Asymmetrical War

[Wolfman]

Doesn’t holding them to “their own standards” amount to the same thing if those standards are the standards developed for the same kind of conflict where we have the overwhelming advantage? Standards that our new enemies refuse to abide by? If we were to announce that our standards were to change and then do something objectionable by the old standards, would that be okay?

I don't think we have any major issues on your other comments, so I'll just respond to this one.

When I talk about "their own standards", I am talking about standards that the nation has developed on a broad basis -- 'rights' enshrined in their laws and constitution, or things like that. They are not situational, developed because of one particular situation (like a war). Thus, the idea that torture is wrong (firmly supported by numerous American laws and principles).

Where I'd have a problem is when, because of a particular situation (like a war), the gov't just throws those things out the window (like waterboarding, or deporting prisoners to countries that allow torture). A good example: the Canadian gov't holds that all the principles of human rights that we hold in Canada, apply to our soldiers wherever they are. That is, they must adhere to Canadian law regarding human rights wherever they are, even if they are in a different country, with different laws. When Canadian soldiers were sent to Afghanistan, they were given laminated cards that reminded them of these items, and of what they could or could not do in engaging the enemy, or dealing with prisoners.

They were mocked by Americans for this; and the U.S. (at least under Bush) at numerous times argued that 'rights' considered fundamental and basic rights for all Americans did not, in fact, extend to non-Americans (particularly their enemy).

Sadly, some segments of the Canadian military apparently didn't adhere to that (we are currently in the midst of a huge investigation into Canadian military knowingly handing POWs over to Afghan forces for torture)...but at least it is an important enough principle that we are investigating this thoroughly (to the point it caused a minor constitutional crisis in our government); and if proven to have happened, is clearly wrong.

There are many things I can fault the Chinese gov't for...but at least they are fairly consistent in their application of what they say. Both the U.S. and China, for example, tend to hold that external meddling in their internal 'sovereign' matters is unacceptable (just try to get the UN to pass any kind of binding resolution on either country, and see what happens); but China pretty consistently also remains neutral on 'meddling' in the internal affairs of other nations, while the U.S. quite frequently seeks to impose controls on other nations that it will never accept for itself.

Bah...this has, as usual, become longer than intended, and perhaps somewhat tangential to the OP. My main point -- it is consistency that I'd generally hold as the measuring stick in this regard. Making up new rules that contradict or contravene previous rules, just because those rules are inconvenient...that's where I'd have a problem in regards to military policy.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Ahh, then you should probably clarify some more, because with that clarification your post is stating there are no practical problems with waging asymmetrical warfare and then talking about grabbing every advantage you can. As I pointed out above, there are problems with waging asymmetrical war because of the enemy grabbing every advantage they can.

I don't see why you seem to assume that an opponent would not grab every advantage they can, or forego an advantage just because of something you do or don't do. That's a variable, not a fixed relationship. You cannot assume that you not doing something will induce your opponent to do, or not do, any particular thing. IF your aims are asymmetrical, so often will be your comparative methods.

This isn't the world of Westphalia anymore. It's getting closer to jungle rules as the world becomes more multi-polar. All of the folks who thought multipolar is better by default, because is wan't unipolar or bipolar ... OK, sure it is, if you like more dangerous and more unstable. It is more interesting, and more fun, from a certain perspective.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I don't see why you seem to assume that an opponent would not grab every advantage they can, or forego an advantage just because of something you do or don't do.

I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that asymmetrical warfare causes problems for conventional militaries who have qualms about mass collateral damage and the rest of the nastiness that so far seems the only way to actually crush guerilla resistance.