Serious Error Of Judgement

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think this is rapidly expanding beyond simple posts, plus I am very tierd, but I am troubled by your dicotomy between "freedom fighter" and Al Qaeda terrorist or whatever.

 

The dichotomy is in terms of the fact that the majority of those fighting against the US Army in Iraq and maybe until recently in Afghanistan were not Al Qaeda.

 

In Anbar the attempt to forment a revolution has failed - the "freedom fighters" have failed to coerce the population to rise - and there will always be a certain amount of coercion no matter how clear cut the fight seems - many French wanted nothing to do with the Marquis. The result is basically a civil war with terrorism against the population escalating. In Iraq Al Qaeda adds a Pan-Muslim complication to this, but they fully support the coercion of the insurgents acting against who they see as apostates, but at a basic level the community has split.

 

Iraq is very complicated though because you have groups who employ terrorism against others a different religion denomination and against those they see as aiding the State and American, and then you have understandable fighting (which was more to what I was referring) whereby Iraqis use unconventional tactics to attack the government and military forces.

 

Oh and one other point: I fail to see how a communist or anarchist letting off a bomb against the establishment is any different from any other person who uses violence to coerce.

 

I wasn't talking about bombs though when I mentioned the legislation earlier, I referring to the definitions of terrorism that could now potentially classify many groups and their actions as being terrorism. Because advancing POLITICAL, religious, or IDEOLOGICAL can or do damage property or interrupt electronic systems will be classified as terrorism. But this blurs the distinction between direct actions form of protest and terrorism.

 

Though I do disagree with the view that a bomb aimed at the establishment is no different from that against the oridinary civilian. What about a bomb places in the government chamber of a totalitarian regime or to kill a autocratic ruler. It has been done in the past and there is nothing wrong with doing it now. I could think of a few more examples where something like this would be legitimate, it is a form of terrorism, but terrorism is not necessarily wrong in itself. If a government or monarchy are oppressive (as an extreme example) then you surely do deserve it. The same could be said of a BNP government came to power and adopted oppressive measures against groups in society.

 

LDV - I’d have more sympathy if your argument was that all killing is wrong under any circumstances. However you seem to say that fighting, killing and violations of the laws of war may be justified if against oppression or for gaining freedoms. (Both sides in South Ossetia, Vietnam etc. claim that).

 

Yes, I do think that conflicts that protect the freedoms of a people and conflicts that fight oppression are necessary (not just, law is artificial). Though in South Ossetia, the Ossetians are looking for freedom based on their nationality, i.e. wishing to subsitute one government for another, one Georgian for one that is South Ossetian. If the Ossetians, and I do not know the whole in-and-outs were severely oppressed by the Georgian, and I don't think they were, it would seem practical to fight and kill to remove such oppression. However, from my anarchist beliefs, and considering the nationalist and political goals of the Ossetians it is to be seen whether substituted one essentially repressive government for another, that differs only in ethnic composition, is less oppressive or not. I don't see much in the way of freedom when the goals are simply to substitute one ruling elite for another.

 

Yes, it does limit the fighting potential in some respects. Certainly it requires more intelligence, courage, discipline, moral strength and commitment for a weaker side to carry out asymmetric warfare according to laws of war. However, I do not accept that it limits effectiveness. Military might is not everything – see Sun Tzu.

 

Quite right, military might is not everything, but fighting is usually resorted to by groups or peoples who see no option available to them. Yes, avoiding civilian casualties is better for the weaker side, but I can see times when the goals are so important that it may be necessary to incur some risk in killing the enemy whilst adopting particular tactics, tactics that would be most effective in achieving particular goals. But let me reiterate that I am talking about fighting against oppression and not strictly about...say...a nationalist campaign. Hypothetically, although it certainly occurred, if particular freedom fighters of whatever group noticed that particular civilians were aiding or supporting the state apparatus or an enemy military force in a conflict fought against an oppressor or to maximise freedoms, then it would be worthwhile to kill that civilian if they were undermining the fighters goals. Say for example someone was assisting the Nazis, they should be stopped, and if that involves killing them, so be it. It is not an ideal solution as it would be better to simply stop them, but this is easier said than done.

 

 

Laws of War and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) were adopted not so much for moral reasons but because of ‘military operational effectiveness’. If you transgress moral boundaries, you only strengthen the enemy’s will and determination to fight and undermine your own.

 

IMO one of the biggest mistakes is to think that waging war is about killing and destroying the enemy. It is about achieving a disputed political objective and destroying the opponent’s will or ability to oppose this.

 

But it has to be recognised that the moral code used in these laws, are those of the national governments who set up these laws. They are nothing more than a code of conduct of legal and acceptable forms of warfare conducted between governments. This is not to say that moral code is wrong or cannot be used as a guide. But to strictly adhere to these laws, as if they should be applicable in all circumstances to conflict COULD undermine the FIGHTING capability of the weaker side.

 

I don't see the mistake. War involves death. It always has done. The Clausewitzian understanding of war is quite right, but even if war is about political goals, it still involves death. And when nation states wage war it is not the governments and those whose interests would be served by victory who put their lives on the line but the people at the bottom, the worker turned soldier.

 

Asymmetric war, and ‘Fourth Generation War’ (4GW) and 5GW etc. are interesting ideas which to some extent recognise the importance of targeting the opponent on the moral and mental levels rather than the physical level. William S. Lind made the following astute observations:

 

 

QUOTE

What "wins" at the tactical and physical levels may lose at the operational, strategic, mental and moral levels, where 4GW is decided. Martin van Creveld argues that one reason the British have not lost in Northern Ireland is that the British Army has taken more casualties than it has inflicted. This is something the Second Generation American military has great trouble grasping, because it defines success in terms of comparative attrition rates.

 

We must recognize that in 4GW situations, we are the weaker, not the stronger party, despite all our firepower and technology.

 

What you are talking about here isn't the same as the discussion about international law and freedom fighters, in the sense that you are now referring to the abilities of the American and British to conduct counter-insurgency warfare. This observation stems from the problems the Americans have in conduction counter-insurgency warfare, because when they always go in 'gun blazing' and believe that if they blast as many bad guys as they as can they will win the end. The British, however, have a long history of conducting counter-insurgency. One very good book "Eating Soup with a Knife" seeks to explain how British (not forgetting the Nez Zealanders though) tactics, and operational strategy in Malaya was so effective because it focused upon 'heart and minds' and the political aspects of the conflicts. So the military make more attempts to build up legitimacy for the State and help the civilians. It is still ugly in my opinion, in Iraq the US military should not even be there, never mind have it conducting counter insurgency against anti-occupier forces, Al Qaeda, and religious groups. But if 'hearts and mind' kills less people then it is a better solution. It also means less civilians deaths.

 

But going back to international law, if a man with civilian clothes exploded and killed 20 American soldiers and an iraqi civilian the method of warfare may not fit into confines of international law, but it could be a good outcome, if it is the only effective way of killing American soldiers.

 

LDV – I’m prepared to accept that non-conventional war might be justified to fight against oppression or gaining freedoms (certainly if this is fought as Ghandi did). What I do not accept is that violations of IHL, war crimes or unlawful combat can be justified by ‘freedom fighters’, either morally or militarily.

 

But what do you mean by unlawful combat and war crime? These terms would be judged on the basis of the victor in many circumstances though. To talk of those fighting oppression, if the police and military were extremely repressive in a nation state and you were fighting against these forces, it wouldn't matter what conventions and law you should follow, simply that avoiding civilians casualties (your own people) would not be in your interest anyway.