U.S. troops face Afghan enemy too young to kill
Quote:
"Over the last eight to nine years there has been a dynamic change in the age of fighters. Most fighters now are between 14 and 18 years-old," said Lieutenant Colonel Guy Jones, commander of 2-508th Parachute Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, based in Arghandab.
"In 2002, fighters were 22 to 30-years-old and commanders were between 32 and 40," said Jones who is on his fourth tour in Afghanistan.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66B0A220100712
'Child Soldiers' is a misnomer; young killers may be more apt...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
40below
The ROE were drastically revised after that incident and child soldiers were treated as real ones by western militaries operating in Africa...
They'd better treat them all as real ones. A twelve year old can kill you just as dead as can his Father. Lot of foolish angst over 'child soldiers' for no good reason. A ten year old who throws a grenade in your lap as has happened here and there for a great many years may not be a Soldier in many senses but he's a fighter, he's your enemy even if he doesn't fully understand why, he's dangerous and deserves a shot as quickly as an adult.
Quote:
Interesting takeaway from that and other such conflicts is that without the AK, we wouldn't have child soldiers at all, or at least far fewer of them.
Before the AK there were far fewer people in the world, so the second clause is correct. The first, not so much...
History shows that fighting children is far from a modern phenomena, there are just more kids and better communication. Nor are or were they all in Africa or 'third world' nations. The third pic is Polish, WW II, the second Russian, the White Army. Note the webbing on the WW I trench cleaning kid in the first one...:wry:
more of a socio-economic issue?
The argument that child soldiers are not only a third world problem cannot be made by showing pictures of European children from a century ago. Those european kids also lived in "third world" conditions without economic alternatives. I guess it depends on what your definition of "third world" is.
When it comes to afghanistan, demographics plays a huge role. With an average life expectency around 40, they start an adult life at an early age. Not only in terms of fighting, but also working, farming, getting married early and having kids etc. 18-21 is a very arbitrary line to define adults anyways.
I have not verified the statistics from this Quote from this WSJ article but:
Quote:
In 1979, the Russian army faced 2.5 million Afghan males at the traditional fighting ages of 15 to 29. Some 1.7 million of those Afghan males were second, third or fourth sons. They were surely loved by their parents but the family's property was inherited only by the oldest son. Younger sons had to struggle hard to find their places in society and—with decent jobs hard to find—could be easily recruited by militant groups. In 1979, 3.5 million Afghan boys still younger than 15 when the Soviet Union attacked were getting ready for just such a fight.
This endless supply of angry, ambitious young Afghan men never appeared on Russian radar. Yet it eventually forced them to give up the war and go home. Afghanistan was down to 13 million inhabitants.
In 2009, the situation is even more volatile. Today there are 4.2 million Afghan males aged 15 to 29 out of a total population of 33 million. Two and half million may conclude that violence offers their only chance for a successful future. Are these men on the radar screen of the 65.000 soldiers of NATO and the International Security Assistance Force? Is NATO/ISAF aware that 6.7 million Afghan boys under 15 are getting ready for battle? In Afghanistan, 45% of all males are younger than 15 versus 21% in the U.S., 18% in the U.K. and 14% in Germany.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...461719008.html
Old gruppy Polarbear raises his hand
I cannot resist weighing in here. I think it is time for Commander’s to start pushing back on their lawyers regarding ROEs and the Laws of War. They need to push back based on the individual Soldier and Marine’s right to self-defense. They also need to push back on the fact that the Laws of War state that military necessity is determined by the “field commander”. Another process that might teach lawyers about the Laws of War is to have them start charging for violations of the Laws of War instead of the Rules of Law.
I can’t wait for the responses on this one…it’s one of those spider fly thingys.
Yep ..you got it already!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jma
one has to give the taliban ten out of ten for seeing and exploiting the weaknesses in the roe caused by the sensitivities towards negative media exposure. Don't blame the lawyers, blame the idiot generals that allowed them in in the first place.
hear, hear!