Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: life vs property-historical view of punitive action

  1. #1
    Council Member TROUFION's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    212

    Default life vs property-historical view of punitive action

    "... it is only an unphilosophic mind that will hold it legitimate, to take a man's life, and illegitimate to destroy his property."

    After reading several threads I was reminded of a passage in an old book, a book written by a very famous and well respected author. I could leave it go with a simple times have changed statement. But I wonder if that is true. Times have changed but the human being has not. He is still capable bof being base and cruel. I could leave it go with war has changed, but has its true nature really changed? When I use the word changed I mean it in the sense of evolution. Here is the quote. I apologize in advance for the length but it is necessary to understand the moment.

    "In pursuance of these orders, the 2nd Brigade on the 29th destroyed all the villages in the centre of the valley, some twelve or fourteen in number, and blew up with dynamite upwards of thirty towers and forts. The tribesmen, unable to contend with the troops in the open, remained sullenly on the hillsides, and contended themselves with firing from long range at the cavalry patrols.

    I feel that this is a fitting moment to discuss the questions which village-burning raises. I have described with independent impartiality the progress of the quarrel between the British and the tribesmen. In a similiar spirit I approach the examination of the methods of offence employed. Many misconceptions exist on this subject in England. One member of the House of Commons aske the Secretary of State whether, in the punishment of villages, care was taken that only the houses of the guilty parties should be destroyed. He was gravely toldthat great care was taken. The spectacel of troops, who have perhaps carried a village with the bayonet and are holding it against a vigorous counter-attack, when every moment means loss of life and increase of danger, going round and carefully discriminating which houses are occupied by 'guilty parties' , and which by unoffending people, is ridiculous. Another member asked, 'whetehr the villages were destroyed or only the fortifications.' 'Only the fortifications', replied the minister guilelessly. What is the actual fact? All along the Afghan border every mans house is his castle. The villages are the fortifications, the fortifications the villages. Every household is loopholed and whether it has a tower or not is dependent only on it's owners wealth. A third legislator, in th ecolumns ofhis amusing weekly journal, discussed the question at some length, and commented ont he barbarity of such tactics. They were not only barbarous, he affirmed, but senseless. Where did the inhabitants of the villages go? To the enemy of course! This reveals, perhaps, the most remarkabel misconception of the actual facts. The writer seemed to imagine that the tribesmen conssisted of a regular army who fought, and a peaceful, law-abiding population who remained at their business, and perhaps protested against the excessive military expenditure from time to time. Whereas in reality throughout the regions, every inhabitant is a soldier from the first day he is old enough to hurl a stone, till the last day he has strength to pull a trigger...

    Equipped with these facts I invite the reader to examine the question of the legitimacy of the village-burning for himself. A camp of a British brigade, ...is attacked at night...THe assailants retire tot hte hills. Thither it is impossible to follow them. They cannot be caught. They cannot be punished. Only one remedy remains--their property must be destroyed. Their villages are made hostages for their good behaviour. They are fully aware of this, and when they make an attack on a camp or convoy they do it baecause they have considered the cost and think it worth while. Of course, it is cruel and barbarous, as is much else in war, but it is only an unphilosophic mind that will hold it legitimate, to take a man's life, and illegitimate to destroy his property. "
    --Winston Churchill, Malakand Field Force 1892.

    Bold added to highlight the final comment.

    Targetting the base in which the enemy resides is tricky business if and when that base is the very home of the population you are fighting to gain control of or support from. In many ways it seems more difficult today than ever before. Is property destruction a valid means of population control? Is punitive action valid?

  2. #2
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Troufion,

    Quote Originally Posted by TROUFION View Post
    "... it is only an unphilosophic mind that will hold it legitimate, to take a man's life, and illegitimate to destroy his property."

    Targetting the base in which the enemy resides is tricky business if and when that base is the very home of the population you are fighting to gain control of or support from. In many ways it seems more difficult today than ever before. Is property destruction a valid means of population control? Is punitive action valid?
    Interesting questions and, being in a somewhat philosopnical mood for the nonce, I'll take a stab at them.

    First off, I do happen to agree with the Churchill quote; it is not only "unphilosophic", it is idiotic on the same level of idiocy as that expressed by groups such as the more extremist members of PETA.

    Let's look at your questions in order.
    Is property destruction a valid means of population control?
    I have a touch of a problem with the underlying assumption of the word "valid" - it implies "truth", "truthfulness" or "right action", an implication that I think is probably at odds with the question. If we take it as meaning "correct" in the sense of "the most effective action in order to achieve our objectives", the the question an only be answered on a case by case basis. It certainly has been the case, at least in military conventions, when applied to property destruction in order to break he national will of a civilian population and exert a form of "control" over that population. At the same time, it has also been applied in civilian law enforcement settings if "destruction" is taken as "the removal of X [property] from use by Y [person]". So there do appear to be some cases where it is the "correct" (i.e. judged to be most effective) action to take to control a populace.

    There are other cases where it certainly does not appear to be the correct action having, if you will, the opposite effect on the population. This certainly seems to be the case on current COIN operations, although I fully suspect that this situation arises, in part, from the fact that current COIN ops are being conducted by foreign governments rather than local governments (i.e. property destruction is not part of the socio-cultural matrix of local "law" - it is being conducted by "outsiders").

    Is punitive action valid?
    Again, with the caveats on the word "valid", I think it is a situation of examining it on a case by case basis, as well as defining "punitive action". In general, "punitive action" can range from limitations of freedoms (e.g. curfews, forced registrations, etc.) through property destruction / appropriation and forced relocations (e.g. Malaysia) to decimation and annihilation.

    In general, "punitive action" is in response to some action taken by an opponent; it is an effect whose "cause" is an opponents initial action modified by my "likely" reaction. Thus, for example, if I know that unit X has a bunch of people in it with hair trigger fingers, I will try shooting at them from a crowd to evoke a specific reaction that I will then use to achieve my greater ends. In this case, the "punitive action" of returning fire does not have a "punitive" effect thereby rendering it "invalid". This is the type of thing that is encapsulated in the paradoxes in FM 3-24 and Kilcullen's 28 articles (it's also what Hizbollah did to the IDF).

    But if we take this thinking further, truly punitive action causes damage to one side. So what types of punitive action can be taken against insurgent groups? Well, property destruction per se is probably contra-indicated since building a population infrastructure is one of the goals. How about the redistribution of property (think about LE auctions on confiscated goods but do it by locally run lotteries amongst the poor)? Rather than detention (solely) on captured low-level fighters, many of whom were co-erced anyway, why not have them engage in reconstruction activities? The idea behind these is not to apply a concept of retributive justice but, rather, one of restorative justice.
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  3. #3
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TROUFION View Post
    "... Targetting the base in which the enemy resides is tricky business if and when that base is the very home of the population you are fighting to gain control of or support from. In many ways it seems more difficult today than ever before. Is property destruction a valid means of population control? Is punitive action valid?
    Please remember to keep Churchill's remarks in the context of this part of the quotation provided.
    the tribesmen conssisted of a regular army who fought, and a peaceful, law-abiding population who remained at their business, and perhaps protested against the excessive military expenditure from time to time. Whereas in reality throughout the regions, every inhabitant is a soldier from the first day he is old enough to hurl a stone, till the last day he has strength to pull a trigger...
    Assessing the overt and covert uncoerced support that the populace provides to one's opponent certainly plays an important part in deciding what techniques are appropriate means of population control.

  4. #4
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    223

    Default

    I know the Israelis have been destroying the property of insurgents/terrorists/suicide bombers for years. Can anyone out there comment on how well that has been working?

  5. #5
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default Forced Eviction

    Quote Originally Posted by Eden View Post
    I know the Israelis have been destroying the property of insurgents/terrorists/suicide bombers for years. Can anyone out there comment on how well that has been working?

    Amnesty's report
    (not justification) covers two major categories. There's little in the report regarding the effectiveness of the program however :

    The destruction of houses, land and other properties falls into two categories: houses built without a permit and houses, land and other properties which the Israeli army claims are destroyed for “military/security needs”, including the destruction of the family homes of Palestinians suspected of carrying out attacks.

    1 – Unlicensed houses: The destruction of houses in the Arab sector in Israel and in parts of the Occupied Territories on the ground that they were built without a permit. Hundreds of homes have been demolished in the Arab sector in Israel in the past few years alone, whereas such demolitions in the Jewish sector are an extremely rare occurrence, if they occur at all.

    2 – “Military/security needs”: The vast majority of the homes, land and other properties destroyed by the Israeli army in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in recent years fall under the category, which Israel defines as destruction for “military/security needs”.
    If you want to blend in, take the bus

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default Israeli house demolitions

    The IDF conducted an investigation into its punitive demolition policy, which ultimately found that they had no observable deterrent effect, and instead tended to simply anger the Palestinian population. As a result, the practice was substantially curtailed in 2005.

    Demolitions do continue, to enable settlement expansion as well as construction of settler bypass roads and the separation barrier. Demolitions also occur of unlicensed construction in Area C of the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, where it is often difficult for Palestinians to get building permits.

    The families of Palestinians involved in armed attacks no longer automatically have their family homes demolished. However, Israeli Public Security Minister Avi Dichter did call for the demolition of the family home of the gunmen who killed eight Israelis at the Merkaz Harav Yeshiva in March.

    I haven't seen any more recent reporting on this.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •