| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| 20th-century rules will not win a 21st-century war. |
| 2006-04-07 |
| by Daniel Henninger, Wall Street Journal EFL Shortly after September 11, the phrase "9/11 changed everything" got popular. I thought it a useful overstatement. More than anything we needed unity, and that helped. Almost five years later, it looks like an understatement. Politics in America, the law, the conduct of war, the West and Islam, U.S. allies past and present--all changed. But there's a difference. Normally when something changes in the physical world we can see what replaced the old. In the post-September 11 world, about all we can see is that the old templates for understanding these things are under pressure and may be broken. But in nearly each instance, the new template for how we think about them isn't clear. Should prisoners from the terror wars be moved here from Guantanamo and put under established U.S. law, or is something less than that more appropriate? In an important speech delivered Monday in London, the British Defense Minister John Reid suggested that we consider revising the Geneva Conventions regarding conduct in war. He wants to accommodate the altered reality of modern terrorism. "I believe we need now to consider whether we--the international community in its widest sense--need to re-examine these conventions," Mr. Reid said. "If we do not, we risk continuing to fight a 21st-century conflict with 20th-century rules." The Geneva Conventions were shaped 50 years ago, Mr. Reid said, but "warfare continues to evolve, and, in its moral dimensions, we have now to cope with a deliberate regression towards barbaric terrorism by our opponents." This summary does not do justice to Mr. Reid's speech, which was at pains to seek a balance in the tension between a West that struggled to mitigate the savagery of armed conflict and an enemy that daily dishonors those principles. He is not suggesting that we adopt the enemy's methods. He is worried that the old rules are putting the soldiers on our side at unacceptable risk. "If we act differently today from how we behaved yesterday, it is not necessarily wrong. Indeed it may be wrong not to." . . . . . . The central issue raised in the speech by U.K. Defense Minister Reid involves the tension between what up to now has been illegal in war and what in the future should be illegal, if the purpose of law is to protect the innocent against barbarism. My view is that the likelihood of the U.S. or the U.K. "losing its soul" if it upgrades the rules to suppress a shame-free terrorism is about nil. Yes, September 11 changed everything, and it's time to start talking about whether the changes are helping us, or them. Those italics in the last paragraph (in the original) are the key point. The purpose of the law of war is to mitigate the effect of war on noncombatants. It does this by dividing the universe of potential targets into "combatants" (people you're allowed to deliberately shoot) and "noncombatants" (people you're not allowed to deliberately shoot), then requires the combatants to wear uniforms and carry arms openly. If a combatant follows the law of war in this respect, making himself distinct from a noncombatant, he gains certain protections for himself such as POW status. The enforcement mechanism is not an "international tribunal" or some such, but reprisal. If a combatant violates the laws of war, by blurring the distinction between himself and noncombatants, or by deliberately targeting noncombatants, he loses those protections--that is, the Geneva Convention permits the opponent to then shoot prisoners and such. As countless old movies remind us, "spies" (i.e. combatants out of uniform) can be freely shot or hanged. There have been various attempts, including a 1970s "amendment" to the Geneva Convention that the US never signed on to, to dilute these rules by giving "guerillas" a privilege to be pose as noncombatants, use civillians for cover, and so on. In the present conflict, the "antiwar" movement (i.e., folks rooting for the other side) has tried to do something similar, by repeatedly claiming that the US and coalition partners are bound to treat the terrorists as POWs, and so on, even though the terrorists have never observed the laws of war in the first place. If that becomes the new rule, and there is no disadvantage to routinely violating the laws of war, then there is no incentive to follow them. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #13 The Geneva Conventions and the Treaty of Westphalia were rules adopted by a club of nations in response to a very specific set of circumstances Nice insight. T of Westphalia prevented serious horror war on civillians until 1914. (in Europe) |
| Posted by: 6 2006-04-07 21:52 |
| #12 Sgt. Mom, I believe a number of Jewish US soldiers were sent to concentration camps. Besides, there was the Malmedy massacre. That's more than one or two, I guess. |
| Posted by: Eric Jablow 2006-04-07 18:11 |
| #11 2b your right. I am not saying we need to stoop to terrorists or adopt terrorist acts. The terrorists we are fighting do not adhere to the Geneva convention and are not afforded the protection of enemy combatants when captured. You are also right in that we whould not give one inch of ground to them, my position is to kill them. For example: when the IED's would go off in Bagdad people would come and jump on the vehicles and fire AK's into the air. That was until the Stryker BDE's began to ambush them and shoot them. Then the people quit taking part in the bombings. The fact that we would take action drove them away. This is a lesson we must take across the entire battlefield. They understand and respect someone who is not afraid of violence. We should give it to them. |
| Posted by: 49 pan 2006-04-07 15:59 |
| #10 The Geneva Conventions and the Treaty of Westphalia were rules adopted by a club of nations in response to a very specific set of circumstances and in congruence with a largely common culture. That same congruence has pretty much rendered war among the members of that club obsolete. No nation outside of that club is ever going to adopt the rules without strong incentives (the fire and nuclear bombings of Japan come to mind). Enlarging the club is the real goal of this war. Terrorism is a violation of both Westphalia and the GC. So is burning down embassies. Rich, feudal, oil-rich entities sponsoring proxy armies and using religion and emmigration to subvert existing nation states is an even bigger violation. I don't think that we need to change the GC or give up on the nation state. We need to severely punish the entities that don't adhere to them. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2006-04-07 15:29 |
| #9 49 - I agree with you about keeping the high road. But keeping the high road assures that barbarians are not free to roam at will, killing people in churches, mosques and just minding their own daily business. Life is about balance and balance requires tough choices on what you want to keep and what you need to give up. Saying that we don't have to stoop to barbarism is not the same thing as saying we need to find some sort of balance our fight against barbarians. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-04-07 12:45 |
| #8 Japan and North Vietnam never signed the Geneva Conventions. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2006-04-07 12:37 |
| #7 The ironic thing is, during the first Gulf War, the regular Iraqi army treated our POWs very well. Once they were handed off the the special police and Saddam's thugs, things went south. But you guys are right. For the most part, we can't rely on countries/terrorists to treat our people well. The rules do not apply to the majority of the world. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-04-07 11:13 |
| #6 Our gentleness invites their agressiveness. If we were brutally bloodthirsty, then the enemy would become meek. It's not rocket science. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-04-07 11:12 |
| #5 It's not about our enemies following the conventions, it's about a nation being able to look its self in the mirror. We should always hold the highground on this, without exception. The geneva conventions has the points for dealing, or removing the rights, of combatants that do not comply with the rules of land warfare. We need to toughen up, regognise those rule don't apply to terrorists and not feel guilty or even debate our treatment of terrorists, just kill them. Civilized treatment is for those who act in a civilized manner, even during wartime. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-04-07 10:09 |
| #4 Sgt. Mom: I believe you are correct. Imperial Japan, North korea, Vietnam, Saddam's Iraq, al-Qaida; all routinely violated the Convention with respect to POWs. Note also that captured members of the uniformed Iraq army were accorded POW status in both GWI and the present conflict. |
| Posted by: Mike 2006-04-07 09:58 |
| #3 Well, Nazi Germany pretty well followed the Geneva Convention in regards to American troops, with one or two exceptions. IIRC, they were the only ones we have fought in the last 70 years who did. Ironic, isn't it? |
| Posted by: Sgt. Mom 2006-04-07 09:49 |
| #2 The whole concept is stupid to begin with. Name one country the US has fought who obeyed the Geneva Conventions as well as we have? Our troops face barbarism if captured by *everybody* we fight. Only if we went to war against England would these be of any use. If we are going to follow these stupid things then follow them to the letter. When they violate them then we are no longer bound by them either. Announce this publicly and repeatedly, then carry it out. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2006-04-07 09:14 |
| #1 Why can't people just grasp that morality must be based on reciprocity. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-04-07 09:05 |