Civilians caught in a War

• Si Geena

  3 Jul 07, 14:37

  Shotgun had quite a long post. But I would like to specifically examine one particular argument of his.
  
  

  Originally posted by Shotgun:

  At the same time, if any army was run by legalistic hawks who care more about following conventions and lawful actions over the safety of their own troops, then that Army is bound to take unacceptable losses, lose morale, the will to fight and its sense of purpose. And eventually, they will no longer be an army, but just a band of killers.
  

  I do not agree with this view. Primarily, because an army that does not take conventions and lawful actions into consideration is already on the edge of losing its sense of purpose.
  
  Safety of troops need not come as a compromise of following lawful action.
  
  Was the summary execution of the alleged enemy lawful? The compelling evidence is that it is not, however visceral his crimes were.
  
  It is not only un-lawful, it is also downright foolish to do so infront of international media.
  
• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  3 Jul 07, 17:10

  Originally posted by chino65:

  You chill your pills man and consider this - I never started out saying it was black or white and demanding justice for past deeds etc. But since I'm now in that corner, well...what the heck...
  
  No one is asking for the police general to be tried, but it made people at that time realize that both sides are equally brutal and US shouldn't be supporting one or the other. Why should American young men die for such people running a brutal regime?
  
  The S Vietnam government is known to be thoroughly corrupt so how the photographer came about calling police general a hero for summarily executing a prisoner is ... well, over generous.
  
  If he is a hero, it is because this photo of him helped the Americans to withdraw the support and end the stupid war and saved millions of lives on all sides.

  LOL, I hardly think Adams was feeling generous when he called the general a hero, he was simply saying what he felt was correct, sans politics. After all he expressed regret that the picture he took got mired in politics.
  
  The point is, both South and North Vietnam were exactly playing the the book when it came to the way they fought. The only difference here it seems, what that who got caught in the act of doing so.
  
  Was pulling the trigger on the prisoner unlawful? Probably could be done in many other ways. But was the victim really innocent... I'm not too sure about that. And was it a cold blooded, psychopathic killing? I'm don't think so too.
  
  Ultimately I think the South lost the war because it was already corrupt from within and lacked the will to carry out the war to its conclusion, unlike the North, which had the will to carry out the fight to the brutal end. Atrocities were commited aplenty on both sides and I find it hard to look at a picture and say "look, this is why we shouldn't fight". It was more of a case of "what's wrong with this war?"
  
  Assuming it was the places were reversed and it was a picture of the VC pulling the trigger on the general, what would your reaction be?
  
  

  It is not only un-lawful, it is also downright foolish to do so infront of international media.

  Indeed, but it gives one some insight into the way things were going on over there, and the mentality those fighting in it. This is not the cold blooded, calculating atrocity that some anti-war people see it as, but more of the face of war, of human soceity gone mad and those directly involved in it.
• SingaporeTyrannosaur

  3 Jul 07, 17:17

  Adopting SG T-rex's boots on the ground view wholly, would lead to a situation of chaos and massive loss of civilian life, IF there weren't legalistic hawks to jump of them. At the same time, if any army was run by legalistic hawks who care more about following conventions and lawful actions over the safety of their own troops, then that Army is bound to take unacceptable losses, lose morale, the will to fight and its sense of purpose. And eventually, they will no longer be an army, but just a band of killers.

  My view on the conduct of war is more then just the boots-on-the-ground, and it is my personal (idealistic) belief that the grunt must protect the defenceless and his nation.
  
  However what I am pointing out is how extraordinarily hard it can be to achieve those ideals when you are really in the thick of things, under extreme duress and stress, as well as other things. And ultimately it is always all too easy to blame the grunt, without remembering that war itself is a crazy thing.
  
  I am not advocating the whitewashing of Mai Lais and other massacres, but rather the understanding of the fact that soldiers are often told to reconcile contradictory objectives, and of course if your enemy isnÂ’t playing by the rules of war, it gets even harder.
  
  In that light, are all the civilian casualties in the recent Iraq war due to American incompetence and indiscriminate targeting, or because of the fog of war and the fuzzy nature of the enemy who are often no different from the ones they are trying to protect?