[Previous entry: "Rodney King Not!"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Harvest Time for the Low Hanging Fruit"]

11/18/2004: "Un-Conventions-al Warfare"

Let�s talk about the Geneva Conventions as relating to the execution of an injured Iraqi in the Fallujah mosque. Here�s what Rush had to say: �Violation of Geneva Conventions? These people aren't subject to the Geneva Convention. This is war, for crying out loud. What do they think this is, romper room in the sandbox? This is not recess over there. You know, at the end of the day they're not going to go out and have ice cream cones.� Let�s take these issues one at a time. First, Rush�s allegation that Marines are free to execute Iraqis not in uniform is laughable on the face of it. What did the Marine who pulled the trigger know? That there were injured Iraqis who had been lying on the floor for some time. Is being an injured Iraqi lying on the floor a capital offense? Is every single Iraqi male in Fallujah guaranteed to be a fighter? One thing you can say � the dead Iraqi had a father and mother and likely many other relatives. With many dead in Fallujah, how many relatives will wonder whether it was their beloved family member that was executed? How many of the Iraqis who have lost relatives in the war will wonder whether their relative was similarly executed, with the sole difference being there was no video camera running at the time? Why shouldn�t Iraqi�s think this is a standard practice? And it doesn�t matter that whatever organizations these fighters hold allegiance to have not signed the Conventions. What matters is that the US has signed them. The US signed the Geneva Conventions not to protect foreigners but to protect US soldiers. Every time the US acts in wanton disregard to the letter or spirit of these Conventions, the lives of future US soldiers are endangered, because it drags warfare back to where it was before these Conventions were signed. Back then it was the routine practice to do to injured prisoners exactly what the Falluah marine seemed to do. As a result of his action, Iraqi combatants are more likely to kill US soldiers in a fight to the death. As a result of his action, there will be a future engagement during which some enemy soldier somewhere who will execute an American POW in the belief that the US routinely executes prisoners. We don�t want to go there. What about the notion that this kind of thing occurs in every war so we just have to let it go when, by a fluke, it�s caught on camera? My answer is that the degree to which this has happened in past warfare is irrelevant. What matters is that it violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice and US Treaty. Iraq is a very special case because the mission is stability operations. You want stability, people have to come to believe you are on their side. Consider the words of the Iraqi Interior Minister, who of course was installed by the US and thus would have a motive to be an apologist: �It is something forbidden in Islam, an American killed an unarmed Iraqi prisoner inside a mosque.� Hardy an apology. Other quotes from the Iraqi on the street were uniformly negative. An additional relevant factor here is those embedded reporters. The Defense Department agreed to the embedding in the hope that their reports would show the good will and benign intent of our forces. They thus saw it as a way of advancing the overall mission of nation-building. A single Marine�s thoughtless act has put the entire mission at risk. This is a mission for which over a thousand US soldiers have died. With the stakes so high, it is Rush�s defense of wanton acts that is �giving aid and comfort to the enemy,� rather than any muted comments by Democrats that Limbaugh so derides.