Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
It's a paradox, right? To grant children special status in war, is to guarantee they will be used in war.
|
Yup.
I recently saw part of an episode of a doco on Afghanistan.
The talibs had fired on a patrol from within a town. NATO moved some APCs and troops up some hills to vantage points, which of course the talibs wanted, because they had set IEDs there. Despite careful progress, there was a blast, one soldier injured.
Finally, the summit was secured, the patrol was in a position to bring fire on the talibs. The talibs realised this, and perfectly knowing the rules of engagement NATO are under, left their weapons, stood up in a way that made it clear they were unarmed, left the building, and went home in a fucking TAXI.
Any rule imposed on the troops will be exploited by the enemy. If we rule all under-eights as being by definition non-combatants, expect armed seven year olds.
IMHO it is a war crime to
arm a child and send them to battle. A soldier who shoots a hostile person, regardless of age or gender, is not to blame.