Marines aced an Iraqi who fired at them while he pretended to be dead. About a week ago, another Marine's killing of a wounded and unarmed Iraqi brought about an hysterical response in some quarters. Those dumbfounded by why that Marine did what he did now have a better understanding. When you're fighting an enemy that employs underhanded tactics, it helps to fight them with the expectation that they will employ underhanded tactics. In other words, the barbaric conduct of some Iraqi insurgents--faking death to kill approaching Marines--led to the disturbing death of that wounded and unarmed man broadcast to the world a few days ago. If liberals bothered to examine the conduct of the Arab fighters as closely as they scrutinize the conduct of Americans soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, they might better understand why that Marine possibly took the action that he did in Fallujah.

Told you so.

asdf: Who told WHO WHAT? No one ever denied in the Nov 19 discussion that Iraqis were sometimes faking death in order to open fire on US troops. The question was whether killing a man for merely faking death was in line with Christian and Western standards of conducting a war justly.

Your suggestions at leveling or nuking whole cities of people, and killing everyone merely suspected of being an insurgent (yes, you said all that) is hardly confirmed by today's news that once again an Iraqi played this dirty possum trick. And lest you again call me some liberal 'arm chair general', let me add that I agree with everything in Flynn's post.

Don't get your thong in a knot, Short.

If you read all of my posts, you would understand that my position is not as radical as you are making it out to be here.

Bottom line is that this is a perfect example of why I'm an advocate of making quick and agressive decisions (not politically or spiritually correct ones) in combat situations in particular and applying the same philosophies and overall course of action to military conflicts in general.

Sorry, but I'm right; you're wrong.

Do you not recall advocating leveling whole cities? or summarily killing all suspected insurgents? If you don't recall what you said, then I shouldn't be surprised that you won't defend the barbaric statments you made last week. Now you are just advocating quick and aggressive decisions in war? Whatever, no one will disagree with you. It's like someone advocating goodness and pretending it's controversial.

Bottom line is that we want standards by which to judge quick and aggresive decisions in war, because some will be bad. You deny us such a civilizing standard. All that matters to you, perhaps, is that a soldier is fighting for the right side (i.e. the US), not whether he fights honorably. Well, my point is that we should avoid the barbarian nomad warrior Mohammad's attitude of killing them all and letting Allah sort them out.

I agree that we need to have standards of judgement. And we do.

One of them is an oberservation by the Rules of War that combatants have to identify themselves. That is done by either directly threatening an opponent or by surrendering.

If they don't, like when they play dead, they are subject to be shot (just to make sure).

Rules should be followed by all involved on both sides.

To insinuate that our troops somehow skirt these rules and the noble enemy should be given the benefit of the doubt is ludicrous.

Would it be best if the Marine in the original scenario walked away from the faker and got shot in the back? Please!!

In fact, it is frequently the case that the 'dead' are shot just to make sure. This is not against the rules.

Why do you self loathing softies always consider that this country is to blame?

Good thing you weren't around during WWII. We'd all be speaking German.

asdf: Are you still talking to me, or some stereotypical leftist in your head? I didn't blame the US for anything. I didn't imply our enemy was noble (in fact I just slurred Mohammed in a way that could get me the death penalty in Saudi Arabia). I didn't say the soldier did the wrong thing (let alone that he should have turned his back to the faker). You're arguing with some shadowy leftist figure in your imagination, but not with me.

My only point was that your rhetoric (and your flippant attitude toward the death of those "animals") makes impossible any standard for the just conduct of war. I can agree with Flynn's post, because it seems to balance these concerns of honorable conduct and the ugly realistic needs of battle. But you take several steps closer to 'shoot first and ask questions later.' And that is wrong.

Was geht mein freund?

I think your post above, ASDF, is fine but then you throw in the last two lines which makes it sound like you are talking to DB or something. The lines about being "self-loathing softies" and being glad we weren't around during WWII.

I say "we" b/c in the earlier post I was basically arguing the same line that Short argues and so second her opinion here regarding your remarks. Basically, I think you are right in your posts above except when you are being flippant about the topic so I don't actually have anything to add.

Peace out. (Or does that make me a hippy to say? How about if I say it in German, "Frieden." Just kidding!)

Got a wee bit carried away there.

Just really sick of people second guessing our military and pulling the armchair general routine discussing actions of which they know nothing about.

To be successful, the military can not possibly be run like a civilian operation and has to follow their own set of rules and standards.

Opinions are like ........ everybody has one.

But, they should be only that: opinions.

To have the general public think they know more about what's right or wrong in a combat situation and allow the press to enable that excercise infuriates me.

We can't continue to do things half way and win anything.

Amen to all that ASDF, it is an understandable frustration and I share it with you.

Essentially, this was not a cold-blooded murder. Given the dirty tactics of the insurgents, the Marine did the right thing. Our enemies don't give a damn about the Geneva Convention and, frankly, we can't expect them to "fight fair." Now I am not saying our military should kill every wounded enemy combatant, but if there is any possible reason to expect a wounded man is faking a soldier must pull the trigger. Not to do so could cost an American soldier his life.

As to asdf's comments about obliterating a city, I think it's overkill (no pun intended). There is a time and place for mass destruction... but this isn't it. Destroying a city just to kill the small percentage of its population that's our enemy is ... well, it's like shooting a puppy for taking a dump on the carpet.