Benjamin Franklin once said that there is no such thing as a good war or a bad peace. The concept of "just war" seems to be too idealistic: given the variety of historical accounts that cover any particular war in known history, there will always be an opposing narrative calling out injustices on part of the "other". The fallible nature of man and the subjectivity of human perception have guaranteed the perpetuation of such a pattern of injustice against those who are wronged... wrongfully. After all, war is political. It's a means to an end for those seeking resources, land, wealth, influence, and power.
Yet oftentimes we are led to believe that armies around the 1st Century B.C. onwards have started to adopt more restrictive measures in dealing with enemy positions. Is it possible that the people of these times became aware of the monstrosity of warfare, and the barbarity of killing needlessly and endlessly? It may seem that way, especially considering the edicts concerning warfare that have been taught in books like the Bible and the Koran [1]. The necessity of such methods are also apparent when resources are scarce, and hearts and minds need to be won more than battles assuming that - to the sides involved - the hearts and minds are "worth winning". All are plausible reasons that account for a shift in wartime morality. While history has had its fair share of massacres - the Crusades (Edessa by the Muslims and Jerusalem by the Crusader Christians), the pogroms, etc. - and atrocities, it was generally accepted that the field of battle was usually separate from the territories possessed by any sides involved.
However, at the turn of the 20th Century, things changed. WWI added a new dimension to modern warfare to the extent that it changed the concept of it almost completely. Towards the middle of the War, nations - especially Russia, Britain, France, and Germany - invested their entire economic output towards the war effort. People in the streets were recruited to work in factories and farms, and those who were already there worked extra hours [2]. Even children (as in the case of Britain) worked as well. Stockpiles of food, water, and medical supplies were preferentially diverted to the frontlines, while military industrialization reached peak efficiency to produce ammunition, guns, vehicles, and the sort [3]. Civilians were a vital part in this process, supplying their comrades with food, water, munitions, and equipment to fight at the fronts and stay fighting [4]. In that respect, civilians have become an asset to the military, or an "objective" to the "other" side, depending on the perspective.
Accordingly, military tactics have changed to suit this new stratagem of warfare. It sounds "natural": the invention of tanks was followed shortly by anti-tank weaponry (rifles, bazookas, missiles, rockets, etc.), fighter planes by anti-air defense, infantry by anti-infantry (no joke), entrenchment (or camping) by artillery, and so on. The civilian empowerment of the military meant an extended yet nevertheless exhaustive supply of equipment to carry out war, and the capability to produce such equipment would depend on the resources, the ability to extract these resources, the efficiency at which these resources are extracted and used, the civilian population size and density, the number of (operational) factories, and the technological capabilities of the populace. In later wars, especially WWII, militaries have taken it upon themselves to counter that stratagem: if they can target the civilian populace (i.e. reduce civilian manpower), that will hinder the "enemy's" capability to produce supplies and eventually the rate at which supplies are being sent to the front lines. On par with the "rules" of attrition, that will eventually deplete the "enemy's" supplies faster and as such will enable the said side to outlast the "enemy" and therefore "win".
There are, however, other ramifications for targeting civilians, whether directly or indirectly. Loss of civilian life is itself demoralizing and maximizes shock-value: one can only imagine what would happen if their normally quiet civilian suburb was suddenly reduced to rubble and everything said person (survivors, especially) knew or had was taken away from him/her (be it his/her life, too), and to those who are connected to them on the front lines (in the military). Given the civilian populace is a soldier's closest connection, any damage to them (especially to kin) would prove severely demoralizing and disorienting. A siege of a civilian populace would torture said civilians and place them under unnecessary suffering and a risk of succumbing to starvation, disease, depression, or any other indirect evils of blockading and cutting off a town, village, or city from supplies.
In my opinion, I don't believe such targeting of civilians - no matter how much militaries and governments try to justify their operations in this regard - are morally acceptable let alone justifiable. In a 2005 paper, Alexander Downes, Ph.D. and professor at Duke University (NC), argues that
Having said all that, what does a "just war" mean in the present context? Let's consider what justice means in the context of war. War (or more specifically battle) is usually comprised of an attacking and a defending side in that the latter is finding on its own grounds and the former is not. Of course, the so-called "fine line" between the two can get blurred easily by tide-turning battles, events, and interventions. An aggressor can never be justified on any grounds: no crime other than the robbery of one's own land or murder of one's people (statements, I realize, that can be twisted and manipulated in so many ways), in my humble opinion, is worth invading a nation, killing its inhabitants, and causing undue property damage. Regardless of the role however, there are conventions of warfare that have been introduced (though not efficiently).
The four Geneva Conventions, for example, set about establishing the rules of modern warfare and the nature of the battlefield as mentioned above. "The frontlines" may be "history", but that doesn't imply that methods should be put in place that cause unwarranted and unnecessary death. For example, take the fourth convention regarding the place of civilians in modern warfare, which is the crux of this essay.
However, it must be taken into account that the Geneva Conventions, like any other parchment, can be misinterpreted by the aggressive party: in pursuit of a rebel or militant group, a government army (e.g. Sri Lanka's) can consider - albeit wrongly - the civilians in the immediate vicinity of these militants as "hostages" and attack in spite of the Fourth Geneva Conventions which harshly criticizes the use of collective punishment:
So, what do I believe is justified? For starters, the avoidance of civilian casualties is a must: injustice comes when murder or any other form of "punishment" is committed against those who did not commit a crime, and that goes to every military, rebel group, and militia out there. Second, the use of chemical, nuclear, biological, or deforming weapons should be restricted: it damages ecosystems, defaces people, and renders large pockets of land uninhabitable or unsuitable for growth for many years, and this is not something conducive in a world where the population is booming [8]. The sheer terror exerted by these weapons is also a good reason not to use them. Third, attacks on civilian structures should be prohibited even if they are "meant" to attack a combatant (and as far as intention goes, it means squat when the bomb lands on a building chock-full of civilians). The death of one combatant does not justify the deaths of hundreds of others. Finally, at the end of a war, those who instigated the war and took part in war crimes should be brought to justice and put to the cage... or the sword.
Nevertheless, the world we live in is not ideal, and therefore, the application of such seemingly outlandish rules can not be put in place.
As I was writing this essay, I kept in mind that war is always inevitable, no matter how adamant I am in my opposition to it. History has shown us that changes in the balance of power will, in one way or another, lead to conflict, a trait ingrained in the nature of man (and woman, but moreso man b/c history's mass-murderers were mainly men). As Thomas Hobbes once said, "When all the world is overcharged with inhabitants, then the last remedy of all is war, which provideth for every man, by victory or death." While that may not reflect my outlook, it certainly seems to be the way the wind is blowing. Finally, I'd like to end with a quote by Ernest Hemingway: "Never think that war, no matter how necessary nor how justified, is not a crime."
Salaam, from Saracen
Yet oftentimes we are led to believe that armies around the 1st Century B.C. onwards have started to adopt more restrictive measures in dealing with enemy positions. Is it possible that the people of these times became aware of the monstrosity of warfare, and the barbarity of killing needlessly and endlessly? It may seem that way, especially considering the edicts concerning warfare that have been taught in books like the Bible and the Koran [1]. The necessity of such methods are also apparent when resources are scarce, and hearts and minds need to be won more than battles assuming that - to the sides involved - the hearts and minds are "worth winning". All are plausible reasons that account for a shift in wartime morality. While history has had its fair share of massacres - the Crusades (Edessa by the Muslims and Jerusalem by the Crusader Christians), the pogroms, etc. - and atrocities, it was generally accepted that the field of battle was usually separate from the territories possessed by any sides involved.
However, at the turn of the 20th Century, things changed. WWI added a new dimension to modern warfare to the extent that it changed the concept of it almost completely. Towards the middle of the War, nations - especially Russia, Britain, France, and Germany - invested their entire economic output towards the war effort. People in the streets were recruited to work in factories and farms, and those who were already there worked extra hours [2]. Even children (as in the case of Britain) worked as well. Stockpiles of food, water, and medical supplies were preferentially diverted to the frontlines, while military industrialization reached peak efficiency to produce ammunition, guns, vehicles, and the sort [3]. Civilians were a vital part in this process, supplying their comrades with food, water, munitions, and equipment to fight at the fronts and stay fighting [4]. In that respect, civilians have become an asset to the military, or an "objective" to the "other" side, depending on the perspective.
Accordingly, military tactics have changed to suit this new stratagem of warfare. It sounds "natural": the invention of tanks was followed shortly by anti-tank weaponry (rifles, bazookas, missiles, rockets, etc.), fighter planes by anti-air defense, infantry by anti-infantry (no joke), entrenchment (or camping) by artillery, and so on. The civilian empowerment of the military meant an extended yet nevertheless exhaustive supply of equipment to carry out war, and the capability to produce such equipment would depend on the resources, the ability to extract these resources, the efficiency at which these resources are extracted and used, the civilian population size and density, the number of (operational) factories, and the technological capabilities of the populace. In later wars, especially WWII, militaries have taken it upon themselves to counter that stratagem: if they can target the civilian populace (i.e. reduce civilian manpower), that will hinder the "enemy's" capability to produce supplies and eventually the rate at which supplies are being sent to the front lines. On par with the "rules" of attrition, that will eventually deplete the "enemy's" supplies faster and as such will enable the said side to outlast the "enemy" and therefore "win".
There are, however, other ramifications for targeting civilians, whether directly or indirectly. Loss of civilian life is itself demoralizing and maximizes shock-value: one can only imagine what would happen if their normally quiet civilian suburb was suddenly reduced to rubble and everything said person (survivors, especially) knew or had was taken away from him/her (be it his/her life, too), and to those who are connected to them on the front lines (in the military). Given the civilian populace is a soldier's closest connection, any damage to them (especially to kin) would prove severely demoralizing and disorienting. A siege of a civilian populace would torture said civilians and place them under unnecessary suffering and a risk of succumbing to starvation, disease, depression, or any other indirect evils of blockading and cutting off a town, village, or city from supplies.
In my opinion, I don't believe such targeting of civilians - no matter how much militaries and governments try to justify their operations in this regard - are morally acceptable let alone justifiable. In a 2005 paper, Alexander Downes, Ph.D. and professor at Duke University (NC), argues that
noncombatants are most likely to be targeted—and high numbers of civilian casualties likely to result—when wars become costly, protracted wars of attrition, on the one hand, or when states bent on conquering enemy territory view the population as presenting a threat to their secure control of that land. Wars of attrition, characterized by static, trench warfare, sieges, or guerrilla resistance by one side tend to devour manpower and take a long time to prosecute to completion. The temptation to strike at an adversary’s civilian population in these circumstances in order to lower its morale or reduce the adversary’s ability to fight often becomes irresistible in order to economize on manpower/equipment losses. Stalemated wars of attrition also trigger escalation to civilian victimization out of a sense of desperation that every possible means must be employed that might lead to victory or avoid defeat. Finally, governments engaged in state-building efforts—involving conquest, annexation, and possible colonization of territory—may victimize groups they believe pose a threat of future insurrection. Statistical analyses of interstate wars since 1815 supports these arguments, and also shows that liberal democracies are not less likely to target civilians or kill fewer of them, whereas clashes of civilizations do not conduce to civilian victimization. Democracies, in fact, may be more likely to target noncombatants in costly wars of attrition.[5]What Mr. Downes is arguing essentially is that no matter who the killer, there can be no justification for the (avoidable) deaths of non-combatants. Even those who claim to be "just" are as susceptible to committing grave acts of injustice on virtue of the so-called "fog of war": the human mind is not meant to withstand the physical and psychological trauma, but seeing such phenomena repeat themselves over and over - with allegations against the other for "wanton killing" being thrown around - only disheartens and disillusions one's thoughts regarding such grandiose impossibilities (i.e. sparing human lives).
Having said all that, what does a "just war" mean in the present context? Let's consider what justice means in the context of war. War (or more specifically battle) is usually comprised of an attacking and a defending side in that the latter is finding on its own grounds and the former is not. Of course, the so-called "fine line" between the two can get blurred easily by tide-turning battles, events, and interventions. An aggressor can never be justified on any grounds: no crime other than the robbery of one's own land or murder of one's people (statements, I realize, that can be twisted and manipulated in so many ways), in my humble opinion, is worth invading a nation, killing its inhabitants, and causing undue property damage. Regardless of the role however, there are conventions of warfare that have been introduced (though not efficiently).
The four Geneva Conventions, for example, set about establishing the rules of modern warfare and the nature of the battlefield as mentioned above. "The frontlines" may be "history", but that doesn't imply that methods should be put in place that cause unwarranted and unnecessary death. For example, take the fourth convention regarding the place of civilians in modern warfare, which is the crux of this essay.
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:Other articles regard people living in occupied territories, as is the case with several areas the world over (Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, and others):
(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 judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. [6]
Art. 55. To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.This article, for example, sounds commonsense in the sense that if one is to occupy a person's home and control a majority of its affairs, the least the occupier can do in such a completely hypothetical case is supply the original occupants with food, water, and medical supplies to sustain them and not let them starve, thirst, fester, and/or rot.
However, it must be taken into account that the Geneva Conventions, like any other parchment, can be misinterpreted by the aggressive party: in pursuit of a rebel or militant group, a government army (e.g. Sri Lanka's) can consider - albeit wrongly - the civilians in the immediate vicinity of these militants as "hostages" and attack in spite of the Fourth Geneva Conventions which harshly criticizes the use of collective punishment:
No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.[7]There are a lot of other articles that can potentially be twisted, but I won't go into details of how they could be as I've bored you long enough with this essay.
So, what do I believe is justified? For starters, the avoidance of civilian casualties is a must: injustice comes when murder or any other form of "punishment" is committed against those who did not commit a crime, and that goes to every military, rebel group, and militia out there. Second, the use of chemical, nuclear, biological, or deforming weapons should be restricted: it damages ecosystems, defaces people, and renders large pockets of land uninhabitable or unsuitable for growth for many years, and this is not something conducive in a world where the population is booming [8]. The sheer terror exerted by these weapons is also a good reason not to use them. Third, attacks on civilian structures should be prohibited even if they are "meant" to attack a combatant (and as far as intention goes, it means squat when the bomb lands on a building chock-full of civilians). The death of one combatant does not justify the deaths of hundreds of others. Finally, at the end of a war, those who instigated the war and took part in war crimes should be brought to justice and put to the cage... or the sword.
Nevertheless, the world we live in is not ideal, and therefore, the application of such seemingly outlandish rules can not be put in place.
As I was writing this essay, I kept in mind that war is always inevitable, no matter how adamant I am in my opposition to it. History has shown us that changes in the balance of power will, in one way or another, lead to conflict, a trait ingrained in the nature of man (and woman, but moreso man b/c history's mass-murderers were mainly men). As Thomas Hobbes once said, "When all the world is overcharged with inhabitants, then the last remedy of all is war, which provideth for every man, by victory or death." While that may not reflect my outlook, it certainly seems to be the way the wind is blowing. Finally, I'd like to end with a quote by Ernest Hemingway: "Never think that war, no matter how necessary nor how justified, is not a crime."
Salaam, from Saracen
Comments
Post a Comment