White Flag: If It Were Your Country

[schplurg]

A question was being discussed on the radio as I drove home yesterday. The question was:


Would you wave a white flag in battle to lure enemy troops into an ambush if your country was being attacked by an overwhelming force? Would you break the rules of war to protect your freedom and/or way of life in the face of otherwise certain defeat?

I see a somewhat similar thread discussing "rules of war"...whether Iraq is wrong in using such tactics, but I thought this question deserved its own thread. Maybe I'm wrong (newbie).

My question is, and it may be a tough one...would you do it? I'll answer my own question after I think about it a little more. My gut reaction though is:

Hell yes.

I've never been in such a situation, of course. I think the Iraqi troops that did this acted more out of hate than in the belief that this was a strategy that could win the conflict. Should that be taken into account? I could analyze this more, but I'm interested in other opinions, and I'm trying to keep this first post short.

[Bearguin]

The consequences of doing it would have to be weighed. What happens when you really want to surrender and the enemy does not believe you and puts a bullet in your head? Or when your wife raises a white flag and gets shot because you misused the flag?

While I think some rules of war are just dumb, the white flag isn't and should be respected.

But I can see why they have done this. I think it is wrong, stupid and ultimately counter productive, but I see their line of thinking.

[Scared Chicken]

First of all, I'd like to say the entire concept of rules of war is a strange one when you think about it. Bombing civilians is okay, nuking an entire country would not violate these rules, but showing a POW on tv would be a warcrime :rolleyes:

A second thought.. though by no means I approve of the iraqi's using these tactics, one could also consider this: the US/UN first forces weapon inspectors in the country that could go anywhere, photograph anything, then force iraq to disarm, destroy its misslies that reached 30 km (!) too far, show every and any military info asked.. Iraq pretty much complies to these demands. And now they invade the country anyway. Thats almost like asking a man to put his arms in the air, and when he complies, shoot him nevertheless.

Sadam knew, just like most of the world knew, the US would attack him anyway. Would you be compelled to give your future enemy access to all you military secrets ? Would you be compelled to destroy your weapons when you know you will need them in a matter of months ? Iraq complied nevertheless. Not exactly fair either.

[schplurg]

The consequences of doing it: there would certainly be diplomatic or political consequences...assuming you had a country and government left to face the criticism.

The consequences of not doing it would need to be considered as well. Losing your way of life, your country. Your family in a concentration camp, or worse. I thought of the movie Red Dawn when I heard this question. What if your neighborhood was attacked by "the commies" and they were shooting people arbitrarily? What if you had a cannister of poison gas and you and your neighbors all had gas masks? Would you use it?

My revised question:
Is there any circumstance at all that would make you use whatever method possible to preserve your way of life?

Scared Chicken:
Lotta hot air, and off-topic. How about answering the question?

[Scared Chicken]

The consequences of not doing it would need to be considered as well. Losing your way of life, your country. Your family in a concentration camp, or worse. I thought of the movie Red Dawn when I heard this question. What if your neighborhood was attacked by "the commies" and they were shooting people arbitrarily? What if you had a cannister of poison gas and you and your neighbors all had gas masks? Would you use it?

My revised question:
>Is there any circumstance at all that would make you use
>whatever method possible to preserve your way of life?

I dont think there is an honest answer possible here.. if "your way of life" implies things like nog using "whatever method possible".. kinda paradox.

But lets try anyway.. I think not. If I could only preserve my way of life by denying countless innocent others that same right, I wouldnt do it. take an extreme example.. say you could win a war by massevely raping the women of your enemy (bosnia ring a bell ?). I couldnt put myself to do such a thing, even if it meant my country and myself would become a fundamental islamitic state.

But if I'd think I could win a war by waving white flags, and luring the enemy in a trap, I might consider it. Especially if I see that enemy as a ruthless invading army, and a major threat to all the people I care about (family, friends, ...). I could care less about the Geneva convention then...

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by schplurg
I thought of the movie Red Dawn when I heard this question.

I can't think of the movie Red Dawn without wanting to throw up.


My revised question:
Is there any circumstance at all that would make you use whatever method possible to preserve your way of life?



I think there comes a point where your way of life is not worth the costs. Nuclear weapons cross that line, so do chemical weapons. Killing someone you can reasonably subdue, or when your life is not in danger, are illegal in most Western countries. Hiding in buildings and ambushing the opponent is fine. Hiding behind civilians crosses the line. Pretending to be a non-combatant may be fine if you didn't then endanger true non-combatants, but I'm not sure.

Now if I assume the enemy was after my wife or children, all bets are off.

[patnray]

Ultimately, the "Rules of War" depend on who wins...

[Advocate]

The idea of rules of war and war crimes is IMHO a ridiculous and counterproductive one. At least it is counterproductive if your goal is to reduce the occurance of wars. It seems like these rules were made up by the generals to make sure that the people would not be as afraid of war as they would otherwise be.

[schplurg]

quoted from GA:
I think there comes a point where your way of life is not worth the costs. Nuclear weapons cross that line, so do chemical weapons. Killing someone you can reasonably subdue, or when your life is not in danger, are illegal in most Western countries. Hiding in buildings and ambushing the opponent is fine. Hiding behind civilians crosses the line. Pretending to be a non-combatant may be fine if you didn't then endanger true non-combatants, but I'm not sure.

Now if I assume the enemy was after my wife or children, all bets are off.

Well that would be the assumption. If you can "reasonably subdue" someone, then obviously you wouldn't need to resort to these tactics. I didn't say Red Dawn was Oscar material ;)..of course if Moore can win...

Chicken:
I think not. If I could only preserve my way of life by denying countless innocent others that same right, I wouldnt do it. take an extreme example.. say you could win a war by massevely raping the women of your enemy (bosnia ring a bell ?). I couldnt put myself to do such a thing, even if it meant my country and myself would become a fundamental islamitic state.
Dude, who said anything about killing innocent people?

But if I'd think I could win a war by waving white flags, and luring the enemy in a trap, I might consider it. Especially if I see that enemy as a ruthless invading army, and a major threat to all the people I care about (family, friends, ...). I could care less about the Geneva convention then...
Yes that would be the scenario I'm imagining, as I'm sure some Iraqis are fearing this very same thing (not that I think it's true!). So which is your answer though? You said "I think not" first, then changed your answer. I'll take it as "Yes I'd do it, under certain circumstances"

Whether we consider the Iraqi's as brainwashed or whatever, they probably feel that we are invading them unjustly and are threatening their way of life etc etc. Much as I might feel if I were in their shoes. No, I am not sympathizing with them at all. I just think it's a good question.

[schplurg]

Patnray:
Excellent point. If you use these tactics and lose...no loss really. If, however, you win, then you and your government have to face the consequences of using these tactics.

Funny how this all changes (at least for me) on an individual basis. If someone were to break into my home intending to harm my family, I'd use any weapon I could get my hands on - a gun, a can of Raid insect killer, a knife, injecting hydrochloric acid into their veins - and I wouldn't give a rats @$$ what anyone thought of me for doing it.

[Scared Chicken]

[QUOTE]Yes that would be the scenario I'm imagining, as I'm sure some Iraqis are fearing this very same thing (not that I think it's true!). So which is your answer though? You said "I think not" first, then changed your answer. I'll take it as "Yes I'd do it, under certain circumstances" [QUOTE]

No, its a "no" when you take "whatever method possible" literally. I would not take whatever method (like killing/raping innocents if that would serve my goal, by demoralizing my enemy.) But I might very well use methods not allowed by the Geneva convention.

[schplurg]

Point taken...sorry if I put words in your mouth :(

Though I don't see raping and killing innocents would win many battles.

[Scared Chicken]

Rape is very old "weapon" and highly effective too, especially for ethnic cleansing.

By waving a white flag and then shooting the people who you were fighting, you have endangered every other person on your side. You have nullified the white flag.

I would never do such a thing. If you can't think of other ways to kill the enemy besides that, then maybe you should surrender.

[Scared Chicken]

Not speaking of any specific war here...but what happens if you are fighting people that dont value their own life ? Suicide commando's come to mind. How could you expect them to care they endanger others ?

And how do you fight an enemy that has nothing to lose ? That thinks he'll be eating rice with golden spoons to eternity if he dies in combat for his right cause ? I dont think Allah signed the Geneva convention..

(btw, dont get me wrong.. the current war is definately not fought against fundamentalistic muslims.. but think about it when the US decides Iran poses a threat to its security)

[iain]

Originally posted by schplurg
Though I don't see raping and killing innocents would win many battles. Rape was a standard part of war until very recently. Sometimes used to subjugate the population; more often as an unofficial reward for soldiers who had endured great hardship during a siege or battle.

For example, rapes were widely committed by all sides in the Napoleonic wars (sometimes to the extent that few women of any age in a conquered city were left unmolested). It was certainly common practise that if a city refused to surrender and held out for the siege, having all the females raped was, unofficially, part of the punishment - thus letting other cities know what was in store for them if they resisted.

In the US it was very common for the white colonists to rape Indian women (I've read one account of an Indian women putting sand inside herself to avoid this).

I'm not sure when rape stopped being common in war, but I think only in the last hundred years at most.

[schplurg]

That's brutal man. Thanks for the info, I think :( I never considered that as a method of battle before, but I see your point.

I guess winning by "whatever method possible" is too broad a phrase. Perhaps I should have stuck to the original question...to quote myself:

Would you wave a white flag in battle to lure enemy troops into an ambush if your country was being attacked by an overwhelming force? Would you break the rules of war to protect your freedom and/or way of life in the face of otherwise certain defeat?
Thanks for all the input. I'm not afraid to learn and be proven wrong (synonymous?). Hmmm...my future sig? "To be proven wrong and to learn are synonymous." Although the opposite isn't true. Then again, if you are proven right, what have you learned? Then again I'm suffering from lack of sleep.