The Law of Land Warfare, FM 27-10

greglondon · Nov 21, 2006

for entertainment purposes only.
I don't expect any serious discussions to emerge out of this.
At least, I don't expect anyone to actually change their mind around this.

"The Law of Land Warfare", FM 27-10

http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/FM27-10.htm

greglondon · Nov 21, 2006

http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/Ch2.htm#s4

Unnecessary Killing and Devastation

Particularly in the circumstances referred to in the preceding paragraph, loss of life and damage to property incidental to attacks must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained. Those who plan or decide upon an attack, therefore, must take all reasonable steps to ensure not only that the objectives are identified as military objectives or defended places within the meaning of the preceding paragraph but also that these objectives may be attacked without probable losses in lives and damage to property disproportionate to the military advantage anticipated.

In sieges and bombardments all necessary measures must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

SpookyWriter · Nov 21, 2006

What's your point, Greg? The author admittedly made significant changes to the original Field Manual. Is everything related to military law or conventions subject to civilian interpretation? I'm just curious to understand your motivations since I've learned you do have an agenda to everything posted here so far...

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]1. I changed the font to make it easier to read.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]2. I added color as background to the title.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]3. I amended the note beneath the title to be more understandable.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]4. I deleted a lengthy document before the foreword which required certain amendments to the 1956 version, doing so because I deemed it unnecessary since the revisions are contained in the manual itself and are specifically indicated.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]5. I deleted a brief "authorization" note at the end as being superfluous.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]6. I corrected several obvious spelling and/or typographical errors.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]7. I corrected innumerable intra-document links which would not work in order to, with hope, make them work properly.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]8. I added a few hyperlinks to the text, without altering the text itself.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[/SIZE][/FONT]

SpookyWriter · Nov 21, 2006

Well gee...I didn't have to wait long after all.

greglondon · Nov 21, 2006

SpookyWriter said:
what is your point ... you do have an agenda to everything posted here so far...

current events and political theory

SpookyWriter · Nov 21, 2006

That's not a point, but a title to this forum. Sorry, but I fell for this trick last week. Toodles...

whistlelock · Nov 21, 2006

Yeah, Greg. I really don't see your point. The Army Field Manual says, "try to avoid blowing too much crap up and killing too many people."

What's your issue with that?

Kentuk · Nov 21, 2006

You're using mighty skinny bait Greg.

SpookyWriter · Nov 21, 2006

The field manual is only a guide and not an authoritative document that would be used in an international court of law. Many field manuals, FM's, are issued to military personal not unlike policy and procedures you would find in a corporation.

Besides, the sited manual would not be issued to enlisted personal so it has no direct bearing on how they'd behave in combat. The enlisted personal are issued or given instructions on the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and a Geneva conventions card (which I happen to have issued to me when stationed overseas).

greglondon · Nov 21, 2006

It isn't bait. It was an older discussion from some thread between myself and one of the regulars about Israel's strategic bombing of Lebanon in the 35-day war. At the time, I had to drop it because I couldn't find the specific clause of the geneva convention that applied. So I asked a friend of mine in the military who has to know the rules inside and out for his job. So, there it is. Israel's bombing of Lebanon violated the Geneva Convention. 2.5 billion dollars of damage to the civilian infrastructure, including thousands of civilian homes destroyed, ten thousand tons of oil polluting the coast, schools, churches, mosques, hospitals, ambulances, and a UN base.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Locations_bombed_Aug13.jpg

1,100 Lebanese killed, mostly civilians, 300 children killed.

This is a disproportionate loss of life and damage to property for two military prisoners.

SpookyWriter · Nov 21, 2006

And what has the war (conflict) between Israel and Lebanon got to do with U.S. military field manuals?

I think you stretched so far that the rope burned before it snapped.

William Haskins · Nov 21, 2006

and what does the geneva convention say about fighting out of uniform, stockpiling weapons and artillery in residential neighborhoods and coordinating attacks from civilian areas?

SpookyWriter · Nov 21, 2006

William Haskins said:
and what does the Geneva convention say about fighting out of uniform, stockpiling weapons and artillery in residential neighborhoods and coordinating attacks from civilian areas?

It's perfectly acceptable for American gang-bangers to utilize similar tactics. So, I'm sure if we did declare war on these misguided youths that the international community would quickly send in the Red Cross to check on their incarceration.

greglondon · Nov 21, 2006

William Haskins said:
and what does the geneva convention say about fighting out of uniform, stockpiling weapons and artillery in residential neighborhoods and coordinating attacks from civilian areas?

Fighting makes you a target, in or out of uniform. Whether you fight out in the open in formation wearing the Union Jack uniform of the british solders during the revolutionary war, or whether you wear blue jeans and a T shirt and fight from a heavily populated civlian area, you are a valid target.

But civlians around the combatant (whether the combatant is legal or illegal) are still covered by the GC. If you attack someone in a civilian area, you must protect civilian non combatants. You cannot inflict a disproportionate amount of killing and damage on a civilian area no matter what. and 2.5 billion dollars and a thousand dead civilians is disproportionate to what started off as an attack on an Israeli military unit that resulted in four deaths and two prisoners intended for prisoner exchange.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5207478.stm

UN's Jan Egeland has condemned the devastation caused by Israeli air strikes in Beirut, saying it is a violation of humanitarian law.

He said the "disproportionate response" by Israel was a "violation of international humanitarian law".

Lebanon: 1,100 dead, mostly civilian. 1/3rd children.
Israel: 150 dead, mostly military

MacAllister · Nov 21, 2006

Keep it civil. No personal attacks, folks.

Or personal jabs, for that matter.

SpookyWriter · Nov 21, 2006

MacAllister said:
Keep it civil. No personal attacks, folks.

Or personal jabs, for that matter.

Was someone being rude? Not me, I hope?

whistlelock · Nov 21, 2006

Greg, part of that "keep casualties down" bit is fighting in uniform.

Can't fight in civies, hide amoung civies, stockpile arms and ammo amoung civies, and then complaing about civilian deaths.

how many of those lives could have been spared if Hezebolah dressed in uniform, maintained seperate quarters and posts, and had not hidden behind women and children?

And while you're finger pointing at Isreal, how many of the Geneva convetions is Hezbolah/Lebenon breaking? Did they even sign them?

It takes two to fight a war.

robeiae · Nov 21, 2006

"Civilian" infrastructure is not civilian if it is being used for carrying out hostile actions. Roads, bridges, railways, and the like are all legitimate targets. To whit:

Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 28: The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

Actually, I think Israel could have inflicted a great deal more damage and killed many more civilians than it actually did. At what point did the damage and death toll become "disproportionate"?

Cav Guy · Nov 21, 2006

And signing the Geneva Conventions doesn't guarantee that a country is going to follow them. North Vietnam signed them, and then ignored them unless there was political gain to be made. Nazi Germany had signed them, and only followed them when they saw fit. I also seem to recall that there are provisions exempting anti-partisan and guerilla operations from GC guidelines, since that's considered combatting bandits and not an actual military conflict. There are also, if memory serves, provisions requiring forces not to hide in churches, schools, and other essentially civilian areas.

robeiae · Nov 21, 2006

whistlelock said:
And while you're finger pointing at Isreal, how many of the Geneva convetions is Hezbolah/Lebenon breaking? Did they even sign them?

Lebanon is a signatory to the Geneva conventions. But the claim is that the attacks against Israel were not authorized by the Lebanese government, so Lebanon could not be said to have broken any of the Conventions.

William Haskins · Nov 21, 2006

our friend greg is basically saying that when hamas, hezbollah and other militant groups in the region fire rockets indiscriminately into israeli civilian neighborhoods, only two things can potentially happen that he could agree with:

one is that israel takes no action and, indeed, gives in to whatever demands are made.

the other is sit there and die.

logic does not drive such thinking; nor does any clear-thinking notion of justice. the only thing that can possibly explain it is a persistent and inflexible hostility toward israel.

SpookyWriter · Nov 21, 2006

I'm going to bed. I still don't see what this has to do with field manuals issued to U.S. Army officers. Pffftt....

whistlelock · Nov 21, 2006

OOooooOoooohhhh. gotcha.

Isreal is a big meanie because they responded to attack on their soldiers with superior force.

They probably should have just filed a greivence with the local sheriffs office or county baliff.

oswann · Nov 21, 2006

William Haskins said:
our friend greg is basically saying that when hamas, hezbollah and other militant groups in the region fire rockets indiscriminately into israeli civilian neighborhoods, only two things can potentially happen that he could agree with...

And I figure if you democratically vote into power a terrorist group you must prepare yourself for, well, terror.

Os.

Birol · Nov 21, 2006

The full text states "disproportionate to the military advantage anticipated." This provides a lot of leeway and excludes a simple direct ratio of loss of life/loss of life.

Military advantage is about more than ground gained, hostages freed, and combatants and non-combatants killed or wounded.

The Law of Land Warfare, FM 27-10

Planet Wookie techno geek

Planet Wookie techno geek

Planet Wookie techno geek

Whiskey Rebel

I want to write what I want to write

Planet Wookie techno geek

poet

Planet Wookie techno geek

'Twas but a dream of thee

Whiskey Rebel

Touch and go

Living in the backstory

Touch and go

poet

Whiskey Rebel

Grumpy

Around and About