Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[James Dasher <jdasher AT ibiblio.org>]

On Tuesday, Dec 9, 2003, at 17:50 US/Eastern, Alan MacHett wrote:

> Standard military theory promotes injuring the enemy.  It's even part 
> of
> US Army Ranger doctrine.  Injured soldiers slow the enemy.  Every 
> assault
> soldier (the ones actively engaged in warfare -- infantry, artillery,
> etc.) requires approximately 10 support personnel; injured soldiers 
> only
> exascerbate those figures.  Injured soldiers have to be carried and 
> cared
> for by their comrades.  Injured soldiers also tend to scream in pain,
> which has a nice psychological effect on the enemy.  Better to nearly 
> kill
> them than to kill them.

You're right about the affect of injured soldiers on morale, mobility, 
and logistics.  Injuring, as opposed to killing, enemy soldiers is even 
included in the tactical doctrine taught at elite unite and warfare 
schools.

I should've clarified that I was speaking of standard infantry tactics 
- what every soldier is taught at Basic, and has reinforced through 
field maneuvers and other unit training exercises.  Elite units are 
taught guerilla tactics (among assorted other useful things :), which 
emphasize the tactical benefits of, among other things, forcing troops 
on the move to deal with an injured comrade.  As an elite unit, Rangers 
learn such tactics.

Standard military doctrine and theory, however, promotes killing rather 
than injuring.  Close air support pilots, for example, are taught to 
blow stuff up so that they can kill whoever's there.  Armored units are 
taught to blow stuff up - cars, tanks, railroad cars, and so forth - in 
the hopes of killing whoever's inside.

Snipers and other specialized troops, whose military objectives 
generally involve the morale/mobility/logistics factor, certainly have 
the option to aim for an injurious, rather than fatal, wound.  
Advancing infantry, whose goal is to take and hold territory, benefit 
from an absence of enemy troops, whether wounded (and therefore, under 
Geneva, requiring medical attention from their captors) or not (and 
therefore, again under Geneva, requiring humane treatment).

Cheers -