Posted on Dec 15, 2014
Is the Geneva Convention still being followed by anyone but us?
4.9K
12
9
2
2
0
Our POWs have been tortured and killed by every enemy of the US since WW2. We are no longer fighting countries and the groups we fight do not follow any rules of war. Should we revisit the Geneva Convention?
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 2
4
4
0
SGT William Howell First off, the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) have lots of various treaties feeding into them, Geneva, Hague etc... Second, I don't think anyone has followed any of the conventions to the letter, ever, including us. Third I would argue we have MOST closely followed the strictures of the LOAC of all countries, signatories or not. Fourth, while I get very irritated with certain provisions ("expanding ammo" from the Hague for instance) for the most part, following these rules gives us three combat advantages. Advantage 1. We return with less psychological damage having fought wars in ways we can generally be more proud and accepting of. Advantage 2. Our enemies are more willing to surrender to us, expecting good treatment. 3. Populations more readily support us than others (e.g. for 2 and 3, compare and contrast surrender rates and population support regarding WWII invasions of Germany of Russia and the USA).
So, revisit? Maybe some specific parts. Reject en masse? Better to follow en masse.
So, revisit? Maybe some specific parts. Reject en masse? Better to follow en masse.
(4)
(0)
CPT Zachary Brooks
I did not consider Advantage 1, but that is definitely something to keep in mind. I can see our force being less psychologically damaged than even in Vietnam, and the enemy we are facing now is less defined, but generally equally nasty.
I guess more people have nightmares from jungles than deserts huh?
I guess more people have nightmares from jungles than deserts huh?
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
CPT Zachary Brooks Thanks for the props. Lots of factors impact that, LtCol Dave Grossman did some great work on it, all the psychological factors in the training, actions-on, and reception and after-care. The biggest failing in Vietnam likely being the reception after-care, but I would argue we have refined our LOAC compliance and self-policing as well.
(1)
(0)
SGT William Howell
Capt Richard I P. Sir, Very well said. I really need to reread LtCol Grossman's Book On Killing. I read it when i was a young police officer and have forgotten most of it. I guess I was really looking at it from our captured stand point and not of living with my own morals when returning home.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SGT William Howell I'm glad you liked the comments. He's got two that I've read and enjoyed, both On Killing and On Combat (the latter has more Police flair).
Let's face it, the people we fight will rarely follow the LOAC (no enemy has ever followed all of it), so we have to steel ourselves for that. But they seek to drag us down to their level. Sometimes being brutal can be useful, but as a general policy the high road carries some big payoffs.
Let's face it, the people we fight will rarely follow the LOAC (no enemy has ever followed all of it), so we have to steel ourselves for that. But they seek to drag us down to their level. Sometimes being brutal can be useful, but as a general policy the high road carries some big payoffs.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
First, state on state warfare is not a thing of the past. It was incredibly one sided, but the opening act of OIF was the U.S. versus the Iraqi military. It is incredibly naive, delusional even, to think that the world will never see another "conventional" war.
Second, just because our enemies chose to do what is ethically wrong does not mean that we should stoop to their level. The Geneva Conventions were adopted for a reason. To forsake them would be equivalent to us saying we as a nation are above ethical boundaries, which is just wrong. You're basically questioning whether we should forsake what we know to be just and right to intentionally allow what is unethical and wrong.
Second, just because our enemies chose to do what is ethically wrong does not mean that we should stoop to their level. The Geneva Conventions were adopted for a reason. To forsake them would be equivalent to us saying we as a nation are above ethical boundaries, which is just wrong. You're basically questioning whether we should forsake what we know to be just and right to intentionally allow what is unethical and wrong.
(2)
(0)
SGT William Howell
Should we consider IED makers as combatants? They do not wear uniforms or only kill combatants. I am not arguing for or against. I would just like other opinions.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SGT William Howell That is a very murky question that is very difficult for me to answer. The difficulty does not lie within them not wearing uniforms, or whether their hardware is used to target combatants only. The difficulty in answering this question lies within at what point in the chain of supply do we consider a person our enemy? During WWII did we consider civilians working in Japanese ordnance plants enemy combatants? They were making bullets and bombs that were being used to kill American service men. Where do we draw the line? As unpopular as this opinion will likely be here on this website I personally would not consider IED makers combatants because the alternative to that raises too many unintended consequences that I find unacceptable.
(1)
(0)
SGT William Howell
SGT (Join to see) Great point. So if we were to bomb an IED makers house would it be to limit the enemy's ability to produce ordnance as we did with Japan or to kill the bomb maker? It was accepted that we carpet bomb both Japan and Germany to break the will of the people for war, not just to limit their ability to manufacture war goods. Even though there is no law say we can't, we do not practice this type of warfare at all now. It is frowned upon if we have any civilian causalities even if it was obvious that at the least they were harboring the enemy.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google