The AUMF is not the only source of legal authority for those various brushfires, and that's as far as we can go on this forum.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
F-22s vs Syrian Fencers
- Thread starter Uncle Fester
- Start date
I'm just talking about the perception (of some) that the U.S. does whatever it wants on the international stage. For them, the righteousness of the action is immaterial. I'm not pointing a finger at the U.S., just emphasizing that different countries look at events through their own unique lens.
I get that, but for many they don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument.
Yeah, they don't care about facts, or international law. That's more or less my point.
Weapons-grade bullshit.
You're talking about the most violent act society sanctions. Literally the industrial-scale slaughter of human beings. Got kids? Imagine them getting machine-gunned at Iwo. Imagine them getting asked to herd other human beings into gas chambers. The entire point of the law of war is because civilized people have seen the utter depravity human beings are capable of when given the tools to do violence and no limits. Yet civilized people recognize that violence is occasionally necessary to stop this utter depravity from being visited upon them or their families and communities. The law of war is not what separates us from the animals. Animals only use violence in accordance with their God-given instincts. Only humans are cursed with the ability to be worse than the animals. The LOAC is what makes us try to still be better, even at our worst.
Those of you who liked that comment really need to take a good hard look at yourselves in the mirror.
I have been consistently arguing about not spilling blood or sacrificing lives in failed states and dictatorships that are not critical to national security.
And the problem with that is "critical to national security" is in the eye of the beholder. We ignored Afghanistan once it was no longer someplace to get Russians killed, because it was not critical to national security. Failed states can and have become safe havens for terror groups, or can "un-fail" into hostile states. Ignoring problems because they're expensive doesn't make them go away or solve themselves.
i think you're kidding yourself that applying terms and concepts like LOAC somehow make war a less brutal and civilized thing. The conventional bombing of Germany and Japan was sanctioned by the LOAC yet it still resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in horrible fashion. Despite being sanctioned by the LOAC the wars in IRQ and AFG have killed thousands of civilians in those countries many as a by product of US actions.
Does the LOAC put some lipstick on the pig of war to keep it from getting too horrible? Ostensibly yes, but, "It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it."
I'm under no illusions that war is not a brutal thing. No, I haven't had to put boots on ground, get shot at, and put bullets downrange personally. That doesn't mean I don't know what the results look like. I'm as familiar as I care to ever be, I know damned well it's fucking ugly, and that it's sure as shit not a game. I know damned well civilians die from time to time despite the best efforts of the US military. My point is that, as a civilization, we have had enough horrible experiences over the years to look at what happened and say "no more; never again." This is the LOAC. If you want to look at it as putting lipstick on a pig, maybe that's not far from the truth, but I'd argue it's more useful than the metaphor indicates.
I believe when you give a young man a weapon and tell him to kill that guy over there in the funny uniform, you are opening the door to Pandora's Box. You are opening the door to a Hobbesian state of nature where the strong rule the weak, and might makes right. The reason we have a LOAC is the same reason there are so many capital crimes in the UCMJ dealing with a combat situation. That high school linebacker turned PFC might be able to physically overpower and kill his 50-year-old Commanding General instead of obeying his order to die taking the proverbial hill. Why not? Because of morals. And because of the rule of law, enforced by severe punishment. Because even combat cannot be anarchy.
It doesn't mean the US hasn't done anything in the past that today would be illegal. We have. The Trail of Tears. Dresden. Tokyo. Laws evolve. Having a LOAC doesn't mean that it's going to make war into puppy-rainbow-fairy-land where no one ever dies who doesn't deserve it. Having a LOAC doesn't mean that no one is ever going to violate it. When we as an American society choose to go to war, we have bought these things, and we damned well better have a good reason for them. But having a LOAC does mean that we have collectively taken stock of this ugly beast that is armed combat, and made a value judgement that says "this far. No further, even if it costs us in blood and treasure." That is what distinguishes us from them. We have a LOAC to prevent another Dachau, Bataan, Oradour-sur-Glane or My Lai. We have a LOAC to distinguish ourselves from Jihadi John and his ilk. From Josef Mengele. From the people who raped Nanjing.
Maybe some people around here would be comfortable wearing a uniform where that wasn't the case. I wouldn't.
I think the UCMJ has a lot more to do with practicality and enforcing order to be able to win wars than morality. A PFC is obligated to follow orders of a general instead of killing him because he's on our side. The "bad guys" general? By all means, PFC, overpower and kill that bastard.
I also think that the LOAC would quickly be shitcanned in an actual war of national or cultural survival. We have been lucky enough to do most of our fighting in other people's backyards throughout our nations history.
There are two sides to the LOAC. The side that enforces discipline among the ranks and the side that prevents atrocities to the other side. Morality is morality. Ultimately it comes down to a question of "this puts me at a disadvantage, but I would rather die or be harmed that prevent that through a reprehensible act."
And the Donner Party resorted to cannibalism because they had to. That doesn't mean you can shoot your neighbor and eat him just because you feel like it.
Also, Robert E. Lee could have ordered the Army of Northern Virginia to disperse into the countryside and start an insurgency. Some people in his staff advocated this. He told them to stack arms, surrender, take their paroles, and go home. They did. Was that not a war of "cultural survival" for the South?
Try and sell that to the American public - that they should sacrifice their sons and daughters when other options exist.
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
Committing war crimes are "other options?"
Sacrificing our children is preferable to killing the enemy?