Article

2007-04-27 Israel-Palestine-Jordan

Israeli, US intellectuals chart new rules of war for insurgencies

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by gromgoru 2007-04-27 05:31|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Long overdue.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-04-27 09:15|| 2007-04-27 09:15|| Front Page Top

#2 "We talked about the frustration we had over how the world was relating to the war, mainly the claim that Israel wasn't responding with 'proportionality,'" Ganor told The Jerusalem Post this week.

A proportionate response would be for Israel to attempt to do to their enemies exactly what their enemies are attempting to do to them, i.e. wage a holy war of extermination. The fact Israel does not do so is a testament to their profound love of life and, perhaps, their misunderstanding of the existential threat that faces them.

Posted by Excalibur 2007-04-27 09:45|| 2007-04-27 09:45|| Front Page Top

#3 And I beg to differ. The laws of war were crafted precisely to deal with savages acting without regard to civilian life. The problem is nobody bothers to enforce the treaties to which they are signatories. All "terrorists" and "jihadis" should more properly be understood as the pirates they are; to be executed upon capture and their holdings confiscated.

Posted by Excalibur 2007-04-27 09:49|| 2007-04-27 09:49|| Front Page Top

#4 We are faced with fighting relgious nut terrorists who have no rules of war. If these SOBs are not shown terror in an overwhelming response, they are never going to quit doing what they are doing. You have to out terror the terrorists. Let them know the true magnitude of terror.

Posted by JohnQC 2007-04-27 09:50|| 2007-04-27 09:50|| Front Page Top

#5 It seems that some folks have gone so far as to assign a description to the current crop of non-uniformed enemy combatants such that they actually are uniformed members of a nation, that nation being Islam.

I think this is a completely wrong-headed reinterpretation of what the terrorists represent and I believe we should stick with what the Geneva Conventions state about terrorists and non-uniformed enemy combatants - they can and should be shot on the battlefield without fear of courts martial or being accused of committing a war crime by the uniformed soldiers undertaking the executions.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2007-04-27 10:37|| www.fire-on-the-suns.com]">[www.fire-on-the-suns.com] 2007-04-27 10:37|| Front Page Top

#6 Agreed.

Posted by JohnQC 2007-04-27 10:49|| 2007-04-27 10:49|| Front Page Top

#7 The conventions clearly spell out what is forbidden and allowed, but deliberately steer clear from explicitly saying "Those who violate this treaty are to be punished as follows:" I think that was a loophole instilled in the treaty from the beginning by the bleeding heart liberals of the time in hopes that their voice would be taken as the authority for judging such reprisals. The subterfuge has worked.

Posted by ptah">ptah 2007-04-27 11:00|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2007-04-27 11:00|| Front Page Top

#8 Its actually damaging to the GC to accord terrorists (or armed forces who do not abide by the GC) the same rights as uniformed soldiers of a nation who *does* abide by the GC.

For one there is then no incentive for others to abide by the GC for our captured soldiers or to protect civilians (and not hide behind them as in the case of Syria in Lebannon or Iran in Iraq). Why should Iran or China abode by the GC with our captured soldiers when it won't cost them anything not to.

The GC should be *enforced* - both sides, the treatment of lawful combatants and the treatment of unlawful combatants.

We should make this crystal clear to our enemies (including the Donks and Useless Nitwits) that we will abode but the full Geneva Conventions and then back it up by actually doing it and start executing terrorists and Iraninan officers (caught in Iran aiding terrorists) in the field.

We don't even need Congress to approve it - they already did by approving the GC.

Posted by CrazyFool 2007-04-27 11:04|| 2007-04-27 11:04|| Front Page Top

#9 In a war for existence, such as the one being fought between Islam and the rest of the world, there should only one rule:
Win.
The alternative is extinction.

Posted by Rambler">Rambler 2007-04-27 12:17|| 2007-04-27 12:17|| Front Page Top

#10 The enforcement mechanism for the Geneva Convention is supposed to be mutuality. If one combatant executes POWs, for instance, the other is freed of the requirement to observe the convention with respect to the violator, and may even be permitted reprisals. The problem is that today's "International Law Industry" wants the Convention to apply strictly to the civilized world (us) no matter what our enemies do. Hence, the delicate concern for the poor dears at Guantanamo Bay.

The one thing I wish W had done early on would be to announce very clearly that since al-Qaida is not observing the laws of war, the Geneva Convention specifically permits the United States to execute all al-Qaida prisoners. If we choose not not to shoot them immediately, it is only because of our choice to exercise restraint. We can change our minds at any time.

Posted by Mike 2007-04-27 12:55|| 2007-04-27 12:55|| Front Page Top

#11 "In Lebanon you had an organization with very great military power, thousands of Katyusha missiles, anti-tank and anti-aircraft capabilities, the direct assistance of at least two states, and able to fight without any norms, and using Israel's limitations in harming civilians as a multiplier of their capabilities."

To hell with the terrorists. It is the sponsors that require the real attention. Without their funding the terrorists become irrelevant.

Of equal importance to financial support is ideological support. This is why Islam's clerical aristocracy must be put in the crosshairs as well. They are just as responsible for the carnage and mayhem. Both forms of support must be met with a death sentence.

If these SOBs are not shown terror in an overwhelming response, they are never going to quit doing what they are doing. You have to out terror the terrorists. Let them know the true magnitude of terror.

This is the moral dilemma that confronts us and, should be prove unable to overcome our squeamishness, it will spell our doom.

With each terrorist atrocity, a major Muslim metropolis should be obliterated within the succeeding 24 hours. This must be such a routine response that whenever al-Jazeera trumpets about another terrorist attack, Muslims run screaming from their homes. We must continue this policy until each terrorist attack results in Muslims mobbing their local mosque to slit the imam's throat.

In a feat of prestidigitation worthy of a Houdini, Islam has foisted its housecleaning duties upon the West. We have ZERO obligation to sort out the jihadis from their midst. That is their own responsibility and NO ONE else's. Nowhere are we obliged to be so delicate in how we respond to Islam's continued predations. Should Islam refuse to eradicate its jihadist population, we must respond by doing it for them on a massive scale.

Only by dint of force will Muslims be made to understand the urgency of this task. They must be made to suffer dearly for any reluctance or delay. With each new terrorist atrocity Muslims must find whole clans wiped from the face of this earth. Eventually, those Muslims who wish to survive will finally respond by killing off the radical elements that threaten us all. The West must invert terrorism's asymmetrical threat by multiplying Muslim injuries to such an extent that jihadism becomes a threat to Islam's very existence.

If the West is unable to do this it will perish.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-04-27 13:04|| 2007-04-27 13:04|| Front Page Top

#12 The one thing I wish W had done early on would be to announce very clearly that since al-Qaida is not observing the laws of war, the Geneva Convention specifically permits the United States to execute all al-Qaida prisoners. If we choose not not to shoot them immediately, it is only because of our choice to exercise restraint. We can change our minds at any time.

Word, Mike.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-04-27 13:05|| 2007-04-27 13:05|| Front Page Top

#13 Lots of spot-on comments here. The Israeli analyst is clearly a bright guy on top of the subject in general, but the Conventions are not the problem.

As Excalibur points out, and CrazyFool amplifies, the Conventions are in fact quite relevant, and yet attempts to accommodate the new situation posed by AQ-type criminals in fact weaken the Conventions by rendering their terms meaningless.

There is a need to update the Conventions (does anyone ever wonder why there are FOUR Conventions, each representing an update for new or unanticipated issues?), but there is a split in the US side as to whether - given the state of the world today, esp. its irrational anti-US animus - there is more potential for mayhem than benefit in convening another meeting. (at least this was the case the last time I spoke with someone from the relevant office, about a year ago)

One of my top pet-peeves (that's saying something!) for years has been yet another limp, inept administration response to counter-factual slander in the case of the Conventions. In fact the US is APPLYING the rules, taking their language seriously, in dealing with the outlaws of international terrorism, whose situation is NOT adequately addressed in Geneva 4 or elsewhere. The scum lie OUTSIDE existing rules, so the US has prudently and honorably extended whatever protections it judges do not hamper the righteous effort to snuff out this menace to humanity, while recognizing these are unilateral acts, not compelled by treaties that never anticipated and do not adequately cover the present situation.

Here's one way in which the administration's refusal to engage, to defend, to refute has damaged the country and probably for the medium term at least. The terms of discussion are now successfully distorted such that ripping up the Conventions by just making up what they mean (i.e., pretending that AQ qualifies as POWs, etc.) is the "morally respectable" and "internationally legitimate" option. In fact, as CrazyFool points out, the ones undermining the Conventions are those seeking to cram AQ within their obsolescent confines (to include, incredibly, the ICRC, which is all about safeguarding their "legal museum" as one commentator aptly put it, and not carrying out their core mission of promoting the Conventions).

This was not an impossible case to make, but it was never even attempted.

And let's not even start about the SCOTUS just making s**t up and imposing a preposterous definition of Common Article 3 on the US, not just going Orwellian in terms of language but nicely usurping executive and legislative power in one swoop by imposing commitments the constitutionally empowered branches had specifically rejected, with cause, in the course of their duties WRT the treaty power.

Posted by Verlaine 2007-04-27 13:31|| 2007-04-27 13:31|| Front Page Top

23:56 Zenster
23:54 Zenster
23:49 Frank G
23:45 FOTSGreg
23:45 Frank G
23:44 JosephMendiola
23:42 Zenster
23:36 Unomomble Guelph4369
23:35 Frank G
23:33 Glert de Medici4406
23:33 Uninens Big Foot5550
23:18 3dc
23:04 Frank G
23:04 Pappy
23:01 JosephMendiola
22:58 Frank G
22:55 3dc
22:54 Zenster
22:51 3dc
22:51 Frank G
22:46 Pappy
22:44 Zenster
22:43 Anonymoose
22:43 Pappy