War in and of itself is a barbaric, violent enterprise. It involves the most basic conditions of humanity : life or death. If I am involed in an enterprise which will kill thousands or millions of my enemies as well as my own forces, why are there even rules as to what I can and cannot do in this war, how I can or cannot kill people, who I can or cannot kill?
hrh
Even war has some rules.
You cant kill non combatants
You cant kill or torture prisoners (especially of the nation that defeated you)
You cannot enslave anyone to help your war effort.
You cant kill your own people.
Well, it’s this simple.
If you’re in an army, you’re representing, at least on our side, a democratically elected government. Therefore, if you go and slaughter innocent civillians, or rape women, or torture prisoners of war, then that’s not just you doing it, it’s me.
And I don’t want to do it, therefore you can’t.
On the other hand, yes, the concept of “just wars” and “war crimes” doesn’t really hold up to too much rational scrutiny. It tends to come down to “making the best of a bad job,” IMO.
Think about it for a minute. Just because it’s “okay” to kill an enemy combatant, it’s okay to wantonly rape and kill civilians, torture and murder POW’s, commit genocide angainst an ethnic group in your country opposed to your rule, etcetera ad nauseum? War is barbaric and horrible, but ideally no more than it has to be.
I know that war has some rules. I’m posing the question, “Why?” War is, to me, the worst depth of human nature. I’m killing millions, but I can’t do certain things to complete my objectives?
hrh
What conceivable value is there in killing non-combatatants?
What value is there in torturing anyone?
The point is that war is not an excuse for exercising your sadism, but ‘an extension of diplomacy by other means’ (Clausewitz). You have a responsibility as a human being to do it as humanely as possible.
I’ve often thought the same thing, Homie. It’s like two guys standing there with their dukes up, saying “no hittin’ in the face!” I realize that we have to maintain some degree of…er…civility in a war, but you can’t go much lower than killing the fuck out of each other. It’s just a fucked up deal. And I don’t expect I’ll ever understand it.
The thing that strikes me as odd is that the US threatens to charge Iraqis with war crimes, yet the US will not join the International Criminal Court, which would be the place to try these war criminals.
Kalhoun: If someone makes a joke about you, will your answer be to punch him in the face? If you make a joke about someone, do you expect to be punched in the face?
Some people believe in absolute moral, I don’t. Democratic societies has the right to use brutal force and violence in order to protect its citizens, just like you have the right to protect yourself and others. However, this does not mean that you or your government have the right to use more force then the situation require.
Just my opinion o.c.
It depends on what your objectives are. If you are going to conquer an area of land and have no need of its present inhabitants, then bomb away. Just be sure you are ready to take that fight up with any other country that disagrees with your methods.
If your objectives are to liberate an oppressed people then its kinda silly and pointless to be shooting at them too. However if your enemies are oppressing their people then you can take judicial actions against the oppressors after you defeat them.
If your objectives are to maintain power at all cost, then do what Saddam is doing and hide your men and equipment among your own people. Sabotage any attempts by your regular army to surrender so that they be forced to fight or be shot by both sides. Tell your loyalists to dress in civilian clothes, hide in mosques, schools and hospitals.
If your objectives are to defeat an enemy whose people are very supportive of their govt then civilians who work in factories that support the enemy war effort are viable targets. Their power and utilities are also prime targets as is their communication and transportation means like roads, trains, trucks, planes and shipping.
In most cases, its the victor that sets up the rules afterwards.
I’ve always suspected that the notion of war-crimes has a historical/religious basis to it. Hopefully, someone will be along shortly to describe how it evolved in Western culture. I do know that the Hindu texts such as the Mahabharata indicate that certain types of activity (such as fighting after sundown) are frowned upon.
From a practical perspective though, you want your own people to be treated as well as possible by the enemy. If both of you can agree to follow a certain set of rules, then you ensure that your own people are as safe as can possibly be expected during a time of war.
Depends on how much value the non-combatants have to your enemy. Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki worked pretty well in convincing Japan to surrender, for example.
Also, what if your opponent is deliberately using your respect for non-combatants against you, e.g. by using human shields or by using non-uniformed soldiers?
Intimidating his fellow soldiers. Intimidating the opponent’s civilians back home. Getting information out of him.
Influencing your opponent’s strategy. For example, he may be less likely to choose an attack in which some of his soldiers may be captured (like city fighting) if he knows what you’re going to do with them. This works especially well if your opponent is more vulnerable to public opinion than you are.
None of the above means that I am in favour of no-holds-barred war; I am not. I’m just showing how personal sadism is not the only reason why a military decisionmaker would want to violate the rules of the Geneva convention.
I’ve never understood a lot of the rules either hrhomer. Some nerve gases that quickly cause unconsciousness and suffocation are illegal. Anti-personnel mines that are designed to jump up to hip height when triggered and release a blast of shrapnel into the targets groin are legal.
This is one point of view, but it is by no means universal.
As I’ve said before in the Torture threads, the fact that there is no value in torturing people for “noble” causes, such as to extract information to save people, does not indicate that there is no value on torturing people at all. If it was my intention to keep a population cowed and under thrall, or to prove to them my supreme power over them, I would order the army to be indiscriminate. Tortures, rapes, pillages. Kill not only the soldiers, but the women and children too. Leave no stone unturned, no sons to avenge deaths.
The massacre is by no means underrated as a tool of psychological warfare.
Do not, for a moment, believe that we have some measure of moral virtue just because we are Americans or Britons or Germans. We do not do these things - partially, as has been pointed out, because of a pragmatic ESI which says that if we do not do it to them, it minimises the risks that they will do it to us - but we HAVE done it before, and we have erected rules FOR OURSELVES to curb the risks of our own excesses in warfare.
We long ago decided that victory at any cost was not victory at all.
Another reason why you should obey the rules: At some point, the war will end and you’ll have to deal with the survivors. Things we go smoother if they don’t believe you’re evil incarnate.
The history of the law of war isn’t all that interesting. It basically dates back to the formation of the Red Cross movement in the 19th century.
Anybody who wants to learn more about humanitarian law (a.k.a. law of war) should look at the International Committee of the Red Cross website.
You have to look at why the Geneva Conventions were accepted. The Geneva Conventions take as a given that wars will occur. But given that, why not prohibit practices that do nothing to help win a war, but also cause considerable suffering?
Why allow enemy soldiers to surrender? Why not just shoot them? Well, because then enemy soldiers won’t try to surrender, they’ll fight to the death. Your job just became harder. And your soldiers will have to fight to the death to, since the enemy will no longer accept surrenders either. Soldiers surrender when they are convinced that they can no longer do anything useful, and the only alternative is death. If you allow soldiers to surrender, you don’t hurt your war effort, you don’t hurt the enemy’s war effort, but a lot of people that would otherwise die get to live.
The fallacy of the OP is assuming that total war is the norm. But that is false. Why do wars occur? Wars occur because two sides have differing opinions, and they are willing to use force to resolve the issue. But that doesn’t mean that all wars therefore must mean the annihilation and genocide of the other side. Sometimes the issue being fought over isn’t that important.
For most of history wars were fought between noblemen over who would control (and profit from) provinces and cities. It would make no sense to destroy a town that you are hoping to add to your kingdom.
War crimes and the geneva conventions are instruments that attempt to regulate how armies deal with the inevitable civilian populations involved, and hopefully provide some guarantees as to what happens to prisoners. They attempt to provide some international standards of behavior to modern professional armies. Otherwise you get civilian rapes and massacres, genocide, wanton destruction of non military property and torture and execution of captured combatants among other things. Generally these sorts of acts excalate in the absence of any objective standard of behavior. None of these rules can guarantee behavior, but their existence clearly indicates what is acceptable and what is not.
I agree that many of the “rules” are fairly arbitrary and suited to western sensibilities or to western military dominance
e.g. Napalm + cluster bombs OK, sarin bad (we have good delivery systems for the first two, Saddam hasn’t)
Suicide bombers not cricket, sitting in a aeroplane at 20,000 feet dropping bombs on what may be civilians OK.
This was exemplified on TV by a UK commander who commented on the mining of the El Shatir waterway as another example of Saddams ruthlessness! As if Iraq didn’t have the right to try and defend itself.
It’s a very imperfect system. I won’t repeat the good reasons given here by others for having rules of war. I’ll only say that to ditch something just because it has flaws is never the best thing to do unless you have something better to replace it with. Unless, of course, you’re an anarchist. I know there are a few around, but most people are not.
I’m with the OP, might makes right. Let’s gas Baghdad and Basra and waltz in with no casualties.