Resist By All Means Available
Posted By: Sgt. Mom @ 1147 on 2007-03-29

From our POW Code of Conduct

“….I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist. If I am captured, I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy. If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way. When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.”

This code of conduct was created and adapted for all the American services in the wake of the Korean War, when American (and other nationalities) POWs were both brutally mistreated and exploited for propaganda purposes by their captors. While some service personnel may be a trifle foggy on the exact requirements of the Geneva Convention until the need for familiarity with those conventions floats up to the top of their personal “to-do” duty requirements, the POW code of conduct is branded on our consciousness. Well, that and the bitter knowledge that the last military opponent of ours who paid anything like strict attention to Geneva Convention requirements when applying them to captured American service personnel were the Germans in WWII.

So, we have quietly gotten our heads around a couple of facts, one of the most important being the brutal reality that Americans best not surrender. The odds of surviving long enough for the International Red Cross to make that all-important visit to verify your well-being are practically non-existent. Snuff videos made available through various pro-fundamentalist Islamic media throughout Middle East make it pretty damn clear that no surrender in the first place may be the most viable career option.

Even if a prisoner is lucky, and the market for death-porn is flooded, the odds of being used as a hostage, and paraded like a puppet in front of the video cameras are pretty much a given. Exactly how far one can or ought to go in resisting this kind of exploitation is a judgment call. Admiral James Stockdale, as the senior American POW in North Vietnam chose to mutilate himself rather than be paraded in public for propaganda purposes, and threatened suicide if the North Vietnamese continued to continue torturing other POWs.

Pvt. Patrick Miller, of the 507th Maintenance Company was taken prisoner during the dash into Iraq in 2003, (at the same time as Pvt. Jessica Lynch) and was one of the five surviving members of his unit paraded on Iraqi television. I remember seeing the clip of the five on the news, and thought that he was the only one of them who seemed to be defiant. He answered back with his name and rank, and looked like he was about to spit into the camera, even if he and the others were entirely at the mercy of Saddam Hussein’s goons. In the long run, ones’ response to the extreme of captivity and threatened (or actual torture) depends on training, and maturity. But sometimes it depends on strength of character, and maybe a large lashing of stubborn bloody-mindedness, which are harder to predict in advance and inculcate with training. But I digress. I have a point, and I am getting to it.

This week, it’s the fifteen British sailors and Marines, taken by Iranian goons, and paraded in front of cameras, while Tony Blair and the British media agonize over how to react, what should have been done, and what can be done to get them back without loosing any national self-respect, and their families try and maintain a stiff upper lip under the hot searchlight of media interest.

It pretty much looks like it was deliberate and well-planned, done expressly for the purposes of getting hostages to toy with, probably with an eye for a prisoner exchange, and building up their image internally. They announced their intentions to kidnap coalition personnel some weeks ago, but at this point in the war, American personnel are probably just too damn hard to catch unawares. So, go for the easily gathered harvest, and drag it out as long as possible. I am afraid that if it drags on for a long time, as long as the Teheran embassy hostage crisis that it will become as much of a political hot potato. I can see the Blair government in a cleft stick; having neither the means or the will to respond with gunboats, or the 21st century equivalent. Being that the war in Iraq is resoundingly unpopular (as near as I can judge from a distance) I wonder if there is any stomach for that kind of response anyway. And while the diplomatic alternative grinds slowly away, over weeks and months, and the hostages families fret and worry, and the national media pounds away, involvement in the coalition may become even less popular. Getting the hostages freed may come to seem to be such an overwhelmingly good thing that no one will care very much about the price paid for such an end.

I hope that there is a Stockdale, or a Miller among the captured British sailors and Marines. I hope that they are not being tormented, as Admiral Stockdale was, at the hands of the North Vietnamese… and I hope that they are resisting as best they can, for the sake of their own self-respect as members of a proud military with a long tradition of defiance and resistance to captivity. I hope they will return knowing in their hearts that they held to the code, and to their comrades, and never in their hearts surrendered.

(Also posted at Blogger News Network)

10 Comments »

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.ncobrief.com/index.php/archives/resist-by-all-means-available/trackback/

  1. Is there any kind of code for civilians captured in war?

    Comment by Kai Jones — 20070329 @ 1209

  2. As far as I know, not as such in such easily remembered form. Civilians are supposed to be left alone by an occupying power, unless they are actually fighting, IIRC the Geneva Convention.

    Then they can be shot out of hand, since they are not in uniform.

    Comment by Sgt. Mom — 20070329 @ 1220

  3. Roger all your last,Sgt. Mom. That clicking sound is Horation Nelson upon learning that British Sailors surrendered without a shot. No doubt on orders.

    Comment by Jim Burke — 20070329 @ 1456

  4. And in the midst of all of this, powerlineblog.com reports we have our Democratic leadership refusing to even allow a resolution to the floor that would show solidarity with our British allies. Each day that passes I am more stunned, if that is possible, at the level of treasonous behavior exhibited by the left wing. For what? prinicples? Not on your life - these people, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, all of them, are totally devoid of principles. The day of reckoning cannot come too soon.

    Comment by Radar — 20070329 @ 1542

  5. From this side of the pond there are a couple of different perspectives.

    First of all, the decision to go to war in Iraq remains unpopular - a slight majority think it was wrong and a huge majority think Blair etc lied to get the go-ahead (so there is a noticeable difference); this has robbed us much of the moral authority we’d have in a situation where we had servicemen/women kidnapped.

    On the Iranian thing, though, the general view seems to be:

    - let’s see if we can resolve it without anyone getting killed
    - failing that, there’s an expectation that the SAS are around somewhere and ready to start a fight if they do start killing the hostages
    - everyone knows full well that the video appearances are a stitch-up so no-one takes those seriously
    - if it looks like all the hostages are being killed there’s a reasonable consensus that it’s (conventional) Tomahawk time plus some desserts.

    We don’t go around looking to pick random fights (Iraq II being a sad exception) but Iran’s going to find that we won’t back down if they choose to call our bluff. They might like to ask the Argentinians if they’re unclear on that point.

    So, we’ll see. Oh, and I wouldn’t have thought a formal declaration of support from the US would actually be terribly helpful, so we appreciate the best wishes but they’re best kept quiet. We know you’re they’re; that’s good enough for us.

    Comment by Al — 20070330 @ 0326

  6. Bring your lunch gang, this one’s going to take a while; the diplomacy option always does. The sailors and Marines in question are in no danger of being killed. That sort of thing might play to ideology-addled Koreans or Vietnamese, but Iran is a civilized nation with a fixed address. They only do that sort of thing to internal dissidents.

    Comment by Raymond — 20070330 @ 1411

  7. Just to throw some gasoline (or petrol) on an already burning fire, the words of Victor Davis Hanson, on this very topic.

    Comment by Sgt. Mom — 20070330 @ 1735

  8. That idiot? Him ad Huntington and their Gotterdamerung alarmism are responsible for more trouble…

    Has it occured to anyone that the Iranians may believe it was their waters? Occams razor and all that…

    Comment by Raymond — 20070401 @ 1419

  9. As far as the Iranians are concerned, Occams’ razor tells me that they didn’t give a damn about the American embassy in Teheran being, in fact, American territory. And in threatening to try personnel in uniform as spies reveals a certain lack of familiarity with the whole Geneva Convention thingy.
    The captain of the ship that the British boarding party were just leaving from as they were taken, insists that he was anchored in Iraqi waters.

    Some more here

    Comment by Sgt. Mom — 20070401 @ 1436

  10. When listening to politicans and their designated mouthpieces, no matter what their stripe, it pays to use a hyperbole filter. Both the Iranian and British governments are guilty of pointless, loudmouthed, sabre-rattling in this affair, but one should apply a discount to that kind of chatter. Neither of them actually wanted a fight, and it looks as if they’ve managed to talk their way out of one.

    Had I been their skipper, I would not have allowed their capture; the government can always disavow you afterward. Once theyve been moved to Tehran, it’s a whole different ballgame, and the same “hot blooded” response is no longer allowable.

    Three things to keep in mind:
    1. No one ever thinks of themselves as the bad guy.
    2. The coastal zone in question is heavily contested.
    3. The Iranians have good reason for hating the Brits.

    Comment by Raymond — 20070403 @ 1812

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)