Winning hearts and minds by killing innocent civilians living in a country with 80% unemployment and will pick up anything that looks valuable to sell.

Winning hearts and minds by killing innocent children who by their curious nature will pick up anything they see laying around.

how do you know who's a true civilian?

kids used to turn cour command detonated claymores around on perimeter at night

next night you've got 180 steel balls coming at you when you detonate

you don't ask a coyote if he's there to kill your calves

he is. its what they do!

How do the snipers know that the people picking up the items have any intentions to use them?  They could just be concerned Iraqi citizens getting harmful material off their streets.

Yet another way to win hearts and minds, killing Iraqis who are trying to make their country safer.

No civilian is going to tamper with "bait" because they're curious

That's an ignorant statement considering the inquisitive minds of children.

It's also an ignorant statement considering the number of Iraqi children who have been killed and wounded by picking up cluster bombs. 

http://www.alertnet.org/the...

others aren't just slow learners, some others have never BTDT

ergo its easy to be "lazy boy generals"

I support the lowest level troops, infrantrymen point of the spear following orders

if they follow their orders properly in combat that is all that can be expected

to do less will ensure your own death

it is for others to determine the ROE

if you go outside the ROE hoever, you should suffer the consequences per UCMJ

your premise/question about killing everbody is beneath both of us

fleschettes from fiber glass were used in VN (in our blooper M-79 rounds for one) as it takes exploratory surgery (no Xrays) and ties up resources to treat the wounded

War is not pretty

EVER

War is not pretty

It doesn't have to be made even uglier by killing anyone who happens to stop to pick something up either.

Regardless of what anyone in the U.S. thinks about this practice, winning the hearts and minds of an occupied country is more than half the battle. And this is no way to go about doing it.

"KILL 'EM ALL"? APPARENTLY WE ALREADY HAVE

I don't know why the war is still going on -- the number of insurgents who are dead or captured is now, according to the U.S. military, greater than the number who were fighting:

More than 19,000 militants have been killed in fighting with coalition forces since the insurgency began more than four years ago, according to military statistics released for the first time....

Last year, Gen. John Abizaid, then commander of military forces in the region, estimated the Sunni insurgency to be 10,000 to 20,000 fighters. He said the Shiite militia members were in the "low thousands." The U.S. military hasn't publicly provided any recent estimates.

There are 25,000 detainees in U.S. military custody in Iraq, according to the military. The numbers of enemy killed and detained would exceed the estimate given last year of the size of the insurgency....

According to U.S. sources, the insurgency has never been all that big. As of October 2006 it was "20,000-30,000 (including militias)," as reported by the Brookings Institution. A 2006 U.S. military estimate "ranged from 8,000 to 20,000," according to the BBC. A "senior military official" told CNN in 2005 that there were "between 13,000 and 17,000 insurgents in Iraq." Unnamed "American military officials" told the AP in 2004 that "the guerrillas can call on loyalists to boost their forces to as high as 20,000."

And now 44,000 insurgents are out of commission. So we've wiped them out and we can go home, right?

Oh, yeah, I left out this estmate:

Earlier this month [January 2005], Gen. Mohammed Abdullah Shahwani, the director of the Iraqi intelligence service, said there are 200,000 insurgents, including at least 40,000 hard-core fighters.

Well, there's an interesting alternate theory: that the U.S. is actually lowballing the insurgent numbers, and the size of the insurgency was (and is?) actually larger than the size of the U.S. force in Iraq. Could that possibly be the problem?

Naaah. I'm sure the insurgents are managing to fight on despite the fact that their numbers are less than zero because they're so darn evil.

Concerned Iraqi civilian removing a dangerous item off the street?

Who do you think has been cleaning up the cluster bomblets from Iraqi residential areas? It sure as hell hasn't been the U.S. troops.

A good book some of you should read:

Hard Corps

By Marco Martinez 

From Gangster to Marine HeroAt the age of seventeen, Marco Martinez was a thug—a gun-toting, car-stealing gang member.
At the age of twenty-two, he was a hero—the recipient of the Navy Cross, the second-highest honor a U.S. Marine can receive, for extraordinary heroism under fire in the Iraq War. Hard Corps tells the story of his incredible transformation and of his experiences on the front lines of the War on Terror.

Writing with passion and candor, Martinez brings us back to his gang days, detailing experiences that make him “shudder in shame” to remember. And he recalls the moment that changed everything for him, when he spotted a barrel-chested U.S. Marine Corps recruiter at his high school. Immediately, he saw an opportunity to alter the course of his aimless life.

Martinez takes us with him through the grueling ordeal of Marine boot camp and the even-more-punishing training at the School of Infantry to show just how warriors are made. He reveals how he and his fellow grunts prepared tirelessly for battle, seeing combat not as a burden but as a privilege, the ultimate baptism by fire.
For Martinez, that baptism came in Iraq. In Hard Corps, he unfolds a warrior’s tale as riveting, harrowing, and immediate as any ever written. He takes us onto the narrow, treacherous streets of Baghdad, where enemy fire rains down from all directions; alongside his Marine squad as they patrol through the most dangerous war zone imaginable; and into a brutal terrorist ambush that calls upon reserves of ferocity and courage none of the Marines could ever be certain they possessed and that proves the value of every moment of their torturous training. Martinez also recounts stunning reminders of why we fight: the Iraqi man he met whose tongue had been chopped off for speaking out against Saddam Hussein’s regime, the ghastly evidence of human experimentation that Martinez’s squad discovered at an abandoned Iraqi military barracks, and the horrifying mass graves the Marines unearthed in the Iraqi desert.

Hard Corps gives us a visceral sense of what it means to know that you are ready to die for your brother Marines and that they would do the same for you. It tells us how it feels when words like duty, honor, and country are not an empty slogan. And, ultimately, it captures the traditions and ooh-rah spirit of the U.S. Marine Corps and the valor of all the Marines, sailors, soldiers

Well, there's an interesting alternate theory: that the U.S. is actually lowballing the insurgent numbers, and the size of the insurgency was (and is?) actually larger than the size of the U.S. force in Iraq. Could that possibly be the problem?

Naaah. I'm sure the insurgents are managing to fight on despite the fact that their numbers are less than zero because they're so darn evil.

This is ridiculous. I'm glad those like yourself are over here, free to post tripe on BBs as opposed to your being over there doing something real.

For all of you guys who keep citing the Geneva Conventions and rules of war and whatnot, consider that the Geneva Conventions were intended to apply to the armies of legitimate states.  In this case, as with Vietnam, our enemy does not follow any rules.  The rules are out the window, but not because WE threw them out. 

I think our boys should do everything in their power to identify a target as hostile before firing on them, and I think they are doing that.  But beyond that simple rule, we should be trying anything and everything to eliminate insurgents and terrorists.

"This is ridiculous. I'm glad those like yourself are over here, free to post tripe on BBs as opposed to your being over there doing something real."

Are you talking about sniping unarmed Iraqis who might or might not be insurgents?  Whould you have that same feeling if lets say China invaded our country and used the same tactics?

Under the Third Geneva Convention a fighter or belligerent in an international armed conflict who wanted lawful combatant status (and therefore prisoner of war status if captured), would have to meet certain criteria including:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." (From Article 4)

Lawful combatants are accorded "combatant's privilege," whereby they are exempted from the ordinary criminal law of the place they are fighting in. This means that they cannot be tried for murder, for example, for killing soldiers of the opposing side. Prisoners of war are accorded this privilege in the event they are charged with crimes after capture. They may be tried for war crimes, such as murdering civilians or torture, but not acts of violence in accordance with the laws and customs of war such as killing or capturing enemy soldiers or damaging military property.

BJD:  For all of you guys who keep citing the Geneva Conventions and rules of war and whatnot, consider that the Geneva Conventions were intended to apply to the armies of legitimate states.

And therefore no longer apply to the United States military? 

random, I hope that question doesn't imply that you think the Unites States is not a legitimate state.  If so, you have really gone over the edge.  As for applying to the United States military, I would say that if we were at war with China (just to continue with the same example), then the Geneva Conventions should apply.  But in the current war against a mixed group of people from multiple nations with no allegiance to anyone but Allah, and no intention of following any accepted rules of any kind, I think we make our own rules.  Those rules should make every effort to protect the innocent, but they shouldn't handcuff us against an opponent who will gladly kill any of us, handcuffed or not.

"I think our boys should do everything in their power to identify a target as hostile before firing on them, and I think they are doing that.  But beyond that simple rule, we should be trying anything and everything to eliminate insurgents and terrorists."

So being identified as a "hostile" is as simple as picking up an item on a street?

For as much as Chico is accusing others of being "armchair quarterback generals", I'm surprised that he's not going after you the hardest. I guess he's playing by "the enemy of my enemy" rules of engagement, instead of respecting any actual rules or laws.

yeah thats right mattloch

sheesh

when you signing up to fight for Mahmoud Hockmydinnerjacket?

The point is lost in the legalese.  The point is that identifying the enemy is much more difficult than you guys seem to understand.  My position that we should "ignore" the rules (although I never used that word) does not mean that I think we are ignoring them.  I actually believe we are making every attempt to follow the rules, while also being as creative as possible to fight a war against an enemy that doesn't do the same.  Sometimes our creative ideas are ill-advised and maybe they go over the line, but I don't think the effort is wrong.  And, the focus on fairness and rules is getting our kids killed.

I know a lot of bloggers here like to cite documents and proof to back up their arguments, but here, you have failed to do so with any fairness.  Have any of you actually read the classified documents that outline this sniper program?  Of course you haven't, they are classified.  It is easy to just read a news report and, because of your predisposed opinion of the military, just believe that we are shooting anyone who just simply picks up an item off the ground.  How do we know that there isn't more to the orders than that?  I have enough experience with the military to know that no order is that simplistic, and I have enough faith in them to believe that whatever program they are following is intended to protect civilians.

Under the Third Geneva Convention a fighter or belligerent in an international armed conflict who wanted lawful combatant status (and therefore prisoner of war status if captured), would have to meet certain criteria including:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." (From Article 4)

We comply with this

The terrorists/Insurgents do not.

Neither did Charley (aplogies to Charley3)

WIN = Wimps Inculcating Negativity

(towards their own country)

and BTW mattloch

I was conceding that  we (US) have broken parts of convention that I was personally aware of.

That was meant as a concession but you picked it up as an error on my part and RF true to form picked it up as a "punch point" for you (his side)

I think we need a different judge (with all due respect)

Enlisted survival skills 101 = do as you are told, especially in combat. you will often get wierd orders, follow them.

Case in point: VN mid 60's. Soldiers ordered to drive duece and a half trucks full of ammo boxes full of 45 rounds (for thompsons in use by ARVN troops then). Drive to Point A, abandon trucks and cargo in place, make it any way you can (NVA regulars in area) to point be to B transported to point C (debrief). GI's involved thought this crazy as hell but did it.

Months (years for some) later they found out VC and NVA were blowing themselves up all over RVN (Thompson's stolen from ARVN's) as those 45 ACP cases had been loaded by SOG with C-4. Saved many many GI's lives.

Sometimes you just gotta do as told in war. Sometimes you just gotta be there to understand.

One shot, one kill.

Mattloch: "I figured that Chico. But do you agree with my basic premise that the GCs are written to address the behavior of signatories, and not those who the signatories are fighting?"

Of course. That is all you can really control. That is only logical. You follow your own rules you have agreed to.

That being the case, however, non-signatories cannot fall back on protections under same. And signatory troopers should not be "given tickets for breaking the speed limit in their Indy 500"

mattloch: "The basic rules (summed up) is- do not fire until fired upon (or you can verify that who you're firing on is in fact an enemy combatant), do not cause undue suffering, and try to protect the civilian population."

This is exactly what I have said here.  I think we are following THOSE rules, and the original news report in this posting doesn't convince me that we are not.

Chico's point: "That being the case, however, non-signatories cannot fall back on protections under same. And signatory troopers should not be "given tickets for breaking the speed limit in their Indy 500", is very important when discussing the rights of those terrorists we have captured.  It negates any argument that we aren't following the GC as it pertains to prisoners of war, since those prisoners are not being held to the rules themselves.  Of course that doesn't mean that I would advocate torturing them, but I don't beleive we have tortured them, even though the "evidence" is to the contrary.

BJD-

"First of all, we would engage the Chinese with uniformed military personnel.  They wouldn't have to guess which Americans were a fair target. "

I know you aren't saying that the United States have never sent in unmarked personnel to a target.  If you believe that I would love to sell you some beachfront property in New Mexico.

"We don't teach them that killing is a holy act that will be rewarded by God."

I hope that statement is made about Islamic extremists and not the entire Muslim community.  True Islam does not teach these actions and you spouting them out is just as bad as extremists cheering when our flag is burned.

The statement I made regarding an invasion was not directed towards any nation in particular.  My point was nobody here would be OK with being sniped in the streets for picking up something.  If that happened here you would not hear the words it is just a part of war.  People would be outraged, how dare a country come into where I live and shoot at someone who has shown no destructive action towards them.  I guarantee people would be saying just that. 

The fact that people stop and pick something up in the street does not make them a target to immediately take out.  How many people here have seen someone see something in the road a stop to see what it was and pick it up....I know I have many times.  If we were at war on our own soil would these actions make our citizens targets? 

We don't teach them that killing is a holy act that will be rewarded by God.

It's not just Islamic extremists who think this. At least one American general (Boykin) has said pretty much the same thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Just a 'WOT" break

(Ahmed the terrorist)

My statements are all regarding the local environment in which our soldiers find themselves, and are in no way intended to generalize about any person, group, or religion.  But you obviously missed the point that the local environment in Iraq, where our soldiers are trying to stay alive while protecting and helping the civilians who live there, is different from any feasible environment that a Chinese (or any other invading country) soldier would find if the war were on our soil.  Whether you want to adimit it or not, there is a culture in some parts of the world where hatred of Christians, Americans, Westerners, athiests, gays, etc., etc., etc., is taught and learned.  And our soldiers find themselves in some of those places.  It's not a criticism of Iraqi citizens or of Muslims in general, it's just a fact that such hatred exists.  I would ask you to at least acknowledge the difficulty of that environment before you criticize military decisions.

In addition, even though many people in this country stop and pick stuff up off the ground, it isn't necessarily a common practice in a war zone.  People who know that roadside bombs and mines and booby traps are located all over their country don't act the same way we act in a country where we can feel safe picking stuff up off the ground.  And, like I have already said, there is no reason to believe that there is actually any order in place to shoot anyone who picks the stuff up.  Our soldiers must have the ability and freedom to interpret the actions of the individual on the ground, and decide if it is hostile.

mattloch, again, what you are saying is exactly what I have said here.  The soldiers must be able to think for themselves, and I don't believe our military leaders have given them any order that simply says kill anyone who picks up something off the ground. 

"Whether you want to admit it or not, there is a culture in some parts of the world where hatred of Christians, Americans, Westerners, atheists, gays, etc., etc., etc., is taught and learned."

And our country's hatred and superiority complex for every country not like ours is different how?

"I would ask you to at least acknowledge the difficulty of that environment before you criticize military decisions."

I have and do acknowledge the difficulty, I to have friends fighting in Iraq.  Our country was built on checks and balances, and questioning actions like these is how the people in power don't use it in excess.  I am not saying that all of the blame is to be put on the snipers, the commanders in charge are as guilty as they are if not more. 

"Our soldiers must have the ability and freedom to interpret the actions of the individual on the ground, and decide if it is hostile."

How does a random person of any age picking up wire or any other random item in a war torn street make them hostile?