You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
US general: free terror suspects to kill them later
2006-08-07
A controversial American general has said most of the alleged terrorist prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba should be released to take up arms again because "it may be cheaper to kill them in combat than to sit on them for the next 15 years".

General Barry McCaffrey, now retired, is adjunct professor of international affairs at West Point, the US officer training academy. His comments are contained in a memo obtained by The Herald. It was written in late June this year, after he visited the Guantanamo detention centre on an inspection tour.

More than 450 al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are being held under military guard at the detention facility. Some have been captives since 2001.

General McCaffrey argues in his six-page memo that the "great value" of Guantanamo had been that its status under military law meant "no applicable foreign law, no foreign diplomatic intervention, no US Federal court civil orders, and no nosy intervention by a US ambassador" was possible until recently.

What he describes as "the perfect deal" in which no Federal court had primary jurisdiction was now being eroded and the military tied up "in a legal strait-jacket", ending decades of secret operations using Guantanamo. "Will we soon be required to read Miranda Rights - the standard rights to remain silent, have an attorney present, etc applicable to US citizens - to al Qaeda terrorists?" he asks.

In the absence of persuading an international body to accept legal jurisdiction for the site, General McCaffrey continues: "We need to weed out as many detainees as soon as possible and return them to their host nations with an evidence package as complete as we can produce. We can probably dump two-thirds of the detainees in the next 24 months.

"Many we will encounter again with an AK47 on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. It may be cheaper and cleaner to kill them in combat than sit on them for the next 15 years."
Time to go elk hunting.
The general, who commanded the US 24th Mechanised Division in the 1991 Gulf War, later faced allegations of misconduct for placing his troops in the path of retreating Iraqi forces after the ceasefire. It triggered a one-sided battle in which hundreds of fleeing enemy troops died when they clashed with US tank units blocking their withdrawal. He claimed the Iraqis had fired first and his men replied in self-defence.
How in the world is it misconduct to encircle your enemy?
Posted by:lotp

#26  Not my question, #25 SteveS.


Your mileage may vary.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2006-08-07 22:18  

#25  I suppose hunting them for sport is out of the question.
Posted by: SteveS   2006-08-07 22:12  

#24  Moose,

Don't know what ROE you are looking at, but it sure ain't one I've ever seen. From a naval standpoint (my branch), a ship that has turn tail and run is a target until the moment it surrenders or sinks. The Geneva Conventions are clear about shipwrecked sailors, parachuting aviators (not paratroopers), and soldiers surrendering; they are out of combat. An army in retreat is not.

Also, you added the word "ceasefire" into the discussion, which was not there before. Historically, if your army is in full retreat, no one is granting you a ceasefire.
Posted by: Dreadnought   2006-08-07 20:40  

#23  Is McCaffrey also an advisor to the RAB by any chance?
Posted by: Classical_Liberal   2006-08-07 20:08  

#22  Why do I keep getting the images of peasants and skeet from the movie "History of the World Vol #1"?

Pull!


Posted by: 3dc   2006-08-07 19:35  

#21  "it may be cheaper to kill them in combat than to sit on them for the next 15 years".

In other late breaking news; A frog's @ss is watertight.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-08-07 19:24  

#20  kill the mfers
Posted by: Legolas   2006-08-07 19:24  

#19  Try the Frezza method on Gitmos.
Posted by: gromgoru   2006-08-07 19:12  

#18  Historically, most (80 percent) of casualties were inflicted during one side's retreat.
Posted by: Mark E.   2006-08-07 18:57  

#17  NS, I keep on seeing articles from MNF-I talking about capturing jihadis, not killing the. Sheesh.
Posted by: Brett   2006-08-07 18:10  

#16  The thing I find interesting in "It may be cheaper and cleaner to kill them in combat" is that the alternative of capturing them is not entertained. Anybody keeping track of the Killed/Captured ratio since Hamdan? I think the correct field fiz is being implemented without unnecessary documentation.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-08-07 17:40  

#15  Ah disagree, Anonymoose. it is a warcrime to kill surrendering troops, but not those retreating in disarray. If they don't throw down their arms and put their hands up, they are, and always have been a legitimate target for death.

That last sentence was solely commentary by the MSM about the EVIIIL US Army.
Posted by: Brett   2006-08-07 17:25  

#14  Perhaps a reminder of the President's "National Cathedral" speech, should be made here.


On Sept. 14, 2001, just three days after the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush, speaking from Washington's National Cathedral stated, "This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. The conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing."

Iraq stabilizing operations are being overwhelmed by sectarian violence (although the oil transfer facilities are somewhat secure). Iran boasts of a swath of supporters all the way to the Mediterranean. We are learning that future missile emplacements could neutralize any Israeli response. Taliban are attacking from bases in our Pakistan ally. Democraticization efforts are resulting in support for jihadi terrorist groups. All the above looks bad, until you think of fact that we can deal with all the above through escalation. And, in these days we don't have to face the countervailing effects of Soviet Russia.

What is the "way"...when is the "time"...and what is "our choosing (choice)? Critics say the enemy hasn't been defined. Maybe now we can identify them, and start the slaughter. I'm in. If something huge wasn't about to blow, then why would Israel assign only piecemeal rendering tasks onto the IDF? Israel is losing less than 2 troops per day, in spite of al-Reuters' daily vomit about non-existent heavy pitched battles followed by nominal IDF retreats. Bigger fish will be fried.
Posted by: Snease Shaiting3550   2006-08-07 17:18  

#13  Wrong! Suicide bombing produces a relatively high kill ratio, and its use forces the need to tie up more resources in roadblock operations. It would be better to keep the terrorists in jail. However, making participation in terror a capital offense is the best idea. Try 'em and fry 'em! Any Arab who was found in Afghanistan in 2001, was there for only one thing: terror.
Posted by: Snease Shaiting3550   2006-08-07 16:58  

#12   It is a major no-no to shoot retreating troops after they have "retired from the battle area". The assumption is that they are not "under discipline", and as such are not an imminent threat.

I wonder what staff officer would have said that to Ike was the allies were chewing up the Germans at Falaise Gap. Monty failed to close the gap. Many a British soldier would pay for it at Arnham when the reequiped and remanned German units repaid the opportunity.
Posted by: Uniger Hupong7602   2006-08-07 16:58  

#11  One interesting thing is the ambivalent attitude toward General McCaffrey displayed by the MSM and the Democrats (Ed.: Redundancy alert). When he says something like the quote in this article, he's either "controversial" or a war criminal. But when he says something negative about President Bush, Rummy, or the war in Iraq, he gets lionized by CNN and quoted on Joe Biden's website (from January 2005):

BLITZER: On the whole nature of the U.S. military deployment in Iraq, Senator Biden, listen to what General Barry McCaffrey, retired U.S. Army four-star general, told Time magazine. In the new issue of Time magazine, he says this. He says, "The Army's wheels are going to come off in the next 24 months. We are now in a period of considerable strategic peril. It's because Rumsfeld has dug in his heels and said, I cannot retreat from my position."

Do you agree with General Barry McCaffrey that the U.S. military is in peril right now because it's so overstretched?

BIDEN: It is overstretched. I agree with his assessment. I agree with his assessment of Secretary Rumsfeld.

Posted by: Matt   2006-08-07 16:48  

#10  Dreadnought: the devil is in the details, which is why the wording is so explicit.

Pursuing an enemy in retreat is still "in the field of battle", the particular battle is still ongoing. The assumption is that they are still under orders and still fighting in retreat.

However the situation changes if as the General was accused of doing, he is putting his forces in the path of retreating forces after a ceasefire. The battle is over and the enemy is leaving during a ceasefire.

What is the enemy supposed to do at that point, halt and surrender? They are leaving the field of battle during what amounts to a flag of truce. How is he supposed to "block" their retreat other than by firing on them?

At that point, the General is undermining those who have made the truce.

He might not like it, but such conventions are the stuff of the rules of war as written in the Geneva Conventions.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-08-07 16:32  

#9  The Herald thinks the general is a bit of a renegade nutcase

He was always a bit of a renegade, but no ones nutcase!
Posted by: 49 Pan   2006-08-07 15:50  

#8  It is a major no-no to shoot retreating troops after they have "retired from the battle area".

I don't know where you got that nugget, but it simply is not true. Pursuing an enemy in retreat is what every general dreams about. It offers the moment of shattering your opponent's force fatally without the corresponding damage to one's own troops. Nathan Bedford Forrest referred to it as "putting on the skeer and keeping it on."
Posted by: Dreadnought   2006-08-07 15:40  

#7  ---- Rantburg Consent Form ----

Inshallah, I ___________ consent to
Biometric tamper-proof tagging of the
liver as a condition of my GITMO release.

Signaure __________________
Date _______________
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-08-07 15:34  

#6  I gather from the slant that The Herald thinks the general is a bit of a renegade nutcase. We'll take more of 'em, please. Oh, and in this country even generals are entitled to their opinions.
Posted by: Darrell   2006-08-07 15:24  

#5  I'm all for the cheapest approach, unloading them into the ocean and telling them to swim home.
Posted by: DarthVader   2006-08-07 15:23  

#4  It is a major no-no to shoot retreating troops after they have "retired from the battle area". The assumption is that they are not "under discipline", and as such are not an imminent threat.

The one defense is indeed that they shot first.

The rule is a very old one, and assumes that soldiers generally are not combat effective unless directed by an officer. Even an "ordered withdrawl" assumes that the unit *may* be in effect "surrendering" by leaving the field.

Things such as "regrouping" are not considerations, nor is their ability to continue to fight at a later date.

Other variants that permit attack include "fighting retreats", the commission of major war crimes during retreats, looting during retreats, or the attempt to take hostages such as POWs with them.

This is stuff they really pound into them at Command & Staff school.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-08-07 15:21  

#3  "He claimed the Iraqis had fired first and his men replied in self-defence. claimed? WTF?? It was a war ya farkin asshat. Sheesh.
Posted by: Brett   2006-08-07 14:58  

#2  I have an even better solution:

Shoot them now and then free them later.
Posted by: Dreadnought   2006-08-07 14:55  

#1  this strikes me as perhaps a sensible approach, at least for many prisoners.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-08-07 14:53  

00:00