rules of war?

Question

do you think that the rules our soliders fight by do put them in more danger should we fight by same rules as the emeny and let our boys wipe them out with no threat of punishment war crimes etc

yes good points but if we have to fight by these rules our boys are been put in more danger example man walks up to patrol blows up 6 soliders dead rules not working if soliders shoot him dead before he blow up well 6 soliders alive

example yellow card northern ireland for us uk forces

Answer 1

No doubt in my mind. If we really are at war, then take it to them. War by definition means to crush your enemy without mercy only and until they cease to rise to try to continue the fight. Once they have been defeated, then mercy may be shown but till that time, give it everything you have plus 10% more.

As far as further acts deemed as war crimes? No, it would not be a proper course nor would it be necessary if we prosecute this war in the manner required. Use the proper ROE in all cases but we really must stop trying to fight a war based on political correctness and the whining of a few who would prefer to wish the bad men away.

Answer 2

We should be civilized. We should have "malice toward none", as I believe Abraham Lincoln stated. That does not necessarily mean that we are stupid or that we are wimps-- we can pick our battles carefully, be patient until certain events happen in a proper time, use intelligence (infiltrate certain organizations if needed). We can make a point that we are not interested in revenge, and I believe that that can change attitudes towards Americans. During the initial phase of the discovery about Abu Ghraib, as it was discussed on TV, there were Arabic commentators that understood English well, and reported back to the communities within their own countries about our handling of this investigation in a very respectful manner, because they were impressed with our rule of law, and our desire to bring any guilty parties to justice, but to get at the truth in a fair and proper manner. They expressed regret that the translations made for the citizenry of their countries did not convey the finer points of our legal system well enough for the respect they had to be felt by their countrymen. They believed that a part of this was that it is difficult to translate from English to Arabic, and that it may have been no fault of the translators. That says a lot. If the citizens do not know, then they may hate Americans just from that ignorance. We need to stand, and act lilke we are- and not like the meanest guerrillas we have encountered.

In this country, we have had a history of lynching. It is not very pretty. By and large, we have overcome that, and made vigilantee behavior of this type illegal, because we are not only civilized, but we acknowledge that constitutional procedure also eliminates more bias and prejudice and inacuracy in judgement than taking the law into our own hands does (even though the legal system is far from perfect).

Answer 3

The most important rule of a soldier is that their and comrade's life are the most important. If their enemy post even the slightest threat, the soldier should fire off their weapons.

The rules imposed is to help reduce the number of civilian and POW casualty which some soldiers kill for revenge.

However, i see no reason in letting those POWs who kill another person to walk away as war heros and without any charges. The enemy should be treated with the same rule.

How bout the recent charges the marines will face for killing the civilian. If punishment were not imposed, wouldn't the number of civilian death be higher in the next war?

Answer 4

I agree with bob.

The reason the UK military intelligence & UK forces are so good is because they are disciplined, well trained, know the parameters each person operates within and they have respect for people.

Even if you have to kill, they are told to be respectful

That’s why their mission success rate & enemy kill rate is so much better and why the UK Special Forces are the best in the world.

Going round the streets like Rambo just gains hatred. Before you know it, there will be a civilian insurgency and they’ll kick your butt.. Not good!

Answer 5

I THINK OUR SOLDIERS ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE TO SOME EXTENT. IF THE ENEMY KNEW THAT HIS TACTICS COULD AND WOULD BE USED AGAINST HIM AND HIS FAMILIES, MANY WOULD THINK TWICE BEFORE BLOWING UP CROWDS OF INNOCENT MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN. ALSO, FOR THE MOST PART, AMERICAN SERVICE PEOPLE GO WAY OUT OF THEIR WAY TO AVOID INNOCENT CASUALTIES AND IN SO DOING PUT THEMSELVES IN MORTAL DANGER. I SAW A TON OF THAT IN VIETNAM. A LOT OF FOLKS DONT UNDERSTAND HOW OFTEN OUR BOYS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO PROTECT AND HELP PEOPLE IN COMBAT ZONES. MOST OF THE TROOPS HAVE MORE COMPASSION IN THEIR LITTLE FINGER THEN THE ENEMY DOES IN THEIR WHOLE OUTFIT. THERE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE, BUT THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE RULE. RULES OF WAR HELP YOU MAINTAIN SOME SEMBLANCE OF HUMANITY IN AN OTHERWISE INHUMANE SITUATION. IF ONE SIDE HONORS THAT AND THE OTHER DISMISSES IT, THERE IS AN IMBALANCE WHICH MAKES THE JOB MUCH MORE DIFFICULT. ATROCITIES PERPETRATED BY ONE SIDE SOMETIMES HAS THE TENDENCEY TO MAKE THE OTHER SIDE FIGHT HARDER AND BELIEVE THEIR MISSION AND PURPOSE ARE MORALLY SUPERIOR.

Answer 6

The rules of war are set by treaties for humanitarian reasons. Our troops do, in fact attempt to wipe out the enemy. The rules involve avoiding taking innocent lives, as in non-cambatants, civilians. The first rule of war should be not to fight in the first place, but unfortuantely we still engage in warfare. Killing innocents is wrong whoever does it and if an enemy does it first, it is not a justification for our troops to do it as well.
The definition of what is a war crime is made by the victors of a conflict.

Answer 7

The big problem our troops have is trying to identify the enemy. They wear no uniform, and you can't tell the difference between the enemy and the innocent s. If our troops were to fight the same as the enemy that is the worst situation they could be in. Could you imagine the publicity this would give the enemy? and how they would use it on arab television. We cannot use "S.S." tactics. We have to go by the book.

Answer 8

rules is the wrong word -- it's more of a combat ethics issue. the key is to protect unarmed civilians whilst engaging the enemy. when you take the 'cause nobile' out of the equation and turn the dogs loose so to speak, you're left with savages fighting savages. anyone familiar with violent urban warfare knows how quickly the environment can deteriorate into hellish chaos in the face of mass, unbiased eradication. (however, if soldiers observe insurgents planting bombs, they should deal with it swiftly and immediately)

Answer 9

the rules we have now like prosecuting troops for being too rutheless, is out of order when the enemy can be as ruthless as he likes and laugh about it, this yanki marine thats having a trial because he blew his top should just be taken ooff the front line and put in phsyciatric treatment place to try and calm him back to normality then give him a home based job.I say this because its too one sided, and people judging heim will be civilians in a state of comfort not warriors in a state of battle.let the military deal with it and keep the civis out of this particular type of incident, war is mad, being mad fits,you cant expect complete sanity in that situation.

Answer 10

Most people don't understand the Law of Armed Conflict, so lets put the principals out there. These are very noble principles, and they are our check and balance in any situation:


Three important LOAC principles govern armed conflict—military necessity, distinction, and proportionality.

1. Military Necessity. Military necessity requires combat forces to engage in only those acts necessary to accomplish a legitimate military objective. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In applying military necessity to targeting, the rule generally means the United States Military may target those facilities, equipment, and forces which, if destroyed, would lead as quickly as possible to the enemy’s partial or complete submission.

Military necessity also applies to weapons review. AFI 51-402, Weapons Review, requires the Air Force to perform a legal review of all weapons and weapons systems intended to meet a military requirement. These reviews ensure the United States complies with its international obligations, especially those relating to the LOAC, and it helps military planners ensure military personnel do not use weapons or weapons systems that violate international law.

2. Distinction. Distinction means discriminating between lawful combatant targets and noncombatant targets such as civilians, civilian property, POWs, and wounded personnel who are out of combat. The central idea of distinction is to only engage valid military targets. An indiscriminate attack is one that strikes military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. Distinction requires defenders to separate military objects from civilian objects to the maximum extent feasible. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to locate a hospital or POW camp next to an ammunition factory.

3. Proportionality. Proportionality prohibits the use of any kind or degree of force that exceeds that needed to accomplish the military objective. Proportionality compares the military advantage gained to the harm inflicted while gaining this advantage. Proportionality requires a balancing test between the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by attacking a legitimate military target and the expected incidental civilian injury or damage. Under this balancing test, excessive incidental losses are prohibited. Proportionality seeks to prevent an attack in situations where civilian casualties would clearly outweigh military gains. This principle encourages combat forces to minimize collateral damage—the incidental, unintended destruction that occurs as a result of a lawful attack against a legitimate military target.