I really don’t know how this case and the Haditha case will play out once all the facts are in the open. I strongly believe, however, that someone has to confront those who keep saying that the US (and NATO forces in Afghanistan) must follow the “rules of war” even though they haven’t the slightest idea of what those “rules” are.

These two cases provide clear examples of what those rules are, why they exist and why the consequences of not following them are dangerous for civilians and are, shall we say “summary” for violators.

Chief among the “rules” is that their protection is not offered to those who (a) conceal weapons, (b) disguise themselves as civilians and (c) do not themselves adhere to those rules.

In these cases, and as NATO forces are finding in Afghanistan, the enemy is indistinguishable from the civilian population, hides weapons and uses unarmed civilians as human shields. These tactics are all violations of the so called “rules of war”. The “rules” were devised, in part, to protect civilian populations from such conduct. The result is that violators are not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war. Those who call for western troops to adhere to the “rules of war” in their treatment of the captured are, in effect, calling for their summary execution.

In the Ishaqi case I am sure we will hear that the enemy was hiding in and around the civilians. They look like civilians. (the comment that there was a dead man in the AP video means nothing…he could have been a fighter or a civilian). I am willing to bet that, when the whole story about Haditha comes out, there was at least an element of that in the mix. I am not saying that justifies a breakdown of discipline but, in light of the professionalism of those soldiers, it is obvious that something happened.

I firmly believe that strong points must be made, loudly, about how the tactics used by the Iraqi (and Taliban) enemy has an impact on what “rules of war” actually apply.

Blaise on June 2, 2006 at 5:42 PM