Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Waking Up About the Lack of Reciprocity
If I had a dime for every time I have pointed out that American soldiers have not received Geneva Convention treatment from our enemies since WWI (with an exception, mainly from the Luftwaffe, in Germany 1942-1945), I would be at least a dollar richer. Not only do we give Geneva Convention protection to enemy soldiers we capture but we give them (under the less than wise decree of our highest court) to those who don't deserve them, illegal combatants. But it's all one sided, we provide protections without exception, we never receive those protections, certainly not in the last 62 years.
Jay Tea over at Wizbang has had enough and wants new rules for terrorist, whom he defines as follows: a person or group, not tied to any nation-state or other similar governmental body, that uses violence against strictly non-military targets for political gain.
I'm not OK with all of Tea's ideas, and I think there is no real downside to treating the guys we capture humanely, but it's good to see the plain facts of history are getting some discussion.
Jay Tea over at Wizbang has had enough and wants new rules for terrorist, whom he defines as follows: a person or group, not tied to any nation-state or other similar governmental body, that uses violence against strictly non-military targets for political gain.
I'm not OK with all of Tea's ideas, and I think there is no real downside to treating the guys we capture humanely, but it's good to see the plain facts of history are getting some discussion.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 5:24 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
"I think there is no real downside to treating the guys we capture humanely..."
The various Geneva and Hague conventions were written largely by people who had seen war and had some understanding about perverse incentives. A major reason for the limits on the protections accorded to combatants not in uniform (for instance) was to encourage combatants to identify themselves and thus reduce the probability of injury to noncombatants.
Such encouragement was/is necessary because there is tactical value to not identifying yourself on the field of battle. If you offer the same protections to combatants who do not follow the laws of war as you do to combatants who follow the laws of war, you give up a tactical advantage without a corresponding cost. This sets up the precise sort of perverse incentive that the conventions' authors were trying to avoid.
This is not to say that there is no advantage to treating illegal combatants humanely. Such humane treatment increases the possibility that your opponents will surrender sooner and with less cost both to you and to noncombatants in the vicinity. And in a more sane world would afford a significant public relations advantage as well. But it's not clear to me that in the current situation the balance is in favor of continued good treatment of terrorists.
The various Geneva and Hague conventions were written largely by people who had seen war and had some understanding about perverse incentives. A major reason for the limits on the protections accorded to combatants not in uniform (for instance) was to encourage combatants to identify themselves and thus reduce the probability of injury to noncombatants.
Such encouragement was/is necessary because there is tactical value to not identifying yourself on the field of battle. If you offer the same protections to combatants who do not follow the laws of war as you do to combatants who follow the laws of war, you give up a tactical advantage without a corresponding cost. This sets up the precise sort of perverse incentive that the conventions' authors were trying to avoid.
This is not to say that there is no advantage to treating illegal combatants humanely. Such humane treatment increases the possibility that your opponents will surrender sooner and with less cost both to you and to noncombatants in the vicinity. And in a more sane world would afford a significant public relations advantage as well. But it's not clear to me that in the current situation the balance is in favor of continued good treatment of terrorists.
Rog,
I am not certain that Jay Tea goes far enough in his definition. I consider Hamas' kidnapping of an Israeli sildier to be a terorist act committed by terrorists, however, the soldier could not be considered a "non combatant."
Doug's argument is cogent. The dilemma is: "How do you treat inhumane parties (to wit: terrorists who wantonly injure combatants and civilians alike) appropriately, w/o losing your own humanity?
I seem to recall a suggestion posted by someone a number of months ago that if we just publically emasculated (sorry, I know you hate the word) a few terrorists and fed their genitals to swine, that would be an effective deterrant. I seem to recall you felt that was a bit too much.
I suppose the problem is that we are not dealing w/ rational people here as rational people do not blow up complete strangers who are their coreligionists. I mean why is it an appropriate response to stone a U.S. Embassy when a Danish paper publishes cartoons lampooning Mohammed?
I think we need a better word than "Jihadis" though as the people to whom you refer are not practicioners of the true three types of Jihad.
T
I am not certain that Jay Tea goes far enough in his definition. I consider Hamas' kidnapping of an Israeli sildier to be a terorist act committed by terrorists, however, the soldier could not be considered a "non combatant."
Doug's argument is cogent. The dilemma is: "How do you treat inhumane parties (to wit: terrorists who wantonly injure combatants and civilians alike) appropriately, w/o losing your own humanity?
I seem to recall a suggestion posted by someone a number of months ago that if we just publically emasculated (sorry, I know you hate the word) a few terrorists and fed their genitals to swine, that would be an effective deterrant. I seem to recall you felt that was a bit too much.
I suppose the problem is that we are not dealing w/ rational people here as rational people do not blow up complete strangers who are their coreligionists. I mean why is it an appropriate response to stone a U.S. Embassy when a Danish paper publishes cartoons lampooning Mohammed?
I think we need a better word than "Jihadis" though as the people to whom you refer are not practicioners of the true three types of Jihad.
T
# posted by 
: 1:03 PM
: 1:03 PM
A bullet in the back of the skull, after a tribunal hands down a sentence of death, is humane. Good comments both. Terrorist, I guess, Tony, don't cease to be terrorists just because they take on proper military forces from time to time. I use Jihadi because it's short, evocative and close enough.
Rog,
I agree. I think Tea's definition should read: "a person or group, not tied to any nation-stae or similar governmental body, that uuses vilolence against any taarget for political gain."
I agree. I think Tea's definition should read: "a person or group, not tied to any nation-stae or similar governmental body, that uuses vilolence against any taarget for political gain."
# posted by : 11:25 AM
: 11:25 AM
Since I beleive Clauswitz's war is politics carried on by other means, I think most wars have a political aim and are waged in part for political gain; so your definition then boils down to "not associated with a nation state" What is the Kurdish defense force then? We'll have to keep working on a short definition, I think.
Post a Comment
<< Home
