From: Steve Davies (steve365@btinternet.com)
Date: Mon Mar 17 2003 - 08:25:10 MST
> From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mlorrey@yahoo.com>
> X-Mailer: YaBB
I response to the quotes from Andrew Sullivan Mike argues
> The difficulty is in continuing to cherish principles that should be held
when
> treating with others of similar principles, but not when dealing with
those
> who do not hold them.
>
<snip>
> Still, if the strategy of the enemy is that of leaderless insurgency, of
use
> of tactics which are proscribed by the Geneva Conventions as that of
illlegal
> combatants, what are we to gain by continuing to adhere to precepts which
the
> world either does not understand (in the case of the Western Left) or
despises
> (in the case of the Islamist radicals and other tyrannicals)?
<snip>
This is
> far better than even the Geneva Conventions demand. Under those
Conventions,
> it is entirely within our rights to summarily execute anyone found to be
> an illegal combatant, even without a military tribunal. This IS what our
> pre-existing western principles demand and allow us to do, no matter what
the
> hew and cry is from leftist groups.
This is true - it has been a principle of the laws of war for a long time
(well before any Geneva Convention) that combatants not in uniform or
readily identifiable in some agreed way have no rights and can be killed out
of hand. The question (apart from whether you would want to sink to that
level, which Mike deals with in the bit I've snipped) is prudential. What is
the best way of responding to this kind of warfare? This problem has arisen
several times in the last hundred years, for the British in the Boer War,
both sides in the Russian Civil War, the British in Ireland, Palestine,
Cyprus, Malaya (that list goes on and on), America in Vietnam, France in
Algeria, Germans in WW II, Russians in Afghanistan, Chechnya. Many other
cases. The problem is that no power has produced a military doctrine for
dealing with partisan warfare that is effective (in the sense of achieving
military or political objectives at an acceptable cost). That is why people
keep on resorting to this tactic. The other side of the case is the tendency
of states since the 1860s to wage war against entire societies (total war).
<snip detailed argument on thecase for pre-emptive strikes.
> Is pre-emption objectively in conflict with our western principles?
Possibly,
> but are we even pre-empting anything? >
I think this is entirely beside the point. History is full of examples of
pre-emptive action by states to remove potential threats. For example,
Nelson sailed into Copenhagen and sank the Danish fleet (Britain not being
in a state of war with Denmark) to stop it getting in to the hands of the
French. During WWII the British again attacked and sank the (Vichy) French
fleet, again without being in a state of war with France. The whole idea of
sovereign states is that they retain an ultimate right of self-defence which
ony they can judge. In that sense international relations are a Hobbesian
state of nature, inasmuch as 'international law' only consists of treaties
that the contracting parties (states) have voluntarily agreed to abide by.
All of this legalistic talk about whether state actions are lawfull is so
much hot air and obscures the real questions leaders need to consider which
are those of prudence and rationally assessed self-interest. Get out those
copies of Sun-Tsu and Old Nick! If I thought current US policy was the
product of a Machiavellian calculation (as France's is) I'd be less worried.
What I fear is that there's a bit too much idealism.
Steve D.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 17 2003 - 08:32:24 MST