Quote:
And for it is worth, I never once saw a Taliban insurgent lend aid to one of his wounded comrades. More often than not, they left their wounded for us to deal with, knowing that we were mandated to render aid.
|
Yes, so the notion of wounding the enemy really takes out 3 or more (the wounded, but the handlers to remove the soldier from battle, plus those involved in medical treatment, etc.) is a bunch of hooey if the enemy does not care about their comrads, or in your case, figures they will get better care from the US.
The only forces that are affected by the wounding of one taking out many are those forces that care about their people and want to keep them. In the case of the US, this is taken to the point of being unreasonable, sort of like civilized men making rules about an uncivilized action. So while we may be wanting to kill our enemy as fast as possible to end the war in Afghanistan, not just stop them, our enemy is better off just wounding us. The Hague Convention works well for them because will will risk the lives of dozens or hundreds to save a single wounded soldier, often getting one or more additional soldiers injured or killed in the process.
This aspect of the Hague Convention is disturbing.