|
I don't think any General dares to be a MacArthur or a Patton these days -even MacArthur or Patton wouldn't dare to do today what they did back then. War has become a media event, and you have to play by the rules, such as they are. The dilemma is that the nature of conflict is evolving faster than the law. Civilians, the media, and technology all impact the present operational environment. The line between combatants and non-combatants has become blurred and humanitarian issues are coming under world scrutiny.
According to the definition of "Declaration of War" under treaty law, a "just" war (Jus ad bellum) embodies these components:
1) Just cause
2) Last resort
3) Lawful declaration
4) Political objectives proportionate to costs of fighting
5) Reasonable chance of success
6) Rightful intentions
Under international law, the UN charter, Iraq did not break any law that would have necessitated our attack on that nation. The fact that Saddam was a despot and opposed to the idea of Western democracy is not sufficient justification for what we did under international law. There has been no proof EVER that Saddam intended to destroy the US or that any attack by Iraq upon the US was imminent. In theory,our military commanders could one day find themselves facing a war crimes tribunal because of this.
Naturally, such an outcome is unlikely, given the military superiority of the US over other nations, but the thought must give our commanders in the field some pause, since they have studied the laws of war and the international implications of breaking them.
|