Soldier-author Ralph Peters calls "the casualty con" the use of human shields by the Taliban and other Islamist groups. Essentially, the effort is aimed at creating a political firestorm that undermines political support in the West for Predator drone strikes, and inflames the Islamic world. RP writes:
This week, Taliban terrorists publicly beheaded three civilians in Afghanistan's Farah province, then herded women and children into compounds from which they fought government forces and US advisers.
With a vicious ground battle under way, the Talibs knew attack aircraft would appear. According to military sources, they set up the target. And, just in case, they slaughtered those women and children with grenades before any aircraft appeared. The entire massacre was a planned media event.
RP assails Hillary Clinton's response:
At the end of the day, the Taliban strategy works because our own government sides with the terrorists against our troops.
Instead of begging for forgiveness, Clinton needed to take a firm position. She should have said: "The deaths in Farah province were entirely the fault of the Taliban. To punish these terrorists and better protect Afghan civilians, we're loosening our rules of engagement. We will not tolerate this cynical use of women and children as unwilling weapons of war. These war criminals will be hunted down and killed."
Instead, Hillary blamed our military. Again.
This is war, Madame Secretary. Tragic mistakes happen, but the incident in Farah province wasn't an error -- it was a brutal, cynical set-up. And you stabbed our troops in the back. Again.
Bottom Line. Western leaders and publics need to push back--hard--against terrorist propaganda, and jealously guard their options as essential in wartime. Terrorists have three weapons against us, by which perhaps they can prevail: our technology, our media and our legal system. Human shields are an ideal sword to wield against the West.
Comments