Do Soldiers Fight for a Cause?

[Abu Suleyman]

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.

[Bill Moore]

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.

[Bill Moore]

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.

[Bill Moore]

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.”

[M-A Lagrange]

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.

[William F. Owen]

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.

[Bill Moore]

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).

[M-A Lagrange]

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.

[slapout9]

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.