I can't say I feel much sympathy towards the Iraqis here, but it does seem a tad bit vindictive.
I can't say I feel much sympathy towards the Iraqis here, but it does seem a tad bit vindictive.
Striking the retreating army is the 'easiest' way to 'neutralize' it, Clausewitz writes about it, and I am sure it's been practiced for thousand(s?) of years before that.
For a timely comparison: would it be 'vindictive' when Ukraine strikes the retreating Russian army in the Kyiv area before they regroup and attack the Donbas? I don't think so. Seems like a good idea, actually.
That analysis never made much sense to me, and apparently it later came out that the Belgrano wasn't leaving the Falklands anyway, and much later on the captain of the Belgrano said he thought that the British were quite right to sink it [1]!
[1] https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-was-right-to-sink-th...
Wiping out his best soldiers may have reduced his ability to suppress the other two ethnic groups.
Or it made Shia and Kurds more active and sowed MORE conflict. Who can predict such things.
But from realist international puppet string wannabes, it neutered Saddam's military and ability to threaten Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. The US was just a mercenary army for the Kuwait and Saudi royal families in this "war".
Why wouldn't you feel sympathy for people who were killed or maimed, and their families?
What little sympathy I have, is because people died. I don't have more sympathy because 1) those Iraqis invaded another country. 2) They didn't surrender. I am well aware that retreating but not surrendering soldiers get shot in wars, and I'm not particularly upset about it when those soldiers are on the belligerent side. I have some shred of sympathy for them, only because they are still human.
they could have always surrender and become POW.
Many did when command and control broke down