Canada has just taken control of a Role 2 Medical Facility in Northern Iraq, which is staffed with over 50 healthcare professionals, including surgeons, physicians, nurses, lab and diagnostics technicians, and dentists.
Its purpose is to provide “life saving medical and surgical care to coalition forces”, which will “help defeat Daesh in Iraq” according to Lieutenant-General Stephen Bowes, of the Canadian Joint Operations Command.
However, when asked whether or not Canadian physicians would treat wounded Islamic State (ISIS) fighters, should they arrive at the facility, Bowes stated “we treat the wounded, we sort the rest out later”—implying that an ISIS fighter would be treated.
Although no ISIS fighter has yet been treated, this is because ISIS fighters usually prefer to “fight to the death” than receive Western medical care. However, Canadian Special Forces Commander Brigadier General Michael Rouleau stated that “if we did [come across an ISIS casualty], we would treat them.”
While Canada (and America) is bound by the Geneva Conventions, which “guarantee” all wounded soldiers a right to medical care, should there not be a limit to this right?
How many heads must roll, how many children must be sold into rape-slavery, how many people must be burned alive before we give our soldiers a free hand to destroy ISIS? This logic applies equally to America, whose military has been strangled by “human rights” legislation and regulations—it’s impossible to win a war if you’re not allowed to fight back.
Even if an argument for treating ISIS fighters could be convincingly made, the medical facility can only treat so many people at once—there are only so many doctors and so many beds. And since casualties come in waves (many after a battle, none until the next), why should an ISIS fighter receive treatment when this would likely displace a coalition fighter?
In war, choices must be made. This is a bad choice.