catapult magazine

catapult magazine
 

discussion

Is All Fair in War?

Default

SandyWilbur
Mar 28 2003
07:54 pm

Much of the Iraq war commentary lately has centered on the ?unsportsmanlike? way that the Iraqis are running their side of the conflict. The locals are not in uniform; they ambush the American and British troops; they make sneak attacks, and then they run away. They conscript other local people to fight on their side. They even take their anger out on their neighbors who do not want to resist the Coalition forces.
This sounds a lot like the rebels in the American Revolution. The British were incensed that the American rabble dressed like farmers; shot from behind trees, rather than standing up in rows to fight ?like civilized men;? made sneak attacks, and ambushed the stodgy British when they least expected an attack. The rebels did not allow their fellow citizens to be loyal to the British. Those who tried were forced to fight with the rebels because the alternative was to have your neighbors burn your house, seize your property, tar and feather you, and occasionally shoot or hang you.
So, why is it all right for American patriots to ignore all the ?rules of war? when defending their country (which, by the way, wasn?t ?their? country; they were lawless rebels), but those evil doers in Iraq can?t defend their country from invaders in the same fashion? And, by the way, isn?t it pretty hypocritical to have any ?rules for war?? Presumably this is not just some game.

Default

dan
Mar 30 2003
04:26 pm

Oddly enough, I just got back from the United States and had planned to write exactly what Sandy wrote above. My feeling is that the Iraqis are justified in doing whatever they can do to defend themselves. More so than the patriots of the American Revolution who were upset about relatively small things like tea taxes, Iraqis are being invaded. It’s a relatively natural instinct to defend your country, and I’m relatively sympathetic.

Default

grant
Mar 30 2003
08:03 pm

What’s the point of having rules in war, then? How could something be called a war crime if everything’s fair in war?

Default

grant
Mar 30 2003
08:06 pm

Is there any point in having rules of engagement in war? How could something be called a war crime if everything’s fair in war?

Default

mrsanniep
Mar 31 2003
03:20 am

Yeah, I guess killing all those Jews was just a war tactic on Hitler’s part if having no rules of engagement is what’s being promoted here.

Society has changed since the American Revolution. Rules of engagement have changed. So has dentistry. What was acceptable back then isn’t necessarily acceptable today.

Default

dan
Mar 31 2003
04:34 am

Do you think if someone invaded the United States and the situation looked dismal for the defenders, Americans wouldn’t take off their uniforms and fight with guerrilla tactics? I’m not arguing against international rules as you know. Quite the opposite. But since the US has broken international law, I don’t see the problem with Iraq doing the same in self defence.

Default

dan
Mar 31 2003
04:45 am

I could use a Bushian argument against international law. Namely that it’s outdated, and isn’t appropriate for the current conflict. The rules of war were written in the context of big, relatively equally matched powers duking it out. When it’s the most powerful military in the world illegally invading a puny Arab country with no allies, maybe there should be different rules. Or, like I said earlier, maybe the rules don’t apply.

Default

mrsanniep
Mar 31 2003
05:15 am

Dan, don’t pretend that Saddam Hussein would fight fairly if he was as powerful as the Allies. This is how he operates and treats his people – war or no war. An America-as-underdog scenario? Arguing on speculation is pointless. Deal with what you know, not what you think you know.

You sound just like the Canadian news I’ve heard and seen on C-SPAN.

Default

dan
Mar 31 2003
05:49 am

I certainly hope I don’t sound like the American “news” I saw while in Rhode Island. At this juncture, mrsanniep, I’ll take your intended insult as a compliment.

Default

ethan
Mar 31 2003
06:30 am

Personnally, i don’t the words war and fair really go together. War is never fair. Leaders who sit safe at home send away thousands of young men and women to their potential deaths, innocents are rounded up, moved away from their home, sometimes slaughtered. war is war and its horrible, awful, and if it comes down to you or the other guy, i really don’t think you’re gonna stop to think about the geneva convention to make sure you kill him humanely and legally. The fact is, he wants to stay alive as much as you do, so you try to kill him by whatever means neccessary. I don’t think that we should be at all suprised by the tactics being used by the Iraqis. They are just dong what they fell they need to do to win. That doesn’t make it right or fair, but its war, its life and death, and people have done much much worse things in the name of warfare.

Default

mrsanniep
Mar 31 2003
06:36 am

Right, Ethan. I’d be more outraged at dirty play during an NCAA play-off game than I am at the tactics used by the Iraqis. I’m not surprised at what they’re doing to get at the Americans. They’re desperate. I don’t sympathize with them, however.

Although, there’s no reason to kill an Allied POW.