Troops accused of violating International laws.
This entry was posted
by Dawn Summers on Tuesday, September 8th, 2009 at 8:35 am and is filed under News & Events.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 8th, 2009 at 9:21 am
What’s the problem?
September 8th, 2009 at 9:23 am
We’ve been there way too long, with absolutely nothing to show for it, and the afghanis are just bitching and bitching about every little thing. blah blah blah the troops went into a hospital. Bah. Where’s the red button!!! Give me the button.
September 8th, 2009 at 9:47 am
The problem with Afghanistan from a strategic stand point is that there was nothing to attack. This was the original issue, even in 2001. There was nothing of value to destroy or attack, or, better explained, nothing to deter the enemy. The Taliban obviously was the “regime” or government that housed Bin Laden and Al Queda so we had to attack them. But there was no infrastructure, no real value targets, and a population that was bent on killing or destroying Americans and westerners.
The whole Iraq thing went so bad that the left cried everything from No WMD’s to “we forgot who the war was really against”. I.e. Afghanistan.
There have been numerous books written about this subject, “Hunting Bin Laden, Bush at War, etc, that all highlight the issues with fighting a war in Afghanistan. From corruption within the population (in the beginning the CIA showed up with millions in cash on their person buying villagers for information), to the now less talked about poppy fields for heroin production.
I don’t know what good it is to still be there, other than keeping Al Queda from reforming in that region. Not that that really matters because they seem to be doing a good enough job in other regions. I guess Obama has succumbed to the Dem party and has sent more troops there to satisfy the notion that we never finished in Afghanistan. Not that that’s a bad thing. I just need some more G2 on the subject.
September 8th, 2009 at 10:31 am
“the afghanis are just bitching and bitching about every little thing”
Actually, it was a Swedish charity that was bitching; the Afghanis seem pretty resigned to being occupied by thugs.
So, really, this is the standard we’re holding ourselves to now? If our brownshirts don’t actually kill anyone, just go in, tie up a few doctors and sick people’s family members, and leave with a warning not to treat anyone from the other side (or, presumably, next time you doctors won’t get off so easy, right?), we’re good with that?
September 8th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
The bad guys have used hospitals to hide out in the past. They’re no different from schools or religious buildings – if you use them to further your ends in a conflict they lose their special status under international law.
International law has put us in an impossible position here. The only reasonable response to 9/11 would have been carpet bombing in the major cities in Afghanistan so they’d be reluctant to host anti-American terrorists in the future. But we couldn’t do that, so here we are mucking around in the dirt, probably for decades.
We’ll lose thousands more Americans in A-stan than we lost in Iraq by the time we leave.
September 8th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Well, yeah, Afghanistan is a mess, as the British and Russians found out before us. And yeah, effectively fighting a traditional war against guerillas is near impossible without violating international law and hurting innocent civilians, as we should have remembered from Vietnam.
So. They didn’t actually _find_ any insurgents hiding at this particular hospital. Are we, as Americans, comfortable with saying that all international protections of all schools, hospitals, etc. in this war are off, because we know that sometimes, even often, the insurgents do not themselves respect the neutrality of these institutions?
The whole point of these international protections is not to protect the school no one suspects of housing terrorists. Who would bomb a school just for the hell of it? The point is to protect those institutions where it’s hard to make that choice.
By respecting these protections, we’re saying, we, as Americans, believe it’s better for our trained soldiers to be at risk, than that we put innocents (of whatever nationality) at risk. That’s not the current sentiment, I gather.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
are we fighting the war for health care there too?!?!
September 8th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Are we, as Americans, comfortable with saying that all international protections of all schools, hospitals, etc. in this war are off, because we know that sometimes, even often, the insurgents do not themselves respect the neutrality of these institutions?
I’m not sure international law guarantees hospitals can’t be searched in occupied territory. It generally protects them from attack, but I’d be curious to know what treaty prevents us from searching them.
By respecting these protections, we’re saying, we, as Americans, believe it’s better for our trained soldiers to be at risk, than that we put innocents (of whatever nationality) at risk. That’s not the current sentiment, I gather.
I don’t see that the innocents in this case were put at risk. Inconvenienced, certainly. At risk? No. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say “the enemy has been known to use hospitals to hide from American patrols, therefor we need to search them.
We’re losing people every day because of rules designed to protect noncombatants. The Taliban have taken to moving in with groups of women and children because they know we won’t blow the place up from the air, even though we’re allowed to under international law. Piling on even more restrictions will turn a very bad situation much worse.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
I’d like to see the face of every solider before I can make a decision. Tell your presidential boyfriend to release that info too.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
“I’d like to see the face of every solider before I can make a decision.”
I’d be good with that. I’d also like for us to see the face of every Afghani civilian beforehand too. I’m in favor of anything that humanizes the consequences of our decisions as voters and citizens.
It’s not that I think the soldier’s life is worth less, but I do think he or she had a lot more choice to be put in danger, and a lot more training for how to handle it, than did the Afghani civilians.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
“I don’t see that the innocents in this case were put at risk. ”
They were tied up. Again, just pointing out how far we’ve come in what we’re comfortable with our representatives abroad doing. 10 years ago, would we have been ok with being the guys who tie up doctors and hospital visitors?
“I’m not sure international law guarantees hospitals can’t be searched in occupied territory.”
I mostly know what I read in the article. I’d be surprised if it doesn’t violate international law to tie up noncombatants. And according to the article, it does violate international law to prevent a hospital from providing treatment to injured opponents. The soldiers told the hospital not to do so in the future.
“The Taliban have taken to moving in with groups of women and children because they know we won’t blow the place up from the air, even though we’re allowed to under international law.”
Isn’t it awesome that we have the moral high ground on this one? Seriously. Doesn’t it make you proud to be the people, in this instance, who won’t stoop to killing women and children in order to win, to be the people who say, “we believe international standards in this case are insufficient to guide our own moral imperatives—we will be better than the minimum required.”?
September 8th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
it’s funny, when Obama campaigned on ending the wars I sort of assumed he’d be a bit more proactive than just honoring the old “if you ignore it, it will go away” adage.
September 8th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
” I sort of assumed he’d be a bit more proactive than just honoring the old ‘if you ignore it, it will go away’ adage.”
Well, he is withdrawing from Iraq. Just as slowly as Hillary and McCain had said they would, but he’s doing it. I have one friend who’s there as a civilian advisor, and she says we’re basically doing nothing now but closing up shop.
But c’mon, Obama’s whole campaign was a magical mystery wonderland tour. “I’ll wave my wand and we’ll be done with these silly wars — that wicked witch Hillary says it’s harder and more complicated than that, and has posted a 50-point plan for a measured and long-term withdrawal on her campaign website, but she’s a real downer, she’s got no Hope.” That’s why people voted for him, dude.
September 8th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Obviously, I don’t know what the answer is. (I said two week evacuation warning followed by nuke attack and Alceste called me an idealist.)
September 8th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
That’s why people voted for him, dude.
Yeah, how long til I can point and laugh at them?
September 9th, 2009 at 3:13 am
A Bush supporter pointing and laughing about Afghanistan being a mess, makes as much sense as Kennedy button wearing hippies protesting Johnson about Vietnam.
September 9th, 2009 at 11:52 am
What Dawn said. On both counts.
September 9th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Doesn’t it make you proud to be the people, in this instance, who won’t stoop to killing women and children in order to win…
The problem is in an effort to ensure this they’ve set up an oversight regime that’s unworkable in combat. You might want to read this(down in the update section):
U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren’t near the village.
We lost four marines in that ambush because some REMF is second-guessing officers in a firefight. I’ve been listening to people on the left incorrectly say Iraq and Afghanistan were “just like Vietnam” since 2003. But this is the kind of crap that eventually led to that iconic picture of the last overloaded helicopter taking off from the US embassy roof in Saigon.
September 9th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
I’m laughing at you guys for thinking this guy was going to change shit. 6 months in and he’s sinking in the polls, he’s tossing our money away, how the hell is he any different? And not fucking up syntax doesn’t really count. I’m still waiting for ONE change that’s for the better. ONE.