There's a reason I want you to find and quote the rule. It is not because I'm not familiar with it.
Sorry, I don't fall for that. If you think you have something on me, you go right ahead and quote the rule and then explain why it doesn't fit.
My guess is you are going to go after practical concerns which can override in certain situations (this I already agreed to), or the nature of who counts based on signatories and or limits of conventions.
The fact is both are irrelevant to the discussion. You will remember that it was Rumsfeld himself, and then supported by lesser commanders, who said that no matter who engaged with US soldiers they were all expected to be treated according to rules of combat and geneva conventions. At the time this was before the invasion of Iraq (and I believe he had said such a thing before Afghanistan as well) and it was expected that there would be wounded prisoners.
When we began losing people, this point was reiterated. There was great concern for how our wounded were treated and it was stated that we would be treating wounded in the same way. Do you, or do you not remember this, or agree that this was what was expected?
If so, then whatever wiggle room you are about to try and escape from using the letter of the rules, you will be unable to escape from the spirit of them which was stated as our policy. I realize Rumsfeld and Co attempted to repeal this later as invasion turned to occupation, but that is just hypocrisy is it not?
But the rules do change when the badguys are holed up at city X and intend on fighting to the death.
We are the occupying force, that means our enemies usually are holed up and willing to fight to the death. Rules do not change because of this.
All it does mean is that any potential prisoner must be treated with a lot more care (for one's own safety) and that there may be more instances where one has to kill the enemy rather than stopping to attend wounded and take prisoners.
Now let's try a thought experiment for a second. Someone is fighting the US and becomes aware of that letter and thinks that is the policy of the US. Does that not increase the chances that all battles will be to the death and eliminate any chance at reasoning?
I mean if I knew the policy was essentially take no prisoners because all wounded must be treated as hostile and killed, I wouldn't be surrendering and I would even want to fight the soldiers where I might not have before. It is inhuman.
However, it isn't a perfect world. But we still abide by the rules of capturing illegal enemy combatants (they are not a legal part of any military, thus not POWs), but we still give them food/water ect...
That is a matter of EvC debate! My view of this is a bit complex to detail here and a bit besides the point.
You are right it is not a perfect world. If there was we would have no wars. But we can be a decent society when we go to war and obey the rules we demand of others, even if they continue not to. Again, to me that is what defines us from them.
I see within that essay a rationalization of past and future cowardice and inhumanity. I already said I understand killing in the midst of battle where one cannot get resources in to deal with wounded soldiers who may very well still be able to fight and kill. However that essay argues well beyond that in tone and scope.
What's funny is that some of my favorite old war flicks involve that very conundrum and the good guys showed that AMERICANS always took the risk because we were more humane.
I can't wait to see all the brilliant movies and quotes coming out of this war. Or maybe we can just rerelease Apocalypse Now and say it isn't an antiwar movie but a great testament to the new view of heroism.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
