Posted on 03/22/2002 5:47:26 AM PST by Clive
EDMONTON -- U.S. troops operating as part of a Canadian task force in Afghanistan were told they didn't have to give enemy troops a chance to surrender, according to a Radio Free Europe report.
Reporter Askold Krushelnycky of the U.S.- funded station interviewed the commander of a U.S. assault platoon which stormed an al- Qaida position located by Canadian troops during Operation Harpoon last week.
The platoon commander, Lieut. Greg Darling, described how his men found an enemy fighter standing in the position which had been attacked with anti-tank weapons.
"He was pretty shell-shocked from being hit by two anti-tank weapons, so they took him down," Darling told Krushelnycky.
Darling said nobody tried to find out if the man wanted to surrender. "We didn't give him a chance," said Darling.
"That's our rules of engagement."
U.S. military spokesman Maj. Ralph Mills said he could not discuss the soldiers' rules of engagement.
"We don't know all the circumstances and this could just be adrenaline talking," he said.
Darling's platoon was attached to Task Force PPCLI, which is built around the 3rd Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry.
Canadian military spokesman Maj. Jamie Robertson said it's wrong to start trying to second-guess soldiers in action from thousands of kilometres away, based on a few quotes in a newspaper.
QUESTIONS
"Did the guy who was shot have weapons -- that's only one of the questions I have after reading the text of the interview," he said. "This was a combat situation where hesitation to ask for surrender could have been fatal to coalition troops. I could caution against coming to any judgments without knowing all the facts."
Robertson said he could not discuss the Canadian rules of engagement.
"What I am allowed to say is that the international rules of engagement do not require troops to give an opponent the chance to surrender," he said. "That doesn't mean you can shoot guys who are clearly surrendering."
I repeated the sub0head "Soldiers say they don't take prisoners" but the story itself makes it clear that the sub-head is innacurate.
Reporters have got to learn the difference between ROE for combat and Roe for peacekeeping or police actions.
And the world will be better for it. These vermin tend to be repeat offenders.
What do they expect our soldiers to do, go up to each Talibannie and ask "Do you give up now?" PUHLEEZE! If they've been shooting at you, you shoot back and keep shooting until their CAN'T shoot anymore! We've seen what happens when these folks are allowed to be taken prisoners. Either they bribe their way out of captivity, or they riot in the prison and kill others. I'm glad they're not being given either opportunity!
As another poster said, that's the difference between 'peacekeeping' and WAR!
A stunned enemy is still an enemy combatant, I don't see a problem here. Are we going to have liberals screeching now that our troops have to take five and give the guy time to compose himself and make a decision?
I expect a shortage of Islamic virgins to be reported in the very near future.
How about those killed in the countless Israeli suicide bombings?
That my friends, is what happens when you don't have a revolution but submit to Monarchs instead. The men of the PPCLI deserve a better title.
However, it does make me smile that Alah's Sand Monkeys died at the hands of Princess Patricia.
They call themselves the "Patricias" and are quite proud of the regiment's history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.