« Be careful what you wish for | Main | Are journalists patriots? »
July 10, 2006
This is our enemy
Given that the American media can't wait to bury stories that might enrage us, remind us who we're fighting and why, it's great that the enemy keeps sending these tidbits to stoke the fires.
PARIS (AFP) - The Iraqi branch of Al-Qaeda put on the Internet a video showing the mutilated bodies of two US soldiers kidnapped in June and executed to "avenge" an Iraqi woman raped near Mahmudiyah south of Baghdad.
"Here is a film on the remains of the bodies of the two American soldiers kidnapped near Yussufiyah (south of Baghdad). We are showing it to avenge our sister who was raped by a soldier belonging to the same division as these two soldiers," said a preamble by the Mujahedeen Al-Shura Council, an Al-Qaeda dominated alliance of armed Sunni groups in Iraq.
[...]
"Praise God, they captured two soldiers from the same division as this vile crusader. Here are the remains ... to rejoice the hearts of the faithful," the statement said.
The nearly five-minute film shows the horribly mutilated bodies of the two soldiers, who had had their throats cut. The head of one of them was held high by an armed man, like a trophy. The head of the other was being stamped on by another armed man.
The film is accompanied by extracts of old speeches by the head of the Al-Qaeda terror group, Osama bin Laden, and the ex-head of its Iraqi wing Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, who was killed June 7 by the US Army.
The Iraqi branch of Al-Qaeda announced on June 20 it had executed the two American soldiers whose bodies were found south of Baghdad.
Those mutilated corpses used to be Pfc. Thomas Lowell Tucker, 25, of Madras, Oregon, and Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, Texas, who volunteered to protect and defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If we capture the savages who did this to our GIs, the ACLU and the Supreme Court believe they're entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions.
I, on the other hand, concur with Ralph Peters, who says that the recent Supreme Court ruling militates in favor of our GIs simply not taking prisoners.
Which, of course, means killing them all on the battlefield, which is consistent with the Geneva Convetions.
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.
[...]
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.
[...]
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.
[...]
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.
It's a war, folks. It's past time for Americans to accept that fact, and to pick a side. Me, I'm against the head-chopping, throat-cutting jihadis.
How 'bout you?
UPDATE
If you can stand it, Rusty Shackleford has posted both the video and photos of what those bastards did to our GIs. It's terribly gruesome, but in some sense I believe we must look at what evil has wrought, inspect the Devil's handiwork, and draw strength and resolve from our rage and horror.
To look away is to avoid confronting the true nature of our enemies, and PFC Thomas and PFC Menchaca deserve better than moral preening and posturing. They deserve vengeance.
Shame on Pres. Bush for not echoing the order given by Russian Pres. Putin to his Spetznatz commandos, after jihadis kidnapped, tortured and murdered Russian diplomats: Hunt them down and destroy them.
Posted by Mike Lief at July 10, 2006 05:40 PM
| TrackBack
Comments
Quite eruditely expressed. My sentiments exactly. I wish the hand-wringers at the Pentagon and the White House would take the leash off the military and let them do their job, as they were trained to do.
Posted by: Sonarman at July 10, 2006 06:24 PM
The media and its self-serving actions win again. Bush needs to do his job and look forward, not at the camera crew planted on the White House lawn with their Starbucks to go.
("If we capture the savages who did this to our GIs, the ACLU and the Supreme Court believe they're entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions.")
Not strong enough to look at the video yet.
Posted by: Vermont Neighbor at July 11, 2006 07:31 AM
I think they should be able to go deer hunting with Ted Nugent.
Posted by: Thin Ice at July 11, 2006 01:07 PM
I am all for killing them on the battlefield. With the help of our soldiers and marines, let's make every jihadist confrontation a suicide mission.
I am rethinking the notion that we should pour money and resources into hunting down the people responsible for the death of these two soldiers, as least in the Western posse chase prescribed by the majority.
Let me preface my statements by saying nothing would please me more than to show a terrorist his brains splattered on a wall before he goes to hell. However, these people do not respond to that type of retaliation- our continued fighting in Iraq proves again and again that this is true. Perhaps we need a new plan.
Insurgents play as puppeteers when they can kill our soldiers and we run off to engage them for a month rooting out the perpetrators. They get off on the perception that they can 'control' the U.S. military in that way.
I believe we need to institute the Powell Doctrine when we are fighting insurgents and be very cautious when taking prisoners. Someone that explodes an RPG into a Stryker then falls on the ground when it is apparent he will be meeting his maker should not be denied that reunion.
We are taking this fight very slowly. We are taking our time and using the resources appropriate for taking the terrorist cells out at the same time trying to limit civilian casualties, which is good for both diplomacy and keeping the liberal media at bay. But when we run right out for retribution then we are, in essence, giving into terrorist demands. We are endangering soldier’s lives when we use them to go into rat holes and flush out a few cowardly jihadist cockroaches.
Ralph Peters makes a great point:
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.
Let’s continue to take our time and do the only thing that will really defeat the terrorists. Bush has it right when he sticks to his plan. It will take a long term approach. Big Lizards had a compelling commentary on this idea that has someone make me rethink my “Nuke the whole area and let God figure it out.”
I don't want to lop off the terrorists' hands; I want to waterboard them -- because that actually works.Terrorists would love nothing better than to become relevant again, to control the world around them. And what Hindrocket proposes would have exactly that effect: whenever terrorists feel neglected and ignored, all they need do is mutilate a U.S. soldier's corpse, and we rush to "commit the full resources of this nation to avenging our soldiers' murders."
Far better, but very difficult, to do just what President Bush is doing: ignore provocation and go about the inexorable business of grinding them up like summer sausage... at a place and time of our choosing, at a tempo that we dictate, using whatever tools and allies we select. This response takes guts and willpower; but it's frighteningly effective for whomever has the tenacity to see it through.
Never before in my life have my interpretations or belief systems been challenged in such a way that actually put me in a quandary than the last year and a half of blogging. These last few years of my military service have been profoundly affected by this war. I come from a long standing family tradition of naval service, with almost 100 years of my family in this canoe club, and I have had to reassess my position on a lot of things and I am still on the fence about this issue. I feel like a frosted mini-wheat and I hate it.
Posted by: Trickish Knave at July 11, 2006 06:34 PM