Denying the enemy....

[civgrunt05]

I'm sure this will be a controversial topic, and I'm sure I'm in the very small minority here, but I thought I'd open it up for discussion.

I watched the "Battle for Marjah" documentary. In one scene they show Marines engaging the taliban from a rooftop, and like the cowards they are the Taliban breaks contact, using kids as cover for their escape. The Marines cease fire, curse the Taliban for their cowardice, and the bad guy lives to plant another IED, behead another local, or snipe another Marine.

We hear about this kind of thing all to often. No one likes the idea of shooting at/around innocent people, but it begs the question:

Do we prolong human suffering by allowing the enemy to use women and kids as cover?

I'm of the opinion that we do. As I said, no one wants to be the one to shoot a kid -- I know I'd have a hard time living with myself, but don't you think by NOT engaging when they use civilians as cover we offer them not only a tactical advantage but also ENCOURAGE them to use women and kids for cover? I'm not saying to spray everything with a 240, I'm just saying that maybe we should continue to engage with well aimed rifle shots. (Yes, I do understand the difficulty of this in the situation described above)

Obviously they are the scum for doing it, and it speaks to the discipline and clearheadedness of the American military not to engage in that situation, but I just think if word got around that we would continue engaging despite their use of human shields, then the concept of using human shields would go away.

Strategically speaking, it's tough in terms of media pressure and the locals being ****ed at us, but if we had denied the enemy this back when the war started I don't believe it would be practiced today and that we'd have already crushed the Taliban.

Thoughts?

[AlohaMarine]

The Soviets tried to obliterate the enemy, civilian or not, in the 1980s. Didn't work very well for them.

[DrZ]

Civ,
We are Marines and Americans. Shooting an innocent or a non-combatant is a punishable offense. No discussion.... no arguments.

It is what it is.

[civgrunt05]

The Soviets tried to obliterate the enemy, civilian or not, in the 1980s. Didn't work very well for them.

The Soviets committed genocide and intentionally destroyed villages as a matter of strategic policy.

That's not what I'm advocating.

DrZ:
I'm not saying to intentionally kill innocents -- I'm arguing for us to continue to engage hostiles despite the use of human shields. There would of course be some innocent life lost in this, but I'm contending that in the long run more lives are saved by taking the "hard position" early.

[dback13]

Civ,
We are Marines and Americans. Shooting an innocent or a non-combatant is a punishable offense if you get caught. No discussion.... no arguments.

It is what it is.

Fixed it for you

[DrZ]

The Soviets committed genocide and intentionally destroyed villages as a matter of strategic policy.

That's not what I'm advocating.

DrZ:
I'm not saying to intentionally kill innocents -- I'm arguing for us to continue to engage hostiles despite the use of human shields. There would of course be some innocent life lost in this, but I'm contending that in the long run more lives are saved by taking the "hard position" early.

Continuing to engage would be intentionally killing innocents or non-combatants and neither our government, their government, or the general American civilian population would permit it. We get crucified in the press (ours and theirs) when we destroy a known Taliban location and damage houses around the location. Can you imagine the turmoil that would be created if a non-combatant got killed in the process of holding the hard line? Many nations hate us currently.... it would just escalate the hate!

[dback13]

Continuing to engage would be intentionally killing innocents or non-combatants and neither our government, their government, or the general American civilian population would permit it. We get crucified in the press (ours and theirs) when we destroy a known Taliban location and damage houses around the location. Can you imagine the turmoil that would be created if a non-combatant got killed in the process of holding the hard line? Many nations hate us currently.... it would just escalate the hate!

Who gives a ****? This war isn't winnable. I don't give a **** about what other ountries think of us, let alone the local populace of Helmand province. This war would be A LOT easier if we could just shoot everyone one....since most of them are Taliban anyway, even if they have a weapon or not.
GTFO or get the inside of your head all over that wall.

[DrZ]

Fixed it for you

Agreed but only to a point. Way too many journalists there to believe you wouldn't get caught. We get blamed for this type of offense already and if it became a 'typical' event... we would be as hated as the Taliban.

[dback13]

Agreed but only to a point. Way too many journalists there to believe you wouldn't get caught. We get blamed for this type of offense already and if it became a 'typical' event... we would be as hated as the Taliban.

What happens on patrol, stays on patrol. "those guys had weapons right?" "yep"

Reporters have no idea what happens in real life, since how you act when they're around is not how you would act if it was just you and your guys out there.

[civgrunt05]

DrZ I have to disagree with you that continuing to engage means that you are intentionally killing civilians. If a militant grabs two women and makes them run around with him as he manuevers on Marines, and a Marine puts his reticle on the militant but mistakenly shoots one of the women, he has not intentionally killed that woman.

"Intentionally" at it's very root implies "intent." The intent is to kill the Taliban fighter.

Let's apply reductio ad absurdum here:
By our current logic, if every Taliban fighter taped a baby to his chest, we'd never engage. Every Taliban fighter would have unlimited freedom of movement on the battlefield and obviously make it impossible for us to achieve any tactical success. We would have to either A - leave without accomplishing our goals or B - engage. I challenge anyone to show me another alternative in this case.

Now, apply the same reasoning to the current situation where SOMETIMES Taliban fighters use civilians and human shields. You are still left with choices A or B.

What's really the logic fallacy to me in all of this is that if you believe Clausewitz, then war is an extension of politics. Yet politics, or rather the projection of noble American values such as the protection of innocent life into politics and policy, cripples that extension of politics which I believe creates an endless feedback loop whereby the original goal of that war is difficult to fulfill.

[GunRun]

It sucks that the Taliban doesn't really care for the people. this one time, we took contact while a couple kids were asking us for water and pens. So now we had a fight and we had to look out for the kids at the same time.

[DrZ]

DrZ I have to disagree with you that continuing to engage means that you are intentionally killing civilians. If a militant grabs two women and makes them run around with him as he manuevers on Marines, and a Marine puts his reticle on the militant but mistakenly shoots one of the women, he has not intentionally killed that woman.

"Intentionally" at it's very root implies "intent." The intent is to kill the Taliban fighter.

Let's apply reductio ad absurdum here:
By our current logic, if every Taliban fighter taped a baby to his chest, we'd never engage. Every Taliban fighter would have unlimited freedom of movement on the battlefield and obviously make it impossible for us to achieve any tactical success. We would have to either A - leave without accomplishing our goals or B - engage. I challenge anyone to show me another alternative in this case.

Now, apply the same reasoning to the current situation where SOMETIMES Taliban fighters use civilians and human shields. You are still left with choices A or B.

What's really the logic fallacy to me in all of this is that if you believe Clausewitz, then war is an extension of politics. Yet politics, or rather the projection of noble American values such as the protection of innocent life into politics and policy, cripples that extension of politics which I believe creates an endless feedback loop whereby the original goal of that war is difficult to fulfill.

Your statement now is different than your original post. You originally stated they (taliban) use human shields to withdraw and to that I state by American rules of engagement... you would have to let them withdraw. Your current statement is using human shields to better position themselves while continuing to fight and potentially killing Marines. That is entirely a different scenario and the Marines would be required to fire on the approaching enemy... human shields or not.

The last war that America was involved that did not have politics so heavily involved was WW2. Since that time, the American fighting man and our commanders have had politicians up their arses so deeply that it impacts their ability to win the war.

So we actually agree that politicos cost us in lives and cause a war to drag on. The rest of the post is actually a moot because our commander's hands are tied by our government.

[dback13]

It sucks that the Taliban doesn't really care for the people. this one time, we took contact while a couple kids were asking us for water and pens. So now we had a fight and we had to look out for the kids at the same time.

**** the kids, if one of them gets smoke checked it's not your fault. Worry about your guys and the Talibs.

[TheReservist]

Obviously nobody here has read any of any counterinsurgency manuals....

You kill an innocent civilian, you create more enemies... how? Well now that person's family, and maybe friends too, want to kill you. Sure accidents happen but maliciously killing civilians does nothing but create alot of bad blood.

As per killing everyone.... that's genocide. We're not some ****hole african country.

[civgrunt05]

DrZ: Extend my example to the original context. I still stand behind it. If you really think about it, withdraw is really a form of maneuver in a broader, more strategic sense.

I'll go so far as to challenge the narrowness of the concept of hostile intent. If the insurgent fires at Marines and is withdrawing, I don't think anyone would argue with me in the broader scheme of things that he still has hostile intent. It may not be an immediate hostile intent because he's obviously withdrawing, but I'll bet you my yearly salary that he still harbors the same attitudes that manifested his hostile intent and hostile act in the first place.

Reservist: No one here is for maliciously killing civilians. I'll also say that no matter what the Small Unit Leader's Guide to Counterinsurgency says, I firmly believe that you embolden an insurgency when you let them get away. Remember that this insurgent gets free to intimidate the populace, coerce men into fighting, force himself into homes, spread propaganda, traffic weapons, plan attacks, and carry out attacks. I'll agree that you don't win a counterinsurgency by butchering the populace, but you sure as hell don't win it by convincing the guy who has sworn to his god that he will kill you to throw down his arms by building the kids a school -- because quite frankly, he ain't hearing that.