Ryan you are a national and perhaps international treasurer. Your work, the insights and knowledge you provide are critical to forming true understanding of the issues that you touch on. I realize it is exhausting work. And you may feel like Cassandra - telling the truth/seeing the future, but no one believes you. Like you, I feel sorry for the Palestinians and Lebanese who are caught in this anvil and hammer situation, but Iran using these civilians as human shields and expecting no military response to this never ending war on Israel is absurd. Taking the fight directly to Iran is the next logical step - until Iran's politicians and general citizens suffer the consequences of this proxy war, this will never end.
Wouldn't deliberately locating your military command post in a civilian area be considered a war crime? Oh, and thanks for what you're doing here, no one else is spotting disinfo.
"The use of human shields is forbidden by Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. It is also a specific intent war crime as codified in the Rome Statute, which was adopted in 1998.[2][3] The language of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibits 'utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations.'"
This is correct, although the Rome Statute is a latecomer that hasn't really been codified or ratified by most combatant nations. The Rome Statute explicitly states what has always been an accepted principle: That using protected targets like civilians or civilian structures in a way that strips their protected status is in itself a war crime. The reality is that there are no actual "war crime police" so such crimes are rarely prosecuted unless they are particularly egregious, and always after hostilities have ended.
Thank you, that is kind of what I remember from my Army Geneva convention training. I think though, that Geneva convention protocols did not anticipate to "reverse the roles," they assumed that the invading army would be committing a war crime to locate one's military installation deliberately amongst civilians from the warring side using the enemy populace as human shields, as the Nazi army did with allied prisoners of war. Hezbollah and the Gazans have deliberately located their military command centers in their own populace and are using their own people, even their own families as human shields so they could then use the killing of civilians as propaganda.
I actually used to work with Francois! I could share many things, but I won't because it would be gauche. I would not exactly lose sleep over what he says.
Then the question of military necessity and proportionality come into play.
*Wonder if there have been many (or any) well reasoned court opinions fleshing out what meets the criteria.
*Also wonder how long the rules have been around. Was US subject to these rules when it Firebombed and nuked Japanese cities? For all I know the rules came into being as a result of these actions.
Hi Jeff - take a look in some basic searches as to the targets in Japan.
We specifically did not hit cultural or historic sites. We hit military ones.
Yes, there was a student body and civilian casualties, but why would you put a military operation in “close proximity” to such items unless you thought it would be shield.
I could be wrong. Feel free to post links as to why I am.
Prosecutions for Law of War violations are rarely as legalistic and detailed as other civil trials are, and rarely rest on fine details of the crimes. So they don't generally produce much that interprets the laws. There are court opinions, but they usually deal with the broader crimes at hand.
Military necessity and proportionality are often simply judgement calls by the commander on the ground. Most Western nations attempt to educate their leaders in what is or is not military necessity and what is or is not proportional, to reduce the chances of violations. But it's still a judgement call. That doesn't excuse obvious violations, but doubts are usually in favor of the guy(s) who made the call(s).
In the case of the strategic bombing of both Europe and Japan, the military necessity flowed from the war industries being targeted, which were often scattered widely through a city. Proportionality was determined by the means available, which was basically high altitude bombing with the bombs and bomb aiming devices available. In Europe, weather and other factors mean large errors in bomb aiming, and the cities around their targets suffered from that. In Japan, it was found that the unique construction of the buildings rendered HE bombs less- or in-effective. The solution was incendiary bombs that burned the structures being attacked. Unfortunately, inaccuracy and the flammability of the structures also caused fires to spread much more widely than the actual target. While it may be true that few Allied combatants were sorry about it, that doesn't make it automatically a war crime.
The military necessity of the nukes in Japan was a much broader calculation than "that factory there makes tanks". The necessity was a geopolitical and strategic one, rather than tactical. And the cities chosen did have connections to the Japanese war effort and military. The question of proportionality was also a geopolitical and strategic one, arguing that a single massive strike was more likely to achieve the goal being sought. And in retrospect the use of the two atomic bombs did achieve the intent being sought.
It is worth observing that the Law of War was created for individual and small unit conduct in tactical-level warfare, not strategic operations. It's probably not appropriate to try to apply the Hague/Geneva Conventions too rigorously to a level of warfare not really conceived by the people who wrote them. There are those who disagree, but convicting an entire nation of a "war crime" isn't really practical. Many of the decisions in question are deeply nuanced and multi-factored, made by staffs and committees, and trying to challenge those would be impossibly cumbersome.
Ryan, you have to understand the education system subscribes to postmodernist philosophies- "wokesim" or as Elon calls it, the "mind virus". For example, educators teach qualitative (subjective) analysis equals or outweighs a quantitative (objective) analysis. Using this logic, any numbers or rules you quote are outweighed by a single professors feelings and beliefs, which explains the actions of his students today. And the tenacity of misinformation.
Basically, post-modernism proposes a "critique " of Western institutions and knowledge (Kuznar 2008:78). This includes: 1. Over focusing on power relations and "hegemony" (i.e. Marxism) 2. deconstructionism/questioning of reality and representation (there is no truth, it's all "fake news") 3. a critique of “metanarratives” ("All history, literature, religion is wrong/biased") 4. an elevation of text and language as the fundamental "phenomena" of existence (making social media and print/books the battlegrounds). Etc. Wikipedia has a very neutral and comprehensive essay on postmodernism.
I’m sorry to hear you’re tired. You’re doing a great work and I hope more people follow your example so you don’t have to bear this burden all by yourself.
Very informative and detailed perspective. It’s amazing how many levels of assessment and consideration goes into choosing where and when to attack a target.
Sadly no matter who one wants to quote, what laws and rules we go by, NONE of that is of any concern to these barbaric terrorists and militant thugs that don’t give a damn about civilian or innocent casualties. In fact they encourage it. For them the more of their enemy’s — and even their own — civilians that are sacrificed plays into their very strategy.
All these bad actors are always using civilians for cover, have no issue with acting and killing civilians themselves. and they always scream about how unfair things are when they get blasted back hard.
Hey Ryan, Thanks for what you do, the time and research you put into your breakdown and conflict event summaries is awesome and greatly appreciated! Keep up the great work. I just upgraded my sub to help keep you going and to express my thanks for your hard work.
While discussing civilian death versus killing the bad guys, it reminds me of when that hospital was blown up in Afghanistan. Doctors without borders was pissed off about their hospital being blown up. But what they failed to mention is that they were weapons and armed combatants, hiding inside the hospital.
Those laws of war a bad joke… they’ll be broken and ignored as soon as next major conflict starts… which may be tomorrow. We (US) have broken every single one, a thousand times over and pretend we are the judge and jury of conflict. The only goal of war is to kill more enemies than they kill of yours, and to force them into capitulation….
You just gave us a way of distinguishing between a soldier and a terrorist. Terrorists ignore or reverse a soldiers' rules for targeting. Russia engages in terrorist actions when it fires missiles into Ukraine without regard for the rules of targeting.
Your post mentions "proportionality", although indirectly. I once saw an American training document saying that proportionality is determined before the attack is made, not after. I guess that means that you can attack what you believe is an enemy command post and discover later that it was a school containing only civilians, and it's not a war crime. Is that still true?
Proportionality is basically "what are you going to use to attack the target". Factors like what is available and what is necessary to accomplish the task are considered if time allows. Sometimes it's literally what is in hand at that moment. Generally "kill/destroy, but no more than you have to" is the answer. It's a judgement call, and the benefit of the doubt usually goes to the shooters unless there is an obvious violation.
Protected targets remain protected until something strips that protection. Using a protected target...school, church, hospital, etc...for military purposes strips that protection, making them an legitimate target. It's up to the attacker to determine if attacking it is worth the possible collateral damage, but the responsibility for any collateral casualties or damage still falls on the defender.
The fog of war is a real thing that sometimes hides the true nature of a target. One reason that Western nations train leaders in the Law of War is so that they consider carefully before deciding a protected target is actually in military use. But mistakes still do happen. Intent and belief can be affirmative defense for a mistake, but it's better to be sure.
Ryan you are a national and perhaps international treasurer. Your work, the insights and knowledge you provide are critical to forming true understanding of the issues that you touch on. I realize it is exhausting work. And you may feel like Cassandra - telling the truth/seeing the future, but no one believes you. Like you, I feel sorry for the Palestinians and Lebanese who are caught in this anvil and hammer situation, but Iran using these civilians as human shields and expecting no military response to this never ending war on Israel is absurd. Taking the fight directly to Iran is the next logical step - until Iran's politicians and general citizens suffer the consequences of this proxy war, this will never end.
Wouldn't deliberately locating your military command post in a civilian area be considered a war crime? Oh, and thanks for what you're doing here, no one else is spotting disinfo.
To quote Wikipedia:
"The use of human shields is forbidden by Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. It is also a specific intent war crime as codified in the Rome Statute, which was adopted in 1998.[2][3] The language of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibits 'utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations.'"
This is correct, although the Rome Statute is a latecomer that hasn't really been codified or ratified by most combatant nations. The Rome Statute explicitly states what has always been an accepted principle: That using protected targets like civilians or civilian structures in a way that strips their protected status is in itself a war crime. The reality is that there are no actual "war crime police" so such crimes are rarely prosecuted unless they are particularly egregious, and always after hostilities have ended.
Thank you, that is kind of what I remember from my Army Geneva convention training. I think though, that Geneva convention protocols did not anticipate to "reverse the roles," they assumed that the invading army would be committing a war crime to locate one's military installation deliberately amongst civilians from the warring side using the enemy populace as human shields, as the Nazi army did with allied prisoners of war. Hezbollah and the Gazans have deliberately located their military command centers in their own populace and are using their own people, even their own families as human shields so they could then use the killing of civilians as propaganda.
I actually used to work with Francois! I could share many things, but I won't because it would be gauche. I would not exactly lose sleep over what he says.
having said that I would guess he did do his draft service in the Swiss army (Francois is Swiss).
I'm 40 some years old and now i want a new career of fucking with the enemy.
Then the question of military necessity and proportionality come into play.
*Wonder if there have been many (or any) well reasoned court opinions fleshing out what meets the criteria.
*Also wonder how long the rules have been around. Was US subject to these rules when it Firebombed and nuked Japanese cities? For all I know the rules came into being as a result of these actions.
Hi Jeff - take a look in some basic searches as to the targets in Japan.
We specifically did not hit cultural or historic sites. We hit military ones.
Yes, there was a student body and civilian casualties, but why would you put a military operation in “close proximity” to such items unless you thought it would be shield.
I could be wrong. Feel free to post links as to why I am.
Prosecutions for Law of War violations are rarely as legalistic and detailed as other civil trials are, and rarely rest on fine details of the crimes. So they don't generally produce much that interprets the laws. There are court opinions, but they usually deal with the broader crimes at hand.
Military necessity and proportionality are often simply judgement calls by the commander on the ground. Most Western nations attempt to educate their leaders in what is or is not military necessity and what is or is not proportional, to reduce the chances of violations. But it's still a judgement call. That doesn't excuse obvious violations, but doubts are usually in favor of the guy(s) who made the call(s).
In the case of the strategic bombing of both Europe and Japan, the military necessity flowed from the war industries being targeted, which were often scattered widely through a city. Proportionality was determined by the means available, which was basically high altitude bombing with the bombs and bomb aiming devices available. In Europe, weather and other factors mean large errors in bomb aiming, and the cities around their targets suffered from that. In Japan, it was found that the unique construction of the buildings rendered HE bombs less- or in-effective. The solution was incendiary bombs that burned the structures being attacked. Unfortunately, inaccuracy and the flammability of the structures also caused fires to spread much more widely than the actual target. While it may be true that few Allied combatants were sorry about it, that doesn't make it automatically a war crime.
The military necessity of the nukes in Japan was a much broader calculation than "that factory there makes tanks". The necessity was a geopolitical and strategic one, rather than tactical. And the cities chosen did have connections to the Japanese war effort and military. The question of proportionality was also a geopolitical and strategic one, arguing that a single massive strike was more likely to achieve the goal being sought. And in retrospect the use of the two atomic bombs did achieve the intent being sought.
It is worth observing that the Law of War was created for individual and small unit conduct in tactical-level warfare, not strategic operations. It's probably not appropriate to try to apply the Hague/Geneva Conventions too rigorously to a level of warfare not really conceived by the people who wrote them. There are those who disagree, but convicting an entire nation of a "war crime" isn't really practical. Many of the decisions in question are deeply nuanced and multi-factored, made by staffs and committees, and trying to challenge those would be impossibly cumbersome.
Ryan, you have to understand the education system subscribes to postmodernist philosophies- "wokesim" or as Elon calls it, the "mind virus". For example, educators teach qualitative (subjective) analysis equals or outweighs a quantitative (objective) analysis. Using this logic, any numbers or rules you quote are outweighed by a single professors feelings and beliefs, which explains the actions of his students today. And the tenacity of misinformation.
Basically, post-modernism proposes a "critique " of Western institutions and knowledge (Kuznar 2008:78). This includes: 1. Over focusing on power relations and "hegemony" (i.e. Marxism) 2. deconstructionism/questioning of reality and representation (there is no truth, it's all "fake news") 3. a critique of “metanarratives” ("All history, literature, religion is wrong/biased") 4. an elevation of text and language as the fundamental "phenomena" of existence (making social media and print/books the battlegrounds). Etc. Wikipedia has a very neutral and comprehensive essay on postmodernism.
Civilians should denounce militias' cowardice when they use women and children as human shields if they want protection under international law.
I’m sorry to hear you’re tired. You’re doing a great work and I hope more people follow your example so you don’t have to bear this burden all by yourself.
Very informative and detailed perspective. It’s amazing how many levels of assessment and consideration goes into choosing where and when to attack a target.
Sadly no matter who one wants to quote, what laws and rules we go by, NONE of that is of any concern to these barbaric terrorists and militant thugs that don’t give a damn about civilian or innocent casualties. In fact they encourage it. For them the more of their enemy’s — and even their own — civilians that are sacrificed plays into their very strategy.
I love you man! Thanks for your service in the past and now.
All these bad actors are always using civilians for cover, have no issue with acting and killing civilians themselves. and they always scream about how unfair things are when they get blasted back hard.
Hey Ryan, Thanks for what you do, the time and research you put into your breakdown and conflict event summaries is awesome and greatly appreciated! Keep up the great work. I just upgraded my sub to help keep you going and to express my thanks for your hard work.
While discussing civilian death versus killing the bad guys, it reminds me of when that hospital was blown up in Afghanistan. Doctors without borders was pissed off about their hospital being blown up. But what they failed to mention is that they were weapons and armed combatants, hiding inside the hospital.
Those laws of war a bad joke… they’ll be broken and ignored as soon as next major conflict starts… which may be tomorrow. We (US) have broken every single one, a thousand times over and pretend we are the judge and jury of conflict. The only goal of war is to kill more enemies than they kill of yours, and to force them into capitulation….
You just gave us a way of distinguishing between a soldier and a terrorist. Terrorists ignore or reverse a soldiers' rules for targeting. Russia engages in terrorist actions when it fires missiles into Ukraine without regard for the rules of targeting.
Your post mentions "proportionality", although indirectly. I once saw an American training document saying that proportionality is determined before the attack is made, not after. I guess that means that you can attack what you believe is an enemy command post and discover later that it was a school containing only civilians, and it's not a war crime. Is that still true?
Sometimes that happens. We once bombed the Chinese Embassy in Serbia cause we were using an old map.
Proportionality is basically "what are you going to use to attack the target". Factors like what is available and what is necessary to accomplish the task are considered if time allows. Sometimes it's literally what is in hand at that moment. Generally "kill/destroy, but no more than you have to" is the answer. It's a judgement call, and the benefit of the doubt usually goes to the shooters unless there is an obvious violation.
Protected targets remain protected until something strips that protection. Using a protected target...school, church, hospital, etc...for military purposes strips that protection, making them an legitimate target. It's up to the attacker to determine if attacking it is worth the possible collateral damage, but the responsibility for any collateral casualties or damage still falls on the defender.
The fog of war is a real thing that sometimes hides the true nature of a target. One reason that Western nations train leaders in the Law of War is so that they consider carefully before deciding a protected target is actually in military use. But mistakes still do happen. Intent and belief can be affirmative defense for a mistake, but it's better to be sure.