US Soldiers Authorized To Kill Iranians In Iraq

There is an alleged U. S. authorization to kill Iranians that will be caught helping the terrorists or other enemy in Iraq. The Iranians are hurting the U.S. mission in Iraq and the US is trying its best to avoid any possible confrontation with Iran. The authorization does not cover Iranian diplomats & civilians. The authorization covers Iranian Revolutionary Guard and intelligence officers found in Iraq



The U.S. is somehow preparing for a possible confrontation with Iran. Giving such order in a rule of engagement, clearly shows the need to be more confrontational to the foreign supporters of the insurgency in Iraq. If the support of foreign elements can seriously hurt the U.S. operations in Iraq, it could justify the authorization.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by UM_Gazz]

I find this really quite astounding.

...American soldiers, and presumably US funded mercs, now are authorized to detain, try, sentence, and execute suspects?

All in one go?

Well, they said that there were things that were going to change in the war in Iraq in 2007... I guess this is what they meant... Seems like it's more of an aggressive approach.

Originally posted by soficrow
American soldiers, and presumably US funded mercs, now are authorized to detain, try, sentence, and execute suspects?

All in one go?

Huh?
No, of course not. This has nothign to do with mercenaries, they're only bound by their contracts and the law of the land they are in. This is about US soldiers, who've allways had permission to kill anyone that was trying to kill them. The change now is that the government is going to more actively pursue 'leads' on iranians operating with militias in iraq.

It has nothing to do with capturing POWs, and then being legally permited to summarily execute them or anything like that.

For more than a year US forces have been secretly holding dozens of suspected Iranian agents for up to four days in a "catch and release" policy designed to intimidate them while avoiding escalation.

Meaning, previously, IF they found an iranian agent in iraq, and he didn't start fighting back when they went to grab him, then they released him after a few days. Now, if he doesn't shoot at them, they won't release him.

At no time did they say 'don't kill him, he's an iranian, even though he is shooting at us'. ANd they are not saying you can peacefully arrest someone who is iranian (how would they know until they have him anyway) and then shoot him.


The announcement really is just politics. The Adminstration wants to draw attention to the fact that there are iranians working against us in Iraq, whcih they've known for years anyway, in order to gain political capital.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by soficrow
American soldiers, and presumably US funded mercs, now are authorized to detain, try, sentence, and execute suspects?

All in one go?

Huh?
No, of course not. This has nothign to do with mercenaries, ...This is about US soldiers, who've allways had permission to kill anyone that was trying to kill them. ...It has nothing to do with capturing POWs, and then being legally permited to summarily execute them or anything like that.

I don't know what you base your interpretation on - but mine is based on the info in the article.

NO WHERE does it say anything about combat, or otherwise define how "Iranian operatives" are to be identified:

US soldiers have been authorized to kill or capture Iranian operatives found in Iraq, the Washington Post reported Friday, citing US government and counterterrorism officials.

And BTW - US paid mercs in Iraq qualify as "soldiers," and therefore would be subject to the same orders and authorizations.

The announcement really is just politics. The Adminstration wants to draw attention to the fact that there are iranians working against us in Iraq, whcih they've known for years anyway, in order to gain political capital.

Ya think?

For more than a year US forces have been secretly holding dozens of suspected Iranian agents for up to four days in a "catch and release" policy designed to intimidate them while avoiding escalation.

...In mid-2006 top US government officials concluded they needed to be more confrontational.

...President George W. Bush authorized the new "kill or capture" program in the fourth quarter of 2006, the Post reported

So if the suspected Iranian agents don't shoot and engage American forces, then how do American soldiers determine that they are in fact, Iranian agents or operatives?

Sounds like it's a totally subjective call to me.

Also sounds like our guys can point guns at people on the street, arbitrarily, then shoot them if they run away in fear.

Originally posted by soficrow


I don't know what you base your interpretation on - but mine is based on the info in the article.

NO WHERE does it say anything about combat, or otherwise define how "Iranian operatives" are to be identified:

US soldiers have been authorized to kill or capture Iranian operatives found in Iraq, the Washington Post reported Friday, citing US government and counterterrorism officials.




And BTW - US paid mercs in Iraq qualify as "soldiers," and therefore would be subject to the same orders and authorizations.



So if the suspected Iranian agents don't shoot and engage American forces, then how do American soldiers determine that they are in fact, Iranian agents or operatives?

Sounds like it's a totally subjective call to me.

Also sounds like our guys can point guns at people on the street, arbitrarily, then shoot them if they run away in fear.

Just because you aren't aware of how they determine things, doesn't mean that there isn't intel involved, that you aren't privy to. You have any number of assets(HUMINT, SIGINT, UAV imagery, etc..) checking out leads, and then missions are planned.

Mercs as you call them have always been able to shoot in self defense, but they're not allowed to go on offensive operations ala raids, cordon and search, ambushes, HVT snatches, etc...

Running away in fear doesn't qualify under the ROE. If they're armed and running away in fear, then that's a different matter. The ROE isn't subjective. There are certain actions or behaviors that if witnessed allow for lethal force, but merely running without any other indicators(weapons, etc...) isn't one of them.

Originally posted by soficrow
And BTW - US paid mercs in Iraq qualify as "soldiers," and therefore would be subject to the same orders and authorizations.

No they don't, no law recognizes them as US soldiers, they and do not officially represent this country, they are private individuals for hire. Most of them are not even American.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
No they don't, no law recognizes them as US soldiers, they and do not officially represent this country, they are private individuals for hire. Most of them are not even American.

But isn't American companies using them in Iraq? so they are working for Americans and protecting the American interest in the private sector. Right?

So the death can not talk, if somebody kills, it can be claimed as self defense or a suspected Iranian operative putting Americas private interest in Iraq in danger.

So doesn't that give them the right to shot and ask questions later?

Who is watching what actually happen everyday in Iraq? anyway. This sounds like an open invitation to do as it seems fix when certain problems arises.

uh..

Why does the US need authorization?
If they are aiding, assisting, instructing..or just plain troubemaking..they ARE the enemy.

I just don't get it..Why did this even become a declaration, proclamation, news, or anything? It's odd that we even have to discuss this.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by spacedoubt]

Originally posted by spacedoubt
uh..

Why does the US authorization?
If they are aiding, assisting, instructing..or just plain troubemaking..they ARE the enemy.

That is exactly what I am wondering unless is just an open invitation to conflict with Iran.

That is what I think it is.

marg

yeah it seems to me that we've been running into Syrians, and others for quite a while, and haven't made a big deal out if it, other than mentioning nationality.

You must be right, a little chest thumping, and a warning to Iranians..

Originally posted by spacedoubt

You must be right, a little chest thumping, and a warning to Iranians..

I agree, but not just a warning but a big warning.

I can fairly say that if an Iranian is with the insurgents in the battlefield to fight the U.S. Soldiers in Iraq, they are no different from the enemy. They are the enemy and it is justifiable for them to be the target.

What is interesting is the difference from the past wars of the U.S. For example the war in Vietnam, there were strict specific orders not to bomb some railways or even some known war supply routes from China. The purpose was to avoid the widening of the war & a possible Chinese intervention if a Chinese citizen had been killed by the U.S. forces.

But that proved to be a fatal mistake for the U.S.. North Vietnam's lifeline was left untouched that is why they afforded a long war with the U.S.

In Iraq, directly trageting such source of aid could be one of the best tactics that can be used to fight the insurgents.

Originally posted by marg6043

But isn't American companies using them in Iraq? so they are working for Americans and protecting the American interest in the private sector. Right?

So the death can not talk, if somebody kills, it can be claimed as self defense or a suspected Iranian operative putting Americas private interest in Iraq in danger.

So doesn't that give them the right to shot and ask questions later?

Marg, Marg, Marg :shk: what a hypocrite you are.... remember what you said in the other thread, its war, people die.

Umm alot of the US mercs are part of Blackwater...and if you are in Blackwater you have more then enough training to be a soldier...so ya they are more then classified as soldiers. They take orders like the rest of them.