Excessive Force? (the killing of Saddam's sons)

[IndianaGreen]

Excessive Force?

The U.S. military is celebrating the deaths of Saddam’s sons. But some are questioning whether Uday and Qusay could—and should—have been taken alive

By Rod Nordland
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE

July 23 — It was much-needed tangible proof that America was making progress in the war in Iraq. After several weeks of drooping morale and a daily, if single-digit body count, the U.S. military on Tuesday announced its soldiers had killed Saddam Hussein’s sons in a ferocious firefight in their Mosul hideout.

AMERICAN OFFICIALS crowed about it, troops around Iraq high-fived each other, friendly Iraqis fired their guns in the air in celebration. Even the stock markets rose on the news.

Certainly only a few diehards mourned the passing of Uday and Qusay Hussein; the regime’s Caligula and its Heir Apparent were if anything despised and feared even more than their dad. But as details became clearer of the raid that eliminated what the U.S. military calls High Value Targets (HVTs) Nos. 2 and 3, a lot of people in the intelligence community were left wondering: why weren’t they just taken alive?

At a news briefing today, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, squirmed his way past that question repeatedly. It was, he said, the decision of the commander on the ground based on the circumstances and his judgment—”and it was the right decision.” But was it? Who beside the sons might have better information about the one HVT that really matters, Saddam? “The whole operation was a cockup,” said a British intelligence officer. “There was no need to go after four lightly armed men with such overwhelming firepower. They would have been much more useful alive.”

http://www.msnbc.com/news/943255.asp?0cl=c1

[madmax]

1. Another bungled operation or so it seems.

I think the British Intelligence officer has it right.

[MinnFats]

2. Hmmm.Perhaps U.S. did NOT want them taken alive...

...under any circumstances. they know too much about their father's relationship with Bush, Jr. and Sr. No, they couldn't be taken alive. I want to know the details of this whole affair.

No wonder Bush was crowing....two fewer former conspirators drawing breath? Bush is turning into Don Michael Corleone...

[ClintonTyree]

3. Beside the fact....................

that they covered their asses by killing them, it was an awe inspiring display of force that was sure to capture the hearts and minds of both media and viewers alike. An elephant gun to kill a gnat. We Americans just love to display our military might even if it is not needed. Not content to merely smoke them out or even kill them in a reserved manner, they used everything short of tactical nuclear weapons to attack, thus assuring the appearance of a massive fight made by the Iraqis. What a bunch of clowns.

[kcwayne]

4. Monday Morning QB

If you are the soldier on the ground faced with trying to capture someone that is shooting at you, would you prefer to :

1) Try to penetrate the building, with its unknown force and danger inside, putting your life in grave danger

2) Call in a big gun to level the place and become a passive observer

As a solider, I would choose option 2. Regardless of what others suggest my duty is, my life is more important than the ambigous intelligence needs of the government.

If the military command felt they wanted the Husseins alive, sending a small force to confront them was the wrong thing to do. You would need an espionage operation (such as drugging their food) or a full scale siege. The latter option would most likely result in suicides.

Our competence at espionage has repeatedly been demonstrated as non-existence of late, hence there is a real dilemma in resolving these situations.

[J B]

5. You have pretty good points. However, counterpoint:

This was not a decision that should have been up to the troops on the ground, IF word was passed to the people who SHOULD have made those decisions that the people inside were four lightly armed men. That information is crucial.

Given that the soldiers on the ground are the last people who should make intelligence determinations regarding leadership targets UNLESS you want them dead, this supports the view that they were wanted dead, not dead or alive, but definitively dead.

While legal (Bush didn't declare the "war" over), it still stinks.

[kcwayne]

6. Counter Counter

The government or the planners may indeed have wanted them dead. However, they appear (based on reports) to have offered the Husseins the opportunity to surrender, and 4 men were wounded trying to attempt a capture before the US military returned fire.

For the long list of crimes against humanity committed by the brothers, I have no sympathy for their demise. Pragmatism and good sense suggest that trying to make martyrs out of monsters is a counterproductive exercise of political opposition.

[BoatsTwice]

7. There is probably less than 5% of DU'ers

who'd even brave assaulting a building while under fire. There is a strong chickenhawk undercurrent in this thread. Maybe Udai and Qusay Hussein didn't want to be taken alive to live in cages?

Nah.

[IndianaGreen]

8. As an occupying force, I would have used TEAR gas!

Our troops are now an occupying power and as such are under a different set of rules. Didn't they teach you that when (and if) you were in the military?

[skyzics]

9. State-sponsored assassination now open Govt policy.

This is the first mainstream media piece I have seen that questions the policy of the Pentagon acting as judge, jury and executioner and openly assassinating the Hussein Brothers rather than trying to 'smoke them out,' as Resident Doofus likes to say.

The idea of the 'rule of law' seems not to even be considered by this administration or their media accomplices. In fact, this noteworthy piece questions the assassination policy only with regard to the information that might have been obtained.

Even the captured Nazi leaders of fascist Germany were accorded due process before being hanged. In today's environment, such considerations are not even discussed in the mainstream media, much less considered by US government officials. On the contrary, the Pentagon acting as judge, jury and executioner and the policy of state-sponsored assassination is celebrated by the Pentagon, US Government, media and even, sad to see, many DU'ers.