This point cannot be hammered home enough as it is the root of the problem with Western war making in my opinion.\u00a0 The establishment of the UN post-World War II and the ratification of a new set of Geneva conventions on the conduct of war in 1949 have radically changed the Western approach to war and following those rules have had a major impact on the West\u2019s inability to decisively win the wars they have fought.\u00a0 In fact, it could be argued, and I do that post-war notions of war making have led to unsatisfactory peace\u2019s that have then led to more, not less war.\u00a0 Keep in mind that this is my laymen\u2019s, non-legally trained opinion.<\/p>\n
There are actually four Geneva Conventions<\/a> the first deals with wounded and sick military personnel, the second deals with naval personnel, the third is the treatment of POWs, and the fourth deals with the treatment of civilians.\u00a0 The first three date from prior to World War II and were amended in 1949 while the fourth is new and was first enacted in 1949.\u00a0 Additionally, there have been three protocols further amending the conventions.<\/p>\n Protocol I<\/a> (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict<\/p>\n Protocol II<\/a> (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflict<\/p>\n Protocol III<\/a> (2005) relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem[1]<\/a><\/p>\n It is the fourth convention and the protocols that I believe have led to the most harm despite them all ostensibly being about regulating conflict and war to cause less damage.<\/p>\n Convention IV seeks to protect civilians but all it really does is muddy the waters by creating a huge supposedly protected class of people who it is practically impossible to protect in the middle of an ongoing war.\u00a0 It does make it possible for activists and so-called humanitarian to scream war crime anytime a war is fought anywhere.\u00a0 The irony is the only powers that care about what an activist group or NGO think or say are the Western democracies and the activities of these groups actually hinder war prosecution thus giving said groups even more opportunities to scream because of the ineffective policies they force democracies to undertake.<\/p>\n The problems begin with the definition of a protected person in Article IV, which is: \u201cPersons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.\u201d[2]<\/a>\u00a0 That is pretty much everybody except for uniformed members of belligerent states\/groups.\u00a0 If that is the definition of a protected person then who is a belligerent?\u00a0 Essentially a belligerent boils down to someone in uniform.\u00a0 Combatants not in uniform are rebels and to be treated legalistically.<\/p>\n The next problem and how humanitarian groups get away with screaming bloody murder every time a civilian in a war zone gets a hangnail is in Article XXVII: \u201cProtected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.<\/em>\u201d\u00a0 Now read that section again slowly and then continue on.<\/p>\n If you read these two articles of the convention together, they mean on the surface that anybody in the warzone who is not an actual trigger puller is a protected person and are thus supposed to be immune from harm.\u00a0 It is these two articles together that cause the most headaches to nations and countries at war.\u00a0 They have apparently led many NGO\u2019s and rights group to the conclusion that is possible to engage in modern combat without damaging property or having noncombatants die when they are in the crossfire or near a target being bombarded.\u00a0 That this expectation is completely and totally unrealistic is irrelevant to such groups.<\/p>\n Now, the way I read these two articles and indeed the entire Convention IV is that it precludes the deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian property for the sake of wanton destruction and striking fear and terror into the civilian population of combatant and non-combatant States.\u00a0 I have issues with even that interpretation though as I feel that the civilian populace of a combatant state is a legitimate target because they presumably support their own nation\u2019s war effort and it should not be incumbent on a combatant to determine the opinion of individuals when making targeting decisions.\u00a0 It should be assumed that citizens of enemy states are potential combatants and thus legitimate targets.\u00a0 It should also not be incumbent on a combatant to separate the wheat from the chaff when making targeting decisions in regards to enemy territory.<\/p>\n This is not to say that I disagree with the general prohibitions contained in earlier conventions regarding targeting places of worship, hospitals, schools, etc.\u00a0 Those are age-old prohibitions that the Geneva conventions just codify.\u00a0 I have issues with restricting warfare such that combatant actions are restrained to the point that it prolongs combat and thus individual and community suffering because it makes a decision difficult to reach.<\/p>\n My basic reasoning is that you cannot make scrambled eggs without breaking a few eggs just as you cannot successfully wage war without some innocents dying by being in the wrong place at the right time.<\/p>\n Lastly, if you don\u2019t believe me that groups such as Doctors without Borders, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, etc. don\u2019t try to muddy the waters you must not pay attention to the news.\u00a0 Generally, when such allegations are made the NGOs and country accused engage in a game of tit-for-tat in which neither side is willing to budge.\u00a0 Extensive use is made of the media by these rights groups as they push their agenda that as they often sensationally claim \u201cwar crimes\u201d have been committed.\u00a0 I will bring up just one example with which you may or may not agree but that seem to me to show that these supposed rights groups actually make achieving a decision less, rather than more likely.<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> “1949 Conventions and Additional Protocols, and Their Commentaries.” 2015. Accessed October 13, 2015. https:\/\/www.icrc.org\/applic\/ihl\/ihl.nsf\/vwTreaties1949.xsp?redirect=0<\/a>.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Modern interpretations of the law of war are flawed from a war winning perspective This point cannot be hammered home enough as it is the root of the problem with Western war making in my opinion.\u00a0 The establishment of the… Continue Reading →<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[88,125,341,482,24,60,81,460,1083,631,995],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5747","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-campaigns-operations","category-current-events","category-general-history","category-geopolitics-statecraft","category-military-technology","category-contemporary-wars","category-political-history","category-military-strategy","category-terrorism","category-war-theory","category-western-civilization"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.military-history.us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5747","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.military-history.us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.military-history.us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.military-history.us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.military-history.us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5747"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.military-history.us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5747\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5748,"href":"https:\/\/www.military-history.us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5747\/revisions\/5748"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.military-history.us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5747"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.military-history.us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5747"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.military-history.us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5747"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}