not surprising--what i think is more interesting though is the why they don't work. I suspect casefires often fail despite both parties best intentions and efforts to properly execute a ceasefire.
i've seen the term "prisoner's dilemma" in the comments here, and that's absolutely what it is--a game theoretic problem in which the strictly dominated strategy is to violate the ceasefire.
In my experience (USMC infantry) a ceasefire requires an extraordinary degree of precise orchestration along both axes (vertically: squad -> platoon -> company -> battalion - brigade; and horizontally: infantry -> artillery -> air assets -> logistics).
Add to that the difficulty of coordinating your own ceasefire effort with your enemy--while they are (ostensibly) trying to doing the same thing.
the fact is that once a cease fire is agreed upon, and an authentic message delivered up and down the commands in battle, tanks and artillery will still continue to fire to allow the infantry to disengage.
but what's the safest way to disengage with someone who's shooting at you? It depends. Troops in a defensive posture (i.e., "dug in") are highly unlikely to vacate their relatively safe positions because to do so means raising their exposure to enemy fire--and indeed they are still active during the casefire.
so for instance to induce the infantry to withdrawal, indirect fire--artillery, mortars, tanks, air assets--will often substantially increase immediately after a ceasefire is communicated. Again, this is normal. But it just takes one officer who doesn't understand this and who thinks the other side has reneged and orders his unit to continue to attack the opposing infantry unit, which is now vulnerable having vacated their carefully prepared defensive positions.
i've seen the term "prisoner's dilemma" in the comments here, and that's absolutely what it is--a game theoretic problem in which the strictly dominated strategy is to violate the ceasefire.
In my experience (USMC infantry) a ceasefire requires an extraordinary degree of precise orchestration along both axes (vertically: squad -> platoon -> company -> battalion - brigade; and horizontally: infantry -> artillery -> air assets -> logistics).
Add to that the difficulty of coordinating your own ceasefire effort with your enemy--while they are (ostensibly) trying to doing the same thing.
the fact is that once a cease fire is agreed upon, and an authentic message delivered up and down the commands in battle, tanks and artillery will still continue to fire to allow the infantry to disengage.
but what's the safest way to disengage with someone who's shooting at you? It depends. Troops in a defensive posture (i.e., "dug in") are highly unlikely to vacate their relatively safe positions because to do so means raising their exposure to enemy fire--and indeed they are still active during the casefire.
so for instance to induce the infantry to withdrawal, indirect fire--artillery, mortars, tanks, air assets--will often substantially increase immediately after a ceasefire is communicated. Again, this is normal. But it just takes one officer who doesn't understand this and who thinks the other side has reneged and orders his unit to continue to attack the opposing infantry unit, which is now vulnerable having vacated their carefully prepared defensive positions.