War and the Natural Order

Loose lips sink ships. When I was a younger man, that was the mantra of the day. Today, armchair generals and speculating pundits abound as the unprecedented stream of war reporting reaches a critical mass. A civilian populace which has been largely ignorant of international realities must rapidly learn to process information, some beyond anything they ever thought to encounter. The popular media outlets can no longer act as a filter and individual citizens are left to place information in proper context. Confusion is natural as is, with all growing experiences, a degree of discomfort and despair.

There is no cause for concern. As the ‘talking heads’ second-guess and pontificate, we must remember these voices of gloom do not know the war plan. However well intentioned, they are not our leaders, this is not their war to fight or command. Just as we would not seek out a house painter to perform an appendectomy, we should not look to reporters or congressmen to command our troops. Let the professionals do their jobs in the field while we do ours at home.

Some matters are more perplexing to the uninitiated than most and a goodly number of people have found themselves at a loss to understand the concept of war by rules. I refer, not to the rules such as the Geneva Convention, but to the ancient traditions of common law which govern battlefield behavior—the laws that in all of human history have been broken by only an infamous few. The very idea of war having rules seems contradictory on its surface but there are reasons, deeply serious reasons.

The most fundamental focus of a government is its people. This ranges broadly; in free nations the focus is to serve and protect, in dictatorships, to have and to hold. But no matter what the intent or application, a sovereign government carries an inescapable responsibility to its people. A country without citizens is but a wasteland. Even wars of conquest and aggression are fought for things, to have land and people. Even the powers of fear and tyranny are exercised against people. No matter how misguided or ambitious, at its core, all governments revolve around their people, for good or ill. Not because of Conventions or treaties but because of the human condition and because, after the war, there is still a tomorrow. It is because of this fundamental relation that the violation of these rules is a crime that transcends nations and borders.

The two most striking examples of these venerable rules of war are the flag of truce and the segregation of civilians. To attack under a flag of truce or surrender is significant because, to do so, is to make surrender more difficult, eventually to the point of precluding surrender as an option or leading the victor to slaughter the surrendering forces rather than trust to the truce. This action makes parley impossible, thereby preventing any peaceful armistice. To fail to respect the segregation of civilians is to take actions such as garrisoning troops among civilians, disguising troops as civilians, using civilians as troop shields, or, most evil of all, to slaughter ones own civilians in an attempt to gain military or political advantage over the opponent. The ultimate outcome of these actions is to create disproportionate civilian casualties and to provoke the victor into firing at civilians due to the inability to distinguish between combatant and civilian. This is not to say that civilian casualties are to be avoided at all costs or even that predominantly civilian targets may not be assailed. The crime is to act in a manner designed to maximize ones own civilian deaths.

Actions breaking the rules of war violate the most ancient of human mores and is perfidious on two fronts. It deliberately tempts even the most noble of men to commit heinous acts for self-defense; encouraging the enemy to engage in war crimes against the very people the government is tasked to protect. It is also a violation of the natural order; it is a government placing itself over its people. This inversion comprises a forfeiture of sovereignty and the right of self-determination by the offending government. It is the final litmus test, separating regimes, no matter how vile, from true brigands. Once natural law has been shrugged aside, those who “command” are merely chief among thugs.

In the current theatre, the actions of our enemy have demonstrated the utter illegitimacy of their existence. If it were ever in doubt, their commission of crimes against the rules of war and the natural order makes it abundantly clear, we are not at war with another nation. We are clearing out a nest of especially repulsive and coercive vermin.