| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Kill, Don't Capture |
| 2006-07-10 |
| By RALPH PETERS July 10, 2006 -- 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. Ralph Peters' new book, "Never Quit the Fight," hits stores today. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #22 We hanged people at Nurmeburg for doing precisely what Peters suggets. Maybe he has a sexy new balck and silver uniform design to go along with his ideas. Maybe NAH has already been here. Looked at the picture on JAWA. There also is a report on FOX tonite that the Shura Council has tortured, murdered, and mutilated three more of our soldiers. It's past time to go Roman on these animals. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2006-07-10 23:52 |
| #21 LOL - excellent riposte! |
| Posted by: Wheang Spavirong9833 2006-07-10 22:38 |
| #20 Nope - his Mom's on the QVC, shopping for the night |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-07-10 22:36 |
| #19 Isn't this about where NAH shows up and begins flashing his dazzling moral superiority? |
| Posted by: Wheang Spavirong9833 2006-07-10 22:19 |
| #18 Crazyfool got Ballz and he be correct! Lookit. let's all of us get real. The time for "Revolution" has come. Things are so out of kilter now, both at home and abroad, that we'd might just as well pick up the pace (or get buried)and begin to "Git 'er Done"! In the interest of staying focused, and to marshall studliness during these crucial new revolutionary times, I propose that a notional prioritization list be developed...All are welcome to nominate the leftists and perverts of their choice and to assign them the next ascending number after MINE. Again, just for fun. My #1 fish in the barrel---George Soros. #2., do I hear # 2? Kick it back so we can build on it. It's all in fun!!! (Not) |
| Posted by: Asymmetrical Triangulation 2006-07-10 22:18 |
| #17 Under Roman law, actors such as these were considered bandits and killed on sight. Which is pretty much the way it has been done, always and everywhere in every culture, until now, or the 1960s. Sheesh. Over at the Jawa Report, I saw some of the pictures of the 2 soldiers from the 101st who were cruelly murdered. What disgusting and cowardly animals these 'people' are. Lions? Yeah, right. More like hyenas. Pfeh. Add all of these we capture to the body count and we will see a mmarked decrease in violence as they are sent right to hell where they belong. A true "dying breed". The Hyenas of Allen™. Our jihadi enemies are truly "the enemy of life itself" and must be ruthlessly, relentlessly and totally exterminated, just like the Thugees. TO.A.MAN. We need a return to the old rules for an old problem. Luguolo Latrunculus (kill the bandits), I say. |
| Posted by: Brett 2006-07-10 22:12 |
| #16 "We hanged people at Nurmeburg for doing precisely what Peters suggets. Maybe he has a sexy new balck and silver uniform design to go along with his ideas." Perhaps you should read about the Nuremburg Military Tribunals before commenting. |
| Posted by: Fordesque 2006-07-10 21:49 |
| #15 It's my understanding this was going on in Vietnam too. A friend of mine told me they didn't take prisoners nor did the NVA, except if they were high value. He later became a spotter on a loach and was allowed to carry captain bars so if he was shot down he had better chance of survival if captured. |
| Posted by: bruce 2006-07-10 20:17 |
| #14 It just seems like "Kill, don't capture" has a better ring to it than "Catch and release." It seems to get to the heart of the matter. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2006-07-10 18:15 |
| #13 I think the state of washington has hanging or lethal injection. Used to be that hanging was the preferred sentence (if the prisoner refused to choose) until one inmate made himself so fat on prison food while waiting on death row that everyone went batshit worrying if the scumbag would 'suffer' during his hanging that they communted his sentence to life. (kind of like worrying if the needle to give a lethal injection is sterile...) I seem to recall later this same person later got a free liver transplant at taxpayer expense -- least he suffer anything. Might have been someone else but I think it was the same person. Personally I think they should be given 5 (or 10) years to file their appeals then they are taken outback and shot without fanfare. Particulary if the evidence is overwhelming (they were caught in the act). |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-07-10 18:07 |
| #12 No Gitmo problems. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2006-07-10 17:57 |
| #11 This line is not anything new. I have been saying it for months as have others. Hear hear, SPoD! |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2006-07-10 17:55 |
| #10 I see an opening for a contracting outfit. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-07-10 17:40 |
| #9 I thought the state of Washington recently had hanging as one of the means of capital punishment--maybe it still does. Anyway, we seldom captured the Japanese during the island campaign in the Pacific during WWII. We didn't have the enemy returning to the battlefield. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2006-07-10 17:29 |
| #8 This line is not anything new. I have been saying it for months as have others. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-07-10 16:20 |
| #7 A really good site on the history of British judicial hanging: http://tinyurl.com/6wx6v In its heyday, the British use of the gallows so terrified bad actors around the world that many other nations developed different means of execution altogether. And to its credit, the only group not moved by the noose were the Thughees, so vicious a sect that they had to be entirely wiped out, twice, with conventional military means. America, likewise, lost a fine deterrent when it discontinued hanging. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-07-10 14:44 |
| #6 We should execute all ILLEGAL-COMBATANTS in the field unless they give up actionable intel in the first 5 minutes of their capture. HH. He is talking about ILLEGAL COMBATANTS. Those who do not wear identifying insigina and hide in the civilian population. One of the reasons the GC was written is to protect the civilians which is why it outlaws hiding in civilian populations and specifically allows the execution of people who do without trial - this is the 'teeth' behind the GC which encourages combatants to abide by the rules and the reason we should not be giving these illegal combatants the same treatment as legal combatants. I beleve that if the 'insurgents' wore identifying insigina (an armband or something) incidents like Haditha wouldn't happen a tenth as much. But since the 'lions of islam' hide behind women and children (sometimes literally) these things happen. The fact that we then allow these cowards to then demand three-hots-and-a-cot is plain-ass stupid. It is telling the world thats its ok and 'honorable' to hide behind women and children civilians. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-07-10 14:35 |
| #5 Hmmm I remember them being executed for killing innocent jews by the millions, never for fighting a war. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-07-10 14:29 |
| #4 Whom did we execute for their legal execution of an un-uniformed combatant? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-07-10 14:21 |
| #3 We hanged people at Nurmeburg for doing precisely what Peters suggets. Maybe he has a sexy new balck and silver uniform design to go along with his ideas. |
| Posted by: Hupomoling Hupineck8936 2006-07-10 14:11 |
| #2 Works for me. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-07-10 13:34 |
| #1 Finally! |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-07-10 13:14 |