I find hard to believe that the only U.S. combat unit in the theater is that sub.
What we have here is what’s known as a minor gaffe which you quickly acknowledged when it was pointed out. A Republican level moment of stupidity would have required you to double down on being right to begin with and following that up with an attack on another poster.
In context of my guidance for people to “pick a lane”, that’s certainly one of them, and neither is a war crime. To recap:
- Is it an actual war? This board’s consensus appears to be that the US is waging war on Iran. If so, then the sinking of a military warship cannot possibly be a war crime.
- Is it not an actual war? The administration won’t admit it’s a war in so many words, and it’s made no legal case, so it may not actually be a war. If not, then it can’t be a war crime, it would be a crime like piracy as you noted.
There’s potentially at least one fairly clear war crime here, which is illegally waging a war of aggression, because Iran didn’t attack the US. That’s a war crime that can be prosecuted at the political level (i.e. war, the unlawful declaring of), but not at the operational level (military officers conducting the war they were directed to conduct).
Though this would be an extremely thorny issue to prosecute. Not to give any credence to Trump’s lies about “being at war with Iran for 50 years”, Iran was far from a neutral innocent party, and indeed has been doing some form of low-intensity terrorism, disruption, or antagonism to the US or its allies since the revolution. Deserved or not, that’s beside the point, nobody can argue with a straight face that Iran has been some sort of neutral nonthreatening bystander to the US or its interests for the past 50 years. Not that they deserved to be bombed into the stone age for this, but they’re certainly not neutral.
Some instructive precedent can be learned from the trials of Karl Dönitz, a high-ranking German naval officer who was tried on both of these counts. They actually attempted to prosecute him for unrestricted U-boat warfare on civilian shipping, and though technically he was convicted, he was not punished, because the civilian ships were arguably participants in the war effort by sharing intelligence, arming defensively, and organizing in convoys for security. For the IRIS Dena sinking, he wouldn’t have even been convicted because Dena was literally a warship, not under flag of surrender, regardless of what it was doing. That’s more of a diplomatic offense than anything.
The actual relevant crime that Dönitz was convicted of was the political crime of helping plan attacks and invasion of neutral countries. Although this also related to U-boat warfare, it wasn’t related to the military conduct, but participating in the political decision to initiate war on neutral parties.
If there’s an obvious crime here, that’s what it is, starting an illegal war of aggression. And other crimes will be identified as information emerges, like the alleged bombing of a school in session. But the torpedoing of Dena is nothing at all to do with that. Lawful conduct, end of story.
If it’s a war, you deny the enemy of every asset that you possibly can. This very much includes a costly modern warship and its combat-trained crew. Sub warfare has commonly been decried as unfair because the targets often have no warning that would potentially allow them to surrender. But there’s no legal basis for any claim that enemy units must be offered a chance to surrender.
If you don’t think it’s a legal war, that’s a different question, but again, operational commanders are not held accountable for the legal conduct of a war that was illegally ordered by political leadership.
Maybe a war’s illegitimacy could form the basis of a court-martial defense for a crew that decided they weren’t going to pursue a legitimate target, I don’t know. I think that would require a massive change of political leadership and climate in the US. But they’re certainly not obligated in any sense to disobey orders. This is one case where “just following orders” absolutely is a valid defense.
And maybe, just maybe, the lever that pries him out of the White House. It’s worth talking about.
True enough, though Trump is arguably much less intelligent than Kaiser Wilhelm II was.
The Lusitania was a passenger ship carrying war material, but the Iranian ship was a warship that didn’t carry passengers, something I feel compelled to point out for no apparent reason.
No. Full stop. That is my main point here, people need to stop invoking “war crimes” as if it’s a way to run to the hall monitor to effect what couldn’t be achieved politically in the US.
War crimes prosecutions only happen after the war is over, if the victors feel like exercising the power to weigh in on what’s legitimate vs. illegitimate conduct. Because the teeth in that process mostly reside with American appetite to bite down, that means the political conditions in the US have to make this possible, not vice-versa. And if we have the political means to prosecute him ourselves, then it will essentially eliminate the need & appetite to do it internationally.
We can & should talk about war criminality, and we should get it right, but we need to be clear that you cannot say the magic phrase “war crimes” and get to speak to the manager to do what American voters would not. Maybe, maybe if there is an overwhelming blue tide for the next 6 years in America, Trump and his cronies will be impeached/indicted/convicted under the American justice system. Then a war crimes prosecution would be a moot point.
But if that does not happen, then they are all definitely going to get away with some pretty serious war crimes. Everybody needs to expect this, and turn their attentions to maximizing the political remedies that are achievable in the US.
I would suggest that we have enough military resources between right now Lanka and Iran that we could have at least attempted to intercept the ship.
I would be happily if you explained why torpedoing this ship and causing these deaths was preferable - what advantages it conferred - over any number of possible alternatives. Even in military actions - wars, if you will - I do not believe civil, ethical actors go out of their way to cause unnecessary casualties. Especially of unarmed, defenseless individuals. Why is any outmatched element ever given the opportunity to surrender?
I think that is now considered old-school “woke” thinking. The new paradigm is that the US can do anything they want, up to and including atrocities. It’s not a crime if you’re the most powerful.
False dichotomy.
Possibly true, but irrelevant.
It denies the enemy use of an expensive ship and trained crew that would be costly to replace, and we can’t use ourselves. It sounds callous, but that’s how military decisions are made, an untrained civilian mind will struggle to accept it.
Unnecessary civilian casualties, or for military-medical assets, yes, you are absolutely right. Outside of that, in context of military operations, the concept of “unnecessary casualties” does not compute. The mission, unless directed otherwise, is to close with and destroy the enemy with hostile fire until the objectives are met, full stop. The more military deaths, the better. The more expensive destruction, the better. Leading to the question -
Because command decided that the political optics are better. Or the enemy combatants can be made useful via intelligence collection, or labor, or perhaps even turned to combat. Or perhaps you simply achieved the main objective and lack the time or resources to kill fleeing forces. Civil ethics simply do not apply in a military situation.
I would take care to note if a flag of surrender is offered, then it must be accepted. But there’s absolutely no obligation whatsoever to ask for surrender terms. You simply shoot until you see a flag of surrender, and then you stop.
It’s nothing to do with what I prefer or don’t prefer. The rules are what they are. Your argument amounts to the supposition that there is “fair” and “unfair” in war, and there simply isn’t.
The obvious “war crime” here is Trump initiating aggression against Iran. If you want to hammer a legitimate war crime, that’s the one (well, the first one, there will no doubt be many others to talk about).
I hope someday you’ll learn to understand that you can condemn part or all of a situation without relying on incorrect legal labeling for emotional impact.
If you want my purely human and emotional judgment on this, the entire war on Iran itself is illegal. It should never have been started and should be stopped as soon as possible. But the sinking of Dena is a completely separate discussion from that.
Would this logic justify shooting unarmed soldiers instead of taking them prisoner? Because this ship could have been easily taken without killing the unarmed crew, as I understand it. We’d end up with a nice ship in our possession too.
Except that is a major change because it helps create atrocities and massacres when the other side returns the favor. As well as incites much stronger resistance.
Is this an act of war against India? If India is hosting an exercise and invites other nations’ warships to come unarmed, I would expect that would give India the responsibility to ensure safe passage. So we destroyed a ship under India’s protection.
I think that necessarily follows.
And what, in this case, is the “mission”? What are the “objectives”?
I really don’t have tremendous sympathy for many military casualties, but even I find your attitude repulsive. Which I do not expect would bother you one bit.
Yes, if the soldiers are not signaling surrender, then the proper military course of action is to start shooting them until they die or signal surrender, unless there’s advantage in doing otherwise.
Let’s unpack this:
- Easily taken without killing? How did you determine this?
- Taking the ship as a prize - we’re not trained to operate or maintain random vessels from other countries.
I will say that it my opinion, this sinking doesn’t seem like it should have been a military priority. It seems like the US would easily have the resources to capture the ship and crew if desired. And I strongly suspect that this course of action was chosen purely for reasons of dick-swinging spectacle. But there’s no military or legal requirement that says it can’t be sunk on sight.
Though there is some confusing naming of bodies of water involved here, India does not own the Indian Ocean. The boat was sunk off Sri Lanka, but not reportedly in Sri Lankan waters. It had participated in military exercises hosted by India, and India feels that this was an insult.
This is not my attitude or preference. I am describing, not prescribing. Not in the manner of “life ain’t fair, cupcake” but simply that this is how military operations are trained and conducted in every military in the world. If you find war repulsive, well good. If enough people felt the same, we’d have less of it.
But the fact is that it works a certain way, and military ethics and doctrine are entirely a separate beast from civilian morality and ethics. I’m actually glad that civilans find it horrifying, but this needn’t impede your ability to understand how it works.
OK, back to the ship. How the heck could they have raised flag in the amount of time it took the torpedo to go from a submerged submarine to the side of their ship? And even if they did, I don’t think you could recall the torpedo.
It’s like a cop popping out behind an unarmed criminal suspect and shooting him in the back of the head, and then declaring that the suspect never submitted to an arrest.