The Hyperion Chronicles

“A Jack you flip over one more card, a Queen two, and with a King three”

#108 Rules of War

Prologue 1

In my article about the Questions of War I promised a full column on the Geneva Conventions. These came into the news because of U.S. and British soldiers who had been captured. Video went out first on Al-Jazeera, the Arabic CNN, and then the rest of the world, showing the obviously frightened soldiers being interviewed. There was also some graphic tape of some other soldiers, apparently shot in the forehead in execution-style.

For several days we heard various generals, Pentagon officials, and even the President rail against this seeming break with the Geneva Conventions, promising justice for all those responsible. This led several readers to ask me what the Geneva Conventions really were, and why people were so agitated over them.

Prologue 2

After the Second World War, much of the “civilized” world got together to discuss combat. They basically said that it was unreasonable to think they would never fight again, but when they did there should be “rules,” and thus the Geneva Conventions were born. They are extraordinarily long (who would have thought a bunch of bureaucrats would create a document so complicated?), but if you want to read them yourself you can go here: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebCONVFULL?OpenView Basically it comes down to “don’t hate,” “follow the golden rule,” and “what goes around comes around.” Or, if you’d like a more formal explanation, here’s an excerpt from the prologue:

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The idea was that whatever conflict countries had should be between the armies involved, and leave out civilians as much as possible. Toward that end they came up with a rule that non-combatants could not be targeted, and this applied to any non-military people, or even soldiers, once they had surrendered.

Prologue 3

The Question is: how do you win a war? I’ve asked this to several people over the last few months, and gotten some pretty strange answers. But taken at its simplest level, the way you win a war is to get the other side to quit fighting. The way you get the other side to quit fighting is to A) eliminate them completely (think of a boxing match, where you knock the other guy out), B) debilitate the ability of the enemy to fight effectively (by ravaging their army to the point of uselessness), or C) make the other side not want to fight anymore.

All three of those prologues are related. The first two may seem obviously connected. Let’s talk about the second and the third. The reason the Geneva Conventions made the distinction between combatants and non-combatants was the utter devastation of civilians in WWII. I get pretty annoyed these days when the News Media goes on and on about civilian casualties, not because they are not a tragedy, but because the Media never offers any perspective.

You have to understand, for all of human history, civilians have been slaughtered in war, and that’s just the way it was. Whether it was genocide, or they were just in the way, civilians have always been the first to die. It wasn’t until the last few hundred years, though, that this became a specific strategy of war. The idea was: if a government couldn’t protect its regular citizens, it wouldn’t want to find any more. However, killing civilians was still a slow process, and communication not being a quick thing, this idea didn’t really take. The concept of not killing civilians slowly developed, but lagged behind other contemporary shifts in morals.

Starting around WWI, however, with the premiere of air power as a part of war, many military thinkers thought killing civilians to be the most humane way to fight a war, if done correctly. Now, before you go agog, look at the equation. The thought was something like this: In a hypothetical five-year war, the enemy will lose 80,000 civilians and 40,000 soldiers a year (this doesn’t even count the loss to your own troops and people, which would be of paramount importance). That means that in five years, 600,000 enemy people would die. So, the theory went, if you took out a city that killed 50,000 in one shot, that would be bad, but if it made the opposing government come to its knees and quit fighting, not only would your soldiers be saved, but you’d save hundreds of thousands of enemy soldier and civilian lives as well.

Of course, this was easier said than done. I don’t mean killing civilians was that hard. The various governments of the world got quite good at it, and by the Second World War, were raring to go. When the Germans bombed London, they weren’t leaving a calling card. Even more successful were the bombings of Dresden and Tokyo. Almost by accident, the military discovered that repeatedly bombing the exact same spot, in certain weather conditions, would create a vacuum on the ground that would suck everything up in its wake. Estimates vary, but at least 100,000 people each died in the fire-bombings of Dresden, Germany and Tokyo, Japan. Of course, as you know, those bombings didn’t end the war, although assuredly they helped. And, to be fair, there were military targets in those cities, but that wasn’t the purpose of the bombing. The purpose of the bombing was to kill civilians and to crush the resolve of the German and Japanese governments, and it failed.

Arguably, this did happen once, with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the two cities that American forces dropped atomic bombs on. Now, my friend and military expert Borgy disagrees with this analysis, but there are many historians who think that these bombs actually saved lives, like the theory I wrote above. The Eastern mindset is not like the West, and to quit or give up was as bad an action as you could do in the East. (For more on this, read my column #32 Why Won’t China Back Down? For explanation of the Eastern mindset) Anyway, many military planners thought that Japan was going to fight to the end, in spite of the Tokyo fire-bombing, and this siege of Japan would cost anywhere from one to three million Japanese lives, and more importantly (from the US side), 100,000 to 250,000 American deaths to defeat Japan. Thus the decision to drop the bombs, and the threat to keep dropping “a bomb a day” made by Truman, might have been what convinced Japan it was futile to continue. Now, we could talk all day about the various pieces of evidence here, and I admit Japan might have surrendered anyway, but it seems clear to me that the Americans didn’t know that.

In any event, it’s not clear-cut whether this concept worked. Like I wrote, the fire bombings didn’t make anyone quit, and more people actually died in those. You can make the argument that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were one-punch attacks, and the devastation seemed more brutal, and that had the psychological effect. But that’s an iffy premise at best.

Regardless, no one really liked the way the war had gone. Many felt the fighting had been necessary, in the face of two evil regimes—Germany and Japan—who wouldn’t give up, but they didn’t want to do it any more. (And before you write me and tell me the Japanese didn’t have evil leaders, read about what Japan did to China in WWII. I recommend The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II by Iris Chang and William C. Kirby, for starters) There was another component, as my friend Borgy pointed out to me. In the last three decades, the armies of Britain, Canada, America, and other allies have gone to volunteer-status. To take a young man or women who has volunteered to fight for their country, and teach them to kill the enemy is one thing. To tell them they are going to go kill innocent people is quite another.

This is one of the horrific problems of Vietnam. The North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong did not fight in traditional uniforms, so you knew who the enemy was. They slipped in with the civilians, and hid as best they could. That meant that the US forces were never sure if the regular people were their enemy or not, and many civilians were killed. That’s a tough thing to ask young people to do.

Which brings us full circle to my first prologue, and the tactics Iraq has been using in this conflict. Some of the things the American leaders have been complaining about are: putting military people and equipment in mosques, hospitals, and schools, hiding weapons in trucks and buildings that have the Red Cross label on them, which is supposed to guarantee they are left alone, and the practice of having the soldiers take off their uniforms to blend in with civilians. These “civilians” have then attacked American forces, after they were thought to be safe. Perhaps worst of all is the practice of waving the white flag, and then firing on the people you’ve surrendered to.

Some might wonder what the Americans and British are bitching about. After all, even if Iraq was a signature country of the Geneva Conventions, it’s not like they have ever practiced them, or we expected them to. I mean; if Saddam followed these kinds of protocols, no one would be in there fighting him in the first place. The reason for the carping in the media, though, is political. This war is being fought not only in the country of Iraq, but in the hearts and minds of people all over the world. One of Iraq’s weapons has been to get as many injured civilians on Al Jazeera for the Arab world and anybody else to see. (Whether or not the Iraqi actions caused the injuries and fatalities in the first place) The Allies are concerned because they know the actions of these rogue Iraqi soldiers are going to lead to more innocent deaths.

Think about it: let’s say you and your fellow marines are coming into a town full of civilians, which is supposed to be safe and you’re supposed to be helping. Out of the blue they start firing upon you, and three of your buddies die. The next time you’re much more nervous about the situation. I’m reminded of the Trojan War.

Neither side was supposed to start fighting until the other side did. Then some nameless soldier drew his sword when a snake appeared by his boot, and a ten-year war commenced. It’s the same type of situation. If the last time “civilians” came to you they fired on you and killed your people, you’re going to be much more suspicious this time. You’re going to be much more ready to fire back if need be. And let’s say the people really are civilians, but one of them gets nervous and starts fidgeting with his robe…that’s how people got killed in Vietnam, and that’s how more civilians will get killed here. The fault comes from the enemy actions, but the perception the world will take is that the Americans are just targeting or slaughtering civilians, and that’s why you heard so much complaining, and will continue to hear it as long as Iraq’s forces fight that way.

As for me, I tire of talking about war, so unless and until something substantially new happens, this will be the last I go on about it. I appreciate all the response and questions I received, and please continue to write in and ask questions, or just tell me how I’m full of it.

But until then, your beleaguered writer,

Hyperion

April 2, 2003

Credits

Thanks to all the people who asked about this