http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/03/name-rank-and-serial-number.html

From his post:

No of course not. As currently interpreted the Geneva Conventions only apply to individuals bent on destroying America. Individuals who blow up elementary schools, kidnap children, attack churches and mosques, kill invalids in wheelchairs, plan attacks on skyscrapers in New York, behead journalists, detonate car bombs with children to camouflage their crime, or board jetliners with explosive shoes — all while wearing mufti or even women’s clothing — these are all considered “freedom fighters” of the most principled kind. They and they alone enjoy the protections of the Geneva Convention. As to Americans like Tucker and Menchaca or Israeli Gilad Shalit — or these fifteen British sailors for that matter, it is a case of “what Geneva Convention?” We don’t need no steenkin’ Geneva Convention to try these guys as spies. That’s the way the Human Rights racket works. Don’t go looking for any Geneva Convention in Somalia, Darfur, Basilan or Iran. Try Guantanamo Bay.

And more importantly, in the comments:

Much of what passes for Western progressivism is nothing more than reaction: a kind of mindless attachment to Marxist dogma of the 1960s. And that is why, for example, the Geneva Conventions, which are the subject of this post have become hindrances rather than the helps to civilized warfare.

The original idea of the Geneva Conventions was to provide incentives to conduct civilized or humane warfare, to the extent possible. But today the “progressives” have actually made it a reactionary document by interpreting it to protect those who practice barbarism in war and thereby mindlessly achieving the opposite of its intent.

I’m shocked that I hold onto them. I never had the expectation that the world would compel me to have such a dark view or to have such ruthless thoughts that I do right now.

I probably need to chill out, but I know my emotions aren’t based on nothing, they’re based on an avalanche of infernos.

I couldnt begin to speculate what a similiar thinking military person might be thinking.

I do know one thing.. if we dont go on a major offensive this year, I dont think we’ll last the decade.

We seem to have reduced the field of military ethics and law to “try to make
sure you don’t do anything bad” (with “bad” rather badly and widely defined,
or not defined at all) but we act suprised when the enemy gets a vote and
bad things happen anyway.

* We expect soldiers to not be angry and to not act on their emotions, but
we still expect them to kill when asked to by their superiors and by the
civilian chain of command.

* I suspect the technical term for people who can kill _without_ being angry
or emotionally involved is “sociopath.” Sometimes it seems like society at
large thinks it’s a great inconvenience to have soldiers that are emotional,
gripe, complain, get angry, suffer from stress. But I suspect that if the
alternative were suddenly magically possible, we wouldn’t like the result
very much.

* I think this ties into the whole discussion about limited warfare, and the
laws of war. Currently the US, despite the allegations of some of the
commentors above, has prosecuted and sentenced American soldiers for
mistreating prisoners. On the other hand, tens of thousands of civilians have
been killed in this war by enemy combatants who under the laws of warfare
followed in the Civil War, or WW1, or WW2, would have been tried and hung in
short order, but the US has not tried or hung anyone. Well, Saddam was hung
by the Iraqis, but for actions in wars previous to this. Meanwhile, Iran
finally got some western POW’s, who were captured in uniform in Iraq, and
plans to try them for espionage…

* These “laws of war” were not created to protect POW’s, whether they wore
uniforms or not. They were created so that civilian populations wouldn’t be
decimated in the course of war.

* Our current one-sided observation of the laws of war with respect to our
own troops but not to the enemy’s isn’t accomplishing anything wrt decreacing
civilian casualties in Iraq. I think that it’s probable that not trying
unlawful combatants is making things worse.

What does this have to do with the psychological makeup of the soldiers
currently fighting the war? I don’t have a definite answer, only hunches;
we’ve put our soldiers in a situation that combines the worst of being a
soldier with the worst of being a cop answering a domestic violence call,
with the added problem that they know the courts are never going to get
around to actually handling the case. I suspect this isn’t good.

——————————————————

On the wider subject of the war, I thought Rumsfeld had some good ideas and
some bad ideas. Primary among the bad ones was that we didn’t need a larger
military, as measured in both personnell or budget, in order to fight this
war. It’s now several months on, and although we’ve gotten rid of Rumsfeld,
there’s been no real signs of change regarding the resource situation. Oh,
they’re looking at increacing the size of the army, by some 3% or so. And
the new Congress is going to cut all the funding. After subjecting us with
two years of testimony from retired general after retired general to the
effect that the US needed more forces, I think it’s hypocritical.

I guess this is still non-sequitor week, insult week, and lie week, all rolled into one… A pity. I was all ready to discuss the ways in which modern society simultaneously demands soldiers to be emotionless BUT would very definately not like the result, but when I bring up the comments section here, there’s just the above.

As Western states breed fewer and fewer young, and as those young are less and less consistent with the classic profile of a combat soldier, the temptation to acquire nuclear or other WMD as an “equalizer” will be higher and higher. Japan is an obvious candidate. If they arm, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore are natural further candidates.

Australia is at the end of two “arcs of proliferation”, one spreading east from the South Asian subcontinent, the other south from North Korea. Until now, they’ve been content to be under the US nuclear umbrella.

Now here’s an interesting question. If the US cannot tolerate 3000 casualties among volunteers for the sake of our own national interest, will we really risk nuclear retaliation against our civilians in order to strike in response to a nuclear attack on Sydney or Melbourne? Does anybody feel 100% sure about that?

I think the Aussies and many other people will be rethinking independent nuclear deterrent again in the next ten to twenty years.

The relationship between stoicism and the values the Corps tried to instill in undergrads (doing push-ups as mud is thrown, for instance)that Smith describes would seem an interesting topic as well.

American politicians (with about the sole exception of Newt Gingrinch) give no indication of wanting to acknowledge or deal with this.

What is the public’s reaction going to be when something happens which makes this plain… I dont think many people have any clue about the changes rapidly occuring around the world. What is the public’s reaction going to towards our gov’t , which will be exposed (again) as having been completely incompetant and negligant in leading and protecting the nation.

I feel like Sarah Connor sometimes.. it’s depressing.

For me, the above comment is one of the most trenchant observations in the thoughtful, wide-ranging article, an insight that applies as well within the G7, helping to explain the anti-Americanism prevalent among so many Europeans, and raising the specter of our otherwise cultural allies edging over into the camp of the resentful dependents. Perhaps it is on this front where the battle of civilizations will be won or lost.

Elliot in Commnet #15, I agree that the military does have a lot of institutional knowledge passed on, in a way the military is like an apprenticeship. I do agree that it would help if more people with military experience were the ones examining the military mindset, but it is also harder because we do accept certain methods and atitudes as the way to act professionally, ie, “The right way, the wrong way, and the Army way”.

All I can offer is that for those of you who have never served in uniform, you will probably never completely understand us. Servicemembers do appear stoic in many dealing with the public or in times of crisis, it’s called “military bearing”, and that amongst ourselves, we are just as emotional and likely to complain as anyone; we still go out to faxce the task at hand.

I have been reading this blog for about 6 months, and I really enjoy the diversity of topics thought provoking commentary offered here. THe articles are usually more than light reading over coffee, though, and I usually have to read them several times before I feel I can comment on them

My own exprience as low ranking enlisted Marine during Viet Nam was one of learning stoicism as a skill to be employed as needed. We didn’t adopt stoicism as a lifestyle, but employed it when the situation warranted. One could be stoic and control emotion in some cases, yet let it run its full range in others. In many cases it all boiled down to one sentence which has always stayed with me: “You don’t have to like it, you just have to do it.” And we did.

I don’t criticize the people studying and theorizing on this, but do think more progress would be made if they had actually exprienced military training and activity. It’s not something learned from observation; it’s something learned by doing. I really don’t think the military has a lot to learn from these theories, but I do think the theorists have a lot to learn from the military.

And James, I know a whole bunch of people who think just like that. Pity you don’t.

“Horatius”

Then up spake brave Horatius, the master at the gate
‘To every man upon this earth death cometh soon or late.
But how can men die better, than facing fearful odds,
for the ashes of their fathers and the temples of their gods.’

You may know the rest. I didn’t so I looked up the poem, the writer and period and quickly understood that we are no longer tuned in to those values.

And that could very well be our undoing.

Though from a more amateur level (with a lifelong interest in military history, education at The Virginia Military Institute, and only a few years active service as an officer), I find the questions you discuss about the nature of the American military (and others) and the tasks facing it to be of both critical importance and keen interest.

The shift away from rural origins you mention is too little understood in terms of its effects – I am reminded of the remark of a woman friend who grew up on a ranch that ours (the boomers) is the last generation in which most of the people have ever actually been or a farm or known a farmer (since even for those of us who grew up in cities or suburbs in the 1950s, most of us had grandparents or uncles and aunts, and cousins, who were still on farms and ranches.

There is something, too, in the whole question of the why we engage in warfare. It is, perhaps, the biggest divide between those who support the current war and those who oppose it: supporters see the threat from (radical) Islam as essentially existential and those who oppose it see no existential threat and look at the war from the perspective of post-Marxist multiculturalism that views everything as motivated by a desire for economic gain and domination.