Kabul falls

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Slaughtering enemy combat forces while they flee is both lawful under the law of warfare and expected when the oportunity is presented. If military forces do not wish to be sudjected to this, their legal option is to surrender, rather than flee.

Well, as someone who obviously hadn't read the article I quoted, his answers were beneath my contempt...

It would appear that you didn't read the article either - otherwise you would be able to see why his post is irrelevant!

The Iraqi troops were not being driven out of Kuwait by U.S. troops as the Bush administration maintains. They were not retreating in order to regroup and fight again. In fact, they were withdrawing, they were going home, responding to orders issued by Baghdad, announcing that it was complying with Resolution 660 and leaving Kuwait. At 5:35 p.m. (Eastern standard Time) Baghdad radio announced that Iraq's Foreign Minister had accepted the Soviet cease-fire proposal and had issued the order for all Iraqi troops to withdraw to postions held before August 2, 1990 in compliance with UN Resolution 660. On the next day, February 26, 1991, Saddam Hussein announced on Baghdad radio that Iraqi troops had, indeed, begun to withdraw from Kuwait and that the withdrawal would be complete that day.

Eyewitness Kuwaitis attest that the withdrawal began the afternoon of February 26, 1991 and Baghdad radio announced at 2:00 AM (local time) that morning that the government had ordered all troops to withdraw.

The massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Common Article III, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who are out of combat. The point of contention involves the Bush administration's claim that the Iraqi troops were retreating to regroup and fight again. Such a claim is the only way that the massacre which occurred could be considered legal under international law. But in fact the claim is false and obviously so. The troops were withdrawing and removing themselves from combat under direct orders from Baghdad that the war was over and that Iraq had quit and would fully comply with UN resolutions. To attack the soldiers returning home under these circumstances is a war crime.

Iraq accepted UN Resolution 660 and offered to withdraw from Kuwait through Soviet mediation on February 21, 1991. A statement made by George Bush on February 27, 1991, that no quarter would be given to remaining Iraqi soldiers violates even the U.S. Field Manual of 1956. The 1907 Hague Convention governing land warfare also makes it illegal to declare that no quarter will be given to withdrawing soldiers.

What all of this amounts to is not a war but a massacre.
There are also indications that some of those bombed during the withdrawl were Palestinians and Iraqi civilians. According to Time magazine of March 18, 1991, not just military vehicles, but cars, buses and trucks were also hit. In many cases, cars were loaded with Palestinian families and all their possessions. Attacks on civilians are specifically prohibited by the Geneva Accords and the 1977 Conventions.

So many jets swarmed over the inland road that it created an aerial traffic jam, and combat air controllers feared midair collisions.

The victims were not offering resistance. They weren't being driven back in fierce battle, or trying to regroup to join another battle. They were just sitting ducks, according to Commander Frank Swiggert, the Ranger Bomb Squadron leader. The truth is that it was simply a one-sided massacre of tens of thousands of people who had no ability to fight back or defend themselves.

I tried to keep the about quotes short, but all these are directly concerned with Lefty's statements...

So the first part of Lefty's statement is wrong - it's clearly illegal! Especially when there is a question of what 'combat troops' are - civilians are not, neither IMO are soldiers that have given up and are to all intents and purposes running for their lives!

The second part is also wrong - apart from the fact that they had already effectively surrendered, there were no allied forces within 50 miles to surrender to!!!

Stop wasting my time, Dino...

[Ted Striker]

What the two guys above said.

I wish I was as articulate as Lefty or Sikander.


The major point is that the article is written completely in 100% hindsight. It keeps saying, "2 days before cessation of hostilites," but tell me, who at the time had any clue that the hostilities were going to end in 2 days?

Sadaam was given months and months and months to comply with these UN resolutions, but had failed to do so. How could anyone be sure that he was withdrawing as he said he was.

As an example, at the highest levels, EVERYONE was surprised at the swiftness of the ground offensive, and it went way faster and better than expected.

Just one minor point though, Mobius, I highly question that the US would be wasting using Tomahawks against convoys. Also, I don't think B-52s were used either. Military guys can correct me, but I believe those weapons would be really silly to be used against convoys moving at 55 miles per hour on a highway (or even faster until the lead and end units were disabled).

I believe it was all attack aircraft, which are better used against fast moving targets.

I'm sorry, but the US bends over backwards to spare casualties.

[Tolls]

Let's take these one at a time.

"#1 The highway to Death occurred on the last two days of the war! Instead of with almost a year to go. The Germans were a professional force committed to continuing their fight, whereas the Iraqis were conscripts withdrawing in accordance with Coalition and UN demands! "

Was it the last two days? How about the expected uprising in the southern marshes?

The German 7th Army was all professional? No conscripts after 5 years of war? Dream on...

#2 The German forces were in continuous contact with Allied forces - The Iraqis were on a desert road miles from the nearest allied ground unit (perhaps why they couldn't surrender! ). Therefore the Germans were still a threat to allied lives in a very big way! "

Iraqi forces were in contact with ours at th time (on the Iraq border)...the troops retreating weren't, but then again neither were the retreating Germans. The Iraqi forces were a threat as long as they still had their vehicles (at least as much of a threat as they ever were).

The similarities in strategy are quite good...roads blocked cut down the options for retreat then bomb the crap out of them. Do you honestly think the retreating Germans had a chance to surrender any more than the Iraqis?

#3 The Germans were technologically capable of shooting down allied warplanes - the Iraqis were not! Therefore the Germans were still a threat to allied lives in a very big way! "

The 7th Army was no more capable of shooting down our aircraft that August than the Iraqi's were. The Luftwaffe was non-existent in the West at this point.

[Ted Striker]

there were no allied forces within 50 miles to surrender to!!!

So clearly the smart option is to run to the Russians who were much closer! Get more of your own army killed by playing games! Brilliant!!!

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Sikander
Mobius you are seriously unbalanced. Rather than focus on the issue at hand, namely that the Allied strategy seems to be working and will save hundreds or thousands of times more lives by providing relief through recently liberated territory than were taken by American bombs you can't even take a breath before launching into another anti-American diatribe about the Gulf War.

Allied Strategy, my arse! This was not allied strategy, they did not expect the Taliban to withdraw so quickly! They didn't even want the NA to take Kabul... If this were allied strategy, they would already have ground troops in place to police Kabul and prevent the NA from getting too powerful itself.

IMO the Taliban has let the coalition off the hook by withdrawing, now the coalition does not need to bomb through Ramadan at all! We were lucky - as long as we can prevent the whole place from descending into another form of anarchy.

I do think the Taliban are operating under some kind of strategy, he who runs away lives to fight another day - the manner in which they all retreated from Kabul was too organised. I think the Taliban could easily have held Kabul if the NA were stopped from attacking by the US and Pakistan - what they did was on their own initiative! They obviously realise they cannot hold the field in a conventional sense, so they seem to be returning to unconventional means. Either way, it is a spectacular victory in conventional terms and as long as the NA holds together and we can get troops on the ground to police things hopefully we can begin to turn the corner...

The article you quote was total crap, but you can't even leave a bunch of lies alone, you have to embellish from the thousands quoted by the article to tens of thousands ad nauseum. You are seriously emotionally disturbed, and all of your whining about humanitarian concerns is in fact a smokescreen for your hatred.

If not wanting to see innocent people killed needlessly is 'seriously emotionally disturbed', then I really have to question your ethics and morals...

This article is based on articles by Time (which I actually read 10 years ago!) and the Washington Post - are you claiming they are liars too!?

There are a lot of real eyewitness accounts of the highway of death story, (on one of which they found only 200 bodies on, a story corroborated by the origional Apache pilot who smoked vehicles on both ends of the convoy, and while waiting for reinforcements watched as the Iraqis abandoned the convoy and set off cross country on foot). Body counts support AH's assertion that the wise choice was to abandon the trapped convoy rather than wait around like a moron to be killed. But I won't bother looking up what ever links I can find online, because you won't let the facts or even an opposing viewpoint keep you from posting a mile long emoticon laden hate post. Spare us all.

Well even assuming it's *only* 200 - it is still a terrible atrocity! Perhaps many of the dead were literally vapourised - or you're just as guilty of reading the articles of apologist propaganda, as you say I am of anti-US propaganda...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Tolls
Let's take these one at a time.

"#1 The highway to Death occurred on the last two days of the war! Instead of with almost a year to go. The Germans were a professional force committed to continuing their fight, whereas the Iraqis were conscripts withdrawing in accordance with Coalition and UN demands! "

Was it the last two days? How about the expected uprising in the southern marshes?

Definitely the last two days according to the USA today timeline - the withdrawal effectively signalled Saddam's capitulation, as it was the Allied stipulation for a cessation of hostilities! When you say 'expected uprising in the southern marshes', you mean the Shi'ites in the South that the US agitated to revolt and then left high and dry to be destroyed by the Republican Guard?

The German 7th Army was all professional? No conscripts after 5 years of war? Dream on...

The levels of inexperienced troops within the 7th Army would depend on how badly the army had suffered up till 1944, I guess we could find out... Either way, I'd say the average German soldier would be far more professional than the average Iraqi...

#2 The German forces were in continuous contact with Allied forces - The Iraqis were on a desert road miles from the nearest allied ground unit (perhaps why they couldn't surrender! ). Therefore the Germans were still a threat to allied lives in a very big way! "

Iraqi forces were in contact with ours at th time (on the Iraq border)...the troops retreating weren't, but then again neither were the retreating Germans. The Iraqi forces were a threat as long as they still had their vehicles (at least as much of a threat as they ever were).

The Falaise Gap was a fighting retreat by the Germans, they were in continuous contact with the enemy - they were destroyed by both overwhelming airpower (Typhoons and Mustangs spring to mind!) and sheer weight of ground forces as their pocket of encirclement was crushed.

The Iraqis on the other hand were in the middle of the desert, miles away from the nearest enemy and were to all intents and purposes already defeated.

The similarities in strategy are quite good...roads blocked cut down the options for retreat then bomb the crap out of them. Do you honestly think the retreating Germans had a chance to surrender any more than the Iraqis?

That part is similar as far as the road attack is concerned, but the difference is that the Germans were beating a fighting retreat, with a large army trying to save them - and the Iraqis were not! Yes you're right about the surrender part - no quarter was given, but you can justify the German predicament. No way can you justify the Iraqi one!

#3 The Germans were technologically capable of shooting down allied warplanes - the Iraqis were not! Therefore the Germans were still a threat to allied lives in a very big way! "

The 7th Army was no more capable of shooting down our aircraft that August than the Iraqi's were. The Luftwaffe was non-existent in the West at this point.

What about 88's, or machine guns - or even small arms! WWII planes were far slower and easier to bring down than planes of today are now! Sorry.

[Tolls]

"Definitely the last two days"

No...you miss my point. At the time was it definitely the last two days?

"you mean the Shi'ites in the South that the US agitated to revolt and then left high and dry to be destroyed by the Republican Guard?"

Yes. At the time it was still viewed as an option, though it was later dropped. I'm not excusing that action, but at the time of the bombing on the Basra road it was still an option. Hindsight's a wonderful thing.

"The levels of inexperienced troops..."

No no no no no...don't change the words...you said "conscript".

"...were to all intents and purposes already defeated..."

Again...the war was not over, and they were retreating with quite a lot of intact kit. Not something a commander, who does not know whether this is going to go on or not wants to let the enemy get away with.

"What about 88's, or machine guns - or even small arms! WWII planes were far slower and easier to bring down than planes of today are now! Sorry"

Aircraft losses at (working from memory here) Falaise were pretty negligible.

In both cases the question is, do you let an army you are at war with escape with its equipment, when there is still no firm commitment by their government to end the war?

[kittenOFchaos]

The "highway of death" gives an insight that perhaps the Americans were considering going "all the way" with Iraq and only gave up the idea because of protests from other Arab states. No Arab state would want the precident of the USA invading and setting up a democracy in their midst!

As for this idea that this army was retreating as per the U.N demands...it was late by several months so don't give us it.

As for myself I regret that the Coalition didn't go all the way and take down Saddam and implement democracy in the Middle-east...though it has given the excuse for America to keep bases in the area (a major cause of Osmala!)

Osmala is part of the Saud Royal family:

He disagreed with the ruling part of the familiy that Americans should be allowed bases from which to conduct the Gulf War...saying that they would use it to stay in the Middle-east area to exert their power! (HE WAS RIGHT!).

The house of Saud disagreed...Osmala started his war on America which brought him successes in Somalia and the East Africa Embassy bombings AND the 11th of September outrage...


I believe that in Desert Storm a point came when some high ranking Americans wanted to finish off Iraq and others wanted to keep Saddam on to give an excuse to keep military force in the area -plus it had less risks and would cause less upset to Arab countries.

The American Generals etc that prevented the invasion of Iraq and the ousting of Saddam were wrong...and I and alot of people have said that from day 1 (even though I was only 11 at the time!).

[Lefty Scaevola]

Mobius, without dealing with your falacious stament about retreating troops not being lawful targets, all the Iraquis going north were getting closer to two boides of allied forces, the Airborne Corps and the 7th corps who were to the Northwest of Kuwait.

[Jack the Bodiless]

MOBIUS:

Given that there has been no announcement that this war is about to end, and your own belief that the Taliban have carried out a "tactical withdrawal" from Kabul to fight an extended guerrilla war:

Do you think US planes should have carried out a "Highway of Death" attack on the Taliban?

My own opinion is YES, and I am very disappointed that this opportunity to kill as many of the Taliban as possible at minimum risk to either Coalition personnel or innocent bystanders appears to have been missed.

[Ted Striker]

At the time, I thought they did the right thing by not occupying Iraq.

However, since then that idea has since been proven to be a poor decision.

Yes I do feel guilt to be part of a country which supported Iraqi rebels and then abondoned them. We should have rolled into Baghdad and killed Saddam.

However, the good thing about this failure to occupy is that it will serve as a precedent, a reason for occupation in the current situation in Afghanistan.

When American armies depose an enemy government and occupy the nation, the nation is almost always better off because of it. When we go in with half ass measures such as in Iraq, or the Balkans, and then leave, the place turns to ****e.

The time for half ass measures is over.

[Lefty Scaevola]

The Geneva convention cited above has zero application to the Iraqui situation.

1. regarding "Persons not involed in hositlities" for armed forces this is only those that are wounded or had "laid down their arms", not those retreating,
2. The convention cited does not even apply to international conflicts, but is prsumably mirroed by one that does.

"
Art. 3 - Conflicts not of an international character

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
"
Mobius use of cite therto for authority is entirely false.

[Dr Spin]

There are already reports that Americans are "bored" with the war

And what constitutes these 'reports'? Did you see some video of a peace protest by some peace-mongering know-it-all spoiled kids at some liberal, blame-America-first university?

The America I live in is not bored. She is focused and determined.

[Ted Striker]

"laid down their arms"

That's the key phrase there.

Saddam ordered the tanks to be put on flatbed trucks and sent back to the heart of Iraq.

That doesn't ****ing sound to me like "laying down their arms" to me. Those tanks and supplies were being sent back so they could be used again.

USA!

[faded glory]

Mobius my grandfather was a german soldier fighting in Falaise. He did surrendur.

He said it was sheer chaos and panic. He told me the tanks and APC's were thrown into the air like toys and hordes of infantry were slaughtered like chickens trying to flee on two tiny road constantly strafed.

I think Saddam would have been smarter to pull out at night