What do you think about Rules of war?

[karamazovmm]

I saw the thread in the Garbarsardar fight club and was rather intrigued, about your opinions on this matter?

What do you know about?

Wat do you think about it?

There was any change since the earlier periods comparing to know after the Geneva Conventions?

[Captain Jin]

I think they are absolutely necessary. The sad thing is that we don't live in an age where the enemy follows the rules at all. I still remember the days when insurgents walked forward with white flags pretending to be surrendering in Fallujah only to ambush and attack American soldiers and Marines. It's very frustrating to fight an enemy that follows absolutely no rules, but then to be held so stringently to those rules yourself.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

I think they are absolutely necessary. The sad thing is that we don't live in an age where the enemy follows the rules at all. I still remember the days when insurgents walked forward with white flags pretending to be surrendering in Fallujah only to ambush and attack American soldiers and Marines. It's very frustrating to fight an enemy that follows absolutely no rules, but then to be held so stringently to those rules yourself.

Indeed.

[karamazovmm]

I also think, but don't fret my dear captain the rules that exist today, are more or less what existed since the 16th century, reformed in the 19th, and entered a new phase in the 20th, and this is always a grudge that happens.

But the rules are different for insurgents and standing armies

[Jaketh]

there should be rules to an extent, but some rules like forcing snipers to call shots in are just dumb

[Poach]

General humanitarian rules should remain in effect (don't shoot medics, don't force civilians into the fighting, etc). Unfortunately, few national Armed Forces seem to hold to these ideals. In today's wars, the insurgents not only ignore them, but use our adherence to them to their own advantage.

Essentially, yes, they're spineless cowards, but that's what we have to face these days...

[Jingles]

I think they're an oxymoron.

[Poach]

While true, Jingle_Bombs, two western armies clashing would likely adhere to them. The insurgents, who are essentially lawless and unprofessional, don't bother adhering to them because they answer to no one.

[Jingles]

I'm no military buff, but the way I look at it, throughout history it's the ones who have broken the rules that have won the wars.

[Turumba]

No war is undoubtedly the best. But if:

"The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility." John Fisher
"In war there is no substitute for victory." Douglas MacArthur -even if this means to find a "final solution", because no problem cant stand long against intensive logic. Logic can be very cruel.
Cant translate my sig in a proper way...

Better no war, really!

[Poach]

The Germans were the first army to deploy lethal gas in the First World War, they lost.

[karamazovmm]

The concept of just war is what started the ROE that we have nowadays, it is a needed requirement to achieve what we have in terms of concept. It is divided in 3 main categories:

- Jus ad Bellum
- Jus in Bello
- Jus post Bellum

The first 2 are classic formalizations the main contributing authors are: Tomas de Aquino, Francisco de Vitória, Francisco Suarez, Hugo Grotius, Sammuel Pufendorf, Christian Wolff, Emerich de Vattel


For a war to be considered just ( Jus ad Bellum) it has to fulfill 6 requirements:

1) Just cause
An aggressor has no right not to be warred against in defense
only legitimate governments have rights

2) The correct intention

3) The Appropriate Authority and Public declarationAutoridade apropriada e Declaração Pública

4) Last resort

5) Probability of Success

6) Proportionality


Now the second point in a just war is the Jus in Bello (or the Law in the War). This point is more pronouncedly in what we consider the ROE, and human rights when the brown delicatessen hits the fan. Its also composed of 6 requirements:

1) The obedience to the International Laws regarding arms ban
2) The discrimination and the immunity of non combatants
3) Proportionality
4) Benevolent quarentine to the POW
5) No Means Mala in Se
6) No reprisals


The Third category is a modern one, the main contributing authors for this debate are: Michael Walzer, Barrie Paskins, Michael Dockrill, Richard Norman, Brian Orend, Elizabeth Anscombe.

The main argument for this third category is that relations should be normalized as soon as possible after the conflict, for a less bumpy road to peace.

This is also comprised of 6 requirements (kuddos to their fixation with the number)

1) Proportionality and Publicity
2) Rights Vindication
3) Discrimination
the end of discrimination between combatants and civilians
4) Punishment of the crimes that were perpetrated during the war
5) Monetary Compensation
6) State Rehabilitation


Now some quotes to get things going:

“The misfortunes os mankind derives from foresight... The actual cause of war. Because one foresees that the House of Hapsburg will increase, because of the french, a hundred years from now, will do such a thing, we begin to cut one another´s throats right now.” Abbe Galiani

“The very constitutional restraint, shared comercial interests, and international respect for individual rights that promote peace among liberal societies can exarcebate conflicts between liberal and non liberal societies.” Michael Doyle

“State sovereignty implies responsibility, and the primary responsibility for the protection of its people lies with the state itself. Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect”
I don't remember the author

[Azog 150]

Rules are made to be broken.

If it ever comes down to it, and another major war ever kicks off, then the rules will be broken just like they were in the past. You aren't going to win any wars by playing nice. Indeed as someone else said, rules of war is an oxymoron.

Nowadays, they are just there so we can look civilised, and becuase we would get in if they weren't followed. Saying that, if two armies adhear to the rules, then they can be a good thing. They at least bring some kind of order and humility.

[karamazovmm]

Azog the basics of the ROE is dated from when man began to think that killing others resolves things, the basics of what I presented in my earlier post are dated from the 16th, what are you talking about the now?

[Argeus the Paladin]

Really, by now I believe the rules of war exist as a means of propaganda to the public that the enmies has broken the rules so they are wrong and thus we are right - Casus Belli anyone?

[karamazovmm]

Casus belli should be stated in the jus ad bellum, not after, there is no legitimacy in dispute if the war is already going on

[Celsius]

Its war. Why should anyone follow any rules. Your objective is to kill your enemy. Not take him out for lunch.

[Jom]

Its war. Why should anyone follow any rules. Your objective is to kill your enemy. Not take him out for lunch.

The objective of war is not solely killing; it could be to gain control over a certain area or resources or to compel another nation to do something. The killing is the medium through which this is often achieved but I wouldn't say it was the objective. If we take the Second World War as an example, there are two clear cut cases: the objective of the holocaust was to kill Jews and other ethnic groups; the objective of the war was control of Europe and the expansion of Germany.

It's a shame that the days when battles were conducted in a gentlemanly fashion are behind us. Several hundred years ago generals would often meet in the field and discuss when they would start fighting. A nice example is Lord Hay offering the French the opportunity to fire the first shots at the Battle of Fontenoy. It must be said, however, that while battles obeyed the rules of politeness and etiquette, wars often didn't with wholesale raping and pillaging.

[Katsumoto]

Its war. Why should anyone follow any rules. Your objective is to kill your enemy. Not take him out for lunch.

Your objective is to defeat the enemy. That doesn't mean killing every single one of them, but forcing them into a position where they have no choice but to surrender. Optimally without even fighting:

To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
-Sun Tzu

[Argeus the Paladin]

But there are other issues that rules of war may serve as propaganda.

For instance, enemies using atomic weapons/bio weapons/<insert fictional forbidden super weapon here>. Or tortures/executes prisoners (even though there might well be a valid reason strategically as to why). Or causing collateral damages on civilians on which it is arguable whethere that is on purpose or not. All of that can well be used as propaganda.