U.S. troops face Afghan enemy too young to kill

[Ken White]

My point was not that there have never been child soldiers...and the average child soldier would get about one shot in his active military career before seeking treatment for a broken collarbone and a dislocated shoulder, maybe a broken jaw too.

but as a big bore (.30-06, slightly more potent than the .303 and not to mention that %$&* 12 gauge...) shooter at age 11, I do not agree. Not at all.

The Australian, British or Canadian Soldier in the third picture above may not be malnourished. he has the pre-war British pattern ammunition pouches for the .303.SMLE (the WW I Mk III, not your Ranger's WW II era No.4). The Poles and the Russians are probably malnourished. Note the Russian all have Nagants and the 7.62x54 is a contemporary of the .303. I posted two pictures showing .303 category weapons in the hands or likely so of 'child soldiers' and you come back and impute that weapon recoil would be a determining factor. Not a good argument, kids were padding their shoulders with rags a long time ago-- in the era of muzzle loaders...

While it is fact the AK enabled a proliferation of 'child soldiers,' for the reasons you cite in your response, my initial comment was not aimed primarily at refuting your perhaps unintentional overstatement. You said

"...without the AK, we wouldn't have child soldiers at all, or at least far fewer of them." (emphasis added /kw)

'None' initially then added the caveat 'or not as many.' I agreed on the not as many, just as a minor aside, really, disagreed on the none.

The comment by me -- and the pictures -- really was intended to make two important points. Thanks for allowing me to reiterate them:

(1) Armed kids are not an African or third world only problem.

(2) Whenever and wherever armed kids exist and attack, they are as dangerous as adults. Perhaps more so because many through a false sense of concern will not react as quickly to kill a child and they deserve no special consideration. None.

[William F. Owen]

but as a big bore (.30-06, slightly more potent than the .303 and not to mention that %$&* 12 gauge...) shooter at age 11, I do not agree. Not at all.

Me too, though it was SMLE No.4 and I was 13, but whole generations of British School Boys from 13-18 learnt to shoot on .303 until very recently.

[J Wolfsberger]

In Vegetius' essay on reforming the Legions, he discusses beginning the training of young men in the military arts as soon as they reach puberty. The concept of "child soldier" is a late 20th century invention. For most of human history, across all cultures, when humans entered puberty they were considered adults. For females, this meant marriage and children. For males, it meant farming, hunting and warfare.

Nonetheless, the issue here is first, reluctance on the part of Western troops to kill combatants the perceive as children, and second, the psychological problems resulting from the engagement (i.e. either killing them, or suffering casualties from reluctance or hesitation to kill them.).

[Bob's World]

This highlights one of the major problems with the tactical directives in Afghanistan: They placed illogical emphasis on Age and Gender over situational factors such as time, manner, place, activity.

A Coalition member engaging a young man such as described by Guy is likely to face challenges from higher HQ regardless of the activity engaged in.

One of my goals was to shift the focus from "CIVCAS" to criteria more practical. (All insurgents are, afterall, civilians) I actually got MG Carter, COM RC-South where LTC Guy Jones operates, to agree and he publicly took the position that his command would no longer use the term CIVCAS and instead use "Combatant" and "Non-Combatant." His LEGAD had a cow. Because the phrase civcas is what is written into the law, regardless of how illogical and wrongheaded it is on the ground, we had to use it. The lawyers won, and we went back to CIVCAS.

I tried to have a conversation with LEGAD on the topic and all she could do was stare at me like I had a horn growing out of my head and bluster about the terminology in various articles of international law, the terms they use, that must be adheared to.

Add this to my list:

If you don't understand insurgency, you can't do COIN;
If you don't understand insurgency, you can't legally advise a commander doing COIN either.


(Oh, and I suspect a rather large portion of those who fought in the American Civil War were in this 14-18 age range, and handled their .58 caliber rifles with ease and deadly skill; rode their cavalry mounts with the same agility and lack of fear they ride skateboards today; and generally were tremendously resilient and effective)

[slapout9]

Doesn't Infantry literally mean, Boy Soldier?!

[Bob's World]

Just one quick google:

http://www.civilwarhome.com/boysinwar.htm

(only 46,000 out of a sample of 1,000,000 over the age of 24)


Napoleon is quoted as holding that Generals over the age of 40 were over the hill. (though I suspect strongly that this is a misquote from him saying as he rode away from Waterloo, "I'm too old for this Sh#%")

[jmm99]

This situation would probably be beyond my capacity to survive without going postal:

One of my goals was to shift the focus from "CIVCAS" to criteria more practical. (All insurgents are, afterall, civilians) I actually got MG Carter, COM RC-South where LTC Guy Jones operates, to agree and he publicly took the position that his command would no longer use the term CIVCAS and instead use "Combatant" and "Non-Combatant." His LEGAD had a cow. Because the phrase civcas is what is written into the law, regardless of how illogical and wrongheaded it is on the ground, we had to use it. The lawyers won, and we went back to CIVCAS.

I tried to have a conversation with LEGAD on the topic and all she could do was stare at me like I had a horn growing out of my head and bluster about the terminology in various articles of international law, the terms they use, that must be adheared to.

You have to have a strong stomach or a large ulcer.

My initial reaction was that the LEGAD was bad and that all would be well if a "good lawyer" had been on call - in short, blame it on the lawyer (a variation of pile on the wabbit). If that were the problem, the solution would be solved by employing SJAs like COL Hays Parks, who wrote in 2003 re: Astan, Special Forces’ Wear of Non-Standard Uniforms:

At the US Special Operations Command (“USSOCOM”) annual Legal Conference, May 13–17, 2002, the judge advocate debate became intense. While some attendees raised questions of “illegality” and the right or obligation of special operations forces to refuse an “illegal order” to wear “civilian clothing,” others urged caution. [3] The discussion was unclassified, and many in the room were not privy to information regarding Operation ENDURING FREEDOM Special Forces, its special mission units, or the missions assigned them.

[3] In the debate that ensued over the next year, it was my observation that those most strident in their criticism were most distant from Special Forces ground operations or were judge advocates not serving with or familiar with the missions of Special Forces units.

COL Parks bio (from same) - Law of War Chair, Office of General Counsel, Department of Defense; Special Assistant for Law of War Matters to The Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1979–2003; Stockton Chair of International Law, Naval War College, 1984–1985; Colonel, US Marine Corps Reserve (Retired); Adjunct Professor of International Law, Washington College of Law, American University, Washington, DC.

While there is truth to that solution (or to the alternative, "get rid of all the lawyers") in many situations, the problem you faced is part of a greater problem in Astan.

That problem (also directly involving the ROEs, RUFs and EOFs) has been the conscious election by the political and military masters (of ISAF, including the US; and of the Astan national government) to adopt "bad law" even though (at least for the US and Astan) that would not be required. That "bad law" hinges on the 1977 Additional Protocols I and II, Direct Participation in Hostilities and Customary International Humitarian Law as endorsed by the ICRC - many in the ISAF would see that "bad law" as "good law" (as apparently does Nick Carter's LEGAD).

It has to be frustrating to deal with nonsense like CIVCAS, restrictive ROEs, etc. (and please note, while I'd prefer a broad hunting license, I do not believe that everything in the woods needs to be shot).

Regards

Mike