Failed plot to kill al-Sadr

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well yes, we agree that his overall goal is to have U.S. forces withdrawn but at the time referenced in the article he was attempting to kill U.S. forces.

But isn't this true of any battle? The point of a parley under truce is to find ways that the killing may be stopped or avoided. Isn't it unusual to have a truce with someone who isn't trying to kill you?

This is where we disagree, respectfully my point is best illistrated by the quote from the article above. He was attempting to kill U.S. soldiers (at the time) and while its less the honorable to lure him by those means, the point of war is to kill the enemy, particularly one that is devout in his belief that your removal is paramount to his exsistence.

A truce is not and never should be arranged for the purposes of killing your opponent, otherwise it is not a truce but a ruse, and parleys become rare. Trust is necessary in warfare, because at some point the killing has to end.

I disagree with your contention that the point of war is to kill the enemy. That is a means to the actual point, which is to further political aims by force. In almost all cases, certainly in civilised societies, if one can achieve the political aims without killing it is by far the preferred option.

You dont, as a victor you instruct the terms you dont ask. Thats part of the problem with current U.S. involvement in Iraq, we negotiate far to much, and we have allowed a circumstance via the turn over a few years ago where we are basically a foreign police force.

You negotiate a lot because you aren't in any position to dictate terms. That's the whole of the problem with US involvement. But I agree:

thats a whole other thread though mate

[Odin]

But isn't this true of any battle? The point of a parley under truce is to find ways that the killing may be stopped or avoided. Isn't it unusual to have a truce with someone who isn't trying to kill you?

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)

A truce is not and never should be arranged for the purposes of killing your opponent, otherwise it is not a truce but a ruse, and parleys become rare. Trust is necessary in warfare, because at some point the killing has to end.

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?

I disagree with your contention that the point of war is to kill the enemy. That is a means to the actual point, which is to further political aims by force. In almost all cases, certainly in civilised societies, if one can achieve the political aims without killing it is by far the preferred option.

A broad reference but somewhat contradictory. Yes in civilised societies you achieve the end without killing, but we are talking about a specfic circumstance on the battlefield, after the war had been declared.

You negotiate a lot because you aren't in any position to dictate terms. That's the whole of the problem with US involvement.

It is now yes, but for a brief moment ( I know its hard to harken back that far) Iraq as a nation was defeated, that was when you dictate the terms, not after you hand over control of the government to someone else.