KILL, DON'T CAPTURE
By Ralph Peters
July 10, 2006 ~ The British military defines experience as the ability
to recognize a mistake the second time you make it. By that standard, we
should be very experienced in dealing with captured terrorists, since
we've made the same mistake again and again.
Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in
the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious
intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of
them.
Killing terrorists during a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral ... or
even illegal. We've imposed rules upon ourselves that have no
historical or judicial precedent. We haven't been stymied by others, but
by ourselves.
The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal
combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms
or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable
partisans ... but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear
civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are
assassins and spies ... beyond the pale of law.
Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal
combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not
sloppy pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part
of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only
to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.
The present situation encourages our enemies to behave as they want,
while crippling our attempts to deal with terror.
Consider today's norm: A terrorist in civilian clothes can explode an
IED, killing and maiming American troops or innocent civilians, then
demand humane treatment if captured ... and the media will step in as
his champion. A disguised insurgent can shoot his rockets, throw his
grenades, empty his magazines, kill and wound our troops, then, out of
ammo, raise his hands and demand three hots and a cot while he invents
tales of abuse.
Conferring unprecedented legal status upon these murderous transnational
outlaws is unnecessary, unwise and ultimately suicidal. It exalts
monsters. And, it provides the anti-American pack with living vermin to
anoint as victims, if not heroes.
Isn't it time we gave our critics what they're asking for? Let's solve
the "unjust" imprisonment problem, once and for all. No more
Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission. With
our help.
We need to clarify the rules of conflict. But integrity and courage have
fled Washington. Nobody will state bluntly that we're in a fight for our
lives, that war is hell, and that we must do what it takes to win.
Our enemies will remind us of what's necessary, though. When we've been
punished horribly enough, we'll come to our senses and do what must be
done.
This isn't an argument for a murderous rampage, but its opposite. We
must kill our enemies with discrimination. But we do need to kill them.
A corpse is a corpse: The media's rage dissipates with the stench. But
an imprisoned terrorist is a strategic liability.
Nor should we ever mistreat captured soldiers or insurgents who adhere
to standing conventions. On the contrary, we should enforce policies
that encourage our enemies to identify themselves according to the laws
of war. Ambiguity works to their advantage, never to ours.
Our policy toward terrorists and insurgents in civilian clothing should
be straight-forward and public: Surrender before firing a shot or taking
hostile action toward our troops, and we'll regard you as a legal
prisoner. But once you've pulled a trigger, thrown a grenade or
detonated a bomb, you will be killed. On the battlefield and on the
spot.
Isn't that common sense? It also happens to conform to the traditional
conduct of war between civilized nations. Ignorant of history, we've
talked ourselves into folly.
And by the way: How have the terrorists treated the uniformed American
soldiers they've captured? According to the Geneva Convention?
Sadly, even our military has been infected by political correctness.
Some of my former peers will wring their hands and babble about
"winning hearts and minds." But we'll never win the hearts and minds
of terrorists. And if we hope to win the minds, if not the hearts, of
foreign populations, we must be willing to kill the violent, lawless
fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population determined to
terrorize the rest.
Ravaged societies crave and need strict order. Soft policies may appear
to work in the short term, but they fail overwhelmingly in the longer
term. Wherever we've tried sweetness and light in Iraq, it has only
worked as long as our troops were present .. after which the terrorists
returned and slaughtered the beneficiaries of our good intentions. If
you wish to defend the many, you must be willing to kill the few.
For now, we're stuck with a situation in which the hardcore terrorists
in Guantanamo are "innocent victims" even to our fair-weather allies.
In Iraq, our troops capture bomb-makers only to learn they've been
dumped back on the block.
It is not humane to spare fanatical murderers. It is not humane to play
into our enemy's hands. And it is not humane to endanger our troops out
of political correctness.
Instead of worrying over trumped-up atrocities in Iraq (the media give
credence to any claim made by terrorists), we should stop apologizing
and take a stand. That means firm rules for the battlefield, not
Gumby-speak intended to please critics who'll never be satisfied by
anything America does.
The ultimate act of humanity in the War on Terror is to win. To do so,
we must kill our enemies wherever we encounter them. He who commits an
act of terror forfeits every right he once possessed.
Ralph Peters' new book, "Never Quit the Fight," hits stores today. |
