War Crime

I never thought of that before (the idea that the Dozen were chosen for this mission because regular troops might have been seriously uncomfortable or disturbed by some of the things it required). That's a great theory, thanks for it!

*****
People said love was blind, but what they meant was that love blinded them.

There are different types of war: from low-intensity border skirmishes (Kashmir), to asymmetrical and guerilla war (the Viet Cong in Vietnam), to a war of attrition (the Western Front of WWI) to a war of all-out annihilation.

If, say, during World War 2, the Allies had recklessly and wantonly bombed targets with no regard for civilian casualties, or had actively sought to depopulate cities, then they would have come to own a ruined land of rubble and ash, devoid of life. Then what would the after war scenario look like? Germany wouldn't be an economic powerhouse and it wouldn't have been a check and buffer against the Soviets. The aftermath of a war must be considered from its outset. This is where the recent war in Iraq falls apart, the actual battles were easily enough won, but the was no "General Marshall", whose plan to rebuild Europe after the Axis capitulated is what helped usher in an era of economic prosperity. Contrast this with the Soviet's plan after WW2; having suffered terribly at the hands of the Wehrmacht, they were intent of making Germany "pay". One need only look at the contrast between East and West Germany to see how these two diametrically opposed plans worked. As Machiavelli said, in essence, "the ends must always be considered".

Taking prisoners is "ridiculous"? How so? They provide intelligence and they're used as bargaining chips (id est, if you mistreat or kill my captured soldiers, I will do the same, and worse, to yours). Again, look what the Soviets did to their POWs, most of them had been worked to death in Siberian camps by the mid 1950's. If you offer no quarter to the enemy, then they will be that much more likely to fight to the death, costing both sides dearly (exempli gratia, the Japanese--both civilian and soldier--in WW2 were convinced that the Allies would treat them just as horribly as they had treated the Chinese at Nanking, and thus fought to the grisly death or committed suicide). An army that refuses to take prisoners is that much more likely to find themselves fighting an even more determined and ferocious adversary, as they would view themselves as "dead either way".

For a holistic view on the outcomes of a war, consider the American Civil War. It was a matter of practicality and ultimate goals; Lincoln sought to reunite the nation (he invoked the concept of "perpetual union" as conceived under the Articles of Confederation, America's first attempt at self-governance), the wanton murder of prisoners and non-combatants would not allow the nation to heal and thus was antithetical to his goals.

If you do not understand the rules that govern the conduct of war then you must read about the Hague and Geneva Conventions and why and how they came to be. They cover everything from the treatment of prisoners of war (they cannot be murdered at whim and they cannot be forced to do work which benefits the war efforts of the nation holding them nor can they be pressed into service) to weapons and ammunition (the banning of certain bayonets and ammunition designed solely to increase suffering, and the ban on chemical and biological weapons). And as for the enforcement of these rules postbellum, look at the Nuremburg Trials and the trial of Slobodan Milošević by the Hague (though he died in his cell of a heart attack before the trial ended). Again, compare this to Iraq and the haphazard way the nation was handled after "Mission Accomplished", and the partisan and sectarian violence following the ad hoc execution of Saddam Hussein; it seemed done more to sate bloodlust than out of a desire to heal Iraq.

You must consider what every leader debating going to war does (or at least, should), what the end game scenario looks like, how to get there, and how to achieve a lasting peace after the war is won (e.g. whether The Treaty of Versailles created conditions favorable for a militaristic and populist leader to rise and again agitate for war). Carthago delenda est!**


**As legend holds, after the Roman victory over Carthage, the city was sacked and burned and the ground was sewn with salt so that nothing would ever grown there again....





something terribly clever.