"Kill me, Kill me."

[middleofknowwhere]

The problem lies in the structure of the Geneva Conventions. The Conventions are geared toward a state vs. state conflict, which we in the Western world view as the only "legal" form of warfare. When groups other than states engage in warfare, the structure that's suppose to define legal status, minimize civilian suffering etc just isn't there. The detainees at GITMO have been a problem because there is no spelled out definition of what they really are. "illegal combatants" isn't a Convention term beyond the implied meaning that those violating the "rules" are participating in the conflict illegally. How do you minimize civilian suffering when the "enemy" is a civilian hiding amongst civilians in a place where there is no gov't? How do you handle a "civilian" member of a sub-national group that is engaged in open warfare against your military when that civilian is taken prisoner? Is he a POW that then rots in a camp until the end of hostilities as the Geneva Conventions says POW's do? Or is he a criminal to be tried under the justice system of a country that has no jurisdiction where the 'crime' was commited nor is the 'accused' a citizen of the trying country?

This issue is not going to go away. The nature of Warfare has changed and the state has again lost its monopoly on violence. 4th Generation Warfare will continue to confound western countries who persist in attempting to apply nation-state standards to conflicts. A new model is needed. The Geneva Conventions as written are no longer relevant and need to be amended. My greatest fear is that the GITMO problem will serve to encourage other nations or my own to simply kill illegal combatants on the battlefield in order to avoid similar political problems.

[PremP]

So I guess the one aspect we all agree on is that the Geneva Convention is fast becoming obsolete. Maybe its time to sit down and hash out an updated version that is more relevant to todays theatres.

[TaintTickler]

In Letters from Iwo Jima, the Japanese soldiers are brief by an officer who says "this is the uniform of a US medic- he should be your target". True or not, I don't know, but it's plausible that terrorists could be trained in the same way- it may not be a simple case of "which is the greater threat?".

[KOLO]

No one would ever agree though.

[Kashi]

Practitioners of 4th Gen Warfare have known for a long time that targeting medics, chaplins, etc, as well as other injury producing tactics wear down western militaries. The Manchester Al Qaida manual instructs operatives how to identify medics and extols the virtues of killing them. In Vietnam, the VC would create booby traps designed to maim instead of kill because it would take 4 soldiers to carry the stretcher with the wounded man on it thereby eroding the combat effectivness of the unit. I'd have to do some research about the Japanese.

There's been 4 seperate Geneva Convention accords between the 20's and 40's on how to conduct war. I think it's very possible to develop a 5th accord outlining how nation-states can conduct war against sub-national groups. The big issue though is coming to grips with the reality that sub-national groups will not be signers of the accord. It will always be one-sided and only the nation-state will be abiding by the rules. That isn't a whole lot different than the state of the conflict today; there's just no international agreement on what to do with illegal combatants or how to prosecute war against enemies hiding amongst civilians not wearing uniforms, etc. The controversy over GITMO is not a reflection of Al Qaida calling foul and protesting to the UN; it's the combination of a lack of agreement on how to treat such un-defined combatants by the international community and the internal politics of the US. A potential 5th accord could answer many of the questions western militaries will be asking for the forseeable future.