Originally posted by MDDoxs
A terrible practice in my opinion. However i would like to point out, which was mentioned in the article, the these terror groups utilize the same
tactic of employing secondary strikes.
I know there is a difference, but would you be as inclined not to use a tactic that your enemy uses to their full advantage?
yes, because this is what sets civilized countries apart from barbarians.
Wars are the ultima ratio of politics and their use to achieve well-defined political aims can only be justified if every effort is made to prevent
unnecessary harm and destruction to non-combatants in any way possible.
As soon as you give up on that maxim you will find that it becomes impossible to contain wars, that your own people will stop supporting your troops
and that in the long-term your military will only consist of the mentally insane.
Every rule we (*) subject ourselves to - don't use biological or chemical weapons, don't use anti-personnel mines, don't use fire bombs near any
centre of civilian population, don't use cluster munitions, don't target medical personnel and facilities, treat the injured based on severity of
the wound and not based on nationality, take responsibility for the well-being of POWs and the population in occupied areas, avoid targeting cultural
properties, accept surrender, ... - is paid for in blood.
If we can't step up to a mother and tell her with a straight face that her son died a death that could have been avoided but that breaking any of
these rules to save his life would have invalidated everything we as a nation stand for, then we have to consider ourselves hypocritical
These rules make it possible to conduct wars in a limited fashion in order to achieve political goals and to find mutual peace once these goals have
been accomplished (as opposed to wars that rage on until annihilation).
These rules make it possible to get soldiers to fight wars for you - without them you could only attract slaughtering madmen and mercenaries.
And these rules only have value if you are fiercely committed to stand by them even if the other side does not feel bound by the same rules - once you
start abandoning them on "special occasions" you only provoke an escalation of ruthlessness and destruction.
The only sort of person who could reasonably be in favor of waging wars without rules would be a pacifist.
The 20th century was on the one hand a century in which the rules of war finally went from being a matter of a soldier's honor to being codified
On the other hand it was also the stage for WW2 in which Axis powers and Allies alike fought a war of annihilation throwing out any pretense of
civilization and honor as they pleased (frequently using "but they did it first" as justification for the next escalation of senseless violence).
I am no military historian but my personal impression is that the experience of the second world war, the refusal of its winners to reflect critically
on their own actions in the years following it and the anticipation of another global war has lead to a situation where we have unlearned how to lead
wars that are limited in methods and goals (which had been the "normal" kind of war for hundreds of years).
These days the US and their allies try to fight political wars (which should be extremely limited in nature) in ways that would be more suited for
wars which can only end in complete victory or complete devastation - and act surprised if they can't find peace once the political objectives have
(*) I am not from the US, some of these restrictions are not fully accepted by the US military.