Laws Of War

[Imran Siddiqui]

On the other had, there seems to be a romanticism for allot of people towards insurgents no matter what their means.

As in the American revolutionaries?

[SlowwHand]

As far as Iraq, with what knowledge I, or any other ordinary citizen has, I think it's time to get out.
What's not reported in our media are the amounts of improvements already done, to include hopitals up and running, stock market, children being immunized and so on.
My thought on what Iraq needs to do, assuming they just refuse to integrate their beliefs and be more tolerant of other's beliefs, is to split the country up into sections. Them, not us.
"Last guy on a chopper, pass this proposal on to the guy in charge. Tell him, adios".

[Patroklos]

But if you MUST do it, at least do it in a way that is moral, and practically, covers your ass.

I agree with this statement on the surface but, and I am divorcing this from Iraq in particular and talking about all war, if following the rules makes the objective or war impossible and in fact rewards your opponent for NOT following the rules then your moral conduct is not a bulwark to the rules, but rater a case study on why they should not be followed.

Basically, if one side decides to decend into barbarism then I do not think you are required, and in fact think it is detrimental to both noncombatants and your military effectivness, to continue to adhere to a system that is inoperable and not broken by you.

Continued adherance is a luxury, one someone like us can afford because of our vast superiority in technology and resources. We can probobly still win against most rule violating opponents by playing nice, it will cost far more civilian and military deaths doing so.

And to clarify, if your military objective is not acheivable from the onset because of factors beyond the other side using illegal means to counter your legal ones, then you should not have stared hostilities to begin with (assuming you had a legal reason to do so to begin with). It is never to be acceptable to be the first one to violate the rules of war as a policy.

Sorry for any xposts/late responces, I am at sea and the connection is slow.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Patroklos
On the other had, there seems to be a romanticism for allot of people towards insurgents no matter what their means. Ted is a good example, magnifying the individual actions of .001% of America's soldiers in an attempt to manufacture a systemic problem, while saying little to condemn the actions of those they are fighting against. Not that that .001% should not be punished if the policy is to follow the rules, but a little perspective please.

It seems you have taken your projection abilities to a new level but hey what else is new.

Regardless of your analysis, which is flawed, let me make this clear for your black and white azz.

I have never once "romanticized" about terrorist bombers that blow up civilians. I challenge you to find ONE SINGLE STATEMENT by me that shows otherwise. You can't, so don't even try.


Check it before you wreck it.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I agree with this statement on the surface but, and I am divorcing this from Iraq in particular and talking about all war, if following the rules makes the objective or war impossible and in fact rewards your opponent for NOT following the rules then your moral conduct is not a bulwark to the rules, but rater a case study on why they should not be followed.

Basically, if one side decides to decend into barbarism then I do not think you are required, and in fact think it is detrimental to both noncombatants and your military effectivness, to continue to adhere to a system that is inoperable and not broken by you.

Continued adherance is a luxury, one someone like us can afford because of our vast superiority in technology and resources. We can probobly still win against most rule violating opponents by playing nice, it will cost far more civilian and military deaths doing so.

And to clarify, if your military objective is not acheivable from the onset because of factors beyond the other side using illegal means to counter your legal ones, then you should not have stared hostilities to begin with (assuming you had a legal reason to do so to begin with). It is never to be acceptable to be the first one to violate the rules of war as a policy.

Sorry for any xposts/late responces, I am at sea and the connection is slow.

And this is why you have fallen exactly into Al Queda's trap.

If we descend into the same tactics terrorists use, then we are no better than the terrorists.

That makes us indistinguishable from them.

So at the end of the day, what exactly are we fighting for again?


On top of that, it makes the everyday soldier's job harder. This has been argued by very experienced generals including Colin Powell who warned way back in 2001 that not following the Geneva Conventions puts soldiers lives at risk.

And by the way, there actually ARE other wars since World War 2 that the US has fought in. Vietnam is a great example, when rules of engagement were not followed and disastrous consquences resulted from those rules.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

As part of my diplomatic training, I was given a briefing at the Pentagon regarding the Laws of War. This was just after bad news started coming out about both Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. The impression I came away with is that we were absolutely, 100% commited to adhering to the Laws of War -- but, since the Laws of War (like all laws) required interpretation, we retained the sovereign right to interpret those Laws as we saw fit. Twas ever thus, I imagine.

[Urban Ranger]

If you don't care about the Laws of War you have no right to speak of "illegal acts" (e.g. 9/11) that happened to your side.

[Patroklos]

On top of that, it makes the everyday soldier's job harder. This has been argued by very experienced generals including Colin Powell who warned way back in 2001 that not following the Geneva Conventions puts soldiers lives at risk.

Was it argued by Harris/Ike and company when they started terror bombing Germany? How about Nimitz when we declared unrestricted submarine warfare against the Japanese?

You would have a point, Ted, if we weren't actually following the rules. Since we are, and the insurgents use their knowledge of this to craft successful tactics, you are in effect rewarding them. And since those who pay most for our toleration of a non-functioning system are Iraqi civilians, I am sure the price is paltry enough for you to insist we avoid the accusation of cruelty.

If we descend into the same tactics terrorists use, then we are no better than the terrorists.

What asinine logic. What would make worse than the terrorists is letting them use such tactics with impunity, thrash the rules of war and damn all the protected classes under them to death and tyranny, all because you don't want to get your hands dirty. Try and deny that you want a pullout from Iraq because you think the insurgency cannot be defeated, primarily because of the tactics the enemy is using.

So you support the Laws of War (at least your odd interpretation), but not the enforcement or encouragement of them. Nice.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I've already *****ed and moaned countless times about the Geneva Conventions and how our leadership has bypassed them on several occasions.

First we are morally bound to them. Even throwing out the moral reasons, practically, veering from the Geneva Conventions has bit us in the azz several times already. Our world standing is now lower than it has ever been, even amongst our closest allies.

Our ability to show leadership on the world stage has drastically been diminished. Every time Condolezza Rice opens her mouth to badmouth some other country about human rights abuses, her words are meaningless because we are violating human rights ourselves.

The point was mentioned, that we have the ability to abide by the Conventions more than ever. On the same token, the ability of others to hold us ACCOUNTABLE to those rules, are now greater than ever.

In the past, some may have been able to get away with bending the rules, but now because of the Internet, news travels fast.

It's more important to follow the rules than ever before.

Whaleboy does make a good point, whether or not war is a good idea in the first place is an even more important question. But if you MUST do it, at least do it in a way that is moral, and practically, covers your ass.

It's not everyday I get to a Ted Striker post.

[Admiral]

Rules of war are a somewhat counterintuitive concept. Wars tend to move towards extremes, and on an equal footing the side that first uses a new, more destructive, or heretofore prohibited tactic gains a potentially decisive advantage. World War One offers a classic case study in this tendency. Even in one-sided conflicts, both sides have an incentive to abandon the rules of war in search of a tactical and strategic advantage.

So the rules of war are, on there own, worthless. They only become significant when we start to look at war in its larger context. Let us take Iraq as a case study.

We have the technology to kill everyone in Iraq. Using this option would technically be winning the war, as we would kill every insurgent in Iraq, and halt all additional American deaths. Why we do not do this is in part we would become war criminals, and would be faced with an incredibly hostile rest of the world. Everything less than this comes down to the same equation. We don't torture because whatever information we would get out of the victims would be outweighted by the creation of conditions favourable for additional insurgents (alternatively, we do torture because we think that the benefits outweight the risks (they don't) or that we can get away with it without being caught (we can't). We limit the number of civilian casualties because every unnecessary death (and i won't even begin to get into what makes a death necessary) turns public opinion against us.

Clauswitz tells us that war is the extension of politics by other means. As was shown by Mao in China and Ho Shi Min in Vietnam, politics is also intimately tied to the actual fighting of a war. A nation can win every battle, but can lose the war politically, as happened over and over in the struggles of decolonization. And on the political side, observing the rules of war can have a decidedly positive effect.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Verto
Do you mind?
If I ask?
Why you seem to.
Type like this?
(No offense)

Depending
on the monitor, I
am using at the time.
It can be much
easier to
read.

Especially when some git posts a 'kn big image and I have to keep scrolling left and right to pick up the last few characters on the edge of a screen.

Not
that
I am
suggesting
Sloww
doesn't have
a
right
to be
as
retarded as
the rest
of us.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Was it argued by Harris/Ike and company when they started terror bombing Germany? How about Nimitz when we declared unrestricted submarine warfare against the Japanese?

Ah yes, we should all take lessons from McNamera, you know the guy responsible for all those firebombings and the guy responsible for losing Vietnam. Great role model.

Again, you demonstrate the dangers in relating absolutley anything and EVERYTHING to World War 2. That same tactic, strategic bombing, that was so "great" in World War 2, was an asbolute failure in Vietnam.

But here's a nice quote for you to chew on:

Robert McNamara: I was on the island of Guam in his
[General Curtis LeMays']
Robert McNamara: command in March 1945. In that single night, we burned to death one hundred thousand Japanese civilians in Tokyo. Men, women and children.
Interviewer: Were you aware this was going to happen?
Robert McNamara: Well, I was part of a mechanism that, in a sense, recommended it.
Robert McNamara: LeMay said if we lost the war that we would have all been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he's right. He... and I'd say I... were behaving as war criminals.
Robert McNamara: LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side has lost.
Robert McNamara: But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

The only reason we got away with the bombings is because we won. Many of those bombings against civilans were done when the war was already won (Dresden) and had no impact on the outcome of the war.

What asinine logic. What would make worse than the terrorists is letting them use such tactics with impunity, thrash the rules of war and damn all the protected classes under them to death and tyranny, all because you don't want to get your hands dirty.

Why don't you go tell that to the Marines you are busy moving around?

Try and deny that you want a pullout from Iraq because you think the insurgency cannot be defeated, primarily because of the tactics the enemy is using.

Once again you have shown yourself to be a projectionist. Never once have I asked for a pullout because of insurgent tactics, again, find me exactly where I have ever said that.

You have alot of issues with other people that you just want to push into a nice little box.

Have you ever argued against an opinion you didn't make up?

So you support the Laws of War (at least your odd interpretation), but not the enforcement or encouragement of them. Nice.

Another nice strawman. I support adherence to the Geneva Conventions, no matter what the enemy is doing.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Admiral
Rules of war are a somewhat counterintuitive concept. Wars tend to move towards extremes, and on an equal footing the side that first uses a new, more destructive, or heretofore prohibited tactic gains a potentially decisive advantage. World War One offers a classic case study in this tendency. Even in one-sided conflicts, both sides have an incentive to abandon the rules of war in search of a tactical and strategic advantage.

So the rules of war are, on there own, worthless. They only become significant when we start to look at war in its larger context. Let us take Iraq as a case study.

We have the technology to kill everyone in Iraq. Using this option would technically be winning the war, as we would kill every insurgent in Iraq, and halt all additional American deaths. Why we do not do this is in part we would become war criminals, and would be faced with an incredibly hostile rest of the world. Everything less than this comes down to the same equation. We don't torture because whatever information we would get out of the victims would be outweighted by the creation of conditions favourable for additional insurgents (alternatively, we do torture because we think that the benefits outweight the risks (they don't) or that we can get away with it without being caught (we can't). We limit the number of civilian casualties because every unnecessary death (and i won't even begin to get into what makes a death necessary) turns public opinion against us.

Clauswitz tells us that war is the extension of politics by other means. As was shown by Mao in China and Ho Shi Min in Vietnam, politics is also intimately tied to the actual fighting of a war. A nation can win every battle, but can lose the war politically, as happened over and over in the struggles of decolonization. And on the political side, observing the rules of war can have a decidedly positive effect.

Admiral gets it.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


It's not everyday I get to a Ted Striker post.

[Patroklos]

guy responsible for all those fire bombings

Are you talking about that nonexistent firebombombig of Hanoi in 68', or the nuetron bombing of Hanoi on 81', because both never happened.

same tactic, strategic bombing, that was so "great" in World War 2, was an asbolute failure in Vietnam.

Besides obligingly slaughtering them wholesale by their own initiative during the Tet Offensive, I honesty can't think of a better tactic. Unless you think forcing the primary aggressor into a desperate plea for mercy is a bad thing.

Why don't you go tell that to the Marines you are busy moving around?

Because they like me, and unlike you, are aware of the truth of the original statement like the rest of the thinking world. Do you care to object?

I support adherence to the Geneva Conventions, no matter what the enemy is doing.

Except when such adherence might leave a bad taste in you mouth, not that you have any remote connection to any action in support of them.

Good view from you armchair?