Changing rules of warfare

[pgwenthold]

This was brought up by Mark in another thread, and it is something I have been wondering about.

People are complaining about the Iraqi tactics in this war. Pretending to surrender and then opening fire, and masquerading as civilians. Both of which are against the Geneva convention.

But I (and Mark) was wondering, if there were "Geneva Convention"-like rules in 1775, wouldn't the colonial army also been guilty of massive war crimes? Although they would not be illegal by today's standards, they likely would have been illegal according to the standards at the time. In fact, the colonials were accused by the British of unfair war practices because they wouldn't fight by the established procedures.

Without breaking the "established rules" for warfare, our revolution would not have succeeded.

[jj]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
This was brought up by Mark in another thread, and it is something I have been wondering about.

People are complaining about the Iraqi tactics in this war. Pretending to surrender and then opening fire, and masquerading as civilians. Both of which are against the Geneva convention.

But I (and Mark) was wondering, if there were "Geneva Convention"-like rules in 1775, wouldn't the colonial army also been guilty of massive war crimes? Although they would not be illegal by today's standards, they likely would have been illegal according to the standards at the time. In fact, the colonials were accused by the British of unfair war practices because they wouldn't fight by the established procedures.

Without breaking the "established rules" for warfare, our revolution would not have succeeded.

True, let us remember, for instance, the battle of the "Cowpens", a curious little engagement, that.

I mean, how dare we hide behind trees and shoot at the bright red uniforms?

On the other hand, I don't recall widespread execution of prisoners, nor a "no quarter" policy.

[Doubt]

The rules of war change with the times and technology.

But a white flag of truce has been around for a very long time. To violate that idea renders the concept of truce meaningless to both sides and makes it very hard for anyone to surrender. This is a type of deception is likely to get innocent people killed in the future.

Also, there is a difference between civilians with out uniforms deciding to fight and trained soldiers hiding as civilians in order to kill the enemy. The Civilian is doing what he thinks is right at that moment. The soldier hiding as a civilian is doing the same thing as waving a false white flag. This issue has come up before. The British tried to ignore the distinction during the Boar war.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Doubt
The rules of war change with the times and technology.

But a white flag of truce has been around for a very long time.

How long does something have to be around before it is immutable?

Why are some rules of warfare changable and not others?

For example, in terms of surrendering, the new approach would require that each surrendering person is treated as a potential threat until held securely in custody. Maybe it should just be the policy all the time?

[Doubt]

Nothing is immutable. But there are common conventions for communication between opposing forces. Violate those conventions and communications becomes difficult.

The white flag has served well and does not need to be changed. Those violating the principle behind it for short-term gain will cause great harm to others. Soldiers who are surrendering should be told to move forward for security reasons. But that becomes a large problem if the surrendering force has a lot of wounded or pretend to be wounded.

If you think that the violating the white flag could be considered a legitimate tactic, then how do you feel about shooting surrendering troops? If it is Okay for one side to fake surrender, it should also be Okay for the other side to fake accepting surrender.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Doubt
If you think that the violating the white flag could be considered a legitimate tactic, then how do you feel about shooting surrendering troops? If it is Okay for one side to fake surrender, it should also be Okay for the other side to fake accepting surrender.

It's certainly a potential consequence of such an action. As a result, surrerrendering troops that make a sudden movement would be subject to retaliation. As I said, a surrenderring soldier would be considered a potential threat until secured. Yes, that is the way it would have to be treated.

It's a matter of fact, I would figure.

Just suppose for a minute that the Iraqis would prevail by using such techniques? Not that they will, but suppose for a moment that they did. What would be the response?

Someday, something like that might happen. A massively outmanned armed force might be able to win by using non-accepted techniques. How would the world respond?

If it was 1776, they'd respond by adopting those techniques.

[corplinx]

I have always thought "rules of war" is total joke concept. When one combatant disobeys the rules and kills another, that combatant isn't any less dead because what the other guy did was against the rules.

[DavidJames]

"I have always thought "rules of war" is total joke concept. When one combatant disobeys the rules and kills another, that combatant isn't any less dead because what the other guy did was against the rules."

I agree completely. War should be hell, it should be ugly, unmerciful, painful, and tragic. It should be so awful, that it really is the last resort.

It seems to me all the rules to try and "civilize it" make war more palatable and it becomes an option way to soon.

[a_unique_person]

Australia is fighting under different rules of engagement to the US.

1. No cluster bombs
2. No mines

as for the US following the rules of war.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/25/1048354595781.html



The US is angry at Iraqi breaches of the Geneva Convention, but is itself guilty of breaking the rules of war, writes George Monbiot.


Suddenly, the Government of the United States has discovered the virtues of international law. It may be waging an illegal war against a sovereign state; it may be seeking to destroy every treaty that impedes its attempts to run the world, but when five of its captured soldiers were paraded in front of Iraqi television cameras, Donald Rumsfeld immediately complained that "it is against the Geneva Convention to show photographs of prisoners of war in a manner that is humiliating for them".

He is, of course, quite right. Article 13 of the third convention, concerning the treatment of prisoners, insists they "must at all times be protected... against insults and public curiosity". This may number among the less heinous of the possible infringements of the laws of war, but the conventions, ratified by Iraq in 1956, are non-negotiable. If you break them, you should expect to be prosecuted for war crimes.

This being so, Rumsfeld had better watch his back. For this enthusiastic convert to the cause of legal warfare is, as head of the US Defence Department, responsible for a series of crimes sufficient, were he ever to be tried, to put him away for the rest of his natural life.

[corplinx]

Some people on this board and in the media seem to be ignorant of what parading people in front of cameras is.

For instance, if we put them in front of a camera and forcing them to talk would be in violation.

However, if an independent press agent traveling with Iraqis asked a POW to speak and they did, that would be different.

An independent press agent who takes a picture of POWs is not violating the geneva convention.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by corplinx
Some people on this board and in the media seem to be ignorant of what parading people in front of cameras is.


Tell that to the Geneva representative I heard last night expressing her concerns about the pictures of prisoners from both sides.

An independent press agent who takes a picture of POWs is not violating the geneva convention.

You seem to be under the impression that CNN reporters embedded (drink) with the US troops are somehow "independent." I don't think that is the case at all.

CNN is a US operation, and I think their behavior is considered to be that of the US. The separation of the press and the state is a US concept but I don't think it holds any international weight.

[compjan]

This was brought up by Mark in another thread, and it is something I have been wondering about.

People are complaining about the Iraqi tactics in this war. Pretending to surrender and then opening fire, and masquerading as civilians. Both of which are against the Geneva convention.

But I (and Mark) was wondering, if there were "Geneva Convention"-like rules in 1775, wouldn't the colonial army also been guilty of massive war crimes? Although they would not be illegal by today's standards, they likely would have been illegal according to the standards at the time. In fact, the colonials were accused by the British of unfair war practices because they wouldn't fight by the established procedures.

Without breaking the "established rules" for warfare, our revolution would not have succeeded. [/QUOTE]

You are correct about the American violation of some of the customs of warfare at that time, but I disagree that they were essential for victory. The two major breaches included aiming at officers during engagements, and not surrendering in a hopeless situation. Bunker Hill was the best example of the first, with the militia aiming at and killing a large number of British officers. The second breach occurred when Washington escaped from the British twice during the battles around New York in 1776. Each time his army was trapped against the water and the British commander held off crushing the rebels to permit them to gracefully surrender. Each time Washington escaped.

Contrary to popular myth, the American army rarely fought from cover. It always tried to fight on open fields the British way, because quite simply that was the most effective way to fight. Sniping from cover rarely caused the British much trouble.

You could argue that the British failure to understand the kind of war they were fighting was critical to their failure. They often made strategic moves applicable to Europe that were utter failures in America. In late 1777 they captured the capital Philadelphia and awaited the surrender of the Congress because according to civilized convention, capturing the capital meant victory.

It didn't work; the Congress just left Philadelphia, and 8 months later the British army left frustrated.

So I would argue that the violation of battlefield tactics didn't matter much, but the misapplication of strategy did.

If you want an excellent picture of this problem, read The Glorious Cause by Jeff Sharra, which is the second novel in his series on the American Revolution. He clearly shows how General Howe, the British commander until 1778 had no understanding of how to fight against a widespread rebellion, while his subordinate Cornwallis knew exactly how to crush the rebels, but was never permitted to. There are sobering parallels to the US-Iraq war today.

CompJan

[compjan]

Originally posted by corplinx
I have always thought "rules of war" is total joke concept. When one combatant disobeys the rules and kills another, that combatant isn't any less dead because what the other guy did was against the rules.

Corplinx, I understand how you feel, but I disagree. The reason for the rules is to attempt to reduce unnecessary deaths. The premise is that if both sides follow the rules, you wind up with an overall lower body count. Here's an example about surrendering. Unit A with 10,000 troops has surrounded Unit B with only 500 troops. Unit B can't escape, and no other friendly units are nearly to help. If Unit A finishes the attack, Unit B will be completely wiped out, but Unit A will take further casualties, say 100. However, if Unit B surrenders now, all 500 remaining troops plus Unit A's 100 would-be casualties are spared, for a total of 600 prevented deaths. Unit A accomplishes its mission with reduced losses, and after the war Unit B gets its troops back.

For similar reasons chemical weapons are banned and have been rarely used since WWI because of the potential for massive casualties on both sides.

Despite the apparent slaughter of modern war, in most fights only a small percentage of the soldiers are hurt. Modern armies simply can't afford to take heavy losses all the time. Most of the fighting is a matter of maneuver, so that once the battle is heavily engaged one side has pretty much already won. That's a principle which goes back to Sun Tzu. Modern armies have a vested interest in keeping the slaughter to a minimum. I know this will seem strange or laughable to some, but its true.

My fear with the Iraqi's is that some of their military don't care about taking casualties and will be willing to permit huge slaughter of their own forces and civilians simply to take out more coalition forces. Not only do I not want to see a lot of civilian dead, but I also think some other nations will turn around and blame the U.S. for the civilian deaths.


Geez, I'm starting to sound like a military historian. Eek!

CompJan

[corplinx]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Tell that to the Geneva representative I heard last night expressing her concerns about the pictures of prisoners from both sides.


So far, we have not made them pose for pictures. We haven't forced them to talk on camera. The coverage has been "fly on the wall" unlike the iraqi footage.

I agree with her "expressing concerns" about the coverage. To avoid a possible geneva violation, the embeddeds should leave the cameras off.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by compjan


Corplinx, I understand how you feel, but I disagree. The reason for the rules is to attempt to reduce unnecessary deaths. The premise is that if both sides follow the rules, you wind up with an overall lower body count.

The problem being that our modern enemies cannot be expected to abide by those rules. We wind up being like the british during the revolutionay war.

Now, I am all for us having a military code that we abide by and enforce on our own troops. However, I have nothing but contempt for the notion of "rules of war".

[John Harrison]

From the aup's link:

The five soldiers dragged in front of the cameras this week should thank their lucky stars they are prisoners not of the American forces fighting for civilisation, but of the "barbaric and inhuman" Iraqis.

It's hard to take this reporter seriously after this ridiculous statement.

Lord knows the prisoners at Gitmo are being treated much worse than say, the SAS prisoners during Gulf War I (Broken teeth, jaws, hands, and hepatitis C from being forced to lick their hands after cleaning out clogged Iraqi toilets). Those bastards had it soooo easy. :rolleyes: I have a hard time believing that they are going to be any nicer this time.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Australia is fighting under different rules of engagement to the US.

1. No cluster bombs
2. No mines

as for the US following the rules of war.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/25/1048354595781.html



Show me where the US is using land mines in Iraq. Better yet, show me where the US is using any landmines outside of Korea.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Doubt


Show me where the US is using land mines in Iraq. Better yet, show me where the US is using any landmines outside of Korea.

The point is, we may not be using them but they are not against our rules of engagement.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by John Harrison
From the aup's link:

The five soldiers dragged in front of the cameras this week should thank their lucky stars they are prisoners not of the American forces fighting for civilisation, but of the "barbaric and inhuman" Iraqis.

It's hard to take this reporter seriously after this ridiculous statement.

Lord knows the prisoners at Gitmo are being treated much worse than say, the SAS prisoners during Gulf War I (Broken teeth, jaws, hands, and hepatitis C from being forced to lick their hands after cleaning out clogged Iraqi toilets). Those bastards had it soooo easy. :rolleyes: I have a hard time believing that they are going to be any nicer this time.

the US claims moral superiority, yet constantly shows itself to be acting otherwise.

you also left out the part before that quote



Many of the survivors were loaded back in the containers with the corpses, and driven to a place in the desert called Dasht-i-Leili. In the presence of up to 40 US Special Forces, the living and the dead were dumped into ditches. Anyone who moved was shot.

The German newspaper Die Zeit investigated the claims and concluded: "No one doubted that the Americans had taken part. Even at higher levels there are no doubts on this issue." The US group Physicians for Human Rights visited the places identified by Doran's witnesses and found they "all... contained human remains consistent with their designation as possible grave sites".

It should not be necessary to point out that hospitality of this kind also contravenes the third Geneva convention, which prohibits "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture", as well as extra-judicial execution. It is not hard, therefore, to see why the US Government fought first to prevent the establishment of the International Criminal Court, and then to ensure its own citizens were not subject to its jurisdiction.



the ICC is not going to be endorsed by the US, because it does not control it.

[compjan]

Originally posted by corplinx


The problem being that our modern enemies cannot be expected to abide by those rules. We wind up being like the british during the revolutionay war.

Now, I am all for us having a military code that we abide by and enforce on our own troops. However, I have nothing but contempt for the notion of "rules of war".

What's the difference between a military code and "rules of war"?