Content provided in partnership with

Leashing the dogs of war

National Interest, The, Fall, 2003 by David B. Rivkin, Jr., Lee A. Casey

<< Page 1 Continued from page 9. Previous | Next

Consider Israel's policy of the "targeted killing" of Palestinian militant leaders or American Predator drone strikes on individual Al-Qaeda members, or the recent U.S. Operations in Iraq in which Uday and Qusay Hussein were killed, all of which have been incorrectly characterized as illegal "assassinations." The Swedish foreign minister actually accused American forces of "summary executions" after a successful Predator attack on an Al-Qaeda convoy in Yemen. In fact, under the laws of war, enemy combatants, whether lawful or unlawful, may be targeted both on and off the battlefield. Their surrender must be accepted if offered, but there is no obligation to attempt an "arrest", which is a domestic policing norm, rather than an obligation under the laws of war. Such allegations, however, highlight how far Europe has moved from the United States.

Most Popular Articles in Business: Research and Markets : Tesco Plc - SWOT Framework Analysis; Do Us a Flavor - Ben & Jerry's Issues a Call for Euphoric New Flavors; eBay made easy: ready to start an eBay business? These 5 simple steps will ...; Katrina's lawsuit surge: a legal battle to force insurers to pay for flood ...; Wal-Mart's newest distribution center opened last month near the southwest ...; More »

There has also been a debate about the propriety of attacking targets such as state-controlled radio and TV stations broadcasting pro-government propaganda. Destroying these facilities can impact the morale of a rogue regime and loosen its stranglehold on the society at large. Such attacks are entirely appropriate under traditional jus in bello norms. Yet many Europeans criticized these tactics when they were used in both the Kosovo campaign and in Operation Iraqi Freedom. This condemnation ignores the essentially Clausewitzean framework of any armed conflict, in which the fastest and the least casualty-intensive way to win is to attack the enemy's will. (4)

Another disagreement between the United States and its allies involves a new form of expansive arms control. Traditionally, only a few weapons--those causing severe and unnecessary suffering--were banned from warfare. Beginning in the late 19th century, for instance, exploding or "dum-dum" bullets were forbidden since they caused far more terrible wounds than necessary to render a soldier hors de combat. The same logic was applied to the use of poison gas after World War I and biological weapons in the post-World War II period. In contrast, numerous negotiations are taking place today to ban whole categories of existing weapons systems and to stifle the development of new ones. For example, most of the United States' NATO allies have signed and are moving towards ratification of the 1997 Ottawa anti-landmine Convention. From the American perspective, however, landmines when deployed properly represent an essential part of its defensive posture in Korea and have a proven ability to perform such critical military tasks as "airfield denial" or blockading WMD-related facilities with minimal collateral damage. It is ill-trained Third World militaries, which have not paid the slightest heed to jus in bello strictures (and which are unlikely to be swayed by the Ottawa Convention) which have misused landmines and caused such large numbers of casualties among civilians. Meanwhile, the fact that the Convention exempted certain dual-use mines used by the European militaries made the whole enterprise appear hypocritical as well.

Leashing the dogs of war

National Interest, The, Fall, 2003 by David B. Rivkin, Jr., Lee A. Casey

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Sports

Most Popular Articles in Business

Most Popular Publications in Business