March 9, 2003
It's So Difficult to Escape a Dictator (via Little Green Footballs):
SADDAM'S SOLDIERS SURRENDER (Sunday Mirror, 3/9/2003)
TERRIFIED Iraqi soldiers have crossed the Kuwait border and tried to surrender to British forces - because they thought the war had already started.The motley band of a dozen troops waved the white flag as British paratroopers tested their weapons during a routine exercise.
The stunned Paras from 16 Air Assault Brigade were forced to tell the Iraqis they were not firing at them, and ordered them back to their home country telling them it was too early to surrender.
No one is more impatient for this war than the Iraqi people. Our military planners must be torn, knowing that many Iraqi soldiers they will bomb in the first days would willingly surrender, but unwilling to take the chance they might fire on our troops.
But what kind of men are so sheep-like that they obey soldiers from another country's army? Why not insist upon defecting to Kuwait?
Posted by Paul Jaminet at March 9, 2003 1:04 PMOJ,
Conscripts who are scared s---less, and with good reason. The Brits should have taken them in as defectors from Saddam. We could have made good use of the event psychologically.
Genesis,
I agree that the Brits should've taken them in. It's like shoving the doves back into the box so you can shoot at them later.
And PJ made this post, not Orrin. Your first?
Nah, I made a few posts yesterday. My first one was this
.
I think it would hasten the downfall of Saddam if we encouraged the defection of Iraqi soldiers, and offered them luxurious POW camps in Kuwait.
Posted by: Paul Jaminet at March 9, 2003 1:44 PMI assume the reason for staying put is family.
Posted by: David Cohen at March 9, 2003 2:20 PMI would think that there are a core group of Iraqi soldiers that will fight, not because they want Saddam to stay in power, but to defend the honor of Iraqi manhood. You need some tales of bravery to tell your grandkids. Mass surrender, while the best oucome from a humanitarian standpoint, would not help to build a sense of national honor which a democratic Iraq could build upon (although this shouldn't be America's concern). But being complicit in Saddam's reign won't either.
Being "surrender monkeys" is not a good way to build national pride. I think it would be ideal if we could conscript some of the surrendered Iraqis into a fighting force to help bring down Saddam. Even if they add nothing to the outcome, it would be something that Iraqis could look on with pride as they build a new nation.
I don't think this is likely though. I'm sure that most of the men with the requisite fighting spirit have been killed by Saddam already.
RobertD:
Repeated surrender won the French a Security Council veto.
I believe that the US organizing Iraqi troops into an anti-Saddam fighting force would in fact violate the Geneva convention, re: using POW's as an armed force against their own government, such as it is.
That is another element of "international law" that made loads of sense when written decades ago, but might be worth revision today. As many have said, if "international law" allows, among other things, the likes of Saddam and Kim Jong Il free reign to terrorize millions with impunity (and immunity) for decades, then "international law" is likely going to be changed, de facto if not de jure, whether those who seem most enamored by like it or not.
It might have been more humane to declare them infiltrators and take them prisoner... assuming, of course, this happened at all and isn't a clever propaganda trick...
Posted by: mike earl at March 9, 2003 9:32 PM