The Geneva Convention & The Troubles

[badinage]

The argument on POW status of paramilitaries in Northern Ireland has been had many times on this site, and a sub-topic that is usually raised is the IRA's execution of "enemy Prisoners of War". Those of a republican persuasion tend to argue that the IRA, as a guerrila force which did not control territory, had no choice but to execute RUC and British Army personnel, as it lacked the capability to take them prisoner.

However, having recently read Guests of the Nation, it occured to me: why not shoot POWs in a disabling but non-fatal way, rather than kill them? Shooting a POW in the knee caps - then releasing him - would have ended the soldier's military career, thus simultaneously:
a) reducing the enemy's fighting personnel
b) increasing the financial cost of holding on to Northern Ireland (a disabled soldier will require medical treatment and disability benefit).

Did this never occur to the IRA, or did the IRA prefer fatal methods as it was believed they would be more effective in lowering enemy morale and in raising the public profile of the IRA campaign?

In any event, while shooting a prisoner of war in the knee caps is still a breach of the Geneva Convention, it is a considerably less serious breach than executing a POW, thus is less undermining of the IRA's claim that its captured personnel are deserving of POW status

[jmcc]

The argument on POW status of paramilitaries in Northern Ireland has been had many times on this site, and a sub-topic that is usually raised is the IRA's execution of "enemy Prisoners of War". Those of a republican persuasion tend to argue that the IRA, as a guerrila force which did not control territory, had no choice but to execute RUC and British Army personnel, as it lacked the capability to take them prisoner.

I think that you may be extraordinarily ignorant of what a guerilla war involves. It is not a game of toy soldiers with clearly defined battle lines with morality dictated by waffling OpEd columnists. In war, the objective is to kill the enemy and destroy his forces. It is not the objective to take prisoners unless it is for intelligence purposes.

? Shooting a POW in the knee caps - then releasing him - would have ended the soldier's military career, thus simultaneously:

Yeah right! And the soldier could identify the location, numbers and potentially the guerillas. In guerilla warfare, a captured enemy is interrogated and then disposed of. Nasty and brutal but that is the nature of such wars.

a) reducing the enemy's fighting personnel

The forces of both sides are cannon fodder. That is the reality.

b) increasing the financial cost of holding on to Northern Ireland (a disabled soldier will require medical treatment and disability benefit).

Why injure one soldier when you can carve out the financial heart of the enemy's capital city? Which causes more damage? It is simple strategy.

Did this never occur to the IRA, or did the IRA prefer fatal methods as it was believed they would be more effective in lowering enemy morale and in raising the public profile of the IRA campaign?

I have no idea. Unless the leadership of PIRA were cappucino swigging, Irish Times OpEd swallowing morons, they were looking for more effective ways of waging war.

Regards...jmcc

[mbari hogun]

Presumably even a maimed British soldier can identify the men and women who kidnapped him.

[badinage]

I think that you may be extraordinarily ignorant of what a guerilla war involves. It is not a game of toy soldiers with clearly defined battle lines with morality dictated by waffling OpEd columnists. In war, the objective is to kill the enemy and destroy his forces. It is not the objective to take prisoners unless it is for intelligence purposes.

The objective of a guerrilla war is generally to politically mobilise the masses into supporting the radical guerrilla movements position. If the masses are utterly opposed to the state army, and the state army is unwilling to massacre them all, then the state army's control may fail.

The aim of a guerrila army is very rarely simply to kill as many state army soldiers as possible.

? Shooting a POW in the knee caps - then releasing him - would have ended the soldier's military career, thus simultaneously:

Yeah right! And the soldier could identify the location, numbers and potentially the guerillas. In guerilla warfare, a captured enemy is interrogated and then disposed of. Nasty and brutal but that is the nature of such wars.

That's all true, but the IRA was attempting to change the nature of guerrilla wars by campaiging for its captured personnel to be recognised as POWs. One of the reasons they were not is because they themselves did not abide by the Geneva Convention. If the IRA wanted its personnel treated as POWs, a step in achieveing that would have been some sort of reciprocal arrangement as regards treatment of captured personnel. Yes wounded enemy would be able to identify location and numbers of IRA members, but its up to the IRA to decide whether that would be crucial enough to sacrifice POW status for them own members

[jmcc]

The objective of a guerrilla war is generally to politically mobilise the masses into supporting the radical guerrilla movements position.

The objective of a guerilla army is to win the war against a numerically superior enemy.

The aim of a guerrila army is very rarely simply to kill as many state army soldiers as possible.

The aim is to win and the war has to be prosecuted in the most effective manner possible. That does not mean open field conflict. The days of Napoleonic set piece battles are long gone.

That's all true, but the IRA was attempting to change the nature of guerrilla wars by campaiging for its captured personnel to be recognised as POWs.

No. The PIRA was fighting one guerrilla war and was concerned with that - not others.

One of the reasons they were not is because they themselves did not abide by the Geneva Convention.

It is amazing how many people still believe that the Geneva Convention still stands for something.

If the IRA wanted its personnel treated as POWs, a step in achieveing that would have been some sort of reciprocal arrangement as regards treatment of captured personnel.

You really don't have much of a clue about guerrilla warfare do you? As I pointed out before, the only time that a guerrilla army would, realistically, take prisoners is when they needed to acquire intelligence. You seem to be considering it all like some WW2 movie where everyone plays by the rules.

Combat in guerrilla warfare is very much a hit and run affair. For the guerrilla army it is not about engaging the enemy in a set piece battle. It is about ambush and quick exfiltration. The opportunity to take prisoners does not really arise and even if it did, taking prisoners would slow down the whole escape.

Yes wounded enemy would be able to identify location and numbers of IRA members, but its up to the IRA to decide whether that would be crucial enough to sacrifice POW status for them own members

Do you understand the difference between conventional warfare and guerrilla warfare?

Regards...jmcc

[badinage]

Do you understand the difference between conventional warfare and guerrilla warfare?

Regards...jmcc

I don't think you really grasp what i'm talking about jmcc. Either that, or you're just being difficult.

Its the IRA that wanted to muddy the difference between conventional warfare and guerrilla warfare - it claimed it was engaged in a state vs state conflict, that its captured personnel were entitled to POW status, etc. I was attempted to address one aspect of that. Nothing you've posted on the thread has really addressed the point I raised.

[rf]

given that the IRA executed many of its POWs should the british army have done the same to the captured IRA members. also if the ira were a real army then why did they continously murder the innocent, one could argue that military personel were fair game but murdering innocent women and children like in omagh signifies what lowlifes tha ira were

[Kerrygold]

given that the IRA executed many of its POWs should the british army have done the same to the captured IRA members.

They did.


[quote:3g49uuo8]also if the ira were a real army then why did they continously murder the innocent, one could argue that military personel were fair game but murdering innocent women and children like in omagh signifies what lowlifes tha ira were

[/quote:3g49uuo8]

Your first point has been debated ad nausea and your second point is incorrect.

[Ballinran]

given that the IRA executed many of its POWs should the british army have done the same to the captured IRA members.

They did.

Say what?

also if the ira were a real army then why did they continously murder the innocent, one could argue that military personel were fair game but murdering innocent women and children like in omagh signifies what lowlifes tha ira were

Your first point has been debated ad nausea and your second point is incorrect.

So basically, you don't want to discuss the 1st point.

The 2nd point is not incorrect, just too late.
The Ira had shown themselves to be lowlifes many times WAY before Omagh.

[badinage]

given that the IRA executed many of its POWs should the british army have done the same to the captured IRA members.

They did.

Say what?

He means in a tiny percentage of cases. Its generally believed that under a dozen of the 15,000 republicans imprisoned were shot "while trying to escape", or in the case of Gibraltar, no attempt to take prisoners was made, etc