Law of Armed Conflict and Small Wars

[tabernac]

Just thinking out-loud here, and before anyone jumps down my throat, I know that our laws and morals are what separate, and elevate us from the those in the Taliban.

Why is it that we would go so far as to prosecute our own members for murder under the Criminal Code of Canada, let alone NDA 124 and NDA 93? That's assuming that the same regulations, or other regulations akin to it, IE the Geneva Convention would be applied to the enemy combatants, in this case the Taliban. Laws are created on the basis that they are applied equally to all parties, not unevenly as in this case. If laws are being applied unequally, and seemingly with bias, that means that A) Something is very, very wrong, or B) Seriously out of whack. Or both.

Taking a step back, I'll fully admit, and I agree that such behavior of the good Captain shouldn't be encouraged in a nation we are trying to lead forward, hence the need for the 124 and 93. However, the Criminal Code citations are just nonsense.

 

[Infanteer]

Technically, the charge is 130 of the NDA, so it is a military offence.

As for equal to both parties, I believe (although I can't find the reference) that non-adherence to Geneva or Hague Conventions does not excuse signatories from dropping their standard.  Someone can correct me on that if it is wrong.

 

[tabernac]

Technically, the charge is 130 of the NDA, so it is a military offence.

As for equal to both parties, I believe (although I can't find the reference) that non-adherence to Geneva or Hague Conventions does not excuse signatories from dropping their standard.  Someone can correct me on that if it is wrong.

I guess that the next question to ask/statement to make would be why we're adhering to a Convention that cripples us when warring with an opponent that doesn't have a "code of 'honour'" to dictate or guide actions on the battlefield.

Remember, these Taliban "warriors" are from the the same stock as those that hung the burning entrails of American security personnel from a bridge over the Euphrates. The same Taliban who deliberately attack civilians with unconventional and cruel methods.

 

[Infanteer]

How are the Geneva and/or Hague Conventions crippling our efforts?

 

[The Bread Guy]

I guess that the next question to ask/statement to make would be why we're adhering to a Convention that cripples us when warring with an opponent that doesn't have a "code of 'honour'" to dictate or guide actions on the battlefield.

Let me suggest an answer from a bit ealier in the thread:

Just thinking out-loud here, and before anyone jumps down my throat, I know that our laws and morals are what separate, and elevate us from the those in the Taliban.

 

[vonGarvin]

I guess that the next question to ask/statement to make would be why we're adhering to a Convention that cripples us when warring with an opponent that doesn't have a "code of 'honour'" to dictate or guide actions on the battlefield.

I was posting an answer; however, milnews.ca beat me to it.

For what it's worth, our adherence to the laws of armed conflict hinders us in no way, shape or form.  If anything, it enhances our efforts.  We can show to the "non-decided" that though we are powerful, strong and can inflict great damage to our enemies, we do so with care so as to not harm the innocent.  Those times in which we have erred (e.g.: any instance in which civilians were hurt or killed) show what could happen to our efforts if we were to forego those laws.

 

[Fusaki]

For what it's worth, our adherence to the laws of armed conflict hinders us in no way, shape or form. If anything, it enhances our efforts.

I'd go even further to say that it's critical to the success of this mission that we adhere to the laws of armed conflict.

Killing Taliban only helps us with force protection.  Our real offensive action takes place on the ideological plane by establishing the legitimacy of our actions, the actions of our allies, but most importantly the legitimacy of the Afghan Government we're supporting.

The the importance of holding physical highground pales in importance to the holding of the moral highground.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Sometimes when you hold the moral high ground, it ends up being the hill you die on.  Trying to fight an unconventional enemy by conventional means is pointless.  Break out the napalm and lets get this shit done already.

 

[mariomike]

Sometimes when you hold the moral high ground, it ends up being the hill you die on.  Trying to fight an unconventional enemy by conventional means is pointless.  Break out the napalm and lets get this shit done already.

300 Milpoints to you!

 

[vonGarvin]

300 Milpoints to you!

Is that how you get milpoints? OK, I'm in:
Nuke them all!


(Wait....whom are we nuking?  Or does that matter?)  8)

 

[Kat Stevens]

In the not too distant future, the epitaph of Western Civilization(Tm) will read something like this;
  "We were morally correct.  We're extinct, but we were morally correct."

 

[Fusaki]

Sometimes when you hold the moral high ground, it ends up being the hill you die on.  Trying to fight an unconventional enemy by conventional means is pointless.  Break out the napalm and lets get this crap done already.

Napalm is as conventional as it gets. :

Unconventional is when you look for solutions outside of the cold war box and understand that we're not fighting massed conscripts in soviet trenches, but idealists who's strength comes from popular support of the people.

 

[vonGarvin]

[Off Topic Mini Rant]
For those who suggest that "Cold War Thinking" is a dirty thing, let me remind you all that war is war.  In the "dirty days" we did an estimate, and a key factor was the eleventy billion Soviet Tanks across the Inter German Border.  Let us not forget that for many Soviet soldiers, they were idealists whose strength came from the perceived popular support of the people.

As for the Taliban, many I suppose are idealists, but the popular support they are getting is from the end of a rifle.

[/Off Topic Mini Rant]

Now, if the Captain in question did indeed commit the crimes with which he is accused, then I doubt that anyone here could suggest that it be condoned.  If we went around and ignored the wounded of the enemy and cared only for our own, then we would certainly be dropping the ball.

There is another method to fight a war, and we did so back in World War Two.  We industrialised our nation, and put everything into the fight.  EVERYTHING.  We bombed Germany back to the stone age, and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians to do so.  THAT is how you win a war in a matter of a few years.  I do not suggest that we go back to that.

 

[Kat Stevens]

:  Well whaddayaknow, I can  roll my eyes too.  These idealists get their strength by making the populace fear them.  Fine, let's break out the flame throwers instead. Dig the fuckers out and burn them root and branch.  Noble ideals are fine until the body count gets high enough that the people of Canada DEMAND a pullout.  Then where are you?  These zealots get control again, and the West ends up looking like the weak kneed bitch that couldn't deal with a bunch of dark aged thugs.  If these assholes want a "Holy War", I say we give them one, Old Testament style.

 

[armyvern]

...Noble ideals are fine until the body count gets high enough that the people of Canada DEMAND a pullout.  Then where are you?  These zealots get control again, and the West ends up looking like the weak kneed bitch that couldn't deal with a bunch of dark aged thugs.  ...

And the same-said civilian populace who DEMANDS that pullout screams bloody blue murder against their own government and is simply amazed when, a mere short time afterwards, these zealots land another 1 or 2 (or 25) successful attacks on North American soil.

"How could this happen?" they will scream while still never removing from their stuck-up noses those rose-coloured lens so snuggly perched through which they peer down upon us while inferring that "we" are the bad guys in all of this.

Guaranteed - How soon they will forget.

 

[Fusaki]

For the record, I'm not a moralist or an idealist.  I don't give a frig about changing the world and making it a better place for all.  What I do care about is winning this fight and making the world a more secure place for Canadians.

Fighting from the moral highground is tactically important.  We WILL NOT win this war if we are not seen as a force for good and I believe that more Canadians soldiers will die if we do NOT follow the laws of armed conflict, than if we do follow the laws.  I believe that if we start napalming villages we'll start seeing images like <a href=http://enticingthelight.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/napalm20girl.jpg>this</a> on the news and then we'll pull out and all the Canadians who've died in Afghanistan will have died for nothing. So don't suggest that I'm some sort of peacenik hippie who's more concerned about "Noble Ideals" over the lives of Canadian Soldiers.  I've lost friends in this war too.

If we're going to win, we need to think critically about the kind of fight we're in.  There is no place on the modern battlefield for those who think this is some sort of Holy Crusade.  That kind of self righteous bullshit just clouds your vision.  What I want are soldiers who are tactical analysts - who see past the physical ground and into real drivers behind this insurgency, who can set goals based on the REAL threat, and who are professional enough to carry out that mission with ruthless efficiency.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

WB......well said.
Thanks.

 

[mariomike]

[Off Topic Mini Rant]
We bombed Germany back to the stone age, and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians to do so. 

About half the number of German civilians killed by starvation caused by the Royal Navy blockade of World War One.

 

[armyvern]

Lest there be any doubt, I agree 100% with Wonderbreads post; the point of my previous post being that if "we" (ie Canada) pull out of Afghanistan BEFORE this war is won (ie upon DEMAND by those who seemingly forget or view "us" as the bad guys instead), then I fully expect to hear same-said populace screaming "how could you let this happen" to their own government when the next successful attacks occur upon North American soil. And the next batch of fine Canadians will be on their way back over ... to start from scratch ... until the next DEMAND to come home occurs (most likely ~ again prematurely).

And, personally, there's not a doubt in my mind that they will occur.

 

[Kat Stevens]

If we're going to win, we need to think critically about the kind of fight we're in.  There is no place on the modern battlefield for those who think this is some sort of Holy Crusade.  That kind of self righteous bullshit just clouds your vision.  What I want are soldiers who are tactical analysts - who see past the physical ground and into real drivers behind this insurgency, who can set goals based on the REAL threat, and who are professional enough to carry out that mission with ruthless efficiency.

Half the guys on the battlefield do think it's crusade, they're called "the enemy".  What's self righteous bullshit is thinking you can win a war with a half assed effort, and THAT is an insult to every dead soldier that comes home.  Seeing past the guy on the ground is great, seeing the real drivers, then dropping a 2000 laser guided bomb down his chimney is just great.  Let's do more of that.  Ruthlessness is exactly what's missing, and find where I called you or even implied you were a peacenick, and I'll eat my laptop.  Don't put words in my mouth, there's barely enough room in there for my own.