White House doctrine result: Take no prisoners?

Aug 2012
10,070
5,475
Here
#1
Seems there could be some unintended consequences from the White House doctrine to release prisoners and closing Gitmo. I guess I don't blame the soldiers if they opt to completely eliminate enemies now rather than take them prisoner. I'm sure some will be kept (for awhile) for intel, but I suppose the bulk of the terrorists should just be given a expedited path to the virgins and a permanent dirt-nap.


ISIS and Guantanamo Bay: Chain of Command Casts Spotlight on Re-engagement

The late ISIS commander in Afghanistan and his heir apparent have more in common than their Taliban pasts and a tendency for jihad: both were former Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The death of commander Abdul Rauf this week — and apparent installation of Abdul Qayyum Zakir in his place — has cast an uncomfortable spotlight on the issue of former Guantanamo detainees rejoining the fight against the U.S.

Rauf — a former Taliban commander who was also known as "Khadim" and nicknamed "Mullah of one leg" — had spent "several years" in Guantanamo Bay, acccording to Afghan officials. After his release, he resumed activities with the Taliban but defected to ISIS prior to being killed on Monday.

Three senior members of the Afghan Taliban confirmed to NBC News that Zakir — described as a "seasoned commander" by one — was appointed Rauf's successor. All three spoke on condition of anonymity.

Zakir was reportedly a junior commander within the Taliban and arrested following the U.S.-led invasion. He was arrested in 2002 and transferred to Guantanamo before being released from the prison in 2007 — at which point he rejoined the Taliban and rose rapidly through its ranks. However, he had a falling out with the organization early last year and was relieved of his duties, according to Afghan and Taliban officials.

The mere existence of Guantanamo has been the subject of fiery debate between Republicans and the Obama administration for years — as has the risk of former detainees rejoining the fight once they are released.

----

"What signal does this send to our young men and women in uniform, who may feel that they are left with an unsettling choice: whether killing our enemies is preferable to detaining them, watching them released, and having to face them another day on the battlefield?" McCain told a hearing on Guantanamo and the future of U.S. detention policy.

ISIS and Guantanamo Bay: Chain of Command Casts Spotlight on Re-engagement - NBC News
 
Likes: 1 person
Mar 2010
16,210
2,310
Near Austin TX
#2
Sure, but then our government will start scrutinizing our troops methods in the field much more closely, inevitably creating more prosecutions and court martials.
 
Likes: 1 person
Jul 2014
38,922
33,911
Border Fence
#5
Zakir was reportedly a junior commander within the Taliban and arrested following the U.S.-led invasion. He was arrested in 2002 and transferred to Guantanamo before being released from the prison in 2007


White House doctrine result: Take no prisoners?
 

Rorschach

Former Staff
Aug 2012
53,875
20,201
america
#6
Agreed. And as the other poster said, our guys will be placed under even more scrutiny in combat leading to indecision, delay, and of course...sometimes the loss of our guys
Thus the reason we are losing the ability to fight wars.

Our enemies rejoice at the efforts of the American Useful Idiots, who do so much to keep them safe from harm, at the hands of our mean old soldiers. Makes raping children and slaughtering villages a far safer career choice........

I sometimes wonder if many on the Left do not see WAR as something akin to a Fishing Tournament: Catch enough of them, "win" the tournament, then, release them, back into the lake.....
 
Likes: 1 person