The Navel of Narcissus

I posted an entry earlier this week and then deleted it and some of you may be wondering why. Change of heart? No, not really. But these guys shouldn't automatically be killed as I implied in my original entry: I can imagine scenarios in wartime in which an enemy is captured, not killed. What ticked me off was the phrase "the three suspects are being held for questioning." This war is being run too much like a policing action and not enough like a war.

Consider the following quote from an American Forces Press Service press release today:

Uh, pardon me for what some of you may view as simplistic thinking, but why aren't these three guys dead? If you come upon three enemy combatants setting up a mortar position, you don't "hold them for questioning." You kill them. That's what you do in wars--you kill people that are trying to kill you.

Setting aside the question of whether we should be in Iraq or not, this is the biggest thing wrong with the war: not enough dead enemy combatants.

Comments:

Only if necessary should enemy combatants be killed. War should not be indiscriminant ethnic cleansing. So in this light, captured enemy combatants should only be questioned, for intelligence, then detained to prevent them from becoming combatants once more.

If the overall purpose of a war is to exert power over a given population, and by only giving that target population only a choice of fighting or death, as in your premise, you have then empowered the very target populace you wish to defeat!

What you suggest is not only a moral dilemma, but also a serious strategic mistake.

Oddly enough, I can purport the above yet still agree with your last five words.

Posted by Wes W on December 22, 2006 at 11:52 AM EST #

Interesting, if the phrasing was changed from "held for questioning" to "held for interrogation" would that have set better with you? I wonder if the phrasing is more of a defense speak that is overly PC to not disturb the public senses?

On your last point isn't what you are promoting is genocide of our enemy? Is it practical or even possible to erradicate all of our enemies in Iraq? Could the issue be if we stepped up the killing of all of our enemies that would cause a revolt in which all of the public in Iraq, or worse yet the Arab world, would be positioned against us?

Posted by Terry Dontje on December 22, 2006 at 11:53 AM EST #

Ironic that you should say "This war is being run too much like a policing action and not enough like a war." In the opinion of many people, the starting point for much of what's gone wrong with George and Tony's Excellent Adventure is that they approached the capture of Osama as a war rather than a police action. Of course that's all water under the bridge now....

Posted by Geoff Arnold on December 22, 2006 at 05:34 PM EST #

"not enough dead enemy combatants". So I take it you'd advocate the use of tactical nukes? That would solve the problem very efficiently. Just curious.

Posted by Geoff Arnold on December 22, 2006 at 05:36 PM EST #

What I advocate are aggressive rules of engagement that allow us to engage and then kill or capture bad guys. In quantity. Tactical nukes aren't very tactical or discriminating. Plus they leave a mess that's hard to clean up.

Posted by Josh Simons on December 22, 2006 at 06:06 PM EST #