Huh?

[eredien]

I wasn't aware there were any "laws of war." And General Franks is apparently the world's most unflappable man.

And thank God for this man.

I'm worried, though I try not to show it too much.

Comments

[fangtsu.livejournal.com]

It doesn't get much worse than now in moral terms, only in terms of how much we destroy, and who we choose to destroy, considering we set Saddam in power and armed him in the first place.

[khava.livejournal.com]

Haven't you ever heard of war crimes? Those are violations of the laws of war.

I'm not sure of the details, but I think the laws of war are fixed by international treaty. They include respecting the white flag and red cross symbols on both sides (not using them when you're not surrendering or providing medical aid, and also not shooting someone who is using one), not torturing or killing prisoners of war, and making sure all combatants are wearing military uniforms so they can be easily identified and distinguished from civilians.

Don't I look like an Idiot.

[eredien]

Oops. Sorry. Of course they were codified. I ought to think more at 11 in the evening before making blanket statements. Thanks for the clarification, Khava and daisho.

[daisho.livejournal.com]

The rules of war began to emerge during the mid-19th century and were fully codified after the Second World War, as this document explains. The Fourth Geneva Convention is of particular importance to the current Iraqi war, because Hussein's paramilitary forces are disgusing themselves as civilians, as General McChrystal has discussed.

As for Senator Byrd's comments, it's refreshing to hear a senior American politician discuss the cooler international relations that may face the USA after the war. It sometimes appears the Bush administration has given almost no thought to the matter, aside from isolated warnings from individual staff members like Colin Powell. It's the Secretary of State, after all, who'll have to deal with many of these problems in due course. <:)