Is war criminal?

[miko2d]

Maverick: As per Clausowitz (sp sorry) War is an extension of political power.

 As per John Keegan, Clausewitz was absolutely wrong in that and following that doctrine condtributed significantly to the disasters of 20th century - by causing belligerents to rely on massive drafted armies rather than professional ones, etc.

 War is an extension of culture and at the same time it is a unique subculture - having it's own life, etc.

 That culture persists and lives on it's own even if the original political goals of war are proven unreacheable.

 In WWI all countries expected quick bloodless resolution. When it was absolutely certain that such resolution is not possible and a stalemate is unbreakable (1914-1917, till US intervention) while millions of lives are wasted with no discernible result, did politics said "OK, war is not working, set's stop it?". Absolutely not. War was developing with no influence or regard for politics - causing internal distruction of Austria, Russia and Germany way before any conclusive military defeat.
 If war is an extension of politics, how could it be suicidal?

 Of course anyone familiar with military - any military - knows that it is a very distinct culture with different values than "mainstream society". They are not tools that can be taken out, used and put back without affecting the nature of society itself.

 miko

[Kanth]

I'm looking for it, it's in my mind from a long time ago, I could be mistaken..

haven't found anything on it so far.

did see this tho..

btw these are called:

principles of war

or

conventions of war

http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/Ch2.htm#s3

53. Flags of Truce
Flags of truce must not be used surreptitiously to obtain military information or merely to obtain time to effect a retreat or secure reinforcements or to feign a surrender in order to surprise an enemy. An officer receiving them is not on this account absolved from the duty of exercising proper precautions with regard to them.

Originally posted by Nash
I don't mean to hijack this thread but.... No silencers? What's up with that?

[Boroda]

Miko, my respect.

"Violence is the last refuge of incompetence". (c) Isaac Asimov, "Foundation" series, somewhere around 1942.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by miko2d
Maverick: As per Clausowitz (sp sorry) War is an extension of political power.

 As per John Keegan, Clausewitz was absolutely wrong in that and following that doctrine condtributed significantly to the disasters of 20th century - by causing belligerents to rely on massive drafted armies rather than professional ones, etc.

 War is an extension of culture and at the same time it is a unique subculture - having it's own life, etc.


Politics are a part of the "culture, or society if you will" that are driven by the society. Not the other way around. Please note that there was NOT a general uprising of the "societies" involved that demanded ww 1 be ended.


 That culture persists and lives on it's own even if the original political goals of war are proven unreacheable.

 In WWI all countries expected quick bloodless resolution. When it was absolutely certain that such resolution is not possible and a stalemate is unbreakable (1914-1917, till US intervention) while millions of lives are wasted with no discernible result, did politics said "OK, war is not working, set's stop it?". Absolutely not. War was developing with no influence or regard for politics - causing internal distruction of Austria, Russia and Germany way before any conclusive military defeat.

None of the beligerants (ie countries) felt the goal was unreachable. They neither capitulated nor "walked away from the conflict" absent an overwhelming force or inability to continue military operations. The situation DID escalate to war after the assination of Duke Ferdinad and his wife because of the trieaties (political agreements between political bodies (ie governments) in place at the time. Once hostilities were engaged the political obligations, willingly entered by the political bodies, required that all sides live up to their obligations.


 If war is an extension of politics, how could it be suicidal?


Suicide is the act of desperation. Suicide has been, in the past and is now, a factor of conflict. Individual suicide ordered by a political body or it's subordinate is a fact of history. In the conflict you brought up, ww1, neither political body felt it was a suicidal act to enter the conflict. In fact not entering the conflict could be construed to be suicidal for the political body as they would no longer be considered a viable political force when their treaty obligations were not honored. In the face of an agreessor nation the nation being trespassed would in fact be commiting "suicide" if they did not respond, hence a two sided conflict instead of a single annexation of a national state by another such as the irag invasion of Kuwait. Suicide of the state is also a fact of history in that more than one leader of a state ordered their forces to continue until all forces were exhausted or victory resulted. IE Germany and Japan in WW2. Please note that Japan only surrendered after the figurehead head of state acted to resume power and overrule the miltary defacto heads of state. The general population did not force a capitulation in either countries case.


 Of course anyone familiar with military - any military - knows that it is a very distinct culture with different values than "mainstream society". They are not tools that can be taken out, used and put back without affecting the nature of society itself.  miko

Anyone familiar with a free state understands that the military is a PART of the society that it draws its members from. The military cannot help but be influenced by the membership of the society within itself. This is premised upon the use of a free country where freedom of choice is a primary tenet. It also presupposes that the military is governed by he civilian government instead of governing the civilians. The use of the military by the government is a valid "tool" of politics irregardless of the intent of the military as long as the military is not the government. I trust you see the distinction here.

Since the society in a free state forms the political body the actionsd of the political body are in response to the society. Actions taken by the political body are therefor actions of a political nature. This confirms Clausowitz's statement that war is an extension of political power. I did not inply and also do not feel Clauswitz implied a validity to the political action, just an observation of the situation in action.

The make up of the military forces (conscript or volunteer) is immaterial to the fact that the use of the military in a conflict is still at the call of a political body as long as te military is NOT the sole source of power of the political body. I do not see where this negates Clausewitz's observational premise.

Now you are welcome to embrace Keegan all you want and dispute what I have provided here. This issue is over as far as I am concerned as I have too many things to do than sit at my computer to have a meaningless debate on a bbs. I just do not have the time to engage in a long term typing match. Besides my fingers get sore!

[batdog]

Originally posted by straffo
It's not a war as it has not been declared.

See it more as a "police operation".

The rape of Iraqui oil after the "police operation" will just be a collateral damage.

Oh Straffo, silly boy, the oil will not be raped... well it will from France

P.S. I still like you bro...we just are on opposite sides of this war/poly science 101 debate

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by lazs2
nash beat me to it... what killjoy made silencers illeagal?
lazs

That is about the only real interesting thing to come out of this thread...and what is the answer?

 Tronsky

[blitz]

We are not searching for a way to peace, peace IS the way.


Regards Blitz

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Nice statement Blitz, but peace is an illusion until tyrannical dictators are no longer in power.
-SW

[straffo]

Originally posted by batdog
Oh Straffo, silly boy, the oil will not be raped... well it will from France

P.S. I still like you bro...we just are on opposite sides of this war/poly science 101 debate

hehe

Now I know for sure there is one persone able to undertand my posts