Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 45

Thread: Do Soldiers Fight for a Cause?

  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    16

    Default Do Soldiers Fight for a Cause?

    Heralding S.L.A Marshall and other studies from World War II it seems that the United States Army and Western scholars have concluded that soldiers do not fight for a cause but for their brothers in battle.

    Does the statement that soldiers only fight for their brothers in battle really apply to non-Western militiaries? We would be guilty of mirrior imaging if we supposed to this to be true in all cases.

    In particular what does our guerrilla enemy fight for? Can we really presume that the lone suicide bomber is fighting for his bro in the foxhole next to him?

    Why is that revolutionaries from Maoists to Islamists say that ideological fervor is the most important element in creating a soldier yet we deny this very premise?

    Al-Suri, author of The Global Call for Islamic Resistance argues
    that ideological training is the number one factor in creating a competenet Islamic soldier.
    Brynjar Lia stated:

    The decisive factor for successful jihadi training is the moral motivation and the desire to fight, not knowledge in the use of arms, al-Suri asserts. If the ideological program is not fully digested and the mental preparation is absent, weapons training is of no use.
    http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_...t_news%5D=1001
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 10-08-2009 at 07:35 AM. Reason: Quote msrks

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    I think American Soldiers join the military for a cause. Once they start getting shot at, their pack mentality sets in.

    I suspect it is the same for other cultures. I don't think that is transposing our values on them. I think it is human nature for men to defend their pack. The pack identity becomes clear when one pack tries to kill the other.

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Study was flawed

    There were subsequent studies that indicated these studies were biased and didn't paint a complete picture. It was determined that U.S. Soldiers fight for a variety of reasons (ideology, revenge, peer pressure, glory, economic reasons, pack mentality, etc.) that vary person by person and as Schmedlap pointed out by time and location.

    Unfortunately these studies are never questioned and they become urban legends in our force. It would be interesting to see how many other myths have shaped our policy and doctrine over the years (such as you have to have 3:1 odds when you're attacking). History tells us otherwise, but the myth persists.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 10-08-2009 at 07:34 AM.

  4. #4
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    It would be interesting to see how many other myths have shaped our policy and doctrine over the years (such as you have to have 3:1 odds when you're attacking). History tells us otherwise, but the myth persists.
    Myth and legend within the military could fill several books. It's actually easier to track what is based on actual evidence. Myth and legend are uniquely powerful within militaries, and a lot of thinking reflects purely myth - Manoeuvre Warfare is based on Myth. 4gw is entirely myth based.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  5. #5
    Council Member M-A Lagrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In Barsoom, as a fact!
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Why soldiers - now - would fight for a cause?

    The ones who are actually having a real cause to defend are the insurgents. They fight for whatever reason (free a country, establish the world of god, get access to money...) but they are the ones engaging themselves for a cause.

    Imposing as a axiom that Western soldiers are fighting for a cause is just part of the "political" process of justifying the use of violence by West under the philisophy of a Just War. (Do not mistake me, each and every men or women joining the army may do it for a cause, not just for scholarship or money).

    Denying to the enemy the fact that he is actually fighting for a cause is just part of the process of denying him the right to be a Just Opponent.

    By denying to the opponant the right to defend a cause (just or not) we are trying to denie his status of soldier and, in the best case, assimilate him to an outlaw. This process, in the end, leads to the denial of war prisoner status and the justification of unfair, unlawfull, unjust means to conduct war.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 10-08-2009 at 07:34 AM. Reason: Tidy up and spelling

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default the point?

    The ones who are actually having a real cause to defend are the insurgents. They fight for whatever reason (free a country, establish the world of god, get access to money...) but they are the ones engaging themselves for a cause.
    Actually there are academics that would argue this, Dave Kilcullen being one in his book "Accidental Guerrillas". Generally (and since we're not addressing a specific conflict we have to speak in generalities) there are a percentage of hard core believers on both sides, and percentage in the middle that are drug into the fight for other than ideological reasons (perhaps pay or they're coerced). Granted there normally are true believers in every insurgency, but not all.

    Imposing as a axiom that Western soldiers are fighting for a cause is just part of the "political" process of justifying the use of violence by West under the philisophy of a Just War. (Do not mistake me, each and every men or women joining the army may do it for a cause, not just for scholarship or money).
    Every country, every militant force must convince its followers and supporters that they're fighting for a just cause to remain politically viable. This is not simply a western trait.

    Denying to the enemy the fact that he is actually fighting for a cause is just part of the process of denying him the right to be a Just Opponent.

    By denying to the opponant the right to defend a cause (just or not) we are trying to denie his status of soldier and, in the best case, assimilate him to an outlaw. This process, in the end, leads to the denial of war prisoner status and the justification of unfair, unlawfull, unjust means to conduct war.
    In every conflict we have used derogatory terms to define our enemy, the dehumanizaton process is important, because it loosens our moral constraints against killing them (Japs, Jerries, Gooks, Ragheads, Skinnies, etc.).

    Your point about denying prisoner of war status is a sore point with many and frequently debated by law scholars and those with political agendas on both the left and the right, and I suspect no one has really come up with the right answer because laws as the west knows them are the fruit grown by States, not non-state actors. So when a non-state actor declares war on us, we're left scratching our heads and we're still trying to clarify what it means. However, it is clear to many of us we couldn't effectively fight this type of enemy within the pre-911 legal framework.

  7. #7
    Council Member M-A Lagrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In Barsoom, as a fact!
    Posts
    976

    Default

    there are a percentage of hard core believers on both sides, and percentage in the middle that are drug into the fight for other than ideological reasons (perhaps pay or they're coerced). Granted there normally are true believers in every insurgency, but not all.
    Sorry, but we are talking about professionals in western armies. I do not deny to any of them to fight for a cause but the status of professional is by definition lower the "cause" engagement. (do not miss understand me, I am not under estimating personnal engagement).

    For insurgents, the cause is the main point as they have to build the both the object/project to defend or to fight for and the means. But I agree that you can have casual insurgents but no accidental insurgencies. Their again, reducing insurgent movement to banditry is reducing the political problem that caused the people to take arms.

    This is linked with the denial of the justness of the adversary cause. I do not say we have to agree with our opponants but we have to achknowledge the fact that they do have also a just cause, especially in insurgencies. Or rather, like Schmitt, that we are facing a just opponent.
    The question of jus at bellum is no more relevant in actual conflicts (apart from Bin Laden hunt) as there are no more ideological confrotation.

    Through colonial and prehemptive war, "the good guys" have lost the monopole of Jus. So, yes, every side has the feeling or believes they are fighting a just war for a just cause but this is based no more on moral values but on political statement. So the justness of insurgents' cause will always look moraly more attractive.

    However, it is clear to many of us we couldn't effectively fight this type of enemy within the pre-911 legal framework.


    However 9/11 has never been a blank check for war crimes and use of torture. Geneva Convention were and are still applicable before and after 9/11. Jus in Bello is what makes the honor of the combattant. Recognizing the adversary as a jus opponant with rights is what preserves the justness of your cause. Otherwise, there are no difference between a soldier and a criminal.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 10-08-2009 at 01:24 PM. Reason: Quote marks and spelling.

  8. #8
    Council Member Abu Suleyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Montgomery, AL
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    There were subsequent studies that indicated these studies were biased and didn't paint a complete picture.
    I have heard this a lot, but no one ever cites the studies. I don't doubt what you are saying is true, but I would like some citations if you have them.
    Audentes adiuvat fortuna
    "Abu Suleyman"

  9. #9
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Agree, but

    However 9/11 has never been a blank check for war crimes and use of torture. Geneva Convention were and are still applicable before and after 9/11. Jus in Bello is what makes the honor of the combattant. Recognizing the adversary as a jus opponant with rights is what preserves the justness of your cause. Otherwise, there are no difference between a soldier and a criminal.
    My point wasn't to justify torture, but to accept that targeted killing, extra-ordinary renditions, surveillance programs, etc. that may not have been on the books as legal activities prior to 9/11 (I'm not sure), are needed tools now that need to fall within our legal framework.

    Back to your point about the difference between a Soldier a criminal, not all, but many of those non-state actors we're fighting consistently engage in "criminal" acts of the worst kind against us and their own people, yet it seems they're immune from being criticized, so if in fact we're fighting criminals who not respect the laws of war, then do the laws of war apply? That has been the issue from day one as I understand it.

  10. #10
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default It's a confluence of reasons

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Suleyman View Post
    I have heard this a lot, but no one ever cites the studies. I don't doubt what you are saying is true, but I would like some citations if you have them.
    Abu, I am not arguing against the sound finding that unit cohesion plays a "critical" role (interpret as trust in your comrades), but it is not the sole reason that men fight. Men in cohesive units fight better.

    In addition to the comments below, I would add that men join organizations where they are likely to share a common ideology. If you look at the performance of the Army in the latter years of the Vietnam conflict there were some units that had terrible discipline and combat records (Soldiers fragging their officers, desertion rates, etc.). I ain't no scientist, but I think it is because collectively as a unit they didn't believe the war (they'd lost their ideological base for fighting), and group/organizational behavior reinforced the bad discipline. The Soldiers that went into Afghanistan in 2001 were ideologically motivated and their ideology was reinforced by their comrades.

    IMO men fight for a confluence of reasons, not just because their comrades are there next to them.

    http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/army/...ersfight_2.htm

    Stouffer argued that ideology, patriotism, or fighting for the cause were not major factors in combat motivation. “Surprisingly, many soldiers in Iraq were motivated by patriotic ideals,” Wong said.

    Liberating the people and bringing freedom were common themes in describing combat motivation, the report stated.

    Wong credits today’s volunteer Army having “more politically savvy” soldiers as the reason for the change. He said today’s more educated soldiers have a better understanding of the overall mission and provide a “truly professional army.”
    There is link at the end of the article to the actual study.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 10-08-2009 at 05:44 PM. Reason: dissertion changed to desertion

  11. #11
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Purpose and ideology are also important

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...le6865359.ece#

    Many feel that they are risking their lives — and that colleagues have died — for a futile mission and an Afghan population that does nothing to help them, the chaplains told The Times in their makeshift chapel on this fortress-like base in a dusty, brown valley southwest of Kabul.
    “We’re lost — that’s how I feel. I’m not exactly sure why we’re here,” said Specialist Raquime Mercer, 20, whose closest friend was shot dead by a renegade Afghan policeman last Friday. “I need a clear-cut purpose if I’m going to get hurt out here or if I’m going to die.”

    Sergeant Christopher Hughes, 37, from Detroit, has lost six colleagues and survived two roadside bombs. Asked if the mission was worthwhile, he replied: “If I knew exactly what the mission was, probably so, but I don’t.”

  12. #12
    Council Member M-A Lagrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In Barsoom, as a fact!
    Posts
    976

    Default

    targeted killing, extra-ordinary renditions, surveillance programs, etc. that may not have been on the books as legal activities prior to 9/11 (I'm not sure), are needed tools now that need to fall within our legal framework.
    I am not so sure, Wilf could probably give a clearer answer on that (or we may debate it angrily…), but as far as I know this is not against Geneva conventions as long as you have a lawful target. As far as I know targeted killing of combatants are not illegal and never were. Otherwise most of the commando ops would have been illegal… What is illegal and will harm your cause inside and outside is the killing of innocents or the practice of collective punishment…

    if in fact we're fighting criminals who not respect the laws of war, then do the laws of war apply?
    Yes the law of war applies, why should it not?
    The question is not the practice of war by the opponent but your practice of war.
    Denying the fact that you are bound to law of war because your opponent does not respect it would come, in a simplified way, to accept that police practice terror on citizens because criminals do.
    The law of war is not only protecting the opponent or the civilian, it is also (and it comes from) the honourable way to practice violence as a soldier. The first attempt of modern law of war has been to protect soldiers. Going back to council de trente in middle age, the first European written law of war has been to restrict the use of arbalests as it was a too powerful weapon that was too harmful for the combatants… The Oxford and then after La Haye law of war have for aim to protect combatants from immoral weapons. First Geneva Convention (before 1949) is based on the observation of the absence of rescue for wounded soldiers. The 1949 Geneva Convention and additional Protocols are protecting incapacitated soldiers, prisoner first. Then they are extendent to civilian population among war and to non state combatants.
    But a just way to practice war does not warranty that you are fighting for a just cause.

    The just cause is linked to the moral stake you are defending. Modern wars, especially small wars (not even talking of COIN, the only reference of COIN to a jus cause is Laurence d’Arabie), are based on political statement of what is a jus cause. This comes mainly from WWII in which the jus cause was clearly established.
    But also, it comes from the criminalisation of war.
    If war is a crime, it is no more the violent opposition between two (or more) jus hostis (just opponents) but the opposition of a defender of the “Right/Law” against a criminal. In COIN this is clearly counter productive. As long as you undermine you adversary with denying him the respect due to combatant, then you are building heros. They even can start without a cause and end up, like Zapata, as symbols of freedom…

    “Surprisingly, many soldiers in Iraq were motivated by patriotic ideals,”
    Patriotism is a cause, for sure. But it does not make it a just cause.

    “more educated soldiers have a better understanding of the overall mission and provide a “truly professional army.”
    Then the cause has to be just otherwise you have in fact a bench of genius monkeys. Or you have trained people that have been cheated and the day they realise they are being taken for donkeys you are in deep troubles.

  13. #13
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M-A Lagrange View Post
    I am not so sure, Wilf could probably give a clearer answer on that (or we may debate it angrily…), but as far as I know this is not against Geneva conventions as long as you have a lawful target. As far as I know targeted killing of combatants are not illegal and never were.
    I am in no way qualified to answer the question as to legality. JMM has got to be the man on that one.

    I would also suggest that sometimes, you need to kill more than just combatants. Political leaderships being one, and unarmed (woman with a cell-phone) reconnaissance being another.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  14. #14
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Why I like WILF

    I am in no way qualified to answer the question as to legality. JMM has got to be the man on that one.

    I would also suggest that sometimes, you need to kill more than just combatants. Political leaderships being one, and unarmed (woman with a cell-phone) reconnaissance being another.
    It is your straight shooting common sense that I love, but eventually I intend to sell you some IW stuff .

    Getting back to the real issue, you hit the nail on the head once again, and thus supported (probably unintentionally) my argument that our current targeting focus, which is focused on the militants and the bomb makers is far from complete. We need to identify the underground political structure and neutralize it with equal priority, to include their propagandists.

    The question is not the practice of war by the opponent but your practice of war.
    I disagree, the Geneva Convention is an "agreement" between potential warring parties; sort of a quid pro quo thing. I realize there are rules of law beyond the Geneva Convention, but if your enemy fails to follow anything resembling a set of rules of conduct (murdering civilians intentionally, using human shields, terrribly mutating their prisoners, etc.), then why are we obligated to treat them like Soldiers? I'm not advocating whole sale slaughter or torture, but simply that they haven't earned the right of being treated like a legal combatant.

    I got you, we did some stupid stuff on "rare" occassions, and of course those events were magnified in the media a 1,000 fold. You would think the undisciplined kids in Abu Grab (sp?) reflected the majority of our military instead the aberration that it actually was.

    The first casualty of war is the truth, and this is just one example.

    I'm not an advocate for torture, or even abuse, but I am an advocate for killing those non-shooting insurgents/terrorists who post videos on the web that inflame hate and recruitment to the radical side as much as I support killing those who are emplacing IEDs. Those videos translate into lethal fires over time.

    Then the cause has to be just otherwise you have in fact a bench of genius monkeys. Or you have trained people that have been cheated and the day they realise they are being taken for donkeys you are in deep troubles.
    With the exception of your use of "monkeys" I agree, and I think we experienced that in Vietnam, and perhaps other conflicts. In Afghanistan our cause is trust (our methods may be off track, but the reason we're there is beyond question).

    I realize the media circus undermines our efforts in any conflict. When the conflict is new, all the reporters are patriots and report on the great things we're doing, but after awhile that isn't news worthy and the angle of the story changes (they're looking for dirt). At the same time they start ignoring the atrocities that our enemy commits on a daily basis. IMO this is a key reason we don't well in long conflicts.

    I don't think the media does it intentionally, but rather they focus on the negative because the negative is "news", and by definition the news is a current event (relative term) that stands out from the norm. If the audience would understand that what they're seeing is aberrations and that is why it is being reporting we wouldn't have the perception that the U.S. military is out of control and breaking the law.

    On the other hand, the fact that terrorists commit atrocities on a daily basis isn't news, so it doesn't get reported. If a terrorist risked his/her life to same an innocent civilian that would be news worthy. The asymmetry is there for everyone to see if they would just look.

    There are none so blind as those who won't see (Italian philosopher).

  15. #15
    Council Member M-A Lagrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In Barsoom, as a fact!
    Posts
    976

    Default

    I am in no way qualified to answer the question as to legality.
    Sorry Wilf if I brought you in the debate for a bad reason. Though you may have something to say.

    With the exception of your use of "monkeys" I agree
    Sorry, it is a literal translation of a French expression to say that you understand. No offense.


    I disagree, the Geneva Convention is an "agreement" between potential warring parties; sort of a quid pro quo thing. I realize there are rules of law beyond the Geneva Convention, but if your enemy fails to follow anything resembling a set of rules of conduct (murdering civilians intentionally, using human shields, terrribly mutating their prisoners, etc.), then why are we obligated to treat them like Soldiers? I'm not advocating whole sale slaughter or torture, but simply that they haven't earned the right of being treated like a legal combatant.
    Geneva Convention are not conventions between fighters. They are conventions on how to conduct war. The fact that the opponent does not follow them is not a reason to not follow it as US or other government who ratified the GC are bound to respect the GC. And after, it is a question of your honour as a soldier that is at stake. You have to disobey an unlawful order, in the letter and the spirit. (Raw translation of French soldier manual). I believe that you have the same.

    The question you address is in fact the recognition of the opponent as a jus hostis: a lawful enemy. But still, as I said previously, it is not because delinquents are not following the law that police has the right to break it. It is all the point in the “humanitarian” conduct of war. I would rather say the Human way to conduct war. (if it is possible)

    I am an advocate for killing those non-shooting insurgents/terrorists who post videos on the web that inflame hate and recruitment to the radical side as much as I support killing those who are emplacing IEDs.
    Political leaderships being one, and unarmed (woman with a cell-phone) reconnaissance being another.
    Here the distinction between lawful target and unlawful target takes all its sense. A woman doing recognition ops is a lawful target just as a spy (consider the spy status is defined and law applicable to them in GC). A child soldier is a lawful target. The boy carrying the gun of his dad on the way to an attack is more unclear but on a pure legal point: it is not a lawful target. (How to make the difference? Good question, especially under fire)
    But on the other hand the propagandists are civilians if they do not conduct active recruitment. The reporters are not lawful targets and are protected by laws and GC. Why should it be different for the enemy? The question is all about active participation in a military operation. Hosting people when you do not know they are enemies does not make you a criminal. Organising the rest and recover of enemies makes you an active actor of the conflict. Killing is may be not the best solution.

    Killing politicians is even less clear. If you kill a political or religious leader, then you recognise them as combatants. So you cannot claim that it is unlawful to target your politicians and religious leaders or opinion makers. Then you open the Pandora box for civilian killing.
    If the cause you are defending is justice… Then you are counter productive. If you catch them and trial them, then you are more productive as you show that you practice what you defend.

  16. #16
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    ....but eventually I intend to sell you some IW stuff .
    ...and I intend to resist you!

    We need to identify the underground political structure and neutralize it with equal priority, to include their propagandists.
    Concur absolutely. War is a setting forth of policy, so killing those making policy is entirely logical. Killing the IO and Cyber weenies is the best way to counter IO and Cyber Ops - if you think they need countering!

    Quote Originally Posted by M-A Lagrange View Post
    Sorry Wilf if I brought you in the debate for a bad reason. Though you may have something to say.
    No apology necessary. I do have things to say, but I tend (not always) to limit my pontificating to subjects where I feel I have some relative area of expertise.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  17. #17
    Council Member M-A Lagrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In Barsoom, as a fact!
    Posts
    976

    Default

    No apology necessary. I do have things to say, but I tend (not always) to limit my pontificating to subjects where I feel I have some relative area of expertise.
    I smell some kind of mockery... Especially from a man who was most probably on the other side of the front during summer 2006.
    I served as private during some time and made the choice to joint the relief side.
    Spending 10 years in war zones conducting emergency operations in the worst dirty wars is all about engagement.
    I have seen the blue helmet doing nothing and let civilian being killed because they did not feel their engagement as soldiers was to respect their mission or mandate (What ever you call it). On relief side the choice of engagement for a cause is even lower. I watched the same idiots crying for military protections and endangering populations by conducting stupid relief operations for budgetary reasons.

    The question of Jus is all what is left now days for those who want to have an active positive role in war (either as soldiers or relief workers).
    As the causes defended (even in humanitarian field) are more than questionable nowadays, then what is left is the way you conduct your operations.
    If the cause you defend is defended through unjust actions then you loose the political battle and your cause is no more just. (Would that not echoes Clausewitz statement on the aim of war?)
    Respect of laws of war is applicable not only for soldiers but were first made to protect soldiers. And engagement as soldier is all about protection in the end; isn’t it?
    Otherwise, being a soldier or a relief worker is just being one variable in a Jomini arithmetic calculation. And then cause of engagement is an empty question.

  18. #18
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    Getting back to the real issue, you hit the nail on the head once again, and thus supported (probably unintentionally) my argument that our current targeting focus, which is focused on the militants and the bomb makers is far from complete. We need to identify the underground political structure and neutralize it with equal priority, to include their propagandists.
    Exactly, when you attack the enemy as a system you will win.....if you don't you want! Some of the first attacks against Pablo Escabar(can't spell were his attorneys/judges and bankers and their homes and fancy cars, anyone and anything used to support him was subject to end up on a target list.

  19. #19
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Hi Wilf and all ...

    and thanks for the plug:

    from Wilf:
    I am in no way qualified to answer the question as to legality. JMM has got to be the man on that one.
    but right now I'm suffering from a bit of "burn out" on questions "COIN" and the applicability of the Laws of War and Rule of Law to "COIN".

    I can spot the issues (of which there are many): but I also am somewhat overwhelmed by the confusion of "answers". For the most part, I've tried to report the various "rules" as they are developing and the cases as they have been decided, without an attempt to develop a cohesive system.

    A large problems-solutions set area involves "transitions" - that is, situations where the Laws of War and Rule of Law switch - sometimes seemingly on a dime. We know the basic priniciples - the definition of the "enemy" and the distinction between combatants and non-combatants (the latter in general as the "people", but also more specifically as to distinguishing between enemy combatants and enemy non-combatants).

    Yes, an enemy combatant is the guy who is shooting at you; but how do you stop him before he gets into that position - or before he sets the IED. Those are both military and legal questions; and, unless the answers are on the same page, we will continue to see contradictions which will lead to good people getting killed. That is one "transition" situation of many.

    We probably could use a seminar on the interfaces between military (and paramilitary, including law enforcement) operations and "the law" (whether Laws of War or Rule of Law) in terms of guerrilla warfare and the larger political infrastructure that supports its guerrilla fighters - and on the many "transitions" that can occur in that context.

    Best to all

    Mike

  20. #20
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Nw you know our fear

    Yes, an enemy combatant is the guy who is shooting at you; but how do you stop him before he gets into that position - or before he sets the IED. Those are both military and legal questions; and, unless the answers are on the same page, we will continue to see contradictions which will lead to good people getting killed. That is one "transition" situation of many.

    We probably could use a seminar on the interfaces between military (and paramilitary, including law enforcement) operations and "the law" (whether Laws of War or Rule of Law) in terms of guerrilla warfare and the larger political infrastructure that supports its guerrilla fighters - and on the many "transitions" that can occur in that context.
    jmm99, thanks for your input, but if I interpreted your post correctly you're stating there is considerable gray area in the legal domain, so I ask you and your legal friends to be sympathetic, better yet empathetic, with the men and women who are on point fighting this war. They can't get clear answers in a timely manner on their left and right limits to determine what is and isn't permissiable by law (who's law, what law, but wait, we have another law that allows this...).

    Somewhere there is also the unwritten law of common sense, I think we were all familiar with it at one time. If you know where we misplaced it please let me know.

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
  •