WI: USA called out on Highway of Death?

What would happen if US Military was called out on breaking the third geneva convention, specificly the parts on attacking opponent armed forces that have laid down their arms?

Who, if any would have ended up taking the blame (I guessing it boils down to either Bush Sr. or, prehaps more likely Schwarzkopf, in his mein of commander-in-chief), and would there even be a blame to ultimately take or would it fizzle out?
 

Deleted member 1487

Wasn't the reason the attacks stopped and the war ended so quickly was because of the international backlash against the Highway of Death imagery? Also given that we were called out for all sorts of violations during Gulf War II, nothing would be done as a result of criticisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death
The scenes of devastation on the road are some of the most recognizable images of the war, and were publicly cited as a factor in President George H. W. Bush's decision to declare a cessation of hostilities the next day.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death#Controversies
 
What would happen if US Military was called out on breaking the third geneva convention, specificly the parts on attacking opponent armed forces that have laid down their arms?

Who, if any would have ended up taking the blame (I guessing it boils down to either Bush Sr. or, prehaps more likely Schwarzkopf, in his mein of commander-in-chief), and would there even be a blame to ultimately take or would it fizzle out?

The rules of war do not prohibit the aggressive pursuit of a retreating enemy, even if they have abandoned their weapons in the field. Unless the defeated enemy actually seeks to surrender, they are still combatants and can be attacked and destroyed. Also, if I remember, the US did eventually suspend its attacks on retreating Iraqi forces because of concerns expressed by allies and within the US government itself.
 
The rules of war do not prohibit the aggressive pursuit of a retreating enemy, even if they have abandoned their weapons in the field. Unless the defeated enemy actually seeks to surrender, they are still combatants and can be attacked and destroyed. Also, if I remember, the US did eventually suspend its attacks on retreating Iraqi forces because of concerns expressed by allies and within the US government itself.

The controversy stems from the argument the retreating forces were abiding by an earlier UN Resolution. Not military defeat.
 
The controversy stems from the argument the retreating forces were abiding by an earlier UN Resolution. Not military defeat.

Interesting perspective. The problem is that by not retreating from Kuwait before the war as called for by the UN resolutions, but only after they had been defeated (or in danger of being outflanked and captured by) by coalition forces, I'd argue that the "Highway of Death" was an appropriate action from the military perspective. Iraq ignored the resolution and a war resulted. From that point on the rules of war...rule.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
What would happen if US Military was called out on breaking the third geneva convention, specificly the parts on attacking opponent armed forces that have laid down their arms?

Who, if any would have ended up taking the blame (I guessing it boils down to either Bush Sr. or, prehaps more likely Schwarzkopf, in his mein of commander-in-chief), and would there even be a blame to ultimately take or would it fizzle out?

Well, to begin with, the "Highway of Death" was a load of crap.

Reports at the time remarked on how FEW casualties were there. what the Coalition did was kill vehicles. Iraqi forces would grab them to withdraw (or just steal them), Coalition aircraft would overfly, the passengers would bail, and the aircraft would destroy the vehicles.

There also seems to be a major misunderstanding here about what "lay down arms" means. It doesn't refer to forces that are withdrawing, or even in headlong retreat. It refers to forces that have "Fallen into the Power of the Enemy". If you are still moving either under arms or outside of the control of the Enemy Power you are not yet a PoW (which is the subject of Convention III). By definition none of the personnel involved in the withdrawal from Kuwait were under the "Power of the Enemy".

In short the question proceeds from a pair of false assumptions.

The controversy stems from the argument the retreating forces were abiding by an earlier UN Resolution. Not military defeat.

Doesn't really matter. Once hostilities commenced (which BTW is the only time that the Conventions are applicable) they continue until a formal cease fire or accepted surrender at NCA level (or designee) takes place.
 
In short the question proceeds from a pair of false assumptions.

Might be, and happy to be educated ... but tell me this, when have having false assumptions ever stopped people from trying something, even if it ends up being called a bluff it would have some consequences.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Might be, and happy to be educated ... but tell me this, when have having false assumptions ever stopped people from trying something, even if it ends up being called a bluff it would have some consequences.

Well, in this case someone, probably the ICRC, explains to all and sundry that they are, in actual fact, incorrect in their understanding of basic international law.

The far fringe mob doesn't accept it and calls for various persons to be brought to trial (as actually happened BTW, and seems to happen with depressing regularity after every conflict even though the effort tends to make legitimate issues become illegitimate by association) and everyone else walks away shaking their head.
 
What would happen if US Military was called out on breaking the third geneva convention, specificly the parts on attacking opponent armed forces that have laid down their arms?

The difficulty, however, is that it was far from clear that those Iraqi forces had laid down their arms - the case can be made just as easily that they were redeploying. If they haven't surrendered, they haven't laid down their arms.

There's nothing in Geneva that forbids attacks on a retreating enemy.

That being the case, I wholeheartedly second everything Calbear says.
 
Legal

There's a lot of things that are legal, yet condemned by those who don't care to understand war. I am a liberal, and proud of it--but some liberals and conservatives are just plane nuts. The Highway of Death was legal, pure and simple, and the US went above and beyond the rules of war to minimize casualties.

Under the rules of war, the USA didn't need to give anyone a chance to bail out--the air force could have, within the rules, simply wiped out anything that wore an Iraqi uniform on that road, and collateral damage to anyone that was traveling with the Iraqi army would be justified.

I suspect that the various protests against some US actions were just an attempt to make the US look bad, and revenge by those who thought the USA should have stayed home. (Our involvement in the war is a totally different debate, for a different thread...)
 

jahenders

Banned
Agreed, you don't get to say, "We refuse to abide by these resolutions, we're making Kuwait a province, and you will suffer the mother of all battles if you attack" and then (after you get your butt whipped) say, "Oh, we're just strolling on home, exactly as the UN asked." The Iraqis knew what they were doing and they were just glad they didn't get beaten up more.

It was only politicians and journalists with an axe to grind that found fault with the whole thing.

Honestly, Bush should have let it go on a bit longer, perhaps 24-48 hours more or until Saddam cried, "uncle." Stopping at the 100 hour point was an arbitrary decision.

Interesting perspective. The problem is that by not retreating from Kuwait before the war as called for by the UN resolutions, but only after they had been defeated (or in danger of being outflanked and captured by) by coalition forces, I'd argue that the "Highway of Death" was an appropriate action from the military perspective. Iraq ignored the resolution and a war resulted. From that point on the rules of war...rule.
 
Honestly, Bush should have let it go on a bit longer, perhaps 24-48 hours more or until Saddam cried, "uncle." Stopping at the 100 hour point was an arbitrary decision.

If one accepts the premise that the main purpose of continuing the war longer would have been to isolate and destroy the Iraqi Republican Guard units and thereby weaken Saddam's hold on power to the extent that he might fall to a purely internal coup, that might have succeeded. the problem is that not all of our coalition allies wanted Saddam to fall because they had legitimate concerns about what might result afterward.
 
I suppose we could also call out Carthage for the Battle of Cannae, the British for the Second Battle of El Alamein, or the Poles for the Battle of Kircholm and it would make about as much sense. As long as an enemy combatant does not lay down their arms and surrender to the control of the other side, they are still an enemy soldier and potential threat to be taken care of.

And let's make no qualms, the Iraqis illegally invaded Kuwait and would have happily annexed it if possible, but got sore when they were beaten so totally and thoroughly that it made the overwhelming victories of Allied forces look like a slaughter.

As others have pointed out, too, the Highway of Death is a misnomer, but even if not, the US won a massive victory against a thoroughly unprepared enemy and even ceased the attack because it had already done enough damage. Nothing to be called out for, unless winning a battle by anything better than 1:1 odds counts.
 
Agree with Calbear. The Iraqis on the highway had not surrendered. Nothing in Geneva prevents an attack on a retreating enemy, and that's exactly what happened.

The fringe left (led by Ramsey Clark) used this as an example of "U.S. War Crimes", but hardly anyone paid attention.

Granted, it's for another thread, but Maj. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the commander of the 24th Mechanized Division, felt that if he had twelve more hours, he would've been in Basra and really sealed the Iraqi defeat.
 
What would happen if US Military was called out on breaking the third geneva convention, specificly the parts on attacking opponent armed forces that have laid down their arms?

Who, if any would have ended up taking the blame (I guessing it boils down to either Bush Sr. or, prehaps more likely Schwarzkopf, in his mein of commander-in-chief), and would there even be a blame to ultimately take or would it fizzle out?

Agree with the other responses - there is no blame to take in law. A few people did try to call out, basically because there were pictures which got them upset, but they had no case. So basically what you describe is actually OTL.
Christopher Hitchens, in one of his essays in 2003, described it as an 'atrocity' though it was nothing of the kind, so it's basically a meme at this point, no amount of rebuttal will shift it.
 
Top