The children caught in Syria’s war are not always innocent bystanders

[cqo_000]

John Ray: Middle East Correspondent



Mokhles is fourteen, an apparently willing conscript to a rebel army that has given him a gun and a cause he values higher than his young life.

"Only when the regime falls will I go home," he says. "If I die a martyr, so what?"

It is a war crime to recruit a child of his age.

But international law mattered less to Mokhles than the objections of his parents.

And they tried but failed to keep him out of harm’s way.

At sixteen, Mokhles’ comrade Ahmad is something of a veteran. He joined their brigade on the outskirts of Homs a year ago; and has fought, he boasts, in many battles since.

"For sure everyone here is a little bit afraid," he says. "But really amid so much killing there is no room to fear death," he says.

Mokhles has an uncle in the brigade; Ahmad an older brother. It is a familiar pattern of recruitment, according to Rob Williams of the charity War Child.

The United Nations believes 86 children have been killed taking part in combat.



http://www.itv.com/news/2013-06-28/the-children-caught-in-syrias-war-are-not-always-innocent-bystanders/

[Th1onein]

1. So it's okay to kill 'em?

[Igel]

3. What do you think?

If soldiers take up position in a hospital and try to kill you, the hospital's not a civilian structure any more. Fire away as necessary given the hospital's strategic and tactical importance. The soldiers bear responsibility for making it a military target. You're cleared, whatever your personal sensibilities might say.

Same for a church or a mosque or a school. They target you from a 6th grade classroom, the option is to cede the ground, stand there and let yourself be killed, or target them. Kill the kids, and the blood be on the school-occupiers' heads. You may try to be as bloodless as possible, holding up things until a sniper can be brought in and waiting until there's a clear shot. Meanwhile, you may allow reinforcements to come in to make sure that you will lose the goal that you set out for, and some of your guys may die so that those who are holding the kids as civilian shields can live.

We "get this" if it's American soldiers "violating" some civilian place. We turn blazingly stupid when it's somebody we romanticize and defend doing it. We're obviously so far superior that, well, if there's blame it's attracted to us. They're teflon, most of the time.

Same for kiddie soldiers. They come at you with an AK-47, your choice is to kill the kid or be magnanimous and let the kid kill you so that the grown-ups that made him and trained him can drag your corpse through the street and take over. You did for the honor of giving them victory. May as well just say, "Oh, gee--you don't fight fair, so you win. Just give us time to get out of the country--and can we stop off for our families, and maybe for some of the documents and money we have there?"

And that goes for bombing or strafing positions that they occupy. Why give them the first 10 shots?

Note that this 16-year-old boy isn't granted any consideration when he says it's his choice. If he were having sex and conceiving a child with his girlfriend, he'd be considered an adult and we'd argue that it was his decision. If his 16-year-old girlfriend chose to have the child or terminate it, she's an adult as far as we're concerned. We define "adult" depending on what particular privileges and acts we think are appropriate for that group--and who we can bash in defending those rights. In America, most 16-year-olds are snivelling children, regardless of how they see themselves and we see ourselves in them. In many other cultures--and formerly in the US--16 is fairly close to being an adult, if not adult. This is changing slowly--faster in cities, where extended adolescence is appropriate for increased length of education. Less fast in more rural areas.

[bemildred]

2. They make great cannon fodder, yes, but that hardly makes them culpable. nt

[Th1onein]

4. Agreed.