i'm sorry about the above post. sometimes the mind is in a dark place and you should keep your mouth shut

I'm really glad you didn't. It was the most interesting post in this thread, including the OP.

Seriously, thanks for sharing.

Absolutely. We know you love children and have been on active service. You're the best expert we have.

And yeah, an eleven year old who is acting as a messenger for the Talibs is very likely to be firing a gun with them in five years time.

I believe in those societies 12 isn't a child anymore, they're expected to be a productive member of the family pretty early. If the family business is insurgence, there's no question about the morality. They, like most kids, want to please their father.

This has been a really interesting discussion.

The main reason I put it into the philosophy section, rather than politics or current events is because it is so challenging. There are no easy answers, indeed there don't seem to be any easy questions come to that.

Thinking more about this, the Geneva convention and all that was fine for the regular symmetrical wars of the pre-1955 sort.

We're here in these uniforms, they're over there in those uniforms, over yonder are civilians in no uniforms at all.

So the rules are - as far as possible - to help guys in matching uniforms, kill or capture or drive off those in rival uniforms (within certain rules like no torturing prisoners) and avoid hurting the civvies .

I think the general ideas behind this are still valid, but applying them in asymmetrical warfare is increasingly difficult, especially with a clever and ruthless enemy that will exploit any limits we impose on our selves.

As Dana said, no easy answer.

None of those tactics are new. Standard practice all through the Korean War.

Key to defeating an American unit was to take out its mortars and artillery. N Koreans would mix with the refugees. Then flood into the rear where they would attack the artillery and mortar support. Leaving the Americans seriously exposed. A first US military unit in combat in Korea was quickly defeated this way.

The solution was simple. Expect it to happen and plan for it. Unfortunately, not all units were prepared for such standard tactics. Or the tactics were deployed in a fashion unexpectedly. But every military unit must have plans to dealing with civilians before entering that battle. Especially training. Superior training of American infantrymen kept acts of immorality so low. Considering the incompetancy that put them there in Mission Accomplished.

"Morality" breaks down when top brass is lying or puts those soldiers in an unresolvable situation. That was Nam. Resulting massacres occur when enlistedmen are left to become victims of their incompetant commanders. Loss of morality is a symptom of the resulting frustration.

1. Blaming loss of morality on bad leadership is demeaning to soldiers. Soldiers are not sheep who blindly follow "bad" leadership and become baby killers and village burners. Soldiers have just as much an obligation to not follow unlawful orders as to follow lawful orders. The closest thing to what you might be talking about is that leaders set the cultural tone for a unit.

2. The current asymmetric war fare in Afghanistan has nothing to do with your Korean vignette of mixing with refugees and taking out an arty battery. The Afghans are out matched, the only way they can fight the American Army is through asymmetric warfare. It's almost more of a harassment then a battle. A quite deadly harassment but all the same they cannot stand up to us on a classic battle field. I would do the same in their shoes.

Men women and children can be armed combatants on the battlefield. At the point of battle, it does not matter how or why they got there. If another combatant is using a weapon soldiers have the right to protect themselves. There is nothing amoral about this.

And that’s OK. There are those with a wider range of adaptability who can do it if the success of the mission depends on it. Those people are identified through psychological screening for placement in various special operations units and the process doesn't stop there. They are continuously evaluated throughout their tenure by their superiors and periodically re-interviewed by psychologists. If at anytime they lose that flexibility, they're transitioned back to the conventional military which is better for it. Do you know that there are US Army Special Forces qualified doctors (Green Beret doctors) and they don't have a conflict between their Hippocratic oath and working among the killing elite. It's all about being able to see your little corner of the overall mission in perspective. Some can do it, some can't. It doesn't make one better than the other, just different and better suited. Fewer issues to reconcile when they're removed from the situation.

PS for laughs: I used to teach the medical aspects of low intensity conflicts to classes of physicians in which one of them would inevitably ask [words to the effect] "What's it like to be a Green Beret?" My reply was "I don't know, I'll ask it." I'd pull my rolled up beret out of my trouser cargo pocket, hold it in front of my face and say "What's it like to be a Green Beret ?" Then I'd tell the Docs it said "It's a lot like being the covering on a pool table." [they're both made of green felt]

CA falls within the Spec. Ops. community and by the time one reaches Master Sergeant some SF rubs off on you. :cool:

If thinking myopically, then both wars are different. If thinking strategically, then concepts even understood over 1000 years ago, define both. Tactics were different. But strategically similar.

I was asking you to do something that many cannot. View the bigger picture. Obviously the similarities between Korea, Nam, and Mission Accomplished make that obvious. Do not get bogged down in minutae such as whether they attack mortars or convoys.

You have also assumed every Private has the mindset of an adult. If true, then My Lai never happened. It that case, even non-coms were so frustrated as to participate in a massacre.

Many enlistedmen are emotional. As are their civilian counterparts. Many stop acting as an adult when frustration, created by bad leadership, changes attitudes. It is inevitable. As noted previously, training means less soldiers did what was more routine in Nam. But the reality does not change because they attack mortars rather than convoys.

Meanwhile better training does not avert an inrrefutible fact. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Incompetent leadership at highest levels in both Nam and Mission Accomplished explain so many unnecessarily civilian deaths.

Does that come off with soap and hot water???

Further thought.

The rules also include not disguising yourself as a civilian, not hiding behind civilians, and not mixing military and civilian/humanitarian facilities.

It is the breakdown in these rules that puts so much stress on the other rules about not harming civilians.

It is the asymmetric nature of wars like Afghanistan that push one side to hide amongst civilians.

They give you guys soap and hot water? Ha! I guess it pays to toe the company line. Next thing you know you'll be telling me they give you three squares a day instead of making you catch your own snakes. :D

Yet we let our police shed their uniforms, mix with civilians, don gang uniforms to infiltrate their organizations, and conduct sting operations to lure people into committing crimes so they can be removed from society.

But then our domestic enemies are right in our own backyards, not far-far away like our foreign enemies where they're someone else's problem. It's good to be able to afford to be armchair moralists; or, is that hypocrites ... maybe they've become synonymous as English is a living language.

American soldiers take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. When they see the double standard, the ones who haven't been brainwashed learn to recognize a "morality" of convenience designed to appease some people's fickle sensitivities.