Dutch state liable for three Srebrenica deaths

[jmm99]

Mark,

First, some "book" keeping. You suggested Moran's book a long time ago. I've read it twice and some sections more. It doesn't address surrender issues as I recall (it has no index).

William Miller has been at Michigan Law since 1985 (well after my time). It appears that a lot of his Yale Law polish has been dented. Perhaps enough so that he might even be ready for primetime at Michigan Tech. In any event, I've ordered used hardcovers of his The Mystery of Courage and Eye for an Eye - basically for shipping costs.

The last book deals with:

Analyzing the law of the talion--an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth--literally, William Ian Miller presents an original meditation on the concept of "pay back". Miller's unique theory of justice offers redemption via retaliation. It espouses the view that revenge is a highly structured phenomenon that requires a deep commitment to balance in order to get even in a strict but fair manner. As a result, we find that much of what is assumed to be justice, honor and respect is just a way of providing a means of balancing or measuring valuations.

I'll see how well it matches my own construct of retribution, reprobation and specific deterrence.

The present topic would be simpler if surrender were not an option - as in the Camerone and Iwo Jima traditions; or, in the tradition of Ulzana's Raid (1.5 hrs).

Somehow, that movie (IMO: 5 stars) was made without political correctness - not exaulting either the Cavalry or the Indians; but portraying all as human beings. From Wiki:

Set in 1880s Arizona, it portrays a brutal raid by Chiricahua Apaches against European settlers. The bleak and nihilistic tone showing U.S. troops chasing an elusive but murderous enemy has been seen as allegorical to the United States participation in the Vietnam War.

In the movie, Ulzana dies. In reality, his band of 10 killed 38 and lost 1 - he and the rest survived, Hiking Apacheria - Searching for Ulzana.

However, surrender today is an option - whether admitted as such or euphemisized as "deemed captured".

The official Code of Conduct (DODI 1300.21, January 8, 2001 (pp.11-12) is attached as a pdf, is quite sparse, and includes some lawyerly weasel words - which I think detract from the code's force.

The basic thrust of the Code is that voluntary surrender is always dishonorable, but one may view himself as being "captured" - which is not dishononable. Here's the Explanation:

E2.2.2.1.1. Surrender is the willful act of members of the Armed Force turning themselves over to enemy forces when not required by utmost necessity or extremity. Surrender is always dishonorable and never allowed. When there is no chance for meaningful resistance, evasion is impossible, and further fighting would lead to their death with no significant loss to the enemy, members of Armed Forces should view themselves as "captured" against their will versus a circumstance that is seen as voluntarily "surrendering." They must remember that the capture was dictated by the futility of the situation and overwhelming enemy strengths. In this case, capture is not dishonorable.

Guidance for a unit commander is even sparser, and limited to this:

IF IN COMMAND, I WILL NEVER SURRENDER THE MEMBERS OF MY COMMAND WHILE THEY STILL HAVE THE MEANS TO RESIST.
...
E2.2.2.1.2. The responsibility and authority of a commander never extends to the surrender of command, even if isolated, cut off, or surrounded, while the unit has a reasonable power to resist, break out, or evade to rejoin friendly forces.

I couldn't find a great deal written about the morals and ethics of surrendering. The best formal piece I found (a 192 page monograph) is 1989 Klimow, Surrender - A Soldier's Legal, Ethical, and Moral Obligations; With Philippine Case Study (C&GSC, 192 pp.). The Battling Bastards of Bataan webpages have a number of in-depth pieces on Bataan and the Death Marches.

The introduction sums up the problem - the issues are not something that people want to confront:

Surrender presupposes defeat, and because of this disparaging implication, it is easily ignored as a subject in the military. Any instruction or training regarding surrender or capitulation is likely to encompass only the actions American service members must take when capturing enemy combatants. The prospect of American surrender, particularly of whole units, is all but unthinkable.

American soldiers are hardened against surrender through discipline and training which fosters a military ethic of fighting the enemy as long as there is a means to resist. Even after the physical means to resist are exhausted -ammunition is depleted and the enemy has surrounded friendly forces -service men are expected to attempt escape and evasion rather than capitulation. The United States military ethic recognizes surrender as a viable option only when further resistance would be suicidal. Revulsion to the act of surrender is perhaps superseded only by American society's desire to preserve the lives of its sons and daughters in uniform.

This monograph seems to me a very good study of the issues generally and in the Bataan-Corregidor context specifically. Singapore and Percival would seem similar - perhaps, a morals and ethics study has been done on that ?

This seems a start on the surrender issue for those of us that haven't had to deal with it in real life. The Bosnia hostage situations may have involved added factors; although the P.I. did involve hostages, both military and civilian.

Does anyone here at SWC have personal experience in deciding whether or not to surrender, especially on the unit commander level ?

Regards

Mike