Shoot to Kill. No Questions Asked

[Q]

Published on Monday, October 13, 2003 by the San Francisco Chronicle

Iraqis' Guerrilla Tactics Blur Terms of Battle
U.S. Troops Struggle to Define Self-Defense, Overaggression

by Anna Badkhen

FALLUJAH, Iraq -- To shoot or not to shoot?

Suddenly, it was a life or death decision Private Christopher Hollis had to make. Someone had just fired at his 1st Infantry Division checkpoint under an overpass on Highway 10, and now, crouching behind a guardrail, Hollis was scanning some rickety roadside soda stands 200 yards away for the sniper through the scope of his M-16 rifle.

He could fire back at the dusty desert, risking the lives of the Iraqi children who had scattered from the kiosks as soon as they heard the shot. Or, he could not respond, risking his life and the lives of the dozen other U.S. soldiers at the checkpoint.

This is a call GIs in Iraq have to make every day. With Iraqi guerrillas mounting between 10 and 20 hit-and-run attacks on U.S. troops daily, U.S. soldiers admit that the pressure of constantly being a target has made them jumpy.

The only way to respond, they say, is by following new, merciless rules of engagement stated one night last week by Lt. Peter Katzfey in front of 299 Engineer Battalion soldiers preparing for a night patrol in Tikrit:

"Shoot to kill. No questions asked."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1013-02.htm

[Oberst Klink]

1. Sounds like a reasonable response

given the situation. No violations of the Rules of War here.

It's not a pretty, clean job.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

4. "Reasonable response"?? So, you don't object to the killing of...

...innocent people to include women and children? If you were an Iraqi, how would you respond if one of your relatives was killed as a result of this order?

[Dhalgren]

2. This is why an occupation like this

will never succeed. You can't go in and indiscriminately "shoot to kill" in a civilian setting and expect the civilians to forgive you for killing their loved ones. You can't use the excuse that some shot at you either - if you hadn't been there you wouldn't have gotten shot at - and showing disregard for the civilian population will not win converts. It's an untenable situation that Bush has put our service men and women into. Our soldiers are there illegally, they are unwanted, and they are there for reasons only their masters know.
This goes hand-in-hand with the bulldozing of orchards and groves, farms and homes - we can't become the worst of criminals over there and expect the Iraqis to "come around". It's not going to happen. We are screwed and so are the Iraqis.

[reprobate]

3. If the troops cant tell the white hats from the black hats......

...then they shouldn't be there in the first place. These are trained combat troops being used to attempt to stop a civilian insurgency. In the history of homo sapiens I am not aware of any combat army ever being successful at beating an insurgency that was supported by the civilian population.

This is not a war that combat troops can win. They don't know how. Hell, nobody knows how.


But we can be thankful and tranquil and proud
For man's been endowed with a mushroom shaped cloud.
And I know for certain that some lucky day
Someone will set the spak off
And we will all be blown away.

The Merry Minuet by The Kingston Trio

[Q]

5. Military experts will tell you that urban warfare....

...is impossible to 'win' in such a situation as we see in Iraq. So why are 'we' even trying? Could it be that the Bushies can't admit that we shouldn't have attacked Iraq in the first place?

- Even many Democrats who signed on to this boondoggle can't admit the truth. (Lieberman being one of them).