What's the use of terrorism? (as a military tactic)

[Chinaownseverything]

In Military terms it would be called insurgency unless you're directly ordering the insurgents (In case of Vietnam US instructed it's Army to use Agent Orange on Fields which directly affected Vietnamese Civilians..)to attack Civilians instead of Military Targets.Few Successful Insurgencies are USSR Supporter Of Viet Cong which Defeated America and US Support of Mujhaideen during 80's which defeated Soviet Union.Now Insurgents don't need much money they just need weapons and food where as Military costs a lot of money to run so insurgents bleeds the military.Neither US or America lost war in Vietnam/Afghanistan in military terms.IRA also succeeded in a sense that British Government negotiated with them.

As you term it

Mao Zedong started out as an insurgent so did Joseph Stalin.

Mao Zedong didn't like the KMT ruling China, he thought that China would be better off under another system.

The maoists in India are no different, they think that India will be better if they adopted communism and blame the system for their areas being so poor and undeveloped.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

You are going in the right direction interms of US, but what about your illegitimate section on Northwestern section also, does China feel the same of not locating them also!!!!!!!

China does not have a real terrorist threat as far as I can see. Other than a couple of protests and riots the only terrorist activity in China so far has been one or two IED's going off in 2008.

 

[jeypore]

China does not have a real terrorist threat as far as I can see. Other than a couple of protests and riots the only terrorist activity in China so far has been one or two IED's going off in 2008.

You clearly know, that you are stating this statement in a majority Islamic faith forum, and My guess is that, they believe wholeheartly, you are lieing to your teeth. Ofcourse it is just my guess!!!!!

 

[Chinaownseverything]

You clearly know, that you are stating this statement in a majority Islamic faith forum, and My guess is that, they believe wholeheartly, you are lieing to your teeth. Ofcourse it is just my guess!!!!!

If you look at this list

Only 3 incidents have taken place in the past two years (almost three)

No group/leader has emerged claiming civil war against China

No riot has been more than 1,000 people there are 10,000,000 Uyghur's in Xinjiang

So no China is not in a state of civil war

Category:Riots and civil unrest in the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A riot
July 2009 Ürümqi riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Some people reported getting pricked with needles

September 2009 Xinjiang unrest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In summary a couple of riots/protests one bomb goes off

2008 Uyghur unrest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[gambit]

This is a very revisionist post 9/11 type of morality. First the US has used and continues to use terror. Not talking about conspiracy theories but real units like psyops. In WWII, carpet bombing Dresden and Nazi Germany and nuclear bombs were obviously terror. They were designed to break the enemy's will to fight. You can argue their military merits all you want but even the US military admits that such actions were to destroy the enemy's will to fight and not purely economic or military. To deny this is to revise history to suit your own preconceptions against terror.

OK...There is nothing wrong with attempting to demoralize enemy forces and if their mental stability is affected, or 'terrorized', then such fear is a by-product of tactics and weapons. The bombing campaigns in WW II, from all sides, were under the 'total war' concept where...

Total war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...there is less and sometimes no differentiation between combatants and non-combatants...

The horrors of WW II compelled the survivors, winners and losers, to revise their thinking regarding war and its internal conducts. So yes, the 'revisionist' charge is appropriate. But it is revealing that Dresden and the A-bombs are brought on but not the victims of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

And of course you can always make the argument that certain terrorist tactics are economic in nature. For example, Bin Laden thought destroying the Twin Towers would damage America's economy irrevocably.

No...Osama bin Laden did not care about any negative economic consequences. That does not mean he would not enjoy such a fruit, only that the economic factor did not matter as much as you would like to believe. You are making an assumption based upon known consequences.

And of course Al Qaeda did have a state -- Afghanistan. The whole pretext of invading Afghanistan was Al Qaeda and the Taliban were one and the same.

No...The US did not conflate the two. Never have. The al-Qaeda network have attacked US before. We know that it is state sponsored, or at the very least tolerated enough by the Taliban to make Afghanistan a haven for ObL and al-Qaeda.

International Humanitarian Law - Hague Convention V 1907

Article 1. The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable.

Art. 2. Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.

Art. 3. Belligerents are likewise forbidden to:
(a) Erect on the territory of a neutral Power a wireless telegraphy station or other apparatus for the purpose of communicating with belligerent forces on land or sea;
(b) Use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral Power for purely military purposes, and which has not been opened for the service of public messages.

Art. 4. Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral Power to assist the belligerents.

Art. 5. A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory.
It is not called upon to punish acts in violation of its neutrality unless the said acts have been committed on its own territory.

If al-Qaeda, or any aggrieved party for that matter, wish to engage in a military campaign against US, then just like B43 said: 'Bring it on.' However, if Afghanistan refuse to accommodate al-Qaeda, as we have asked many times in real history, then the US have no good cause to invade Afghanistan. If al-Qaeda persist in using Afghanistan as a military base, then the Taliban is obligated to pursue al-Qaeda inside Afghanistan. If the Taliban ask US for assistance, we would have entered Afghanistan as an ally. But in allowing, if not encouraging, articles 2 through 5 to occur inside Afghanistan, article 1 is forfeited and we entered Afghanistan as a belligerent. For all the talks about how mighty is the Taliban, too bad and foolish that Mullah Omar did not preserve his power and turn that might against al-Qaeda.

The entire point of asymmetrical warfare is stealth.

No it is not, only that 'stealthy' approaches or deceptions are more important in asymmetric warfare. The main point of asymmetric warfare is about avoiding direct confrontation where the enemy is strongest. Of course, since al-Qaeda considered itself an army for the muslim world and since the muslim world cannot face the West at our strongest points - the military, civilians are inevitable altenatives. The only way anyone can justify for himself that it is acceptable to deliberately seek out civilians and attack them is to commit to the 'total warfare' concept. Asymmetric warfare between armies involve attacking supply lines, communication nodes, or materiel depots, not squaring off against battalions of tanks or squadrons of fighter aircrafts.

So this whole garbage about wearing military uniforms is just an excuse so the US military can treat those without uniforms differently than those with.

Considering the hue and cry the world make every time a civilian garbed person is killed by a US soldier, I say the distinctions and their diverse treatments are globally accepted.

First, a uniform can be as simple as an armband. Volkssturm and Hitler Youth used armbands and early Revolutionary War militia didn't have standardized uniforms. There is absolutely nothing in the rules of war which says the uniform must be worn on the outside, and indeed spies often wore their uniforms underneath their clothes. And of course American special forces like Delta Force do not wear always wear uniforms.

Really...???

International Humanitarian Law - Third 1949 Geneva Convention

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In order to earn prisoner-of-war, hence protected status, one must distinguished himself from the general population in a distintive manner. So yes, you are correct that even something as simple as an armband can qualify, but you are wrong in asserting that such distinctiveness need not be visible. In war, spies can be summarily executed. Special operations soldiers who do not wear their uniforms, or hide them, in the course of their duties can be treated as spies, but special operations falls into a gray area that mostly fall outside the scope of this discussion.

So if we are to use Third Geneva as a guide, even militia forces, once formed and intentions announced, not only must they be visibly distinctive but just like regular forces they must remove themselves, meaning as formations and not as individuals, from the general population. The need to have such clear distinction goes back into history where professional soldiers of every culture in every era expressed contempt for those who would engage in war without openly and visibly declaring themselves as such. But for brevity's sake, we can examine the more recent contributor to the current Geneva Conventions...The Lieber Code from the American Civil War...

The Lieber Code Of 1863

81. Partisans are soldiers armed and wearing the uniform of their army, but belonging to a corps which acts detached from the main body for the purpose of making inroads into the territory occupied by the enemy. If captured they are entitled to all the privileges of the prisoner of war.

83. Scouts or single soldiers, if disguised in the dress of the country, or in the uniform of the army hostile to their own, employed in obtaining information, if found within or lurking about the lines of the captor, are treated as spies, and suffer death.

I see very little practical difference between camouflage and stealth versus wearing no uniform. Now suppose somewhere in the near future, full body suits which completely bend light around the user exist. All of a sudden, your uniform definition of legal combatant is garbage since spec ops will definitely use this. An invisibility suit or cloaking device is just like a terrorist wearing no uniform. It is not science fiction and work is already being done to this end.

The purpose of a uniform is equally political as it is utilitarian. Looks to me you are speaking from a non-experience position. A 'dress' uniform is hardly conducive to disguise or camouflage anywhere, least of all in the battlefield. Its sole function is to make a political statement -- That I am an agent of the state and empowered with certain rights and privileges. A policeman is equally political in his appearance and that include his badge of office. A policeman is allowed to be out of his uniform or even his without his weapon but only in extreme circumstances is he allowed to be without his badge.

A 'battle dress uniform' is less political and more utilitarian, obviously. Its function is to hide the wearer to reduce his odds from attacks and naturally its appearance would make a clear political statement among those not privileged to wear this uniform. Am not talking about any Joe off the street who can walk into a camping store and buy such clothing. Am talking about a 'battle dress uniform' that is complete with the wearer's name, service affiliation, unit identifications and rank. So if it is possible that a BDU can bend light and render the wearer visibly difficult to perceive, then that ability is part of its utilitarian nature. Hiding among non-combatants and wearing no distinctive insignias to identify one's self as a combatant is making a political statement. Unless you are asking us to treat civilians as items of utility in the course of a war.

Currently, attacking a civilian BEFORE a soldier is morally outrageous. Given what I have seen so far on your interpretation of what constitute a uniform and when it is irrelevant, shooting a civilian AS WELL AS a soldier will become morally acceptable. It already is so acceptable in many parts of the world.

Your whole view on what makes and what doesn't make a soldier is revisionist, ignores contradictory evidence and is frankly ignorant. What makes it worse is you say soldiers not wearing visible uniforms but only targeting other soldiers and not civilians are using an illegal tactic. Soldiers are a legitimate target anywhere and everywhere, and if you don't like it perhaps you should push for peace or negotiation instead of praying for set piece battles which clearly favors Americans.

I do detect a hint of of dislike for American military superiority here. You are treading very dangerous moral waters here, friend. The American military is not afraid of unconventional warfare and tactics, provided they are conducted by legitimate state sponsored forces. We welcome it. And you are wrong that soldiers are legitimate targets anywhere and everywhere. Prisoners-of-war are not 'legit'. Those who are hors-de-combat, either through the act of surrender or being wounded, are not 'legit'. Chaplains are not 'legit'. Medics, even armed ones, are not 'legit'. Military ambulance drivers in the course of their duties are not 'legit'. Military doctors and nurses are not 'legit'. Airmen leaving a fatally wounded aircraft are not 'legit'. Sailors floundering helplessly in the water are not 'legit'. And the list can go on. Sounds like it is YOU who are ignorant.

In the end whether you like it or not the only real difference between legitimate terror and illegitimate terror is the two word dirty phrase military junkies like to attach to bleeding hearts and hope never to mention -- human rights. Any other definition is self-invented to prefer a certain type of fighting or certain treaty.

The end of the visible distinction between soldiers and civilians, as you somewhat are cheering for just so you can poke US in the eye, will erase all definitions of 'human rights', the ones that you would like to apply one-way to US.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Is this right that one mans terrorist is anothers Hero?
Dont know why but Afghan Mujahideen in Soviet era,Kashmiri Mujahideen,Bask and IRA is coming to my mind.What were they for their countrymen and what for the others?Do we have our own definition for terrorrism?

Kinda reminds me of this quote

"If we like them, they're freedom fighters . . . If we don't like them, they're terrorists. In the unlikely case we can't make up our minds, they're temporarily only guerrillas. "
-Carl Sagan

ontopic
Terrorism from a military perspective can be used as tool to coerce the opponent nation's population into believing that its the presence/actions of their nation's troops(in the host country) responsible for the terrorist attacks.Hence,the civilian support for the war declines.Its true civilian protests are always ignored by the ruling Govt,but not by the opposition i.e eventually impacting the duration of the war on the whole.

Slightly related example is IPKF pullout from Sri Lanka.

However post 9/11 this tactic is obsolete and rather serves the opposite i.e The Govts using excuse of Terrorism to justify their military decisions as well strengthen their control over their citizens by asking them make compromises on their privacy etc for their own security.


Also professional militaries too involve use of terrorism for psychological warfare in occupied areas in order to corece locals into not aiding/joining/sheltering the resistance groups.Same as the above case this method often backfires as it fuels the popularity of the resistance movement and thereby allowing it to gain greater momentum.

 

[TorontoNoctis]

1. Not going to argue what Osama wanted or didn't want nor going to argue what the American public thought or didn't think. But you must be aware that what the US military thinks is not the same as what the US public thinks, the US government thinks and definitely what the enemy himself thinks.

2. There is plenty of room to maneuver within your rules of war yet still conduct war the way terrorists do. At long distance, armbands can be barely visible but still visible at a distance, perhaps an extremely short one. Camouflage's goal is to blend yourself in with the surroundings, and camo is a legal military tactic. In the end, a terrorist could conduct himself within your treaties and only be indentifiable as a soldier at point blank range. But even if war was done this way, with Taliban wearing black armbands and not using civilians as human shields when fighting started but only to move forces into a favorable position, the US would still consider Taliban illegal combatants.

3. The rules of war go back not just one century but hundreds or even a thousand years back to Roman times. Prisoners of war can cause an huge burden on the military, and it is only in recent times when modern logistics and supplies allows for no burden where militaries have the convenience of saying they will even take prisoners. Asymmetrical fighters cannot be expected to hide huge formations of surrendered soldiers. The very fact that soldiers have to negotiate with each other to allow medics and doctors to retrieve dead makes your idea that they are illegitimate targets wrong. Basically it comes down to this -- you are using special situations such as surrendered soldiers, soldiers under a flag of truce, and so on, to justify your claim that soldiers cannot be targeted while eating, while playing basketball or even while in full kit on patrol by a suicide bomber. Meanwhile you are refusing to accept other special situations like specops and a military force logistically unable to take prisoners.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think the Delta Force soldiers who let those goat herders go would have been guilty of war crimes if they executed those civilians? We all know what happened -- the goat herders ratted and the squad was ambushed and destroyed. Here's the difference between me and you. I think that had the operators slaughtered the goat herders, it wouldn't have been a war crime. It would have been morally reprehensible and against American interests, but not a war crime. I also think that Americans using field artillery in Fallujah to demolish houses was not a war crime. What separates war crime from not war crime to me is not treaties or pieces of paper, but whether or not there is a legitimate military objective. In some cases killing civilians has a legitimate military objective, and in others it is pure senseless killing. Your position however is unclear. This distinction you make between total war and not total war is not present in international treaties or even the traditions of war and is very modern. If you want to make that distinction to avoid the horrors of war in the past that is fine but understand that grossly outmatched forces do not have the luxury of fighting the way you want.

4. Finally I would like to know what in your opinion would make the Taliban a legitimate fighting force and what the Taliban would have to do to be eligible to fit in your total war category. I would also like to know whether you think suicide or kamakazie is a legitimate military tactic.

 

[tomp]

4. Finally I would like to know what in your opinion would make the Taliban a legitimate fighting force and what the Taliban would have to do to be eligible to fit in your total war category. I would also like to know whether you think suicide or kamakazie is a legitimate military tactic.

There's a couple of questions in that phrase..

First, the easy one; kamakazie is imo a legitimate military tactic because it aims to destroy military assets of the opposing side.

As for the Taliban, i think they should have a political wing that talks to the government and the west. And they should stop all attacks against civilians. Then i can consider them a legitimate fighting force.

 

[gambit]

1. Not going to argue what Osama wanted or didn't want nor going to argue what the American public thought or didn't think. But you must be aware that what the US military thinks is not the same as what the US public thinks, the US government thinks and definitely what the enemy himself thinks.

The World Trade Center towers are globally well known American economic and cultural symbols. Under the 'total war' concept where there are no political distinctions between combatants and non-combatants, not just the WTC towers but so is Statue of Liberty, the Disney resorts, or important national treasures like the Grand Canyon National Park are 'legitimate' targets in ObL's view. If a state, in the nominal sense of the word, wishes to conduct a war against US under the 'total war' concept, then there will be a united front from the American public and the American government. The US military will revise its war plans to match our sentiments. Whoever that might be so foolish, he better start praying.

===

2. There is plenty of room to maneuver within your rules of war yet still conduct war the way terrorists do. At long distance, armbands can be barely visible but still visible at a distance, perhaps an extremely short one.

Admittedly...Yes...What 3rd Geneva said...

International Humanitarian Law - Third 1949 Geneva Convention

(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

...Can be problematic as to the value we want to attached to 'distance'.

Camouflage's goal is to blend yourself in with the surroundings, and camo is a legal military tactic.

It is. Provided the 'surroundings' does not use civilians.

In the end, a terrorist could conduct himself within your treaties and only be indentifiable as a soldier at point blank range.

If a corps of combatants conduct themselves according to 3rd Geneva, then it really does not matter to us if their identifiable insignias are visible at point blank range because the accepted conducts of war would require this corps to remove themselves from civilian enclaves. In this environment, who cares if it is point blank or one km? This argument is flawed in at least two points:

- That the burden is upon individual soldiers to make such identification. No...It does not so burden. Not always. We have scopes that can see such insignias. As long as one or more scopes can make identification, the entire unit is in compliance with 3rd Geneva, meaning that as an opposing force they have made reasonable efforts with available tools to clearly identify an enemy, and can attack such a deceptive enemy.

- That in order for this deceptive tactic to work, adhering to the minimum of 3rd Geneva requirements and knowing that the opposing force has the ability to see long distance, the only way for this deception to have any chance of success is to include civilians in the calculus, meaning using the proverbial 'human shields', a much despised tactic among professional soldiers. The opposing force would see the civilians and would hesitate, either to attack or to respond to attacks, and that hesitation would give the enemy an advantage. In the end, if there are any civilian deaths, the moral outrage would fall upon the side that minimally adhered to 3rd Geneva and used human shield tactic.

But even if war was done this way, with Taliban wearing black armbands and not using civilians as human shields when fighting started but only to move forces into a favorable position, the US would still consider Taliban illegal combatants.

Moving into tactically favorable positions over the enemy is not illegal. Whether the US government view the Taliban as an ally, a neutral party, or an enemy has nothing to do with the legality of conducts by a military. We can call the Taliban 'scum of the Earth', which in my opinion is what they are, but as long as their soldiers conduct warfare honorably, our opinion CANNOT override their status as 'legal combatants' under 3rd Geneva.

 

[gambit]

3. The rules of war go back not just one century but hundreds or even a thousand years back to Roman times. Prisoners of war can cause an huge burden on the military, and it is only in recent times when modern logistics and supplies allows for no burden where militaries have the convenience of saying they will even take prisoners. Asymmetrical fighters cannot be expected to hide huge formations of surrendered soldiers.

Meanwhile you are refusing to accept other special situations like specops and a military force logistically unable to take prisoners.

Say what?

First -- You are assuming that asymmetric warfare fighters are inherently inferior in numbers. Not always and especially not with modern war concepts. The US Marines operate under the concept of maneuver warfare from which asymmetric attacks are used. They follow an advice, supposedly from John Boyd, the USAF fighter pilot who developed the Energy-Management Theory of air combat, that: 'Do not worry about your flanks but make enemy worry about his.' Like air combat, maneuver warfare offer the enemy very rare and very short durations of opportunities to exploit one's weaknesses. The Marines will use and focus superior force, in terms of weapons and manpower, to maneuver and attack enemy formations at their weakest points regardless of whether that particular enemy formation is inferior, superior or parity in size.

Second -- No force is under any obligations to take surrendered enemy soldiers into custody. Do not confuse acceptance of an offer of surrender with taking a person into physical custody. The act of surrender in war is essentially a political act. The state capitulate. The individual soldier or unit does the same but we call it 'surrender'. Both acts signals the other side that their lives are no longer in jeopardy and that the side that is making the offer of capitulation or surrender is putting itself in the submissive position. There are two expected responses: acceptance or refusal. Upon acceptance, the sequential act that we considered to be 'honorable' is not to kill the surrendered soldier, or at the state level, the defeated is made to pay reparations, long term tributes, or submit to occupation. Upon refusal, the sequential act that we considered to 'dishonorable' and 'immoral' is to kill the surrendered soldier, or at the state level, the offer of capitulation is refused, the people enslaved, and the territory is absorbed into another.

The Geneva Conventions demanded that we take the 'honorable' or 'moral' route and accept the offer of capitulation or surrender. However, there is no sequential act for acceptance. There is an EXPECTED act and that is to take the surrendered soldier into custody and make his status as 'prisoner' or more precisely 'prisoner-of-war' (POW). It is an understandable confusion of what is sequential versus expected for the civilians and even for the military members, as evident by this Desert Storm example...

frontline: the gulf war: weapons: drones (rpvs)

"During the last week of the Gulf War, thousands of Iraqis surrendered......One of the most unusual surrenders took place when a Pioneer remotely-piloted vehicle droned above the battlefield, surveying potential targets. Five Iraqi soldiers waved white flags at its tiny television camera. it was the first time in history that men surrendered to a robot."

What is the US military members who operated the drone to do? Yes...Philosophically speaking, the offer of surrender was accepted because the US military does not condone refusal, which would result in killing the Iraqi soldiers. If there was an A-10 nearby the pilot would have been called off -- acceptance. But realistically, what can the human pilots of this drone do other than to report to any nearby ground US units that they have sort of 'accepted' the offer of surrender from some Iraqi soldiers and could the tanks come by and take them into custody? They were logistically unable to support the prisoners.

This lead back to your comment that -- Asymmetrical fighters cannot be expected to hide huge formations of surrendered soldiers. Combat units, large or small, regular or special operations, are obligated to accept offers of surrender but if they are unable to take custody they are not allowed to kill those who made such offers. Either they make the effort of custody or they disarm the soldiers who surrendered, let those soldiers go, and incur higher operational security risk. Killing them would fall under the 'war crime' category.

I sense that you are seeking Geneva Conventions exceptions to any military, paramilitary or insurgent forces inferior to the US. History have shown that if any side deemed it necessary to discard any or even all moralities, formalized or tacitly understood, in favor of victory, the opposing side will respond in kind. Again...You are treading dangerous moral waters, friend.

The very fact that soldiers have to negotiate with each other to allow medics and doctors to retrieve dead makes your idea that they are illegitimate targets wrong. Basically it comes down to this -- you are using special situations such as surrendered soldiers, soldiers under a flag of truce, and so on, to justify your claim that soldiers cannot be targeted while eating, while playing basketball or even while in full kit on patrol by a suicide bomber.

If the suicide bomber is an openly acknowledged agent of the state, aka a 'soldier', then his suicide attack is legal. Extreme, but legal. If he is an al-Qaeda member, then his suicide attack is illegal because al-Qaeda is a non-state actor and have refused to abide by our infidel moralities. If he is a Taliban fighter, then his suicide attack is still illegal because the Taliban have also refused to agree to our infidel moralities regarding being clearly distinguished from non-combatants.

And you are still wrong regarding medics and other exceptions to the legitimate target criteria.

International Humanitarian Law - Additional Protocol I 1977

2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.

Essentially, the Geneva Conventions regard medics and chaplains as non-combatants. Out of conscience, chaplains are not armed and some countries did formalized weapons prohibitions for their chaplains. But it is universally accepted that medics should be allowed to bear arms in that they are for protection of their wounded charges. Killing them when they are in the course of their duties and that their status are known is a war crime. That does not mean that if a medic or a chaplain is killed from an air delivered bomb or from an artillery barrage that the pilot or the artillery officer committed a war crime. What it mean is that if the medic was knowingly killed when it is clear to all on what he is and what he was doing at the time, then that killing is a war crime. If an IED operator allowed a tank to pass but detonate it for an ambulance, then that killing is a war crime.

So I am not trying to justify anything. The suicide bombing attack on the US Marines compound in Lebanon was a terrorist attack because no state stepped forward to claim responsibility. But if that attack was conducted by a belligerent state that has interests in seeing the US defeated for any reason, then it does not matter if the Marines were in full alert or asleep, if that state stepped forward and claim responsibility, then it would be a legitimate military assault.

 

[gambit]

Let me ask you a question. Do you think the Delta Force soldiers who let those goat herders go would have been guilty of war crimes if they executed those civilians? We all know what happened -- the goat herders ratted and the squad was ambushed and destroyed. Here's the difference between me and you. I think that had the operators slaughtered the goat herders, it wouldn't have been a war crime. It would have been morally reprehensible and against American interests, but not a war crime.

What separates war crime from not war crime to me is not treaties or pieces of paper, but whether or not there is a legitimate military objective. In some cases killing civilians has a legitimate military objective, and in others it is pure senseless killing.

Yes...Such a killing would be a war crime. In Desert Storm, a special operations reconnaissance team hiding near a major road was discovered by a girl-child....

Special Operations.Com

...they were compromised by a sharp-eyed little girl. The team fled with armed Bedouins in hot pursuit. Iraqi soldiers soon joined the firefight. The team held off the Iraqis for an hour and a half until F-16s appeared, followed by a 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment Blackhawk. Although riddled by small arms fire, the helicopter made a dramatic daylight rescue of the team.

The Geneva Conventions, in principle, allows that 'military necessity' may override humanitarian obligations. However, the Conventions does not detail to what degree that allowance, leaving us with many gray areas where opinions, like yours and mine, clash as to what degree in what situation. Military necessity is part of a 'cause', which is to win a war, but for an event in a chain of events military necessity is a cause in itself, which brings us to the issue and question as to when is the sacredness of a cause above any laws and humanitarian concerns. The value of human life is not consistent from culture to culture. Am not talking about from individual to individual, certainly a murderer out of one million compassionate human beings is an anomaly. Am talking about how a society inculcate its members as to how to valuate a human being. That education is consistent for we do not see New Yorker care any less for a baby than a Texan. Child labor is abhorrent in the US but expected and common in less developed Africa. How much value we place in a human being is inevitably carried over into a war and the result is an internal conflict in a soldier. For example...During the Mau Mau rebellion, Kenya 1952-1960, the guerrilla leadership had a standing order to literally butcher into small pieces any prisoner, but the order was seldom obeyed simply because individual Mau Mau guerrillas felt that however sacred was their cause, it was not enough to override their individual moral sensibilities.

So what constitute a 'war crime' is heavily dependent upon the level of abhorrence we place upon the taking of another life and especially when that life is or is not a threat to one's own, balanced against the sacred cause of 'military necessity' at any level. The highest level is that expressed by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645)...

1- The danger faced by the nation is immediate;
2- The force used is necessary to adequately defend the nation's interests;
3- The use of force is proportionate to the threatened danger.

Apply to the lower levels and the questions are:

1- Is that little girl an immediate threat to the soldiers?
2- Is killing her necessary to adequately ensure operational security?
3- And if it is necessary to kill the child, how?

Lieber's Code and the Law of War

Military necessity, as understood by modern civilized nations, consists in the necessity of those measures which are indispensable for securing the ends of the war, and which are lawful according to the modern law and usages of war.

The highlighted is significant. Laws and customs are not self evident, they evolve over time. The Geneva Convention treatise came after the horrors of WW II and the treatise include Lieber's argument regarding 'military necessity'. For Lieber and later commentators, 'military necessity' is very seldom justifiable in violations of the current evolved laws and customs of war. If anything, there is now greater strictures upon modern militaries than past ones precisely because of that evolution and the increasing lethality of weapons. Just like how individual Mau Mau guerrillas refused to obey an order they perceived to be immoral, the soldiers who retreated after exposure by a child also exercised their conscience and allowed their mission to be a failure. For the Mau Mau guerrillas, butchering prisoners into small pieces accomplish no military goals vital to their cause and the US is technologically capable enough to gather Iraqi highway traffic intelligence through other means.

I also think that Americans using field artillery in Fallujah to demolish houses was not a war crime.

So do I.

Your position however is unclear. This distinction you make between total war and not total war is not present in international treaties or even the traditions of war and is very modern. If you want to make that distinction to avoid the horrors of war in the past that is fine but understand that grossly outmatched forces do not have the luxury of fighting the way you want.

The distinction between 'total war' and lesser does not need to be a formal treatise in order for the concept to be understood and recognized. What any contract or treatise does is to explain a situation and/or relationship and its accompanying punishment should there be a violation. Grossly outmatched forces do not have exceptions granted to them the moment a war, which is a relationship between parties, is engaged. Grossly outmatched forces CANNOT and SHOULD NOT have exceptions granted to them because the moment we do so we opened the door into the past where there are little or no restrictions, formalized or tacitly understood, imposed upon militaries. Those were wars of annihilation and with the final goal of extinguishing an entire society.

 

[gambit]

4. Finally I would like to know what in your opinion would make the Taliban a legitimate fighting force...

Comply with 3rd Geneva.

...and what the Taliban would have to do to be eligible to fit in your total war category.

Either attack US with a nuclear device or support a third party like al-Qaeda to do the same. No other statement can be as clear.

I would also like to know whether you think suicide or kamakazie is a legitimate military tactic.

Of course it is, provided that the parties involved are duly sworn and appointed agents of states. The word 'kamikaze' in Japanese mean 'spirit wind'...

Kami - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...is the Japanese word for the spirits, natural forces, or essence in the Shinto faith.

Kaze - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...is the Japanese word for wind.

The 'Kamikaze' forces of Imperial Japan is no different in context than that of a suicide bomber motivated by another idea, religion or vengeance or patriotism. But as long as the attacker and target are military in nature then the tactic is legal.