on Terror is to win. To do so, we
must kill our enemies wherever we encounter them. He who commits an act of terror forfeits every right he once possessed.
