Semi-Daily Journal

"I certainly hope I wouldn't support a monster like Saddam, but if someone invaded the U.S., I'd be out there with a rifle."

The whole issue of "civilians" rising up in arms was formalised - though not started - after the events of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1. Then, the "francs-tireurs" did just that, and Prussian reprisals floundered a lot. Some later international lawyers codified the situation, as I recollect by saying that the irregulars were regular enough if they had some sort of identification. In other words you didn't need full blown uniforms (I suppose if they had needed them, the first camouflaged/khaki uniforms would have made war criminals!). But anyway, the first and underlying war crime is perfidy.

But you'd better check all my recollections - they aren't guaranteed.

"nice analysis of the Turkish situation on The Hill, with a well-deserved slap in the face for the administration...'When she balked, we got a little rough.... we told her to get out of the car and walk home.'"

Well, maybe. But we did get the Turkish gov't to agree to the deal we wanted.

And I'd bet that if the Bush Administration agreed to a deal with another country, but then proved unable to get it through its own Republican Senate because it couldn't keep its own party members in line and couldn't count votes, most of the people here wouldn't be blaming the *other country* for it! ;-)

Also, let's not forget that the US wasn't the only rogue slappin' around the Turkish lady...

"The French and German governments informed the Turkish opposition parties that if they voted to help the Coalition war effort, Turkey would be locked out of Europe for a generation.

"As one Turkish leader put it, 'there were no promises, only threats.'"

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2003/03/26&ID=Ar00106

A broader perspective assists understanding.

Here's a little light on what a war crime might be:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/27/1048653807376.html

-------quote---------
Up and down the 200-metre stretch of desert where the United States and British forces have advanced, one Iraqi prisoner after another has told a similar tale: that many Iraqi soldiers were fighting at gunpoint, threatened with death by hard-core loyalists of President Saddam Hussein.

Here, according to US doctors and Iraqi prisoners, appeared to be the confirmation. The wounded Iraqi, whose life was ebbing away outside a US field hospital, had been shot during the firefight on Tuesday night with US troops.

"The officers threatened to shoot us unless we fought," said a wounded Iraqi from his bed in the US field hospital here. "They took out their guns and pointed them and told us to fight."

As the US medical staff patched up the wounds of three other Iraqi soldiers, they said there was little they could do for the one who had been shot in the head.

"We think he was shot by his own," said Wade Wilde, a marine surgeon. "If he had been hit by an M-16, it would have taken his whole head off. It seems like it was an Iraqi gun."

-------endquote-------

Max Sawicky is wrong.

It's one thing for farmers and civilians to pick up weapons and form "militias", it's entirely another issue for soldiers to shuck their uniforms and dress as civilians and drive civilian vehicles - the better to initially appear "friendly" to opposing forces only to ambush them from behind . . . . . . Sawicky is just wrong.

Also, there's lots of unconfirmed reports about Uday Hussein having been sent out with bags full of cash to "buy" Jihadis in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. We already know that Saddam gives money to the families of successful PLA suicide bombers, and that Saddam and Arafat are buddies . . . . so why not pay cash money to Iraqi ex-pats and any other Palestinian in the area with a weapon and an interest in Jihad? Is that technically a war crime? Probably not, but those rogue characters on the battlefield don't get the protection of the Geneva convention if they're running wild shooting unarmed civilian "countrymen" and faking surrenders only to open up on American soldiers.

I feel hopelessly unequipped to address the complex inner lives of Iraqis. And the question of just who might be perceived by the locals as the "good guy" in the current situation is tricky.

However, people who were hoping on a popular uprising might have had, beyond a sense of their own virtue and righteousness, a recollection of the following:

"In February 1991, as American forces were crushing the Iraqi army and driving it out of Kuwait, the first President Bush sent a message.

He said there was another way for the bloodshed to stop: "That is for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands, to force Saddam Hussein the dictator to step aside... "

And many heeded that call. At the peak of the uprising that swept the country, the Iraqi president lost control of 14 of the 18 provinces.

Fighting even spread to parts of the capital...."

However, the US did nothing to support the uprising, which was crushed. Estimates of civilians killed range from 30,000 to 60,000.

Links:

BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2888989.stm

MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.com/news/890843.asp?0cl=c3

Or, for a grimmer view, Human Rights Watch:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm

But that was then. Undoubtedly their emotional lives are much more complex now.

Don't forget you live in a country that won its independence by having citizens take potshots from behind rocks at invading regular troops. Its a tad weird to now complain about "irregulars" - when you invade someone's country they usually tend to feel the gloves can come off.

The redcoats, just like the Bushies, were indignant about all this, complaining it was a breach of the laws of war. And they too called on their opponents to come out and fight like men (ie in regular formations where our better firepower can destroy you).

Don't forget you live in a country that won its independence by having citizens take potshots from behind rocks at invading regular troops. Its a tad weird to now complain about "irregulars" - when you invade someone's country they usually tend to feel the gloves can come off.

The redcoats, just like the Bushies, were indignant about all this, complaining it was a breach of the laws of war. And they too called on their opponents to come out and fight like men (ie in regular formations where our better firepower can destroy you).

Jim Glass: But we did get the Turkish gov't to agree to the deal we wanted.

Did I miss something? Is Turkey now a staging ground for US ground forces? I suspect not. We didn't get "the deal we wanted" from Turkey.

I don't want to sound snide, but there's also a serious lack of appreciation of recent history and present circumstance in the rest of JG's post. A threat to put up obstacles to Turkey's application to the EU isn't that strong at this point in time, since Turkey has already been repeatedly snubbed on that front, including very recently in the latest round of EU accessions, when its application didn't progress at all. Moreover, domestic sentiment is fully against the war (on the order of 90% against). So whatever threats Germany and France might have issued were tepid and pushed the current Turksih government in the direciton it was already being pushed.

On the other hand, not only the US was asking Erdogan's administration to buck domestic opinion, but we also slighted its two largest concerns. One of those was a legitimate economic worry: the first Gulf War decimated the Turkish economy (GDP growth dropped from 9 percent in 1990 to 0.5 percent in 1991, if I remember correctly), but it received only a fraction of the financial assistance it had been promised by the US. Given that history, it seriously rankled Turkey to have to work so hard for economic guarantees commensurate to its expected losses (and it didn't help when administration allies like William Safire, who are widely read among the Turkish elite, began to make Orientalist insults about haggling and bazaars).

The other concern the Turks had--fear of Kurdish nationalism--is far from legitimate, but it can be difficult for us to appreciate just how intensely that issue is felt among the secularists there, who include the military.

The administration adopted a negotiating strategy that by all accounts did little to make the Turks want to cooperate, and it seems not to have understood very well just what was motivating the Turkish position (far too many people are trying to explain Turkish recalcitrance in terms of co-religionist sympathy). It was a strategy that could almost have been designed to insult them, which was something that's not true of the purported European attempts at bargaining, however heavy-handed the latter may also have been.

The article to which Patrick Sullivan links refers to the man shot in the head by an Iraqi officer as "an Iraqi private."

In other words, Patrick assumes that it is a "war crime" for an officer to shoot one of his own men during a battle if that man refuses the order to fight. Could Patrick (or anybody) provide a citation supporting this assumption?

Re Kramer and the Sullivan War Crimes: The Other Sully was probably thinking of this quote at the bottom of the story:

"I have four children at home, and they threatened to hurt them if I did not fight," another one of the wounded Iraqis said. "I had no choice."

But as to shooting deserters not being a war crime, Good Point!

["I have four children at home, and they threatened to hurt them if I did not fight," another one of the wounded Iraqis said. "I had no choice."]

No argument, of course: that's a crime.

Brad DeLong writes, "I certainly hope I wouldn't support a monster like Saddam, but if someone invaded the U.S., I'd be out there with a rifle."

There's a huge difference between a *military* person putting on civilian clothes and fighting, and a civilian being "out there with a rifle." It is literally, the difference between a war crime, and legitimate self-defense.

It's very wrong for a representative of Saddam's government (i.e., a person in any of his various military organizations, including the Fedayeen) to put on civilian clothes, and then fight. It's wrong because it *deliberately* creates the situation where U.S. troops are suspicious of the local population.

If the local population, on its own, shoots at U.S. troops, that's entirely different.

Thanks to Tom Maguire for pointing out the final paragraph in the article. However, the soldiers shot by their own officers weren't deserters.

Thanks to Tom Maguire for pointing out the final paragraph in the article. However, the soldiers shot by their own officers weren't deserters.

In case anyone didn't know that the war crime issue deals with *military* people changing to civilian clothes, and then continuing to fight:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-26-baghdad_usat_x.htm

Patrick Sullivan: how do you know the Iraqi soldiers shot by the other Iraqi soldiers weren't deserters?
It seems the most plausible explanation, especially given the quote of the soldier, and I haven't seen anything mentioned here that would support your assertion to the contrary. If you have more, please share it. Otherwise your assertion is likely to be disregarded, at least by me.

"But as to shooting deserters not being a war crime, Good Point!"

Although it's not clear they were deserters. Is a soldier who doen't want to make a charge on foot or in a Toyota against a tank column a "deserter"?

Regardless of the whether it is a crime or not, it certainly was SOP by Saddam's self-proclaimed role model Stalin. One of the keys to the defense of Stalingrad was that something approaching 20,000 Soviet troops were shot by members of Stalin's apparatus for not fighting enthusiastically enough. There was a saying that one had to be a very brave man not to fight.

" 'I have four children at home, and they threatened to hurt them if I did not fight," another one of the wounded Iraqis said. "I had no choice.'"

"No argument, of course: that's a crime."

What about making the children themselves fight?

~~
A U.S. general accused Iraq yesterday of pressing children to fight invasion forces on pain of death to their families.

"Iraqi regime forces are seizing children from their homes, telling their families that the males must fight for the regime or they will all face execution," said Gen. Vincent Brooks of the U.S. Central Command. He said kids had been dragooned near An Najaf in south central Iraq.

U.S. and British officials said Iraqi paramilitary forces have already begun using kids in battles against allied troops. And coalition forces now find themselves forced to search youngsters they encounter....

Military experts told The Post that several thousand child combatants known as Ashbal Saddam or "Saddam's Lion Cubs" could be used in the upcoming battle for Baghdad.

"The Lion Cubs are cohesive and well-trained," said Peter Singer, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution. "They've trained up to 40 hours a week, and the concern is that they've become true believers -- and that they will fight.

"My guess is that we will see them follow the model of the Hitler Youth in '45," he said. "On the battlefield, some of the Youth gave up their weapons, but others fought to the death. In the battle for Baghdad, Saddam would deploy these units."

Singer said allied troops may be unprepared for the horror of facing down armed children. "Some forces will be shocked and surprised to see this. It will be unexpected," he said.

"If these children are pressed into action, they [allied forces] will face a tough dilemma. You're facing an adversary you'd rather not do any harm to. But on the other hand, they can kill you. "A bullet from the gun of a 14-year-old can kill just as well as one from a 40-year-old," Singer said ... The first American to die in the Afghanistan war was killed by a 14-year-old.

Meanwhile, reporters traveling with U.S. Marines from Camp Lejeune in Durham, N.C., said yesterday that children armed by Iraqi fighters had shot at allied troops during house-to-house fighting in Nasiriyah.

Several Marines were wounded, said Keith Garvin, a reporter for the North Carolina station WTVD-TV.

"Unfortunately, some of the children have been firing at our Marines, and our Marines have been forced to defend themselves," Garvin said.

Children's-rights groups said Saddam had laid the groundwork for the use of child soldiers over the past decade.

Child fighters were pressed into service at the end of the Iran-Iraq war in the mid-'80s, and the Lion Cubs - estimated to be 8,000 strong in Baghdad alone - were formed after the 1991 Gulf War.

The U.S. State Department reported that children were also urged to join a children's unit of the Fedayeen Saddam (Saddam's Martyrs), said to contain over 20,000 young fighters.

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/72076.htm

Am I the only one who remembers the articles about how US Special Forces in Afganistan wore civilian clothes?

These stories about the children, who are more suspectible to, well, brain-washing than adults, being placed in the role of enemy combatants ... these are some of the images people should keep in mind in the discussion of what war with a tyrant like Hussein really means. If Hussein could have been kept in check and old age and international pressure softened his regime, some of those kids who will die because they are willing to shoot now would have become relatively decent people with a chance at a relatively decent life. Bringing Kim's regime to an end with some patience - and a lot of careful thinking regarding the nukes - without storming North Korea would have as one advantage the avoidance of similar tragedies.

"Am I the only one who remembers the articles about how US Special Forces in Afganistan wore civilian clothes?"

That's definitely wrong, especially in wartime. In fact, even in times of "peace" it isn't a good idea:

http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:rqz2qCpB4iMC:www.kcet.org/life_times/townhall/213.htm+Did+U.S.+forces+in+Afghanistan+wear+civilian+clothes&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

From that website (by the Executive Director of Doctors Without Borders):

"Currently in Afghanistan, we are seeing some of the practical problems that result from the lack of clear separation between humanitarian and military. In and around Kandahar, U.S. and British forces often wear civilian clothes and carry concealed weapons. This makes it more difficult and dangerous for our medical teams who are unarmed and also wear civilian clothes to gain the trust of suspicious Afghan commanders in this area. In fact, much of southern Afghanistan, the southern third of the country, remains currently out of reach of independent humanitarian organizations."

I'm a liberal Democrat, and it's my shrill, partisan position that water is wet. Conservative rebuttal will follow. Reference to Clinton's penis is optional.

I'm a liberal Democrat, and it's my shrill, partisan position that water is wet. Conservative rebuttal will follow. Reference to Clinton's penis is optional.

'Is a soldier who doen't want to make a charge on foot or in a Toyota against a tank column a "deserter"?'

Not as the term is typically used. (I have no idea how far any country's military code might extend the term's use, though.) But hasn't "refusing a battlefield order" always subjected the soldier to summary execution, even if obeying the order brought certain or near-certain death?

I am a patriot, but I get a little sick and tired of all the good guys vs evil guys BS that comes out of the white house. I too have a reasonably decent memory.

RE: war crimes....the US has killed at least two Taliban fighters who were captured in Afghanistan by beating them to death while they were in captivity under US control. Any attempt to call the prisoners something other than prisoners of war - therby justifying the maltreatment - is a semantic arguement that should be beneath this great nation. There has been no Red Cross access to most at the Gitmo.

OUR special forces in afghanistan regularly dress in traditional afghan civilian garb when they go about in Indian country.

Our forces have executed their own for desertion, though not since WWII. However, it's still an official possible punishment for that offense.

Our enemies ruthlessly slaughter and/or terrorize civilian populations. We produce acceptable levels of collateral damage while blasting cities (or weddings). Semantics again.

Iraq must be made to either treat US POWs according to the Geneva Convention, or suffer the consequences. Ditto for the US and POWs in its custody. The US has already set a bad precedent in this regard and the US will not right the wrong through official sanctions. How then can we claim the high ground without appearing as massive hypocrites before the world?

I am so sick of the myriad ways by which the Bush admin. insults our intelligence. In the 21st century people are just too well educated and too well informed to buy into this attempt to over simplify and bring out one sided emotional mob like responses to complex matters.

Really, i think the heart of the problem is that Bush wants to emulate the situation of WWII, with that era's morale clarity and all, except that is not where he's leading us. So he comes off as cheap and shallow.

I saw Victoria "Tory" Clarke, the Pentagon spokesface, on TV the other day casting about for a translation for "Fedayeen." She didn't like "militia," (well regulated or not) and insisted on using "thugs."

Pity nobody made the obvious suggestion: "Minutemen."

-dlj.

Hey, not so fast!

"There has been no Red Cross access to most at the Gitmo."

Apparently, this wasn't relayed to the Red Cross delegation leader (January 23, 2002):

"GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba (CNN) -- After the Red Cross met with Afghan war detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to assess their treatment, the delegation leader said Tuesday his group had full access to the captives and the United States has been receptive to its suggestions."

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/americas/01/22/detainees.cuba/?related

Mark,
Notice that I used the qualifier "most". The link you provided does not contradict what I believe to be true; that the Red Cross only spoke with a small number of the total population of prisoners and that the survey was pretty much limited to Camp X-Ray. Prisoners are also held in a Camp Delta that was not mentioned in the article.

Furthermore, I am sure that the Gitmo's Commandant ensured that things were all on the up and up for the Red Cross's arrival.

Also, I do not believe that Red Cross interventions have been allowed to be completely what they would be in a more normal PoW situation involving western nations.

I will look into this further.