Dutch state liable for three Srebrenica deaths

[Kiwigrunt]

PS: Does someone have the Dutchbat report online in English ?

Not sure if this is what you are looking for.

[jmm99]

Srebrenica: Reconstruction, background, consequences and analyses of the fall of a ‘safe’ area - all 3875 pages of it.

Thank you, Auckland.

Regards

Mike

[JMA]

Been in no-mans land again. Now back in the land of the living.

This thread does not seem to be generating much interest.

Nevertheless I will attempt to add to this discussion to further present my POV.

[jmm99]

Mark,

I'll add a couple of posts (brief Eye for Eye review and the 1187 surrender of Jerusalem).

Maybe we need more blood, sex and violence - not necessarily in that order.

Looking at Srebrenica is something of a slog (near 4000 pages). I skimmed the ToC, and skimmed the chapters having to do with the events just prior to and after the surrender, including the executions. That is:

Part III The fall of Srebrenica (starts p.1322)
Chapter 1 The military and political situation in spring 1995
Chapter 2 Air power: Close Air Support and air strikes
Chapter 3 No air actions on release of the hostages: a deal between Janvier and Mladic?
Chapter 4 The mood in the enclave: May - July 1995
Chapter 5 The period from 25 May 1995 to 6 July 1995
Chapter 6 The Fall of Srebrenica: 6 to 11 July 1995
Chapter 7 6 - 11 July 1995 – retrospective accounts
Chapter 8 Plans to re-take Srebrenica
Chapter 9 The departure of Dutchbat from Srebrenica

Part IV The repercussion and the aftermath until the end of 1995
Chapter 1 The journey from Srebrenica to Tuzla
Chapter 2 The executions (ends p.1990)

That is more manageable, but still over 600 pages. It's not only the Dutchbat commander, but some much larger icebergs (Janvier and Rupert Smith) that bear scrutiny in this mess.

Some thread readers probably have personal or good second-hand knowledge of Srebrenica; but like My Lai it's hard for people to talk about such events.

Regards

Mike

PS: "no-man's land" and "land of the living" - don't let them zombies get you.

Noticed that Chuckie Taylor got 50 years from the Hague Court this week; he was convicted a year ago. Several years ago, Chuckie Junior was convicted in a Miami federal court on similar charges. (JMM post, with links).

[jmm99]

The Mystery of Courage (earlier recommended by JMA) and Eye for an Eye (now recommended by me) cover related areas - courage and payback.

Bill Miller (now teaching at Michigan Law) was raised in Green Bay WI, is a Packers fan, and knows West Side Green Bay bar culture. He probably would fit in at our Pub Monte Carlo. Initially, I was uncomfortable with his dual PhD and JD from Yale; but that was put right by this informal piece on his book "Losing It", Michigan Law: Author Interview with Prof. Bill Miller (Youtube, 5 min). Besides providing a taste of Miller, this is a good video for older dogs to watch - humorously or seriously.

Eye for an Eye (Google ebook @ $12.00) is a book on moral, political and legal philosophy, written in an easy, non-legalistic manner. Its footnotes and bibliography credential it as a serious work. As its title says, this is an analysis of my favorite: retribution (as well as the associated concepts of reprobation and specific deterrence, although Miller doesn't name them exactly that).

Miller is an acknowledged academic expert in Icelandic feuds and their sagas. Eye for an Eye more generally focuses on societies based on honor and talion - the latter being "payback" for a "gift".

The "gift" may be:

positive - you save my life; I owe you the value of a life (a true exchange means I have to save your life, even if I lose mine).

negative - you kill my brother, rape my sister; I "owe" you "payback", where "payback" might literally be a "motherf**k" ! (my words; not exactly his).

Physical and moral courage may enter into payback; but negative payback, especially, may involve outright deceit and perfidy. The payback "victim", who may not have been one of the initial direct "giftgivers", may end up dead without knowing why he was whacked, or that he was about to be whacked. It's usually important to let the "public" know why he was whacked (reprobation); and important to prevent future "gifts" by the whackee (specific deterrence).

The problem is how to keep the process from escalating. My example: you steal my cows; I'll burn down your barn - with your extended family within it. To solve that problem, a society needs "oddmen" (moderators with community clout) to keep the retribution within bounds. E.g., while our inner cities have an honor code ("don't disrespect me"), the community doesn't have elders with clout over the young warriors who do the feuding. In a well-regulated "oddmen" community, an "unevenman" (who won't play by the rules) ends up isolated, ostracized or whacked.

That's the basic idea of "Eye" (addressed in the last couple of minutes of Miller's lecture, below).

Miller has a lecture on Youtube (1hr 10min), which generally covers many of the ideas in his many books and articles. He is best when he deviates from the prepared script; as in the last 10 min of the lecture. Earlier in the lecture, he deals with the Story of the Levite and His Concubine; but unfortunately didn't have time to cover the Battle of Gibeah, which was the result of the Levite's revenge for the rape and murder of his concubine.

The Levite's tale is based on a "surrender" situation, in the face of bad odds for survival. It certainly has blood, sex and violence in both the "gift" and the "payback".

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

This is a snip from a post in another thread, edited to emphasize that event's negotiations which led to a reasonably happy outcome. We are dealing with real hardball here, which will be something we will see more and more IF warfare becomes more savage in the future (as I think it will).

The two sources I chose are primarily Arab sources contemporary to the event: the settlement between Saladin and Balian ibn Barzan in 1187 to allow the "Franks" and other Christians to leave the city - and for some Christians to stay. See, Univ. of Michigan Crusades Package - Saladin Takes Jerusalem (p.46 pdf); and Hadia Dajani-Shakeel, "Some Medieval Accounts of Salah al-Din's Recovery of Jerusalem (Al-Quds)" (Fordham link).

From Saladin Takes Jerusalem:

This account is from Ibn al-Athir after the battles for Jerusalem.
...
Then Balian ibn Barzan asked for safe conduct for himself so that he might appear before Saladin to discuss developments. Consent was given, and he presented himself and once again began asking for a general amnesty in return for surrender. The Sultan still refused his requests and entreaties to show mercy. Finally, despairing of this approach, Balian said:

'Know, O Sultan, that there are very many of us in this city, God alone knows how many. At the moment we are fighting half-heartedly in the hope of saving our lives, hoping to be spared by you as you have spared others; this is because of the nature of horror of death and our love for life. But if we see that death is inevitable, then by God we shall kill our children and our wives, burn our possessions, so as not to leave you with a dinar or a drachma or a single man or woman to enslave. When this is done, we shall pull down the Sanctuary of the Rock and the Masjid al-Aqsa and the other sacred places, slaughtering the Muslim prisoners we hold - 5,000 of them - and killling every horse and animal we possess. Then we shall come out to fight you like men fighting for their lives, when each man, before he falls dead, kills his equals; we shall die with honour, or win a noble victory!'

How to negotiate a surrender when defending a hopeless position - bravado or bluff, and probably bravery, which led to:

Then Saladin took council with his advisors,all of whom were in favor of granting the assurances requested by the Franks, without forcing them to take extreme measures whose outcome could not be foreseen. 'Let us consider them as being already our prisoners,' they said, 'and allow them to ransom themselves on terms agreed between us.' The Sultan agreed to give the Franks assurances of safety on the understanding that each man, rich and poor alike, should pay ten dinar, children of both sexes two dinar and women five dinar. All who paid this sum within forty days should go free, and those who had not paid at the end of the time should be enslaved. Balian ibn Barzan offered 30,000 dinar as ransom for the poor, which was accepted, and the city surrendered on Friday 27 rajab/2 October 1187, a memorable day on which the Muslim flags were hoisted over the walls of Jerusalem. ...

According to al-Qadi al-Fadil, Balian ibn Barzan also "offered a tribute in an amount that even the most covetous could not have hoped for." Balian had a large military force (mostly Turcopoles, to whom he as a Turcopole leader was personally committed), with their dependents and retainers, whose ransoms were based on "each man ... ten dinar, children of both sexes two dinar and women five dinar."



Absent a negotiated surrender, these Turcopoles were dead meat if the city were stormed. Thus, all around, a reasonable result was reached via a pragmatic approach avoiding the complexities of religious theologies.

A similar approach was taken with respect to the native Christians of Jerusalem;

Turning to the Recovery of Jerusalem source:

The Fate of the Native Christians

'Imad al-Din indicates that, after paying their ransom, the native Christians requested Salah al-Din's permission to remain in their quarters in safety. Salah al-Din granted their request, provided that they paid the poll tax (jizya). Some members of the Armenian community also asked to stay in the city and were allowed to do so, provided that they also paid the tax. Many of the poor from both groups were exempted. Rich Christians bought much of the property of the departing Latins, as has been mentioned above. Salah al-Din allowed them to pray freely in their churches, and he handed over control of Christian affairs to the Byzantine patriarch.

'Imad al-Din notes that at first Salah al-Din ordered the closure of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Its future was discussed, and some even advised that it should be demolished in order to sever completely the attachment of the Christians to Jerusalem. However, a majority of the Muslims rejected the idea. They argued that demolishing the church would not help, for it would not prevent Christians from visiting it. According to 'Imad al-Din:

"Those who come to visit it come to worship at the location of the cross and the sepulchre rather than at the building itself. Christians will never stop making pilgrimages to this location, even if it has been totally uprooted."

Those who spoke in favour of preserving the Church of the Holy Sepulchre even suggested that when the Caliph 'Umar conquered Jerusalem, he confirmed the right of Christians to the church and gave no orders to demolish the building.

So, in this case, hardball negotiations by the besieged worked.

But, if Salidin had called Balian ibn Barzan's bet, Balian would have had to do the following:

... we shall kill our children and our wives, burn our possessions, so as not to leave you with a dinar or a drachma or a single man or woman to enslave. When this is done, we shall pull down the Sanctuary of the Rock and the Masjid al-Aqsa and the other sacred places, slaughtering the Muslim prisoners we hold - 5,000 of them - and killling every horse and animal we possess.

and then finish with a banzai charge.

Would Balian have done so? Saladin thought so; and they had met in many battles and both were well known to each other. I'm not following the Kingdom of Heaven script, which is utter bull$hit; but a lot of my own digging (reflecting prior diggings by others) on this heroic Middle Eastern figure. I credit the Arab account of the meeting as accurate; and that Balian (an Assyrian-Armenian name) would have done "it" - a Masada.

Did Percival and Wainwright even consider what Balian threatened ? Would any reader consider doing that ? Are "Masadas" a thing of the past ?

Next, I'll look at sieges ca. 1200-1700, where the 1187 Jerusalem siege stands as a good result for the besieged.

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

Lauro Martines, Furies: War in Europe, 1450-1700 (2013; kindle @ $12.64)

I've mentioned buying this book in another thread; I've finished reading it; and it's worth the buy for this topic - and the topic of "savage warfare" in general. I hate to say it, but IMO we are going to see more and more "armies of locusts" - especially in some parts of the world (Africa, to be blunt).

This snip of a "Furies" book review is accurate:

Unlucky were civilians of early modern Europe in the path of an army on the march or in a city under siege. No safer were soldiers, more apt to die from disease and starvation than battle. Vignettes of horror from the era’s maelstroms, grandly titled the Thirty Years’ War or the Dutch Revolt, abound in Martines’ treatment, which tries to raise ethical questions about panoramas of war. ... Mars’ royal sponsors failed to render promised pay and supplies. To square accounts, their generals instead let soldiers pillage the countryside and sack cities, examples Martines draws from eyewitnesses to plunder, arson, and killing.

This is an excellent book on foraging and pillaging (where "no quarter" prevailed and surrender was not an option) and sieges.

Unlike sieges after 1700 (perhaps a bit earlier in some places), the sieges of this era (1200-1700) were sordid affairs. Non-combatants and "expended" combatants were often sacrificed so that the besiegee or the besieger could carry on. A standard besiegee tactic was to expel its "useless" citizens from the fortress; the besieger would then drive them back to the fortress walls, where they usually starved to death. Some surrenders were eventually negotiated (similar to that negotiated between Saladin and Balian ibn Barzan). But, in the absence of a negotiated surrender, the rules of "no quarter" and sack generally applied.

Western Europe was a center of fortress development (China and India were also centers). They may have influenced the Mongols to forego a campaign to conquer Western Europe. Pow, Deep Ditches and Well-built Walls: A Reappraisal of the Mongol Withdrawal from Europe in 1242 (2012; 150 pp. thesis).

Fortresses, however, are subject to two rules: (1) The Three Little Pigs and the Big Bad Wolf Rule (bad design, construction, planning and logistics lose big time); and (2) The Trapped Little Pigs Rule (“[T]hen they [the Mongols] have got their little pigs shut up in their sty.”). Of course, if the "little pigs" happen to be Puller's Marines, they might not stay shut up in their sty - and, so, their retrograde assault out of Chosin.

That brings us to the issue of tradition, personnel selection and training - as to which, I'll say just a little bit and then exit stage left.

As to selection (for "surrender" situation commanders), I'll start with John Twiggs Myers. He was placed in at least one "surrounded" situation and didn't blink an eye. He "appeared" in two Hollywood movies, both scripted as "surrounded" situations: In the historical epic 55 Days at Peking, Charlton Heston portrayed the fictional Marine "Major Matt Lewis", commanding the American Legation Guard in Peking during the Boxer Rebellion. In The Wind and the Lion, the fictional Captain Jerome (played by Steve Kanaly) "expanded" Myers' historical role, commanding the Marines dispatched to Tangier during the Perdicaris incident. Myers had a whale of a Marine career and his actual exploits in Peking and Tangiers were real enough; but not romantic enough for Hollywood (or, were they ).

Myers was a USNA grad and one of the "Famous Fifty", a group of 50 USNA grads (ca.1880-1900) who elected Marine commissions. They included five Corps commandants and a gaggle of generals and colonels; e.g., Wendell Cushing Neville and John A. Lejeune. On the other hand, Littleton "Tony" Waller and Smedley Butler enlisted in the Corps after prep school.

The lesson I glean from this bunch is that the "where from" is far less important than the "what stuff" is in the person - in a word, "character" (and that, including a few "characters" doesn't hurt either ).

Regards

Mike

[JMA]

Good stuff there Mike, thank you.

There is of course a difference between unconditional surrender and a negotiated truce or safe passage.

Percival's surrender was unconditional. (see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1BD5_nP2NQ )

As to Wainwright, it is appalling to think that he got the Medal of Honor.

[KenWats]

Unlike sieges after 1700 (perhaps a bit earlier in some places), the sieges of this era (1200-1700) were sordid affairs. Non-combatants and "expended" combatants were often sacrificed so that the besiegee or the besieger could carry on. A standard besiegee tactic was to expel its "useless" citizens from the fortress; the besieger would then drive them back to the fortress walls, where they usually starved to death.

I recently watched a documentary on Caesar's siege of Alesia, he used similar tactics to force the Gauls to keep the noncombatants in Alesia and eat up Vercingetorix's food faster, so this actually goes back farther still. Very interesting discussion.

[JMA]

Dutch state found liable in deaths of more than 300 men in Srebrenica massacre

The Netherlands is liable for the deaths of more than 300 men who were taken from a Dutch compound in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica in July 1995, during the Bosnian war, a Dutch court ruled Wednesday.

The Dutch peacekeepers failed to protect the men -- most of whom were killed after they were taken away by Bosnian Serb forces -- and the state should compensate the families of the men for their loss, the District Court in The Hague said.

To the original 3, 300 can now be added. This is progress. The court stopped short of finding the Dutchbat (garbage in uniform) liable for the 8,000 deaths.

The Dutch state will have to compensate the families of those murdered and one hopes that its hurts, but what of the cowards themselves? Karremens himself? Will they be prosecuted?

[JMA]

From FP:

When the Blue Helmets Are to Blame

The key to this judgement is as follows:

Last week's ruling followed that very narrow precedent. It did not hold the government responsible for the deaths of most Bosnian Muslim men whom Bosnian Serb forces captured and executed. Nor did it pin on the government the broad failure of the peacekeeping force to defend the town, which the U.N. Security Council had designated a "safe area" two years earlier, in 1993. But the judges did find the government liable for the peacekeepers' decision to deliver Muslims under their protection to Serb forces. Of those handed over, around 300 were executed. The court found that "cooperation with the deportation ... of the able-bodied male refugees who had sought refuge at the compound [was] an unlawful act for which the State is liable." It concluded that the Dutch troops "must have been aware of the serious danger of genocide" if the men were handed to Serb forces.

The Dutch sadly do not have a good military reputation (which is an understatement). Recently came across this in Canadian Robert Semrau's book:

The Taliban Don't Wave

Quote:

We continued on and drove down the highway until we rolled into a Brit base called FOB Bastion, just north of the Lash. (Major) Hobbles and I walked into the command post to let them know we were there. We met a small Dutch major who explained they knew exactly where the enemy was, pointed their position out to us on a large map, and then politely asked if we would be so kind as to go and take care of them. Hobbles and I looked at each other, and then stared at the Dutch major.
“And what's wrong with your soldiers? Hobbles asked.
“Well," he started to murmur, “if we go, we might get hurt, and so—"
“Holy crap," I snapped. “What about us? It doesn't matter if we get hurt?"
Hobbles muckled onto me and we quickly left the CP.
Wow—did that really happen?

A pattern starting to develop?

[davidbfpo]

A new book is out and The Guardian's article, on the 20th anniversary, states:

How Britain and the US decided to abandon Srebrenica to its fate New research reveals that Britain and the US knew six weeks before massacre that enclave would fall – but they decided to sacrifice it in their efforts for peace

Link:http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-massacre-1995