Gurkha ordered back to UK after beheading dead Taliban fighter

[rypt]

You clearly understand the situation well then.

The army's job is to fight and win the war, they are not there to pussyfoot around

It's the old chestnut of politicians setting silly limits on what the army can and can't do.

Take Falklands for example, the MOD felt that the best way to get the Argies to give the islands back was to send some bombers to Buenos Aires, Thatcher blocked that plan as she felt it would upset Regan.

It always does, or has.

Rules of engagement (or whatever they're called) are also debilitating. E.g. IRA sniper just shoots your commander, but then drops his rifle and his kid picks it up, and together they walk off. You can't do anything.

Which is ridiculous, and the RoE need changing

 

[scorza]

Because we're better than them.
Because acting like barbarian thugs doesn't help what we're actually trying to achieve.
Because we signed up to the rules and are legally bound by them.

Because we are going to lose.

 

[Semiskimmed]

good on him, i see nothing wrong here. anything is acceptable imo when youre dealing with such an enemy, who use such ways to execute innocent people etc.

 

[wildman]

too many left wing tree hugging, whale kissing moon maidens in here.

Its war, yes there are rules and the geneva convention, but that just makes it easier for the enemy to kill our troops as they won't respect these rules whilst our guys are bound by them leading to lots of unnecessary deaths.

Politicians need to get real, fighting this war is not like playing a game of footy where both sides stick to the same rules.

 

[gettothechopper]

just the usual ocuk uninformed opinions again then

the argument of not sticking to the rules because the other side isnt is just simply moronic

ask anyone from the army, what they guy did was not the best option and actually goes against what they are trying to achieve, lots of other much easier options are available for ID'ing people

 

[rypt]

the argument of not sticking to the rules because the other side is just simply moronic

I do not think the Geneva convention has anything in it about removing the head of a dead non-uniformed combatant ... mainly because the Geneva convention does not deal with irregular armies really

 

[Castiel]

just the usual ocuk uninformed opinions again then

the argument of not sticking to the rules because the other side isnt is just simply moronic

ask anyone from the army, what they guy did was not the best option and actually goes against what they are trying to achieve, lots of other much easier options are available for ID'ing people

Indeed. Having said that, the Gurkas are a different breed.

 

[Castiel]

I do not think the Geneva convention has anything in it about removing the head of a dead non-uniformed combatant ... mainly because the Geneva convention does not deal with irregular armies really

The Gurka is a member of a regular army and is subject to the Geneva Convention despite those he is fighting being militia. We took photos for ID purposes on a regular basis, beheading is a little extreme and not within the RoE to which he should have abided and been aware of.

 

[rypt]

The Gurka is a member of a regular army and is subject to the Geneva Convention despite those he is fighting being militia. We took photos for ID purposes on a regular basis.

Yes, but the convention only deals with the following:

wounded or sick fighters
prisoners of war
civilians
medical and religious personnel

The person is not a fighter as he's not uniformed
The person is not a PoW as he's dead, plus he was not uniformed anyway
He's not a civilian as he's fighting

As such Article 3 does not apply, were he wearing a uniform it might apply

 

[freak2002]

Send back the head so it can be buried with the body = win win?

According to the article, the british army does it all the time.

 

[gettothechopper]

Yes, but the convention only deals with the following:


The person is not a fighter as he's not uniformed
The person is not a PoW as he's dead, plus he was not uniformed anyway
He's not a civilian as he's fighting

As such Article 3 does not apply, were he wearing a uniform it might apply

even if it is or is not against the geneva convention its definitely against the standard operating procedures of that soldier

 

[chrisd]

too many left wing tree hugging, whale kissing moon maidens in here.

Its war, yes there are rules and the geneva convention, but that just makes it easier for the enemy to kill our troops as they won't respect these rules whilst our guys are bound by them leading to lots of unnecessary deaths.

Politicians need to get real, fighting this war is not like playing a game of footy where both sides stick to the same rules.

Fortunately, the majority of personnel on ops have slightly more sense than you.

 

[wildman]

just the usual ocuk uninformed opinions again then

the argument of not sticking to the rules because the other side isnt is just simply moronic

ask anyone from the army, what they guy did was not the best option and actually goes against what they are trying to achieve, lots of other much easier options are available for ID'ing people

If not sticking to the rules brings about a quicker path to victory thus getting our troops home faster I am sure you wouldn't be that opposed to it, or do you think its better that our troops are out there getting blown up on a regualr basis simply because they have to stick to these rules which are not being respected by the other side ?

 

[Castiel]

Yes, but the convention only deals with the following:


The person is not a fighter as he's not uniformed
The person is not a PoW as he's dead, plus he was not uniformed anyway
He's not a civilian as he's fighting

As such Article 3 does not apply, were he wearing a uniform it might apply

Which shows how much the convention needs updating. Either way the RoE are thete to be followed by all ISAF troops in theatre, while I am loathe to criticise the Gurka individually he is subject to it regardless and removing him from theatre is politically expedient.

Wars are won or lost by politics, we may not like it but it is nonethelesss true.

 

[Rainmaker]

As was said, this isn't a 'normal' war against a regular enemy here. Personally I say good on the guy, he did his job and he got himself home alive. Maybe he should have put a pig's head on the corpse. May as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb, right?

 

[rypt]

Which shows how much the convention needs updating. Either way the RoE are thete to be followed by all ISAF troops in theatre, while I am loathe to criticise the Gurka individually he is subject to it regardless and removing him from theatre is politically expedient.

Wars are won or lost by politics, we may not like it but it is nonethelesss true.

War is NOT won by politics, war is won by doing war things.
War is only ever lost by politics.

As for Updating the convention, why?

What is stopping the Taliban from fighting as a uniformed force?

The convention was designed to give war some rules provided it is being fought in the proper way

 

[Castiel]

If not sticking to the rules brings about a quicker path to victory thus getting our troops home faster I am sure you wouldn't be that opposed to it, or do you think its better that our troops are out there getting blown up on a regualr basis simply because they have to stick to these rules which are not being respected by the other side ?

So we should compromise our own values and morals simply because those we fight against (because of their lack of morals and values) simply to gain an easier victory. Why fight at all, nuke them all.

Our raison d'etre is to overthrow those despotic values and encourage a free, democratic system within Afghanistan, you cannot resort to the total war tactics you suggest and ultimately accomplish your objectives.

I would not have been able to use some of the tactics employed by the insurgents especially regarding reprisals and civilian punishment in good conscience.

Becoming the enemy to defeat the enemy is self-defeating.

 

[Castiel]

War is NOT won by politics, war is won by doing war things.
War is only ever lost by politics.

As for Updating the convention, why?

What is stopping the Taliban from fighting as a uniformed force?

The convention was designed to give war some rules provided it is being fought in the proper way

You're wrong. Military intervention is a political tool, in the end this war will be ended by the politicians, not the Generals.

 

[rypt]

Military intervention is a political tool, in the end this war will be ended by the politicians, not the Generals.

War cannot be won by politicians though, which is my point.

They can "end" it, but they cannot get a victory.

Politicians did not get a victory in WW2 or Falklands, the armies did

 

[The Running Man]

but the army is just an extension of a politician?