Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GtoRA2 on July 30, 2003, 02:57:46 PM
-
Story here (http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54345-2003Jul27.html)
Just have to give Bday
U.S. Adopts Aggressive Tactics on Iraqi Fighters
Intensified Offensive Leads To Detentions, Intelligence
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 28, 2003; Page A01
BAGHDAD -- Over the past six weeks a small but intense war has been conducted in the mud-hut villages and lush palm groves along the Tigris River valley, fought with far different methods than those used in the campaign that toppled president Saddam Hussein.
As Iraqi fighters launched guerrilla strikes, the U.S. Army adopted a more nimble approach against unseen adversaries and found new ways to gather intelligence about them, according to dozens of soldiers and officers interviewed over the last week.
Thousands of suspected Iraqi fighters were detained over the six-week period, many temporarily, in hundreds of U.S. military raids, most of them conducted in the dead of night. In the expansive region north of Baghdad patrolled by the 4th Infantry Division, more than 300 Iraqi fighters were killed in combat operations, the military officials said. In the same period, U.S. forces in all of Iraq have suffered 39 combat deaths. The continuing casualties -- such as the four soldiers killed Saturday -- are the direct result of the intensified U.S. offensive, the military officials added.
Despite their losses, Army officers and soldiers asserted that they are making solid gains in this region, where most of the fighting has taken place and where about half the 150,000 U.S. troops in the country are posted.
At the beginning of June, before the U.S. offensives began, the reward for killing an American soldier was about $300, an Army officer said. Now, he said, street youths are being offered as much as $5,000 -- and are being told that if they refuse, their families will be killed, a development the officer described as a sign of reluctance among once-eager youths to take part in the strikes.
At the same time, the frequency of attacks has declined in the area northwest of Baghdad dominated by Iraq's Sunni minority, long a base of support for Hussein. In this triangle-shaped region -- delineated by Baghdad, Tikrit to the north and the towns of Fallujah and Ramadi to the west -- attacks on U.S. forces have dropped by half since mid-June, military officers reported.
That decrease is leading senior commanders here to debate whether the war is nearly over. Some say the resistance by members of Hussein's Baath Party is nearly broken. But other senior officers are bracing for a new phase in which they fear that Baathist die-hards, with no alternative left, will shift from attacking the U.S. military to bombing American civilians and Iraqis who work with them.
In addition, there is general agreement among Army leaders here that in recent weeks both the quality and quantity of intelligence being offered by Iraqis has greatly improved, leading to such operations as the one last Tuesday in Mosul that killed Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay.
Col. David Hogg, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division, said tougher methods are being used to gather the intelligence. On Wednesday night, he said, his troops picked up the wife and daughter of an Iraqi lieutenant general. They left a note: "If you want your family released, turn yourself in." Such tactics are justified, he said, because, "It's an intelligence operation with detainees, and these people have info." They would have been released in due course, he added later.
The tactic worked. On Friday, Hogg said, the lieutenant general appeared at the front gate of the U.S. base and surrendered.
The U.S. Offensive
In the weeks after President Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, there were growing signs of resistance in the Sunni triangle, where many former Baath Party operatives, intelligence officers and Special Republican Guard members were still actively fighting the U.S. military.
There is more, should I post it?
-
There was a discussion regarding this here:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=92599
-
Thanks
OOOPs!
-
This strategy of hostage taking is apparently a violation of the Geneva Convention. I'm not so sure this is an activity deserving of our praise...
-
If it saves american lives and no one is hurt I am all for it.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
This strategy of hostage taking is apparently a violation of the Geneva Convention. I'm not so sure this is an activity deserving of our praise...
Hmmm...true. But what are they? Hostages or detainees?
One entry found for detainee.
Main Entry: de·tain·ee
Pronunciation: di-"tA-'nE, "dE-
Function: noun
Date: circa 1928
: a person held in custody especially for political reasons
One entry found for hostage.
Main Entry: hos·tage
Pronunciation: 'häs-tij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from hoste
Date: 13th century
1 a : a person held by one party in a conflict as a pledge that promises will be kept or terms met by the other party b : a person taken by force to secure the taker's demands
2 : one that is involuntarily controlled by an outside influence
I agree if they are violating the GC they need to stop. But if the people are being detained and are well treated I have no problem with this tactic saving Coalition Forces' lives.
-
I would say detainee, we are NOT threatening them in any way.
-
well , i think if the USA is violating the Geneva Convention, saddam should go to the UN and file a protest.
BTW, did saddam sign the Geneva Conventions?
-
GScholz
The difference is we are not saying "give in to our demands in 8 hours or they die."
-
IMO, WTG USA. :)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No there is no such difference. The implied threat was that if this Iraqi General didn't surrender the US would "detain" his family indefinitely.
If I locked your loved ones in my basement and held them for ransom, surrounding my house with a powerful army so that no escape or rescue attempt would be feasible, wouldn't that be kidnapping and hostage taking?
No, read it again:
" They would have been released in due course, he added later."
They were detained much like a policeman does when he needs an eyewitness or information on a subject. I doubt that guns were pointed to their heads, hands cuffed together and they were dragged out of their houses.
Besides, if I was killing people that were trying to restore order and peace in an area such as Iraq my family would just say shot ME!
-
I how did I know you would come back with that...
An implied threat that we will not follow through on is not the same as a terrorist threat from a terrorist who WILL kill their hostages without a second though.
The family is not going to be harmed hell I bet they are living better then they where before.
-
It's called bluffing and the Iraqi General fell for it. The American commander said, and I quoted in my last post, that they were going to be freed eventually anyway.
If I witness something that is a crime, the police can detain me because I have information that could lead to an arrest. No, there are no "threats" made on me but they can make life really boring if I don't cooperate. They will, however, have to release me eventually. So it's not BS, its a tactic that worked and in the long run probably saved lives.
-
It better then blowing people up. Soldiers are a different manor anyway.
If it saves U.S. lives then I am all for it. You don't like it get your country to start a war on terror and them come get us. :D
-
excellent job US soldiers ....salute...and allah - god-jah bless you:)
BiGB
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Did this family witness a crime? Were they held because something they did or saw? Or were they held as leverage against an enemy?
Ah, no, they were family to a high-ranking Iraqi officer who may have been (I am not there so I don't know) in on the attacks on the US troops trying to keep the peace. It was an easy and quick way of getting the leader and questioning him on intelligence. I agree the tactic is not for everyone but the way they did it I am ok with. Like I said, had the US troops gone in there, held guns to them and said "Let's go, or we will shoot you." then I would have a problem with it. I am not saying that guns weren't used but they have a way of convincing people that you mean business. And again, in the long run this tactic saved lives. If evidence turns up that the US troops used overly aggressive force and mistreated the family then I say stop doing it. But I think that that didn't happen. That the family wanted their father/dad/patriarch back so they family can go on with their lives.
-
Ok, I give up...like debating with a wall...:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Hmmm...true. But what are they? Hostages or detainees?
One entry found for detainee.
Main Entry: de·tain·ee
Pronunciation: di-"tA-'nE, "dE-
Function: noun
Date: circa 1928
: a person held in custody especially for political reasons
One entry found for hostage.
Main Entry: hos·tage
Pronunciation: 'häs-tij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from hoste
Date: 13th century
1 a : a person held by one party in a conflict as a pledge that promises will be kept or terms met by the other party b : a person taken by force to secure the taker's demands
2 : one that is involuntarily controlled by an outside influence
I agree if they are violating the GC they need to stop. But if the people are being detained and are well treated I have no problem with this tactic saving Coalition Forces' lives.
OK, OK. You convinced me. They were hostages.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
What's the name of that Israeli soldier that has been "detained" by the Hezbollah for more than a decade? He and several other Israelis are being held and will not be released unless the Israelis release jailed terrorists. I guess that's ok then.
Chalk and cheese dude.
The US doesn't have a prevelant history of killing woman and children hostages. Whereas Hezbollah does.
If you think war is a pleasant affair then you are naive, or stupid.
When the US start executing these 'hostages', then start bleeting. Until then the method is proving quite effective in flushing out those who supported a genocidal dictator and continue to try to kill US servicemen. Lets not forget the families of these fighters probably lived off the fat of those opressed and murdered by a regieme they supported. So getting a gun waved in their face is not as bad as being thrown live into a giant chipper like Saddams sons used to execute their opposition. If you have sympathy for these people and their families in preference to the lives of US and other foreign servicemen, good luck to you.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Ah, if you can't debate it, dismiss it. Good one. I especially like those "rolleyes".
Defending crime is not an easy undertaking, many good lawyers have tried and failed.
Ok, let me try it again GS. There are threats and there are psychological innuendoes. Yes, I know you feel that what the US forces did constitutes a "threat" and makes the family a "hostage" in this situation according to how you see it. What I see is the psychological ploy used to capture a high ranking Iraqi officer. All that was said in the note was. "If you want your family released, turn yourself in." It did not say "or we will maim and torture your family" or "they will be killed one by one until you show up" or something that would cause harm to the family members. The way it is worded is a psychological ploy on part of the US officer to make the Iraqi officer THINK something will happen, alas, the power of suggestion. All it says is show up and your family gets released, not anything approaching a threat in my book. Yes, I understand your lawyer reference and what the US officer did is an old lawyer trick. Remember, the US is the lawsuit capital of the world my friend, and this guy is probably part of that class-action lawsuit to get part of that $500 million dollar settlement that we read about in another thread. And, yes, I like to use the rolled eyes when it apparent to me that another is not reading what I am typing and trying to understand my point of view when they are blinded by their own. At first I was on your side in this thread but the more I think about it the more impressed I am with what the US officer did to capture this guy. You think its a hostage situation, I don't. Let's just agree to disagree and move on. Now, about how crappy Fords are...:D
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
OK, OK. You convinced me. They were hostages.
You're welcome...but I disagree.
-
As they were likely to have at least some information regarding the location of the General, then it made sense to take them into custody for questioning. While in custody their lives were not in danger and they would have been released, General or no. If you honestly have a problem with this, then you are beyond retarded and there is no point in debating the issue.
SOB
-
Wow Gscholz where was this profound UN Geneva style right/wrong morality when your Dutch UN brothers let thousands get slughtered under their direct watch... Sorry buddy, I just dont care for Geneva style moral rules...
-
So now your superior European UN logic is that young children fight to defend themselves against armies of rapists and murderers - I suppose this is the new excuse for srebrenica?
"Hey look we got the guns and the planes but really it's not our job to do anything.. Serb Death Squads? Where? Well, not our problem - look at that old lady and the crippled grandfather with two small children - we will let them them fight off the deathsquads, after we load them on the bus of course, while we toast with the Serb commander...
Remember it took the evil USA to lead the way, as in kill the ****ing murderers and blowthem up, in both Bosnia and Kosovo. The USA will stand on that while the UN can praise itself on the glories of Srebrenica and faithfully "shielding" serb radar stations and ammo dumps.
You know Gscholz that srebrenica thing really pissed me off as far the UN is concerned - I mean what's the point?
-
It is very good news that the US administration is using such methods as kidnapping in Iraq. It will help all the Iraqi idiots ,who still think that they can trust the US and that they should cooperate, to understand that they must fight to kick these fascist invaders out of their country. I sincerely hope that more of these tactics follow.
ps. US commanders in Iraq can refer to SS (as in during the invasion of the USSR in WW2) occupation management manuals to find more "effecient" ways to fight local resistance. That is if they are not already making use of them.
-
Please accept my apology Gsholz, you are not beyond retarded...perhaps just mildly retarded if you believe that. It's Zonta123 who is beyond retarded.
SOB
-
Originally posted by SOB
As they were likely to have at least some information regarding the location of the General, then it made sense to take them into custody for questioning. While in custody their lives were not in danger and they would have been released, General or no. If you honestly have a problem with this, then you are beyond retarded and there is no point in debating the issue.
The act of leaving a ransom note saying "If you want your family released, turn yourself in" pretty much invalidates the claim that they would have been released anyway. And let's face it, they weren't released until he gave himself up, so this claim is rendered to at most nothing more than a cheesey revisionist cop-out (you'll note the report specifies that he added this later). I'd like to think they would have been released, but the ransom note means this intent is highly questionable. It's not much of a defence against a kidnapping rap really is it? "Well, yes we did send a ransom note, and yes we did release them when the ransom was paid, but we would have released them eventually, so we didn't really kidnap them".
The ransom note made them hostages - no note, and they can just be detainees, but sending a ransom note is definitely an indication that the detainees are hostages. And that makes the US Army in violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War in relation to these 3 articles:
Article 31
No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.
Article 33
No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
Article 34
The taking of hostages is prohibited.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Please accept my apology Gsholz, you are not beyond retarded...perhaps just mildly retarded if you believe that. It's Zonta123 who is beyond retarded.
SOB
Coming from you, I take that as a compliment.
-
Well, I guess my question to you then is this. Do you honestly think we would have held them indefinitely? Or worse yet, that we would have excecuted them? I don't. I think US soldiers are being killed on a regular basis what was done was perfectly acceptible in the face of this, and fortunately it worked and the General turned himself in. Had he not, I do believe they would have been released, and while in custody would have been treated well. Or perhaps I'm just naive.
SOB
-
Originally posted by zonta123
Coming from you, I take that as a compliment.
That's nice for you. It wasn't meant as such.
SOB
-
Originally posted by SOB
That's nice for you. It wasn't meant as such.
SOB
You don't need to argue more; you have already convinced me that you have limited intellectual capability.
-
Well, I'm glad we've got that settled.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
How old were you in '95 anyways, perhaps it was just your father who fled and failed his duty.
So far I like you GScholz, dont try to change that....
-
Originally posted by SOB
Well, I guess my question to you then is this. Do you honestly think we would have held them indefinitely? Or worse yet, that we would have excecuted them? I don't. I think US soldiers are being killed on a regular basis what was done was perfectly acceptible in the face of this, and fortunately it worked and the General turned himself in. Had he not, I do believe they would have been released, and while in custody would have been treated well. Or perhaps I'm just naive.
SOB
What difference does anything you just said make as to whether they were hostages or not?
What I'm trying to get at is this: if we can't abide by the protocols layed out in the Geneva Convention because it hinders effective methods of dealing with our enemies maybe it is time to withdraw our participation in it.
-
Some of you are right, and some of you are seriously mentally handicapped. You decide which is which.
-
So I can no longer upset about the UN betrayal of 8,000 refugees under their care?
And also that I should let you consider that my father's struggle to make batter life for our family in America and raising two kids as a single parent in a foreign country is some sort of sell out or comporable to that betrayal?
I donno man, I just dont see the comparsion...
-
I agree with you...
The war in Iraq is turning into a guerrilla war, trying to fight a guerrilla war against people who have not signed nor care about the conventions while we try to adhere to them is a waste of time.
It will just get U.S. service men killed.
-
So I can no longer upset about the UN betrayal of 8,000 refugees under their care?
You bring it up time and time again, as evidenced in this thread. And the fact that those that died were of an ethnicity that your own countrymen would have similarly wiped out with just as much cold-bloodedness doesn't really sit right in my mind.
If you don't want to be upset by it, don't bring it into th discussion. It really is as simple as that.
-
Why adhere to it if your opponent is not going to? I am not saying we should slaughter innocents, and I do not think our troops would do it.
Appling rules to war seems a tad silly to me, the allies in WW2 bombed cities out of existence and the civilian death toll be damned. We did it because we where convinced it would shorten the war. in turn saving lives over all( most importantly the lives of our troops)
Yet we moralized over the SS burning French resistance in a church?
So if we can brake the rules and no one really gets hurt, and it brings in the guy we need to find sadam, or WMD or even help cut resistance then go for it.
-
Well apart from the moral reasons of not punishing innocent civilians perhaps the thought of having all those civilians having a grudge in a country awash with weapons would hopefully deter the military - all the Iraqi's have to do is kill on average 1 American every day and America will pack it's bags and leave.
Going after civilians is playing into the hands of the nationalist/religious groups who wish America to leave.
"We're the good guys, we're here to liberate you!! and if you don't tell me what I want to know, whether you know the answer or not I'm going to destroy your house and your farm!"
You want the world cheering on the filling of body bags and aluminium coffins being sent home to good old USA?
Anyone want to look up the instances of where a Guerilla war has been beaten when waged by an indigenous population? Malaya doesn't count those were mainly Chinese and not part of the native Malay population. Let us know what you find out.
-
Schadenfreude_
I would agree with you if we had KILLED the wife and kid, we didn't...
We used them yes but no one was hurt. That is a far cry from stuffing them in a church and burning it down.
-
It's just that it seems to me to be very a very stupid way of doing things - my experience of COIN ops was that the first thing you had to do was gain the trust of the local pops, show that you meant them no harm and you were there to help and protect them - then they would come to you with info and show you where mines/booby traps, arms caches were it just makes sense.
Didn't these guys get the "Hearts and Minds" lecture in basic training? ( well 2nd or 3rd phase actually)
-
Schadenfreude
Does a generals wife really count as one of the normal civilians? Are these people popular with the regular Iraqi?
-
GScholz
I see your points.
I just do not agree that this is bad enough to turn the population agaist us.
A: we are not killing them.
B: we are not doing this on a large scale
C: I am not sure the Iraqi people give a **** about a General and his wife, when they worked for Sadam.
Time will tell though.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
One entry found for hostage.
Main Entry: hos·tage
Pronunciation: 'häs-tij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from hoste
Date: 13th century
1 a : a person held by one party in a conflict as a pledge that promises will be kept or terms met by the other party b : a person taken by force to secure the taker's demands
2 : one that is involuntarily controlled by an outside influence
In regards to definition number two, are convicts in prison hostages?
-
first we torture hostages to death in cuba and they say its "justified" i ask by what law get no answer.
now u.s. army takes women and children hostages.
its "justified" i again ask by what law and know there is no answer.
what the hell is happening to this country.
does anyone realize there is a reason we dont torture and take hostages?
after thousands of years of this crap they realized it led nowhere.
now we get to learn again?
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
first we torture hostages to death in cuba
you, of course, have proof of that.
-
Originally posted by john9001
you, of course, have proof of that.
yes, it's in the file cabnet with Al Gore's pattent on the internet :D
-
Is that the one next to wear he keeps the tinfoil hat?:D
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No, I am not saying you are in any way using the same methods as Saddam or the like, but this is a step in the wrong direction, and once the first step is taken and accepted it is very easy to take another step. Escalation is a natural factor in every conflict unless you actively try to prevent it.
Yes, its far more logical to let a couple of dozen US Servicemen die rather than scare the crap outta some murderous Iraqi generals wife.
Good to see you've got your priorities straight ;)
-
Originally posted by Jack55
In regards to definition number two, are convicts in prison hostages?
No, when you commit a crime and have been tried and convicted you "volunteered" to be controlled. Thats why we have laws.
GS, the ashtrays are in progress...*sounds of lab experments in the background...
(http://www.allstateinsurance.org/images/convict.jpg)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
How many US servicemen would have died if this generals wife and children had not been held hostage?
I don't know this Iraqi general. Was he a murderer? Was he a threat?
Think about this GS, who many MORE would have died had the general not been taken? We'll never know. But I agree with the point that something should be looked into this, though it still sounds to me on the surface as being ok, and see what the total facts are beyond the commanders interview responses.