Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 07-24-2003, 12:58 PM

Assuming these are really the bodies of the two sons of Saddam for a moment. Why weren't they taken alive?

Quote:

http://msnbc.com/news/943255.asp?0cl=c1

Excessive Force?
The U.S. military is celebrating the deaths of Saddam�s sons. But some are questioning whether Uday and Qusay could�and should�have been taken alive

By Rod Nordland
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE

July 23 � It was much-needed tangible proof that America was making progress in the war in Iraq. After several weeks of drooping morale and a daily, if single-digit body count, the U.S. military on Tuesday announced its soldiers had killed Saddam Hussein�s sons in a ferocious firefight in their Mosul hideout.

AMERICAN OFFICIALS crowed about it, troops around Iraq high-fived each other, friendly Iraqis fired their guns in the air in celebration. Even the stock markets rose on the news.

Certainly only a few diehards mourned the passing of Uday and Qusay Hussein; the regime�s Caligula and its Heir Apparent were if anything despised and feared even more than their dad. But as details became clearer of the raid that eliminated what the U.S. military calls High Value Targets (HVTs) Nos. 2 and 3, a lot of people in the intelligence community were left wondering: why weren�t they just taken alive?

At a news briefing today, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, squirmed his way past that question repeatedly. It was, he said, the decision of the commander on the ground based on the circumstances and his judgment��and it was the right decision.� But was it? Who beside the sons might have better information about the one HVT that really matters, Saddam? �The whole operation was a cockup,� said a British intelligence officer. �There was no need to go after four lightly armed men with such overwhelming firepower. They would have been much more useful alive.� But Sanchez insisted it wasn�t overkill. �Absolutely not. Our mission is to find, kill or capture high-value targets. We had an enemy that was barricaded and we had to take measures to neutralize the target.�

Bill · 07-24-2003, 01:04 PM

I would agree with the British intelligence officer:

Quote:

There was no need to go after four lightly armed men with such overwhelming firepower. They would have been much more useful alive.

But this war was never about usefulness. It has always been about Bush's re-election campaign, and I guess that, with his poll numbers falling, Bush felt that an incident like this might raise his numbers back up a bit.....

== Bill

CALDONIA · 07-24-2003, 01:06 PM

Had we taken the Hussein boys alive they may have furnished interrogators with much information. However, some of their revelations might have proven to be "embarrassing" to our war-loving Administration. And this is an Administration that truly believes that "silence is golden."

Cicero · 07-24-2003, 01:24 PM

First hand accounts state that they were given the option to surrender, and declined via gunfire, 3 times.

Arken · 07-24-2003, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cicero
First hand accounts state that they were given the option to surrender, and declined via gunfire, 3 times.

They still could have been taken alive. Why didn't they use typical non-lethal methods like tear gas?

Cicero · 07-24-2003, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arken
They still could have been taken alive. Why didn't they use typical non-lethal methods like tear gas?

Easier said than done; remember that infantrymen are not trained as police. My 10 year stint in the infantry involved ZERO training in the apprehension of suspects, but rather the reduction (ie, the elimination) of armed opposition. We were trained on how to HANDLE prisoners, but NOT how to take them alive unwillingly.

The force as sent was inappropriate for capture, and a police-type force was not adequate for capture (at least any on the scene).

Arken · 07-24-2003, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cicero
Easier said than done; remember that infantrymen are not trained as police. My 10 year stint in the infantry involved ZERO training in the apprehension of suspects, but rather the reduction (ie, the elimination) of armed opposition. We were trained on how to HANDLE prisoners, but NOT how to take them alive unwillingly.

The force as sent was inappropriate for capture, and a police-type force was not adequate for capture (at least any on the scene).

But this wasn't just regular infantry. From cnn:

Quote:

The general said the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division and Special Operations Forces played a role in the attack.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ons/index.html

One would think that Special Ops would have that sort of training. After all, that's the sort of missions they do isn't it?

Cicero · 07-24-2003, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arken
But this wasn't just regular infantry. From cnn:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ons/index.html

One would think that Special Ops would have that sort of training. After all, that's the sort of missions they do isn't it?

Special Forces are trained primarily to train insurgents, if by "special forces" the article means Green Berets.

MPs would have been more appropriate; however, they are all guarding Iraqi POWs right now.\

Fact is, American soldiers are not typically trained to handle insurgents and/or criminals. They are trained to eliminate enemy opposition.

As much as I hate Bush and despise the whole Iraqi morass, the grunts on the ground acted appropriately, given their training and the situation at hand.

Arken · 07-24-2003, 01:42 PM

Clicking on the link within the article, it claims that 'Special Operations Forces' could mean:

Special Forces
Rangers
Delta Force
Nightstalkers
Navy SEALs
SWCC
or Air Force (?)

And I have to still question this whole thing. Once they realized who was in the house, why did the commanders not tell them to simply keep them in there until people with the appropriate training did arrive?

Silent Acorns · 07-24-2003, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cicero
Easier said than done; remember that infantrymen are not trained as police. My 10 year stint in the infantry involved ZERO training in the apprehension of suspects, but rather the reduction (ie, the elimination) of armed opposition. We were trained on how to HANDLE prisoners, but NOT how to take them alive unwillingly.

The force as sent was inappropriate for capture, and a police-type force was not adequate for capture (at least any on the scene).

If this is true, then it would be an indictment of the US Army's ability to plan. If one of their primary objectives is to capture their most wanted alive, how difficult would it be to forsee such standoffs happenning? Is it too much to excpect the US military to have access to "knock out" gases? Is their any evidence that such an approach was even attempted?

It seems that the scene went something like this:

Will they surrender?
No.

OK, let's go in and take 'em.
We've tried four times but they're putting up a hell of a fight.

Well, we gave 'em their chance. Just blow up the whole building.
Yes sir.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-24-2003, 01:06 PM	#3
CALDONIA Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sunnyvale,CA Posts: 371	Had we taken the Hussein boys alive they may have furnished interrogators with much information. However, some of their revelations might have proven to be "embarrassing" to our war-loving Administration. And this is an Administration that truly believes that "silence is golden."

07-24-2003, 01:24 PM	#4
Cicero Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 215	First hand accounts state that they were given the option to surrender, and declined via gunfire, 3 times.

07-24-2003, 01:42 PM	#9
Arken Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: North Hollywood, CA Posts: 6,303	Clicking on the link within the article, it claims that 'Special Operations Forces' could mean: Special Forces Rangers Delta Force Nightstalkers Navy SEALs SWCC or Air Force (?) And I have to still question this whole thing. Once they realized who was in the house, why did the commanders not tell them to simply keep them in there until people with the appropriate training did arrive?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.