West Point: Canada way off-base on Afghan PoWs
Harpers disturbingly shallow grasp of the strategy and tactics (condoning torture) is counterproductive.
The Prime Minister may believe that talking like a cowboy about the Taliban and human rights make the government appear tough. But in reality, it only makes it dangerous, both to the mission, and our soldier's lives.
It would rob our soldiers of possibly their single most important tactical and strategic tool – moral integrity.
RE: U.S. Lt-col. and professor at West Point, David Grossman book On Killing:
Adhering to the Geneva Conventions and treating PoWs humanely is of supreme strategic and tactical importance to any organized army.
In short, enemy forces are much more willing to surrender when secure in the knowledge that in doing so they will be treated fairly and humanely. Otherwise they will fight to the death and inflict greater casualities - even in a losing effort.
In Iraq: “America's moral integrity was the single most important weapon my platoon had on the streets. It saved innumerable lives ..."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's comments regarding the Liberal's "passion" for the Taliban reveals the government's disturbingly shallow grasp of the strategy and tactics necessary to win in Afghanistan.
In his landmark book, On Killing, a U.S. Army lieutenant-colonel and professor at West Point, David Grossman, describes the psychological implications of killing, both legally and illegally, in battle.
Of specific interest is the psychological argument and historical evidence that explain why adhering to the Geneva Conventions and treating PoWs humanely is of supreme strategic and tactical importance to any organized army.
In short, enemy forces are much more willing to surrender when secure in the knowledge that in doing so they will be treated fairly and humanely. Enemies that believe otherwise are likely to fight to the death and inflict greater casualities even in a losing effort.
During WW-II, the Allies' adherence to the Geneva Convention resulted in German soldiers surrendering to U.S. forces in large numbers. This was in sharp contrast to the experience of the Soviets, who cared little for PoWs.
IRAQ: Lieutenant Paul Rieckhoff, who fought in Iraq and then founded and became executive director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, makes a similar argument regarding today's conflicts.
Prior to the Abu Ghraib debacle, he noted how "(O)n the streets of Baghdad, I saw countless insurgents surrender when faced with the prospect of a hot meal, a pack of cigarettes and air-conditioning. America's moral integrity was the single most important weapon my platoon had on the streets. It saved innumerable lives ..."
When MPs and ordinary Canadians ask questions about the treatment of Afghan prisoners they don't do so out of contempt, but out of a deep respect and concern for Canadian soldiers. Canadians know we can ill afford to treat enemy combatants inhumanely. They know this because it is in opposition to our values and our very purpose in Afghanistan.
However, they also know there is a compelling military reason: It would rob our soldiers of possibly their single most important tactical and strategic tool – moral integrity. Without this, who knows how many Canadian lives will be needlessly lost in battles where an insurgent, believing that surrender is tantamount to execution, instead opts to fight to the death.
The Prime Minister may believe that talking like a cowboy about the Taliban and human rights make the government appear tough. But in reality, it only makes it dangerous, both to the mission, and our soldier's lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment