Friday, May 28, 2010

Moral Compromise of the ICRC and It's Members

There are many things I have come to loathe during my years on this earth but nothing so much as the coward. Our country and this world at large, has so given into the forces of darkness that there are people on this planet that can no longer tell black from white, right from wrong, good from bad and who are blissful in their willful ignorance. People have chosen to not stand for anything rather than take a stand that might 'cost' them. Consider the following definitions:

From 'Websters New World College Dictionary 2010' :


1. to settle or adjust by concessions on both sides (legal definition)

2. to lay open to danger, suspicion, or disrepute

3. to weaken or give up (one's principles, ideals, etc.) as for reasons of expediency (personal failure)

Compromise, by most standards is not a good thing. All it says is that two or more people willingly gave up some of what they believed for something they did not, all in the name of reconciliation. What was that Ben Franklin said again? 'Those who would give up essential freedom for a little security, deserve neither'. This principle can be applied to almost any endeavor in life where you are prepared to do that which you know is not right in order to meet some other standard. For those of you who are struggling with this; This is bad; very bad. The fact is there is absolute right and absolute wrong and it is only someone who finds that concept...troubling that won't live his life accordingly.

Back to the ICRC: The ICRC is the Red Cross by any other name and they have decided they are 'above it all' and choose to ignore all of those testy problems of right and wrong when they decide to go somewhere and help people. To be sure, they have helped many people stricken by natural disasters and famine and that is good, and just. They have, however, shown far less concern for the uniformed Servicemen in this country than I would like to see.

But now we are told that the ICRC, that bastion of rising above it all, has decided to bring aid and comfort to the Taliban. Not only are they bringing aid and comfort to the Taliban, they intend to teach them 'Battle Field Skills'. First aid is not a battle field skill you say? Then you Sir, or Ma'am, have never worn a uniform, trained for battle, or served on the battle field. First aid is one of those essential subjects taught to all uniformed men and women in the United States and I suspect, Britain, Canada, Australia and so on.

The intent of this training for our troops is to save lives and ultimately, return them to the battle field. So why is the ICRC intending to train the Taliban? They are our enemy by virtue of the fact they believe in world submission to Allah, by force. And let's not forget they are presently in armed conflict with American, British, Canadian, Australian etc troops. Why is the ICRC preparing to teach our enemy a Battle Field Skill which WILL aid them in sending those healed murderers back to the battle field to fight our men - fellow citizens of the Red Cross members? Well; because they are above it all. They have, apparently been able to compromise their very souls, what they know to be right and wrong and have effectively divorced themselves from their various nations all in the name of some misplaced compassion.

This is not a complicated point. The Taliban are not legitimate soldiers. They are alternately, thugs, murderers, henchmen, drug lords, gang members, 'soldiers of Islam', purveyors of chaos and, oh yeah, the enemy of this nation currently.

If the Red Cross feels the need to ramp up it's mission to dispense compassion, how about showing a little more compassion for the men and women, in uniform, trying to stop these animals who, under any other circumstances, would be just as happy and justified in their ideology to remove the heads of Red Cross workers from their shoulders, use them like footballs and televise the action for all the world to see.

The fact is that this has a lot less to do with dispensing compassion than it has to do with using this act as a 'bully pulpit'. The Red Cross, for all of it's posturing has never stepped away from the fact they abhor war. Of course they assume those who fight, love war. The fact is, the Red Cross's ranks are apparently filled with people who would rather compromise all that they are, their families, their very nation, their beliefs, their right to self-determination and the sanctity of innocent life, rather than to do that which must occasionally be worked out on the field of battle.

Compromise is almost never a good thing. More often than not it brings out that which is most loathsome in men; cowardice and the willing destruction of the innocent through the lack of action and self-sacrifice. The Red Cross personnel who will be teaching the enemy these battle field skills, are sacrificing nothing, jeopardizing nothing. As long as they are giving the enemy, aid and comfort and skills they can use, those morally compromised Red Cross members will remain the safest people in Afghanistan. But what of our American Warriors in harms way under the current ROE ? They will have to face the very same jihadists who will have been returned to the battle field by the efforts of the Red Cross.

Hey ICRC members; does Memorial Day mean nothing to you?

Semper Fidelis;

John Bernard


  1. Hi John

    I read your post on the ICRC.
    There is nothing compromising in what the ICRC is doing. It is applying the Law of war that requires the wounded and sick in the battlefield to be treated regardeless of the side they fight for. It is exactly for that reason that US troops treat wounded Talibans they come across.

    The ICRC works closely with the US military on International Humanitarian Law and should the US military express the need to be trained in first aid in the battlefield, I am sure the ICRC stands ready.

    First aid is not a battle field skill and the fact that first aid units are specically protected from enemy attacks (according to the Geneva Convention) shows that.

    One last point, as you point it out yourself, it is extremely dangerous for the ICRC to reach out to some fighting groups who sometimes disrespect the neutral humanitarian work done by the ICRC and assaults their staff. People who are ready to take such risks for the sake of the principle of humanity deserve respect from a principled person like yourself.

  2. Bob;

    I too applaud the ICRC in their efforts to dispense compassionate aid to the needy. As to their specific interest in treating the Taliban, let's not forget that these thugs are going to - GOING TO, return to the battle field and continue to kill Americans. They will also take the opportunity to lop off the heads of the ICRC members helping them should they deem that of value. They are equal opportunity murderers.

    When American Marines, and Soldiers capture and then treat the wounds of the Taliban, they do not return them to the battle field so they can kill again. In this respect there is a great deal of difference between what ISAF is doing and what ICRC is doing.

    If the ICRC is intent on helping and then hoping for a cessation of hostilities based on their efforts, they are diametrically opposed because all they are doing is what all 'battle field medical training' is intended to do and that is to treat the wound, heal the war-fighter and return him to the battle field.

    In this case we are not talking about a legitimate fighting force but an aberrant group of murderers who are indiscriminate in the use of their force. They specifically kill all who disagree with their efforts (women, children, men, the legitimate uniformed forces of all nations), set IED's, force children into unspeakable sexual acts (don't dare say no to this; check out the many stories that have come out about this before you nix it), and do all of this in the name of Allah.

    As for my Principles; they are in tact and there is absolutely no compromising of those principles in this stand. Remember; the point of war is to force the enemy into submission and you simply cannot do that, in this case, by legitimizing what is not legitimate.

    There is also a world of difference between patching a wound and teaching what IS a Battle Field Skill.

    And don't let the Red Cross snow you with their bandages and their 'care'. They are as politically charged an organization as ever existed.

    In the end, this is about the ICRC giving the enemy of our Marines, Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Coastguardsmen, aid and comfort and giving them further ability to kill our men.

    Rather ask this; how do you justify this act to the Parents of those who are losing their children at the hands of murderous thugs, being aided in that effort by the Red Cross?



  3. In any typical or conventional warfare, I would put up no argument to the ICRC assisting our enemy. It is, afterall, an INTERNATIONAL force and not an American one. As you pointed out, Bob, the Law of Land Warfare dictates that the ICRC shall be allowed to assist all forces involved in a conflict. However, it states within the first few pages these rules will apply to UNIFORMED SOLDIERS. ICRC are required/allowed to assist all persons in a uniform.

    Would you still hold ground on your assessment if the ICRC were treating a spy? Without a flag to march under or a uniform to bleed in, the Taliban and similar organizations are not Uniformed Soldiers and, therefore, do not rate the same treatment as those fighting for a flag. The Taliban are nothing more than an organized rabble - criminals and spies at best. Simply, they are TERRORISTS. They specifically target civilians, their livelihood, and their homes. Above all else, while the Taliban continue to target clearly identified medical personnel, why should those medics then turn around to help their killers?

    Furthermore, first aid is, absolutely, a battle field skill. If we sent our service members abroad without those essential battlefield skills, we would have a lot less men and women coming back, in one piece or at all. First response on the front line is just as important as laying down lead into the enemy. It is certainly bad enough that the ICRC is trying to assist terrorists, but to train them in BATTLE FIELD SKILLS is abhorrent. Why not send NATO in there to teach them how to dig in properly with interlocking fields of fire?

    The ICRC's decision to assist a group of terrorists is worrisome at best and treason - to the world as a whole - at worst.

  4. John, I stand with you on this issue.

  5. David here, It was great debating with you on BBC World. I have a feeling from listening to you that we normally agree especially in regard to too restrictive rules of engagement. I am adding you to our blog roll. Keep up the fight even if you are mistaken on this issue--maybe.

  6. David;

    It was great debating with you as well. I hope we can do it again soon. I will also link your blog to mine.

    In Christ;