I got this from Newsday. Its interesting thhat we seem to be doing what we were criticizing the Fedayeen for. Just shows how much the Pentagon was focused on PR and spin.

Before I get attacked, let me say that I have no problem with this. Its war. You do what you need to do to win. As long as you are attacking military targets, I don't see it as terrorism.

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon on Friday defended the use of some civilian clothes by U.S. special operations forces, a tactic used to help them blend in with the local population.

Alleging war crimes, Bush administration officials complained bitterly last week that Iraqi paramilitary forces dressed as civilians, faked surrenders and used other battlefield ruses to kill American soldiers.

Asked at a Pentagon press conference why it is OK for American commando troops to take off their uniforms, but a crime when the Iraqis did it, Defense Department spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said she thought American forces wear something that distinguishes them from civilians, but deferred the question for a later answer.

The issue is a subject of disagreement among Pentagon legal advisers and policy makers. Some officials have said for some time that it is a gray area that needs to be settled as a policy, another defense official said on condition of anonymity.

Special operations forces are often allowed what the military calls "relaxed grooming standards."

In the fight against Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan, for example, special forces wore long hair and beards to blend in with the local Muslim population.

Many wore only parts of their uniform -- for instance camouflaged pants with a T-shirt and baseball cap or a camouflaged jacket with an Arab head wrap or scarf.

At the press conference with Clarke, Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, vice director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the war crime is determined by what the soldier does as well as what he wears.

"I'm not a lawyer, so I might get part of this wrong, but part of it is ... what you do when you're not in uniform," he said. "If a force is going to engage in combat, it's going to fight, it must wear a uniform or some kind of uniform -- law of land warfare says arm bands or some distinctive marking that allows combatants to be identified from civilians."

After the press conference, officials said U.S. special forces in Iraq "are wearing uniforms," but declined to say if they are full uniforms or modified.

The discussion came as an Army legal official told a House panel that Fedayeen militia members captured in Iraq would likely not be entitled to the protection of prisoner-of-war status. That would mean they could face criminal charges for attacking American soldiers.

W. Hays Parks, special assistant for law of war matters for the Army's Judge Advocate General, said that to get POW protections, fighters must meet certain criteria, such as having a formal association with a government, carrying arms openly and wearing distinctive clothing.

He said that among the examples of Iraqi violations of the Geneva convention have been the broadcast of videotapes of dead and captured U.S. soldiers, the use of white flags to fake surrenders and then attack Americans, and the dressing of forces as civilians to lure invading troops into ambushes.

classic. I wonder if O'Reilly and Hannity will talk about this :p

I'm not sure I understand what the point of this story is. It sounds like special ops forces might be wearing modified uniforms, but there was that quote from Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal that makes it clear the U.S. knows what it has to do to comply with international law.

That and the fact that officials said after the press conference that the special ops forces ARE wearing uniforms make this a non-story, in my opinion.

Hmm, I'm not sure about this.

_IF_ they are indeed wearing civilian clothes, as long as they are not actively fighting, and just doing recon and spy work, then what's the problem?

For the sound of it, the only reason for them to "blend into the civilian" population is exactly that, spy stuff.

The whole point of "war crimes" is absurb in and of itself, but that is the topic for another thread.

But, if we (our military) are going to hold their feet to the fire for breaking these dress-code rules, we had better follow those rules. According to the above statements, we are. If our special-ops are dressed as civilians and are engaging in combat, that is an issue. However, I don't think this is the case. I guess we'll see in the months to come.

Newsday is a noted Left-wing rag and wants to put out whatever it can to discredit this operation. Lefties like to bash Foxnews for their opposite take on the situation, but fail to see their own attempts at muddying the water.

[edited to add this]

That isn't a bash against Newsday, in that it is good to keep our government honest. That is the basis for which we established a free press. I am skeptical of all media outlets, because it is hard not to put your own slant on information, and there is the notion of ad revenue. Personally, I feel that the true facts lie somewhere between Foxnews and Newsday.

Originally posted by sabotai
Hmm, I'm not sure about this.

_IF_ they are indeed wearing civilian clothes, as long as they are not actively fighting, and just doing recon and spy work, then what's the problem?

For the sound of it, the only reason for them to "blend into the civilian" population is exactly that, spy stuff.

I agree with you on that one. If it's spy work than it's fine.

oh please.

Special Ops in every country of the world wear and occasionally fight in civilian clothes or uniforms of the opposition.

The SAS are masters at it, they have fought in plenty of Middle Eastern battles dressed in Civilians Arabic garb, also used the same tactics in Ireland/Malaya/Cyprus etc.

You go to war you fight with whatever weapons and capabilities you can to win.

or should a special ops soldier spying in civilian gear who gets spotted, ask them to wait a minute whilst he puts on some modified uniform before he fires a gun ???

Maybe I have a different point of view, but I just don't see any problem with doing this, or the other side doing this, its war not a nice fight with civilised rules.

Originally posted by CAsterling
Maybe I have a different point of view, but I just don't see any problem with doing this, or the other side doing this, its war not a nice fight with civilised rules.

Personally, I don't either and I understand where you are coming from. But, if we are conducting ourselves this way, shouldn't we at least shut up about this one aspect of the iraqi's tactics. I mean, we have them using kids as shields for christ's sake. That is enough to be stripped naked, covered with honey and tied to an anthill.

To go one step further. There should be no war crimes tribunals. Release these animals into the center of Basra, or Baghdad, or [insert Iraqi city here] and close the city gates. The locals will mete out the best justice of all.

Well, it may look hypocritical but special forces have been doing this for decades. Remember the controversy about special ops that grew full beards to fit in with the population in Afghanistan? One of the primary missions for special ops stationed in temporary locations (not the rescue teams) is to blend in with the population, I'm not very surprised to see this.

I think that the biggest difference betwwen the two circumstances is not that the civilian clothes. THe fact that the Iraqi's were dressed as civilians and then using civilians as cover as they attacked.

StKelly: I remember the outrage at the taxi bombing was due in part to the fact that this Lt. was dressed as a civilian.

Let me just be clear that I don't have a problem with dressing as civilians and fighting. That's war. My only problem is how the pentagon folk have spent so much time complaining that the Iraqis were somehow cheating because they used disguises.

I think this is an outrage. This story shouldn't have been reported until years and years of investigating by the UN, as they are the only source that is credible for finding things done illegally in the whole world.

dola, i find it funny how many anti-war people say after a story of the atrocities that have happened in Iraq at saddams hands or the fact that chemical and biological weapons exist there, they question everything down to the very last detail. But something comes out against the US it is presumed true immediately. no doubts nothing. This isn't meant at you JPhillips.

There's a huge difference between dressing as surrendering civilians to carry out a suicide mission and dressing as civilians to blend in for intelligence reasons.

When you see a story about the coalition using human shields, threatening to kill families to get the head of the house to fight, executing prisoners, torturing prisoners, killing it's own people who want to surrender, etc... than get back to us about PR spin.

Originally posted by EagleFan
There's a huge difference between dressing as surrendering civilians to carry out a suicide mission and dressing as civilians to blend in for intelligence reasons.

When you see a story about the coalition using human shields, threatening to kill families to get the head of the house to fight, executing prisoners, torturing prisoners, killing it's own people who want to surrender, etc... than get back to us about PR spin.

Ummm, actually, didin't we kill Saddam's cousin, and aren't we targeting his sons as well?

And aren't you considered a traitor in America if you surrender, isn't that punisheable by death?

Dola: Also, the whole approach the coalition has taken is to reduce civilian deaths. If I'm in that position and the enemy is dressing their military as civilians and then coming out with tapes of what is supposed to be civilian casualities than I'm definitely going to make sure people know the tactics that are being used.

Case in point, the car load of civilians that didn't stop at the checkpoint when asked and got fired upon, killing several. If there was nothing made public prior to that about them dressing as civilians and using car bombs than there would have been a cry of outrage about what happened.

What does killing Saddam's cousin have to do with this? Special Ops targeted the house and the bombers took it out. Same with the sons. They are in charge of the military, just what is the problem with that?

No, you're not considered a traitor for surrendering. Only for treason, which surrendering is not. Regardless there is a trial that takes place and not an immediate execution.

Next...



Edited to add the word immediate to avoid the whole. But if you get found guilty there's an execution crap.

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Ummm, actually, didin't we kill Saddam's cousin, and aren't we targeting his sons as well?

And aren't you considered a traitor in America if you surrender, isn't that punisheable by death?

:eek:

Dude, we aren't targeting Saddam's family to pressure Saddam to do anything. Chemical Ali and Saddam's sons are instrumental parts of his regime and have personally carried out acts of atrocity. There is zero parallel to Iraqi soldiers threatening to kill a man's children if he doesn't fight.

Does your second point mean Jessica Lynch is being executed when she returns? IIRC they all surrendered.

Eaglefan: We have spent most of this war working on PR spin both at home and abroad. Some of this is understandable, but some of it is selfserving malarkey. Why are Iraqi soldoers who dress as civilians always terrorists and US forces always "intelligence gatherers"? Why is a car bomb used by a soldier against other soldiers terrorism, but bombs and missles fired from miles away with no warning fair acts of war.

I don't have any problem with any act by a military at another military target during war. War is dirty, and you fight to win. Why should the Iraqis give up their only advantage, the ability to blend in with the population? Now using civilians is a different story. That is reprehensible and rightly condemned.

Just because Saddam is evil doesn't mean we are always goodness and light. Personally I find defining terorism to include military actions to be disingenuous and dangerous. It is meant to justify our cause, when in reality it has no bearing to whether our cause is just or not. It also can be used to make terrorists out of any military that we may confront. That allows us to define justifiable military actions too broadly.

There is a distressing tendency to validate any and all actions because they are better than what Saddam would do. That's crap. I demand a much higher level of conduct from my government than what Saddam would probide. I have always been reluctantly in favor of this military action, but I am also more than willing to call out obvious propaganda efforts when I see them.

Originally posted by JPhillips
I don't have any problem with any act by a military at another military target during war. War is dirty, and you fight to win. Why should the Iraqis give up their only advantage, the ability to blend in with the population?

This is one thing I can totally agree with.
The purpose of terrorism is to terrorise, the purpose of a war is to destroy you opponent - now whilst it may be the current PR attempt to make everybody think that war can be fought in a nice clean civilised manner, with everybody following a written set of rules, its just not true.

In regard to using civilian clothes, lets face it, Iraq's army is going to lose in a straight fight with the US forces, everybody knows this, so anybody with intelligence on the opposition is going to look for a way to even the odds. What did we expect, them to march down the road in nice bright Red jackets to be shot at from cover (oops forgot we tried that one over here a few hundred years ago).

Special forces should use whatever means necessary to do the job, and the Iraqi army should use whatever means necessary to do their job. Anybody who thinks that it is uncivilised is right, so is war - get used to it.

Hell if I was on the opposition side, the level of terror I would be attempting to inflict would be signficantly higher than a few suicide bombers and civilians ambushing supply routes.

As the IRA leader Michael Collins once said 'The only way for a small country to take on and beat a much larger one is by terror, and I intend to inflict as much terror as possible'. (by the way just because I quoted him, doesn't mean I don't think he wasn't a murdering terrorist scumbag)

So just because we are following a set of rules for how we are going to run a conflict, doesn't mean that they aren't flexible or can't be changed or ignored if required - thats war. Special Ops will always do things outside the rules, and I think anybody in the pentagon or press who complains about Iraqi soldiers dressing in civilian clothes is an idiot, what did they expect to happen.

Slowly steps down off soapbox to let someone else use it.:)