Morality In Warfare

Remove all ads!

It is true. The US-civil war was the first that saw industrialized mass-slaughter by two equally developed opponents. Something unprecedented. And the war saw also a campaign of systematic burning down of fields and houses, to starve the enemy out. Actually, there is no war the US was ever involved in the same degree as the US-civil war.The wars before between "Europeans" didn't saw no bloodshed like that since the 30-years-war and a style of warfare which would be the usus in the 20th century. I didn't say there was no code before and it wasn't broken at times. But this was the war that made all codes before obsolete and made the making of new ones necessary.

Why don't read instead of quoting wrongly ? Or shall I turn it around ? Why do you think every church is a ENEMY OCCUPIED BUILDING that has to be burned down ? Because that's what it seems like.

 

Sorry Iago, but you're wrong. The American Civil War did see the military technoology of the time overtake the common military tactics used. Which caused massive casualties on both sides. This however did not have any different impact on CIVILIAN casualties than other wars in the past. To say that wars were fought more "gentlemanly" like between the period of the 30 years war(1618-1648) and the American Civil(1861-1865) war is nonsence. One can site a number of atrocities commited in European warfare during that time period. Here are just a few that should quash this debate:

A. War of the Grand Alliance (1688-1697) Which saw the complete devistation of the Rhine territiry was marked by seige warfare which destryoed entire civilian populations.

B. England's Civil wars (1642-1691) particularly the Irish phases in the late 1680's which saw the famous Glencoe Massacre.

C. The First Northern War (1655-1660) which saw Sweeden invade Poland..included "Sweedish atrocities, desercation of churches, and pludner of private property"

D. The Russo-Turkish war of 1676-1681 turned the then rich land of Polish Ukraine into a desert.

E. The wars in Hungary throught the entier 17th Century were particulary savage and brutal, the after effects are still being felt today.

And that's just the 17th century post 30 Years War.
If we were to examine the almost endless bloodshed in Europe from 1700-1750 an even better picture can be formed. I would suggest that you go buy and read the "The Harpers Guide to Military History" it is a BEAST of a book (1654 Pages) but it is quite handy.

The notion that wars were ever "Gentlemanly" is pure fiction. War, by defination, is a completely immorle undertaking.

As far as the church thing goes, maybe you should go back and read the first post in this thread. This conversation is about what should be done about combatants using holy sites as bases for combat operations and what should be done about it. I think that everyone here would agree that the indescriminate destruction of holy sites which are not being used by fighters is unacceptable.

 

Hey now! Those churces were catholic! They do not count! As any who is aware of current events and the like should know that we Swedes have never had much respect for private property.

 

Let's try again: in this specific instance, the church being discussed is/was being used as a fortress. Why is it wrong to destroy it?

 

Because it's a temple. And temples are the most important things in the world. Far more important than the lives of your own troops. And every nation should realise that.

 

Or put another way, because the people who talk about the buildings being so valuable have no clue what's going on. They have no regard for the lives of the soldiers fighting there, and completely lack the ability to see it from another point of view: What if they themselves or their friends and family were fighting on another man's soil and would have to make a suicide attack because some religions and countries couldn't care less about their lives, as long as the building stayed intact.

It really is simple, those who fortified themselves inside are the ones to blame. Period. As I said, if the military uses a civilian bombshelter for protecting their own fighting troops, then expect the bombshelter to be blown up along with all the civilians inside. Everyone knows this is true, as it should be. To say it is not shows unbelievable ignorance and lack of knowledge of the rules of war. If an occupied civilian bombshelter is treated that way, how can a mere building no matter how precious be even more important?

Of course this depends on the circumstances, such does there have to be any fighting in the first place. And is it a matter of a real war, or more of a political act (with soldiers' lives on the line, I go with real war every time, but then this *is* a matter of opinion).

Another house example: If a few murderers and burglars come into my house, and someone shoots the walls full of holes and kills and/or incapacitates them (depending on which you prefer, of course), should I be outraged at what an evil thing that someone just committed by destroying most of my house? Seems like many here think that would be a yes. I would be thankful. Sure my house has emotional value, but most importantly the very real threat to my life and the lives of others was eliminated. I can learn to live in a new apartment.

 

Or you could just fix the wall.

Those who oppose the destruction of occupied mosques will be the people who do not understand military combat, especially urban combat.

 

No it wasn't. The specific instance discussed was morality in warfare. Read, don't presume. You're in the wrong thread.

What do you think about the families of British pilots that have spent money to rebuild churches in Leipzig ? What to you think drove them to do it ? Or why did Germany apologize for all the damage they've done. Or what do you think about the bombardment of Guernica ? Why was it chosen ?

Edit: Spelling

[ November 14, 2004, 12:47: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

And you have no clue what the term "broad picture" means. The damage done here is beyond mere buildings. This will likely affect generations.

They dont want their soldiers to die for no good reason? Then they should have refrained from invading Iraq.

 

How? Someone dieing is likely to affect COUNTLESS generations.

Oh don't use that. The war has already started and had moral principles of eliminating WMD (sure, they weren't there but nobody knew that) and removing a butcher from power (as a secondary objective). Now the issue is on how the war will be fought. What tactics either side uses and if they are moral or not.

If militants occupied a mosque promised not to fire upon American soldiers while within the mosque I'm certain the situation would be different. But you can't kill from behind a wall of morality (in this case: the mosques). To fire upon outside troops from within the mosque then complain because the mosque was destroyed is obvious double standards: "We can kill you but you're not allowed to kill us."

The idea of "take out the gunman, not the building" is flawed. You can't fight and win a war based on that policy unless you have an incredible advantage in numbers but expect to see your casualties at least doubling the opposition's. In a war situation a soldier can not be expected to think beyond his current situation, a proper soldier doesn't think beyond his current situation: he carries out orders without question unless the order is illegal. If the current situation involves his friends and comrades being killed by insurgents hiding in a building that also happens to be a place of worship how can you not expect that soldier to destroy the building? It's the only damn way to remove the hostiles without sacrificing at least twice your number of troops.

 

@Abomination: As I have mentioned in the other thread...the US casualties in the marines numbered less than 30. Iraqi insurgents casualties were 1600+.

No offense, but what you are saying is a joke.

 

I've overlooked this post at first, so the answer's coming now. Sorry.

" The American Civil War did see the military technoology of the time overtake the common military tactics used." Well, that was actually the point. The two developments of the 19th century, industralization and the invention of nationalism, changed warfare. If you look at the troop causalities in the wars before the civil war and after the civil war, they rose dramatically. That made new codifications, i.e. modification of the old codifications of war necessary. So, the Geneva and other conventions didn't come from nothing, they were a continuation and remodification of the former codes, that existed since the peace of Westphalia. And then, think about the outrage the Boer-War and the way the British led it caused in the Netherlands and Germany. They were shocked about the unprecedented brutality, with which the war was led. That is, not unprecedented, but not the way "civilized" faught against "civilzed" enemies in the centuries before.

"To say that wars were fought more "gentlemanly" like between the period of the 30 years war(1618-1648) and the American Civil(1861-1865) war is nonsence." I said they generally were faught by those rules. And there always was the notion in the meant-time, that civilized armies wouldn't do certain things to other civilized people. That's why I stressed wars among Europeans. Interestingly, the Russians, Spanish and Turks, were generally seen as outsiders, that neither are civilized nor deserve civilized treatment. This differentation between "Europeans (Christians/Civilized people)" and "Barbarians/(savages)" is kept up the whole time. And it's interesting, what nations are treated as "Non-European".

Futher, the concept of "gentlemen" war is a continuation of chivalry that also has to be seen in context, as being officer was a (mostly undeserved) privilege of the aristocracy, that had to obey to their class-code of behaviour. They would commit atrocities, but there also was a continous notion, that gentlemen don't do things like that to other civilized people without losing face. Those are the same people that would kill eachother in a duel to defend their honour.

But I agree, that the concept of "gentlemen"like warfare is to a great extend fiction. But anyway, I'm sure that the book you cite has some notes of it, as it is the general concept of warfare in that time. And it means, that if you think about quotes like that of Clausewitz, that war is merely a continuation of politics with other means, it's necessary to have in mind, that Clausewitz presumes the validity of the fiction of "gentlemen"-style warfare as self-evident.

But the problem you rise, that atrocities weren't seen as atrocities, when the victim wasn't seen as civilized (could happen to an European nation). In this case, they had no protection what so ever and could be slaughtered at will. That of course would be for the Hungarians, Russians and Spanish and others. Not for the Dutch.

To another point, no war in the time between 1815 and 1914 in Europe came close to the destruction and bloodshed of the American civil wars. Even the Napoleonic wars didn't. The American civil war was the first of this scale. This, and others, smaller wars, made the new codification of laws ruling warfare necessary, as it was clear, what it would mean if a major war in Europe broke out, after The atrocities you cite were atrocities, but they weren't wrong according to the war of warfare after the peace of Westphalia. The point still is, those rules existed. But there is a certain rationality to it (as this was the age of rationality). It was allowed to destroy the lands of the enemy, but the also to conquer the land and declare as own land. Why would someone reduce the land he conquers needlessly to ashes, he is mainly destroying his own profit. So, this a rational check on the amount of destruction. You are out to conquer and claim the land for yourself. That's a good reason not to destroy it.

http://www.constitution.org/gro/djbp_305.htm

 

I could not agree more. The problem is the objective. If we really are there just for regime change, then we should fight to win; if we are there to use Iraq as a base for further long term operations in the region, then the war will have to be one in which it really is necessary to "win the hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people. That would mean a long term strategy that is frought with danger for any American, civilian or otherwise, in the country.

I don't believe that Bush is there for regime change. He as an over-arching plan, which he outlined in the debate with Kerry. He has long term plans to bring democracy to the entire region, which means that regime change is just the beginning. We will be there until the Americans decide that they have bled themselves dry of enough blood and treasure, and understand that there can be no military victory when one engages in "extreme nation building" on this kind of scale.

They will have to convince the entire Muslim population to give up their culture and their way of life, which also means lots of Christian missionaries running all over the region attempting to undermine Islam. Good luck.

It will prove to be like Vietnam: another waste of countless lives, American tax dollars, which Shrub uses almost like his personal bank account, and till Americans just get plain sick-to-death of playing policmen for the rest of the world.

Well, yes and no. In the beginning the Civil War was fought that way. But as the war dragged on, both sides lost the "gentlemanly" approach out of sheer desperation. Gen Bobby Lee attempted to enforce a ridged code of conduct, during the war's opening years, upon the Army of Nothern Virginia, which was sometimes ignored by the rank-and-file soldier. Nevertheless, in both invasions of the North, Lee had a degree of success.

General Sherman ravaged the entire Esatern part of the South, civilian or otherwise. Sherman's "march to the sea" is thought to be the beginnings of the "win at all costs" strategy used in modern warfare. Whether that's really true or not is still open for debate with many historians.

[ November 14, 2004, 20:00: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

On a slightly different note, if we have already started on chemical weapons, even the tear gas police forces sometimes use is a chemical weapon. Personally, I'd rather have them enemy try tear gas grenades on me than real ones.

Not like we can safely make an exception here: make a precedent and armies will start using things that work the same way but cover a much wider area of effect. This is probably better than slaughter, but a creative mind could find a less noble use for those.

 

I read. I didn't presume. You still haven't addressed my concerns.

 

So? What does that have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that the US forces need to 'even the scales' and lose more troops? The reason why they haven't lost many troops is their superior tactics, training and firepower. You would ask them to take away their superior tactics: therefore suffering more casualties?

Prove how the fact that the US have lost far less troops justifies changing their tactics so that they lose more troops. I'd rather have a one-sided battle, especially with America winning as they place the highest priority on protecting non-combattants, they're disciplined and won't go on 'victory rampage' killing, raping and looting after they've won a battle. The greater the favour in ratio of kills to casualties the less death is taking place in a battle (ironically). Would you rather have forces evenly matched with 1600 US casualties and 1600 Insurgent casualties?

Well, at the moment the US forces will just have to eliminate the insurgents who are responsiable for kidnapping and decapitating civilians, killing Iraqi police officers and suicide attacks.

The issue in this thread as stated from the start is the morality of urban warfare and that tactics used by either side. If you're going to use the 'unjust' war argument against the Americans then the debate is no longer about the morality of the urban warfare but of the entire war itself. You could use the argument that the Americans shouldn't be there in the first place to defend Iraqi insurgents from throwing firey baby-heads coated in petrol at US forces - sure, it's not actually happening but you could use the arguement that the US forces shouldn't even be there to defend the use of baby heads.

 

That reminds me: my great-great-great grandpappy was with Sherman on the march to the sea; somehow, after the election, this warms the cockles of my heart...

 

@Abomination:

'So'...the point here, is that what you are saying hasn't happened. I was not saying that I wanted more American marines to die in the war, just so its more even...far from it.

The point I was trying to make, is that the Americans are so advanced, technologically and strategically, that its like 12th graders picking a fight with kids who are still in kindergarten. And THAT was the point I was trying to make. The pointlessness of this discussion...and more importantly, the pointlessness of the destruction of the mosques.

When the US forces are so much better off than the insurgents, I find it hard to believe that they couldn't have spared those buildings. Don't you?

 

I agree with Faraaz on this one.

Plus, why don't you just starve them out? It have worked before, why won't it work again? Their morale will fall by time even if they have stocked up supplies.

 

Maintaining a seige in the middle of the city would have been a disaster; there are still lots of civilians there, and already very little access to food or drinking water...