Is Using IEDs An Honorable Wartime Weapon?

Posted by Joshua White on 02.21.2007

There is a sense that those who use IEDs are less than perfect wartime combatants. Is this feeling that we have correct? Or is it possible that our enemies are just fighting us using every moral means possible?

During the American Revolutionary War the British, among other issues, had problems with the American war strategy. The British (honorably even then) lined up in rows, with bright red suits on. They probably even pinned targets over their hearts. The Americans dispensed with all of this production and ritual and took a lesson from the native Americans. The Americans hid in the forest and using what is now known as guerrilla warfare attacked the British. The American used surprise as a method of making them more equal to the more populous and powerful British.

In modern times, oftentimes when there is a hostage situation the local SWAT team is called in. The hostage taker has no clue that while he is negotiating with the man on the microphone a sniper has been put in place and there are thirty incredibly trained and armed men behind the building waiting for the "go." After several hours, when the hostage taker gets hungry he asks for a pizza. Little does he know but the guy bringing the pizza is a trained SWAT member. The SWAT guy drops the pizza and falls to the ground. Within an instant the sniper shoots the bad guy. Problem solved.

Both of these scenarios used ambushing to help fight the bad guy (whoever that is). And in both of these cases I can hardly imagine that anyone would have a problem with either strategy or action.

Currently, our troops in Iraq face "surprise attacks" daily. These sort of assaults are better known as an Improvised Explosive Devise (IED). I'm sure you all know the story: an IED is placed in a bag, under some dirt, or in a body. As our troops drive by, the IED goes off in the hopes of killing as many of our side as it possibly can.

When described by any of the media outlets (loony left-leaning or otherwise) there is always this air that IEDs are somehow inferior to "traditional tactics." It is almost like shooting someone in a firefight is acceptable during wartime, but killing your opponent with an IED somehow is lesser of a tactic. And the person that planted the IED doesn't garner the bravery or credit that a "traditional soldier" deserves.

My question is why is this the way it is?

I understand that we, as Americans, can never give the enemy any amount of credit. As far as we're concerned they are the bad guys. They can't act bravely or with honor. They are wrong. We are right. Everything that they do is done out of cowardice and everything we do is done out of bravery, honor and love of freedom.

Seriously though, they may be wrong in that they're fighting for the wrong thing. But I don't think that means that our enemies can't fight bravely or with honor. They are ignorant of which side to fight for, but that doesn't mean that they can't fight honorably for that side. They can exhibit all the same traits that our troops do, just on the other side.

The question again: are IEDs a part of honorable warfare?

How are they honorable? Well the most obvious is that it takes some amount of intelligence to put these devices together. As our troops learn to deal with these weapons the IEDs are changed as well. This requires not only smarts, but cunning and forethought. Isn't this deserving of honor? Can't we give some positive attribute to our enemy?

I understand that many might claim that this strategy is underhanded. It is hiding in wait for when the enemy isn't expecting it. The enemy is like a snake setting a trap for it's helpless victim.

How would you rather they fight? In the open. Mano a mano? You can't expect that. They would have no shot at winning. But just because a side doesn't have a chance at winning doesn't mean that their wrong in their mission or that they can't battle morally. The soon to be Americans were in the same predicament. Yet, we see what they as heroic and brave. They did what they had to do to fight a vastly superior enemy. IEDs are no different.

Using IEDs against troops is no different than the SWAT team using a pizza man to get close to the victim or using guerrilla tactics during the Revolutionary War. Surprise is a useful and moral tool in war. Unfortunately for us, our enemies know how to use it all too well.

Am I wrong? Is using IEDs intrinsically wrong? Do you think that they are lesser combatants because they do so? Let me know how you feel about this.



This column is shorter than normal, but I think that it more than makes up for my ridonkulously long column last week. It's funny, you try to convince your audience of your definition of rape and you get tons of email. You compare a rapist to a fetus and you get nothing. I realize that it was long, but I do suggest you go back and look at section 4.

Looking for more to read?:

If you love me and my columns, then you'll love other columns promoting me. And if I could get 60 million more followers to love me like Joe, then I'd be your next president.

Ray Church is back! And he likes my column!! So, I'll promote his. Note for the voters: if Church ever becomes Secretary of the Treasury we may never see Reagan on the penny. Keep this in mind on voting day.

Much like the real resolution, Dan Labbe's sternly worded letter means nothing to the president. However, unlike the real resolution, Labbe's letter is funny at times and a good read.

See you all next week.

Until next time…believe nothing unless you read it here.