How can a country win a war and with with so many international laws banning certain weapons and tactics?

Question

The reality of asymetric warfare is that the enemy is free to use any means necessary to win while conventional armies are restricted. Why does the US agree to these rules? How can they win with both hands tied? No war has really been effectively waged since WW2. I agree that those laws prevent some of the most awful attrocities that have happened in the past but the fact of the matter is, war is hell but when you go to war, you should go to win.

Answer 1

The reason for agreeing to these laws are threefold:

1. Moral superiority. By treating guerrilla forces with some aspects of the Geneva Convention, we can demonstrate a moral superiority to our enemy. If we were in the business of beheading those we captured, we would have absolutely no support anywhere in the world. For a country dedicated to democracy and liberty, this is no small matter.

2. Reciprocity. One abides by the rules of war in today's conflict so that others will do so in future wars.

3. The most important reason: efficacy. Using prohibited weapons (such as CBW agents) is not likely to be effective against insurgent forces, because they are dispersed and cannot easily be singled out for engagement. A simple example is Fallujah: US forces fought a miniature Stalingrad in that city, burned up any remaining goodwill toward American forces, and still al-Sadr's forces rebounded quickly.

The crucial fact of counter-insurgency warfare is this: the war is not about the guerrillas or insurgents on the battlefield; it's about the people on the sidelines. The most severe the response to an insurgency becomes, the more likely it is to draw popular support, because people will not support you -- or even remain neutral -- if your response's "collateral damage" affects them.

This is exactly why Abu Graibh was so damaging to US interests: it angered everyday Iraqis (and people throughout the Arab world), many of whom had not yet become enemies to America. The next time they saw an insurgent, do you think they wanted to turn that person over to the Coalition forces? Hardly. COIN wars are battles for the hearts and minds, and the tighter you squeeze, the more slip through your fingers, to borrow an old saying. Brutal tactics can win battles, but they lose wars. The French were extremely fierce in their attack upon Algiers, and they cleared the city of resistance, but so angered the populace that they still lost Algeria. For the USA, the problem is even more pronounced, because we are so much further from home, and increasingly isolated in the international arena.

Answer 2

It can't. When the politicians get involved in tactics and rules of engagement like the US Congress does, it effectively puts the troops on the defensive. A defensive war cannot be won. Ask the Germans and Japanese. The current predicament comes from the Democratic side of the aisle. They are more concerned with limiting ENEMY casualties than they are with winning. This all started with the Truman administration during the Korean War. General Douglas MacArthur was going to bomb the bridges over the Yangtze River to prevent China from reinforcing and supplying the North Korean Army. Truman vetoed this mission and asked MacArthur "Is there anyway to bomb just the south ends of the bridges?" MacArthur's response was "In all of my military service I have never been taught how to bomb half a bridge."
The Congress refuses to recognize that the enemy we are fighting have no such scruples. These terrorists, insurgents or whatever you want to call them, wear no distinguishing uniform and swear no alleigance to any nation. They hide amongst the civilian populations because they know that we will not bomb a civilian area. The only way to win this war is to unleash the US Army and Marines and show no mercy to these terrorists and not capture but kill everyone of them.

Answer 3

You are correct in your assumption if we had follow these rules that has been laid down by the international community during world war 2 we would have lost and you would not be hear to even ask this question.

Answer 4

The artwork and stratiges of conflict were studied for thousands of years andthe approaches of conflict truly have not replaced a lot contained in the perfect couple of centuries. the project with approaches is even as many are extremely elementary they prefer to be carried out and performed properly. between the simpliest approaches is attempting to out flank your enemy. This tactic has been round continually, yet carried out properly and also you are able to deliever a decisive blow for your enemy and win. yet with this tactic you are able to adapt it to the ecosystem inwhich you're struggling with. also remember we are in reality in 2008 each and each of the wars being fought were fought before, related to city wrestle in Iraq and rugged terrian struggling with alongside with in Afghanistan. those type of wars are literally not something new.

Answer 5

if the war is 2 uniformed armies than the laws are good because they protect the soldiers. but against insurgents, now that is a good question.

Answer 6

North Vietnam did

Answer 7

or you should consider how difficult it might be and how many of your people might die in what you seem to think an uneven playing field; and maybe, just maybe, decide that it's unneccessary and pointless.