View Full Version : Are the Laws Of Armed Conflict obsolete?
I personally think so. I think they need a complete overhaul and rewrite.
Thoughts?
The current laws on chemical weapons leads to a ridiculous situation. It's ok to kill 100,000 people with conventional ordnance, but Allah help you if you use chemical weapons on 100.
Genocide and/or mass killing happens all over the world everyday. Nobody gives a shit unless its political or oil or other desirable assets like ports are involved.
This (Syria) is pure bullshit. We didn't get involved in the countless cases of butchering in Africa. We don't care that Christians are being slaughtered in Egypt. How many people are imprisoned/starved/killed in North Korea each year? Where's the outrage? None, you say? Cuz nobody cares.
The outrage here, in my opinion, started out as diversion from damning stories against the administration and turned into Dear Leader backing himself into an impossible corner.
Got himself in quite a pickle currently, doesn't he? Pure politics that are failing on every level.
Agree. Napalm OK but chemicals bad? Machete and hammer OK, but chemicals bad? Tire necklaces OK, but chemicals bad? Starvation as a weapon OK, but chemicals bad?
Focusing on the tools of war is stupid when it is the acts of war/genocide that are the outrage. But it makes us feel all civilized to loudly proclaim we abhor such and such weapons, but ignore, or even INFLICT, far worse atrocities done with "conventional" weapons of slaughter.
And of course the most ironic part of all of this is the belief that any cruise missiles we launch won't end up killing some kids indiscriminately.
Asad probably has all of his major assets ringed by day care centers. You think there are dead civilians on TV now...wait until we launch something.
Furthermore the resistance is full of Al Quida types with the Arab Brotherhood waiting in the wings to snatch power once the current regime can no longer sustain itself.
The "arab spring" will bloom into an Islamic theocracy...again. They will just call it a Democracy, just like they did in Iran.
And most important of all, you don't threaten to use cruise missiles. You just do it or don't do it. Even Bill Clinton understood that much.
But there is a silver lining, it is laughable to see John Kerry demanding we intercede in a foreign civil war because it is the responsibility of the United States as a world leader to protect freedoms even if there is no UN support.
Killing is killing. However humane or inhumane is irrelevant once the person(s) is dead.
What's really hypocritical is that modern FMJ rifle rounds that fragment cause more suffering than modern soft point / hollow point rounds that do not fragment, yet hollow points are illegal but FMJs are legal. :confused: Yes it's a symptom of a treaty written 100+ years ago, but still.
CarlosDJackal
09-09-13, 14:58
Those "laws" were of little use from the time they were signed. Otherwise the atrocities that were committed by the Japanese or Germans would have resulted in punishments that fit the crime. :angry:
I think the spirit of these "laws" is lost on the current officials and society in general. The bad is outweighing the good so much because of why you are in the situation in the first place. It is not true to the will of the people(us). It is not why they say we are there. Slight of hand and bald face lies rule the day.
It will come back to haunt us. And when it does it will be unheard of here in America. The horrors we have feared for decades will come home to us. And I for one don't want to see this.
RogerinTPA
09-09-13, 15:20
Killing is killing. However humane or inhumane is irrelevant once the person(s) is dead.
Agreed. The only thing that has changed, was the mechanism of death. The deaths in Syria by conventional means...small arms, rockets, bombs, missiles, killing people in the 100's of thousands, no problem. Black on Black killing on the streets of every major city by gun fire, no problem. Beating or killing innocent whites showing evidence as a hate crimes, no problem. Kill people with chemicals...the least of which has produced deaths in a much smaller scale in comparison, international crisis. The hypocrisy is incredible.
We use OTM rounds (aka hollow points) currently. The JAG ruled in accordance with treaties that the purpose of the round is to enhance accuracy and not lethality.
The reason everyone isn't getting MK 262 MOD1 or similar ammo isn't because of treaties, it's probably because of cost or internal politics.
What's really hypocritical is that modern FMJ rifle rounds that fragment cause more suffering than modern soft point / hollow point rounds that do not fragment, yet hollow points are illegal but FMJs are legal. :confused: Yes it's a symptom of a treaty written 100+ years ago, but still.
This is not exactly a new issue. Does anyone remember reading about the V2 rocket attacks on London or the fire bombing of Dresden during WWII?
The proposal to punish Asad is just political manuevering by the Liberal left.
This is not exactly a new issue. Does anyone remember reading about the V2 rocket attacks on London or the fire bombing of Dresden during WWII?
The proposal to punish Asad is just political manuevering by the Liberal left.
It's not really a left vs. right issue, as evidenced by McCain, Boehner, Graham etc. supporting it. It has less than zero to do with any "atrocity". This is a multi-layered movement to enrich certain already obscenely rich assholes while flying the bird at Iran, whom they hate because iran refused to make them any more obscenely rich.
Green crosses all political boundaries.
It's publicity. It's spin. And planning for the future.
The President is taking advantage of something just like the Newtown shooting. It doesn't matter that thousands are killed indiscriminately each day by other means. Since Assad used chemical weapons - now that can be thrown up in front of cameras to differentiate these dead from those dead to push an agenda. This whole thing is just not letting a good crisis go to waste. Win or lose the battle in Congress, in the end the left will be able to say that the Obama administration did what they could to stand in the way of WMD's being used against civilians. That the President took the high road and tried to do everything he could to punish a brutal dictator, and if they're smart they'll point out that the same people who promote guns rights here in America were pushing to leave chemical weapons in the hands of a murderous dictator. They're just building an image for the Obama administration and garnering emotional, moral and political support for the next stateside congressional battle they actually CARE ABOUT. We're either going to bomb Syria, invade Syria, or not - but regardless, the spin is that the President is trying to protect people and do the "right" thing, or at least, that's the spin.
We use OTM rounds (aka hollow points) currently. The JAG ruled in accordance with treaties that the purpose of the round is to enhance accuracy and not lethality.
The reason everyone isn't getting MK 262 MOD1 or similar ammo isn't because of treaties, it's probably because of cost or internal politics.
Well it's always about intent. FMJs aren't intended to fragment either, but they do. OTMs really aren't intended to expand, they're designed with accuracy in mind, so they're legal. But a soft point round would probably never be deemed legal by JAG under the current set of rules of war.
Isn't that what I said? Also, not all FMJ's fragment (as I recall). Part of it has to do with the muzzle velocity and the round.
I have seen recovered 7.62x39 rounds that didn't break apart and fragment to pieces.
Well it's always about intent. FMJs aren't intended to fragment either, but they do. OTMs really aren't intended to expand, they're designed with accuracy in mind, so they're legal. But a soft point round would probably never be deemed legal by JAG under the current set of rules of war.
It's not really a left vs. right issue, as evidenced by McCain, Boehner, Graham etc. supporting it. It has less than zero to do with any "atrocity". This is a multi-layered movement to enrich certain already obscenely rich assholes while flying the bird at Iran, whom they hate because iran refused to make them any more obscenely rich.
Green crosses all political boundaries.
Valid point. I haven't been impressed with the three you mentioned. I think that Obama and Kerry want to demonstrate their strong enough to take action and that Boehner and Graham are going along with it, because they don't want to suffer any political fallout due to inaction concerning the deaths of the children.
I respect McCain's military record, but I think he has been shifting left for quite some time. At times I think he has forgotten what war is like.
There is nothing humane about war. It's a huge mess in Syria and I think we need to watch and wait. I do not want to see any more of our young men and women come home in body bags.
MountainRaven
09-09-13, 20:35
Those "laws" were of little use from the time they were signed. Otherwise the atrocities that were committed by the Japanese or Germans would have resulted in punishments that fit the crime. :angry:
I seem to recall that a good deal of those responsible, those who were not killed before capture and did not commit suicide after capture, hanged to death.
Those who are soldiers are executed by firing squad. Those who are royalty are executed by decapitation. Hanging is an execution for a petty criminal.
No, the laws mean nothing because they were simply an excuse to hang the losers. The winners who committed war crimes were lauded. "Our" war criminals versus "their" war criminals, as it were.
Is it wrong to think that the civilian population should be a part of war, instead of insulated from it?
I seem to recall that a good deal of those responsible, those who were not killed before capture and did not commit suicide after capture, hanged to death.
Those who are soldiers are executed by firing squad. Those who are royalty are executed by decapitation. Hanging is an execution for a petty criminal.
No, the laws mean nothing because they were simply an excuse to hang the losers. The winners who committed war crimes were lauded. "Our" war criminals versus "their" war criminals, as it were.
Just curious who "our" war criminals would be. Off the top of my head the only people I can think of are those in government who gave immunity to everyone at Unit 731 in exchange for their data.
And when the Japanese were decapitating the citizens of Nanking, men on the Bataan Death March, some of the Doolittle fliers and untold numbers of POWs I doubt they felt like they were getting the "royal" treatment.
http://home.comcast.net/~winjerd/Images/Beheaded.jpg
Just curious who "our" war criminals would be. Off the top of my head the only people I can think of are those in government who gave immunity to everyone at Unit 731 in exchange for their data.
Anyone involved in using the two nuclear weapons. Anyone involved in firebombing entire cities. Etc.
Whiskey_Bravo
09-09-13, 21:22
Anyone involved in using the two nuclear weapons. Anyone involved in firebombing entire cities. Etc.
You mean necessary acts that ended the war? The Japanese would have fought almost until the last man, and the Germans fought until the soviets where in Main Street Berlin.
Sometimes bad situations call for harsh measures. They didn't have precision smart weapons back in those days. Fire and splitting the atom got it done and over.
I agree. We can debate the necessity of what was done in hindsight, but I suspect many of us wouldn't be born had our grandparents had to fight it out to the bitter end causing untold numbers of death and destruction.
The real tragedy is that Hitler was allowed to get away with what he did while the world sat around fingering it's collective sphincter. Same goes for Stalin, etc...
But, that's the way things are I suppose.
You mean necessary acts that ended the war? The Japanese would have fought almost until the last man, and the Germans fought until the soviets where in Main Street Berlin.
Sometimes bad situations call for harsh measures. They didn't have precision smart weapons back in those days. Fire and splitting the atom got it done and over.
BrigandTwoFour
09-09-13, 21:48
As someone who spent four years as one of the guys sitting in an underground control center with the launch keys to armed nuclear ICBMS, I have a rather unique perspective.
The ideas behind LOAC are not obsolete. They are in dire need of updating, but the principles remain. The whole system was born out of formalizing various gentleman's agreements about warfare and how it should be conducted with (and against) a largely conscripted force. It made sense in a time where nations held the monopoly on legitimized violence for political purposes, and had to deal with the consequences of any actions that were taken. Nobody wants to see their population riddled with the effects of nerve gas, biological agents, and other things that are limited by LOAC.
But we are rapidly transitioning to an era where international political and military acts are no longer the sole realm of nations. Militant religious groups, political groups, and others are building international networks through the use of readily available technology that pose significant security concerns. A lone motivated individual with sufficient computer skills could create a computer virus with the potential to take down a nation's technological infrastructure, something that nations have attempted to do through warfare for generations.
We are rapidly approaching a time when a lone individual with the resources and know-how will be able to create a man-made super virus that could wipe out all human life on earth. The technology already exists, and its only getting cheaper and more available.
So the question is what changes do we need to make? This goes far beyond just thinking in terms of FMJ vs soft point. Armed conflict has existed ever since Cain picked up a rock and put it to use. As long as we recognize that violence will exist, there is always room to establish laws for the legitimate use of it. But I think we are going to have to bring the laws up to date with current tech.
For example, we don't allow the indiscriminate targeting of civilians and hospitals with any of our weapons. But if we were to launch a cyber attack against an adversaries power grid, and all the hospitals in country went dark, what happens to the patients on life support? If water treatment plants can no longer treat water because of electrical or technological issues, who is responsible for the disease that will run rampant?
There are advancements being made in nano-medicine that could temporarily boost your intelligence, strength, and speed. However, the same tech could be turned into weapon that would do the exact opposite to a population, slowing their mental capacities and turning them lethargic. What kind of ethical discussions does that bring to the table?
Anyway, I'm rambling. It's just a thought. The things we think of now as far as LOAC are small potatoes compared to the capabilities that will be widely available in the future.
The outrage here, in my opinion, started out as diversion from damning stories against the administration and turned into Dear Leader backing himself into an impossible corner.
Why aren't the good guys on our side hammering on this NOW to nail the slimeball to the floor? What is it that they've always been holding back on him and not finished the job, kicked his worthless butt out of office and his #2 with him, and right the wrongs?
Why aren't the good guys on our side hammering on this NOW to nail the slimeball to the floor? What is it that they've always been holding back on him and not finished the job, kicked his worthless butt out of office and his #2 with him, and right the wrongs?
Can you say Joe Biden, POTUS???
I always found rules of war kinda strange
dead is dead ?
torture ? yeah not good but having your limb blown off then bleeding to death ? is that torture if you did it by stepping on a land mine vs someone cutting your hand off and bleeding to death ?
IMHO its the same again death is death both are not the way I would want to go
honestly war is hell as they say
and history shows most countries do not follow any kinda rules for prisoners anyway so whats the point
or treating all prisoners humanely no torture proper housing and meals will be honored or the loosing side will all be killed if they did anything to the winning sides prisoners ! that might change things
also this rule for engaging ? go in and take no mercy ! finish it as fast as you can and get out
loosing side pays back all money lost in war to replace everything
Valid point. I haven't been impressed with the three you mentioned. I think that Obama and Kerry want to demonstrate their strong enough to take action and that Boehner and Graham are going along with it, because they don't want to suffer any political fallout due to inaction concerning the deaths of the children.
I respect McCain's military record, but I think he has been shifting left for quite some time. At times I think he has forgotten what war is like.
There is nothing humane about war. It's a huge mess in Syria and I think we need to watch and wait. I do not want to see any more of our young men and women come home in body bags.
McCain proves my point... just because you wore a uniform and fought for your country doesn't mean that you aren't an ass. Morons, idiots, despots, etc... all serve. The military is a cross section of America. I don't respect him because of the fact that he served and was a POW; he ruined himself with his policies and actions once he got out of Navy. Because if I did then I would have to respect John Kerry.
Can you say Joe Biden, POTUS???Easier to deal with a clueless ineffective moron than a professional, ideologically motivated saboteur.
I agree. We can debate the necessity of what was done in hindsight, but I suspect many of us wouldn't be born had our grandparents had to fight it out to the bitter causing untold numbers of death and destruction.
The real tragedy is that Hitler was allowed to get away with what he did while the world sat around fingering it's collective sphincter. Same goes for Stalin, etc...
But, that's the way things are I suppose.
That is because the world (effectively America) suffered from the same negative inertia that it does now after a decade of war in the Middle East. WWI was a big downer and most Americans were non-interventionists when it came to Europe's problems during the first 2 years of WWII. It is the exact same reason why most Americans have no desire to intervene in Syria.
Thus, the collective wisdom of our nation is that we let 3rd world dictators have their day in the sun until they make a serious attack on our interests. When I say serious, I mean it has to be something on the order of Pearl Harbor or 9/11. Only then is the national will mobilized for violence.
I personally think so. I think they need a complete overhaul and rewrite.
Thoughts?
The current laws on chemical weapons leads to a ridiculous situation. It's ok to kill 100,000 people with conventional ordnance, but Allah help you if you use chemical weapons on 100.
Where does it say it's ok to kill 100,000 thousand people with conventional ordnance? Do you mean soldiers or civilians?
And which parts of the LOAC do you feel need an update? All of them or specific areas?
And for those of you talking about fire bombing, nuclear weapons and such, these were deemed illegal after WW2.
I also think you forget the four principles that the LOAC are based upon:
-Proportional use of force
-Military neccessity
-Distinguishing between military and unlawful targets
-Humanitarian concerns
The nuclear weapons used during WW2 certainly qualify under the principle of military neccessity, but probably fails with regards to others. As a military commander you have to decide what is more important.
I agree that parts of the laws need an upgrade to reflect the political and global situation of todays world.
Failure2Stop
09-10-13, 00:32
The issue is that the Hague convention is frozen in time, and was partially based on BS. It is time to stop playing semantics.
The other issue is that the Hague/Geneva are only applicable between agreeable belligerents, which is ridiculous in the really real world.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
I agree that the parts of the Hague Convention and St. Petersburg Declaration that restricts certain kinds of munitions are outdated.
And while what you say about the Geneva and Hague Conventions (and the St. Petersburg Declaration) is true, that they really only apply to agreeable belligerent parties, for the politicians of our time these have become customary law.
Not saying I agree with that all the time, but when I wore the uniform I had to act in accordance with this reality. I had no illusions about being granted protected status as a POW, if I was ever taken captive in Afghanistan.
I do think that it is important to define what is lawful, if only to "protect" one's conscience. Studies have shown that issues and doubts are more prevalent among veterans who did things while doubting the legality of their actions.
I hear what you are saying, but it shouldn't always rest on the shoulders of us "stupid arrogant Americans over yonder" all the time.
I would probably be OK with intervention in Syria if we had solid goals, and the absolute desire to act with other nations (and I don't mean 5 or 6) to do the right thing. Except we have dicked around way too long in Iraq, we are still doing in it A'stan with no end in sight and we can't just seem to say "**** it, we're going to annihilate you" because it hurts feelings.
That is because the world (effectively America) suffered from the same negative inertia that it does now after a decade of war in the Middle East. WWI was a big downer and most Americans were non-interventionists when it came to Europe's problems during the first 2 years of WWII. It is the exact same reason why most Americans have no desire to intervene in Syria.
Thus, the collective wisdom of our nation is that we let 3rd world dictators have their day in the sun until they make a serious attack on our interests. When I say serious, I mean it has to be something on the order of Pearl Harbor or 9/11. Only then is the national will mobilized for violence.
You mean necessary acts that ended the war? The Japanese would have fought almost until the last man, and the Germans fought until the soviets where in Main Street Berlin.
Sometimes bad situations call for harsh measures. They didn't have precision smart weapons back in those days. Fire and splitting the atom got it done and over.
That doesn't matter. You know what would have won Afghanistan real quick? Nuking the entire country.
Yes, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians definitely ended World War 2 quicker with fewer American lives lost. But if we lost the war, you can bet those generals, colonels, pilots, and the president would have been charged with war crimes. Since we won, we declared the intentional slaughter of civilians "necessary."
The issue is that the Hague convention is frozen in time, and was partially based on BS. It is time to stop playing semantics.
The other issue is that the Hague/Geneva are only applicable between agreeable belligerents, which is ridiculous in the really real world.
These are two things I really have a problem with. Our following of LOAC doesn't stop insurgents from breaking it. Yes, we strive to be better, to take the high road, because of our own morals and because it helps us win hearts and minds. But it needs a major update.
When the ROE is brought to ridiculous levels due to LOAC that gets our guys killed... When the bad guys who have no intention of following LOAC take advantage of the fact that we do... Something needs to be done.
I am curious what you mean when you say ROE. I am not sure if US troops are put under different ROE than us, but I really wouldn't call ISAF ROE restrictive. At least not as of last year.
The only restriction I encountered was McChrystal placing some restrictions on the use of CAS in 2009.
I am not going to discuss the particulars of ISAF ROE, but suffice to say that there isn't just one ROE for the theatre, there are several.
That doesn't matter. You know what would have won Afghanistan real quick? Nuking the entire country.
Yes, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians definitely ended World War 2 quicker with fewer American lives lost. But if we lost the war, you can bet those generals, colonels, pilots, and the president would have been charged with war crimes. Since we won, we declared the intentional slaughter of civilians "necessary."
These are two things I really have a problem with. Our following of LOAC doesn't stop insurgents from breaking it. Yes, we strive to be better, to take the high road, because of our own morals and because it helps us win hearts and minds. But it needs a major update.
When the ROE is brought to ridiculous levels due to LOAC that gets our guys killed... When the bad guys who have no intention of following LOAC take advantage of the fact that we do... Something needs to be done.
Attacking civilian targets are a legitimate action due to their hand in the manufacturing, support, and logistical abilities they provide. When you make it unbearable for the civilian populace then they start to riot, strike, etc... moral drops among the troops and Johnny Jihad or Ivan the Soviet will want to quit fighting and go home so he can support his family and the government will lose support of it's people. Now with radical Islamist that doesn't work so well due to wanting to die for Allah. But winning them over with a restrictive ROE also doesn't work.
Iraq and Afghanistan are two different failures. Iraq because we broke them to level of Afghanistan. The majority of Iraq were for the most part secular and westernized. We ruined that by disbanding the Iraqi Army, Police, and Government. Also by destroying their economy. Unemployment, poverty, lack of infrastructure, and a ton of males wondering around makes a great recruiting ground for radicals.
Afghanistan's problem is that the majority want to live as 7th Century goat farmers and practice Bacha Bazi. They don't want to come into the modern world and nothing we will do will stop that.
War is a terrible thing and it should be quick and painful. We should not make it gentle and happy. If we do then we will have more of it. If war leaves a horrible taste in one's mouth then hopefully that person will think twice before sending our troops into it.
That is because the world (effectively America) suffered from the same negative inertia that it does now after a decade of war in the Middle East. WWI was a big downer and most Americans were non-interventionists when it came to Europe's problems during the first 2 years of WWII. It is the exact same reason why most Americans have no desire to intervene in Syria.
Thus, the collective wisdom of our nation is that we let 3rd world dictators have their day in the sun until they make a serious attack on our interests. When I say serious, I mean it has to be something on the order of Pearl Harbor or 9/11. Only then is the national will mobilized for violence.
It may be the same reasoning, but the realities couldn't be different. Some despots are bent on global domination, others just want their little piece to themselves. Assad may be full on evil, but he's no Hitler. The reasons to thump Syria are all about foreign interests and money. The "human rights" veneer couldn't be thinner. :(
. It's ok to kill 100,000 people with conventional ordnance, but Allah help you if you use chemical weapons on 100.Yes "we" care about the method in which people are killed, from mass murder to the individual.
Genocide and/or mass killing happens all over the world everyday. Nobody gives a shit unless its political or oil or other desirable assets like ports are involved.
.
Of course.
1. Saudi Arabia supplies our allies with oil.
2. Saudi Arabia buys 10s of billions of dollars worth of our military toys.
3. Saudi Arabia supports the rebels.
4. Defense contractors contribute to congressional and President campaigns.
5. We support the rebels.
It's quite simple really.
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses... In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
Attacking civilian targets are a legitimate action due to their hand in the manufacturing, support, and logistical abilities they provide. When you make it unbearable for the civilian populace then they start to riot, strike, etc... moral drops among the troops and Johnny Jihad or Ivan the Soviet will want to quit fighting and go home so he can support his family and the government will lose support of it's people. Now with radical Islamist that doesn't work so well due to wanting to die for Allah. But winning them over with a restrictive ROE also doesn't work.
The Imperial Japanese weren't so different from radical Islamists in the regard of wanting to die for their country. They had some of the first suicide bombers, after all. They were all willing to die for their god emperor. Why wouldn't nuking Islamic nations work just as well?
I wasn't arguing effectiveness, but rather legality earlier. Nuking and firebombing civilian centers in Japan may have been "necessary" to win, but it was illegal to hell and back by international law. But who's going to tell that to the country that just won a war on two fronts and invented nuclear weapons?
I am curious what you mean when you say ROE. I am not sure if US troops are put under different ROE than us, but I really wouldn't call ISAF ROE restrictive. At least not as of last year.
The only restriction I encountered was McChrystal placing some restrictions on the use of CAS in 2009.
I am not going to discuss the particulars of ISAF ROE, but suffice to say that there isn't just one ROE for the theatre, there are several.
For some reason I can't bring up specific examples right now, my head is really cloudy at the moment, but I wasn't referring to extremely recent ISAF ROEs.
The Japanese and Germans also conducted strategic bombing raids against "our" cities.
The legality, or illegality, of this tactic during WW2 was hardly etched in stone. In fact, there were no international treaties specifically protecting civlians from aerial bombardment.
It was in fact allowed to attack military targets in cities.
And there were no treaties that declared the use of nuclear weapons illegal, as they did not exist at the start of the war.
It may be the same reasoning, but the realities couldn't be different. Some despots are bent on global domination, others just want their little piece to themselves. Assad may be full on evil, but he's no Hitler. The reasons to thump Syria are all about foreign interests and money. The "human rights" veneer couldn't be thinner. :(
The funny thing about despots is their appetite for power tends to grow with time. Then, factor in the geopolitical influence of Middle Eastern oil, and relatively small conflicts become global concerns. Having said that, we can all probably agree that Assad is an itch that does not have to be scratched at this point.
As for it all being about money and influence - damn straight. Humans have been conquering each other for these reasons over the past 4000 years. I see no reason to stop now despite the progressive attempts to change the laws of war to legitimatize only humanitarian efforts.
The funny thing about despots is their appetite for power tends to grow with time. Then, factor in the geopolitical influence of Middle Eastern oil, and relatively small conflicts become global concerns. Having said that, we can all probably agree that Assad is an itch that does not have to be scratched at this point.
As for it all being about money and influence - damn straight. Humans have been conquering each other for these reasons over the past 4000 years. I see no reason to stop now despite the progressive attempts to change the laws of war to legitimatize only humanitarian efforts.
Assad has been in power for 13 years and his father for 30 years before him. They've shown little desire to expand their kingdom beyond unseating Israel as the power in charge of Jerusalem. As for our regional hegemony intentions in the ME, it's rather disingenuous to cloak them in "humanitarian" trappings when the entire world knows better. :rolleyes:
The revision to the rules should be elimination reference to the types of weapons. That has proven stupid over time. Killing and maiming are either necessary, or not, ad matters little to the affected whether by fire, shrapnel, lead, chemical, etc.
The only legitimate area for discussing rules of war are for our own morality. Right now it does not look likely we will be fighting France (darn!), Germany, or England so an agreement with Western powers is irrelevant. Today our wars are being fought with non-state organizations or states that could give a rip about western treaties.
I would prefer we just cancel all such treaties and set rules that we intend to fight by for our own conscience and morality. But they should be adaptable. For instance, no sane person wants to purposefully slay or maim innocent civilians. On the other hand, war is brutal and messy and civilians are going to be caught in the crossfire to some degree no matter how smart the weapon. We should not put our troops at high risk by not using weapons to destroy the enemy just because they are holed up with their families in a building or compound. But we should not be bombing compounds willy nilly either "just to be safe." (Which we don't; in fact I think we are too restrictive from what I have read about, not having been there). Another example: we should not shoot civilians, but in an insurgency or guerrilla war the enemy is dressed as civilians. Just because the guy shooting at you drops his weapon is no reason to NOT shoot his ass when you can.
Which brings up the larger issue: in war our troops will be killed along with a lot of the enemy and likely a good number of civilians. We should not enter into war unless we have a damn good reason to accept such losses.
Anyway, the focus should be on when and why to go to war, and when or how many civilians are considered collateral damage in the effor tto take out the enemy, rather than on the type of weapon used.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.