Failed plot to kill al-Sadr

[Odin]

Odin, I'm curious then on what you think of embassies and diplomats, as they're working under the premise of a permanent white flag?

And although they're on a higher level than regular negotiations they do bring a problem that isn't there on lower levels. They have a tendency to work as espionage hubs.

I think its apples and oranges to be honest. On the one hand you have an embassy with a stated purpose of diplomacy (hence the diplomats) on the other you have a religous leader who has proclaimed your removal and or destruction as his purpose in life.

[Redleg]

Failing to honor the flag of truce - is not something that should ever be done.

[Ironside]

I think its apples and oranges to be honest. On the one hand you have an embassy with a stated purpose of diplomacy (hence the diplomats) on the other you have a religous leader who has proclaimed your removal and or destruction as his purpose in life.

I was rather considering during war-time but I think I lost focus a bit, as embassies usually aren't open during those times.
Diplomats, on the other hand... How else are you going to negociate with your enemy about anything, like POW exchanges?

Sure, if the person who is negotiating wants the killing to stop too, trust is a two way exchange, by your own position surely you see that offerring trust under a white flag to someone who wants to negotiate the ability to kill you later is folly?

The point of the white flag is to be able to do any negotiations with the enemy without those ending up as "enemy sighted ".
If it's folly to negotiate then you simple don't get anywere with the negotiations and kill them later, but the trust of the white flag should not be broken.

Now it's perfectly fine for them to take American negotiators as hostage during the next white flag as "the Americans doesn't respect the white flag anyway".

[Odin]

The point of the white flag is to be able to do any negotiations with the enemy without those ending up as "enemy sighted ".
If it's folly to negotiate then you simple don't get anywere with the negotiations and kill them later, but the trust of the white flag should not be broken.

Now it's perfectly fine for them to take American negotiators as hostage during the next white flag as "the Americans doesn't respect the white flag anyway".

Again, im not trying to use a broad brush here, but in the case of american negotiators, in the field, during a battle, well okay fair enough.

I think whats happening in this thread is we are mixing the broad concept of "waving the white" flag, with a battle field tactic. Immorral and unethical? perhaps, but they werent sitting in an embassy around a large table with camera bulbs going off and the media present, it was in an effort to win a combat situation.

I understand the core difference from myself and those opposed to my premise in the thread is my rational to dispose of a point of honor to achieve the defeat of an enemy (via his death). I do get it fella's, but I suspect if we had the chance to ask those in history if they could use a ploy (no matter the guise) to defeat an enemy while in the midst of combat they would.

To equate that concept to the broad scope of negotiation outside of combat is where we part ways.

[Papewaio]

Again, I dont believe Al sadr was someone who wanted to negotiate a truce to stop the killing, rather to prolong his ability to continue to kill via his organization (turns out that happened after all)

Can't the exact same thing be said about the US army. They didn't want to negotiate a truce to stop the killing... they wanted to kill them all.

I understand the core difference from myself and those opposed to my premise in the thread is my rational to dispose of a point of honor to achieve the defeat of an enemy (via his death). I do get it fella's, but I suspect if we had the chance to ask those in history if they could use a ploy (no matter the guise) to defeat an enemy while in the midst of combat they would.

This is all correct in game theory if the opponent(s) cannot remember previous turns. It would be far better to say "We don't negotiate with terrorists" and to hunt them down, then to flip flop and say under a white flag "We negotiate with terrorists" and try and assassinate him. It destroys long term credibility, it really isn't a smart move strategically.

However in real life(tm) there is a tendency for opponents to have a longer term memory. Yes, you might successfully assassinate one person. Leaving a series of successors of worse, equal or better ability at fighting yourself... leaving the strategic situation for this single set of enemies totally open and possibly setting oneself up for worse opponents. Not only that, every other opponent will from now on refuse to parlay because they believe that you will assassinate them. It makes it rather difficult to negotiate an end to 'troubles' if no one will listen to you. It also means that your opponents will get more and more desperate as you back them into a corner, you have removed parlay from the table as an out so they will fight far far more viscously then if they believed that there was a glimmer of hope for peace and a long life.

On a tactical level on a once off occasion it will work. In the long run you will make your opponents feel cut off from hope... something Sun Tzu advises sternly against doing.

[Pannonian]

Delete

[Odin]

is all correct in game theory if the opponent(s) cannot remember previous turns. It would be far better to say "We don't negotiate with terrorists" and to hunt them down, then to flip flop and say under a white flag "We negotiate with terrorists" and try and assassinate him. It destroys long term credibility, it really isn't a smart move strategically.

At the risk of repeating myself again, i understand the implications long term. In context to the article, a seige situation, a battle, to object is to kill the enemy or break his will.

If your suggesting that the "long term credibility" of the U.S. should be the trump card in the efforts to win the battle, okay we disagree.

However in real life(tm) there is a tendency for opponents to have a longer term memory. Yes, you might successfully assassinate one person. Leaving a series of successors of worse, equal or better ability at fighting yourself... leaving the strategic situation for this single set of enemies totally open and possibly setting oneself up for worse opponents.

Yes there are lots of possibilities and potential outcomes, but at the moment in time the absolute is you are seiging an enemy to win a battle. Sitting back in the armchair years after the occurance and pointing out long term potential outcomes is fun to do but I find it hard to apply to the situation as its occurring, perhaps my expectation of those in combat is too low?

Not only that, every other opponent will from now on refuse to parlay because they believe that you will assassinate them.

Yet again, a broad brush against the backdrop of a very specfic battle. In addition to that the U.S. military wasnt the first to think up this tactic.

On a tactical level on a once off occasion it will work.

I agree

In the long run you will make your opponents feel cut off from hope... something Sun Tzu advises sternly against doing.

He also advises that : "Victory is the main object in war. If this is long delayed, weapons are blunted and morale depressed. When troops attack cities their strenght will be exhausted".

Seems to me that in the context of this battle, the effort was made to achieve "the main objective of war"

[Pannonian]

He also advises that : "Victory is the main object in war. If this is long delayed, weapons are blunted and morale depressed. When troops attack cities their strenght will be exhausted".

Seems to me that in the context of this battle, the effort was made to achieve "the main objective of war"

Is al-Sadr really the main objective of this war? One would have thought that the US would have more to worry about than a two-bit cleric who doesn't command the majority of the troublemakers.

The problem with using such drastic tactics for a minor objective like this is that it invalidates all related measures in the future. If you're going to violate the sanctity of the white flag, do it when your country is in danger and you want to assassinate the sole figure that holds the invading forces together. Don't do it when you have a minor irritant who keeps saying things you don't like.

[Odin]

Is al-Sadr really the main objective of this war? One would have thought that the US would have more to worry about than a two-bit cleric who doesn't command the majority of the troublemakers.

Do i detect a note of sarcasm? Perhaps if you take a few minutes and reread the post, its put in context of the linked article from the first page. This was a seige that was occurring and the tactic was employed at that time.

thats how I read the article, since no one has corrected my take on the article thus far thats the context my argument is framed.

The problem with using such drastic tactics for a minor objective like this is that it invalidates all related measures in the future. If you're going to violate the sanctity of the white flag, do it when your country is in danger and you want to assassinate the sole figure that holds the invading forces together.

If you look back at my posts, I dont condone the act. I do recognize it as a valid battle field tactic to end a battle. Perhaps i wasnt eloquent in framing it that way in every post, but I have certainly made enough concessions in this thread to illustrate that I get the broader implication of the act.

Don't do it when you have a minor irritant who keeps saying things you don't like.

A minor irritant who later went on to encourage his army into sectarian killing, seems to me if the tactic had worked it would have saved lifes.

Wonder if that would have made the papers 2.5 years later, you think?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Now it's perfectly fine for them to take American negotiators as hostage during the next white flag as "the Americans doesn't respect the white flag anyway".

I'm sure you didn't mean it quite this way, but it does not become perfectly fine. Just because the Americans misused the convention of the white flag, that event does not then confer the "right" to misuse it to everyone. Tit-for-tat might be the way of the world, but it is not a justifcation for ignoring conventions that save lives.

It's the same argument as we've been having in the torture thread - they do it, so we can too. That way barbarism lies.

@Odin - I think we shall have to agree to disagree. I cannot seem to make headway on your position, and you probably think the same about mine.

[Ironside]

I'm sure you didn't mean it quite this way, but it does not become perfectly fine. Just because the Americans misused the convention of the white flag, that event does not then confer the "right" to misuse it to everyone. Tit-for-tat might be the way of the world, but it is not a justifcation for ignoring conventions that save lives.

It's the same argument as we've been having in the torture thread - they do it, so we can too. That way barbarism lies.

It's a break on the 2 way trust and only shows that it's that particular faction doesn't abaide the rules concerning the white flag. If I go with a green flag and claims that this green flag forces your side to surrender and you don't accept that, the flag is useless and serves no purpose.
Same thing applies to someone that breaks the white flag principle often enough.

You're perfectly correct that is not giving the right to do this against any other faction, but if one particular faction ignores it, the only thing you can do is to not trust the white flag used by that faction, because they have proven themself to not be trustworthy on that principle.

It's the same making a strategy of faking your surrender to then fire, suddenly does shooting surrenders make a somewhat practical strategy (making the comrades of the false surrenders suffering, although doing that will probably make the enemy fight to the death).

Everything you do on the battlefield has consequences in the future.