Good response. But I guess here's what I had in mind.
The Geneva convention only constrains the actions of the NATIONS who are signatories to it. If we are at war with one of those signatories, both sides are bound by it, and it guarantees better treatment of uniformed POW's from both combatant countries.
Increasingly we find ourselves in conflict with groups which do not recognize the constraints of the Geneva convention, groups that don't even represent a national entity. Our POWs are not treated according to the Geneva convention, because their captors are NOT bound by it. WE, on the other hand, for some unexplainable reason, are expected by the rest of the world to abide by it against such an enemy.
I want something new, not necessarily scrapping the Geneva convention, but amending it to be relevant to 21st century asymmetrical conflict - something that requires an explicit agreement between ANY warring parties to agree to be bound certain "rules of war" which are already outlined pretty well in the Geneva convention.
Not this "The undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments represented at the Diplomatic Conference held at Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949, for the purpose of establishing a Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, have agreed as follows:" crap.
I want something that specifically requires ANY warring parties, including "insurgents" not representing a national government to explicitly embrace the agreement, or to forfeit it's protections. The UN could oversee the establishment or rejection of such an agreement as part of it's discussion of the conflict in the Security Council.
With such an amendment, we would not necessarily abandon our own humanity in our conduct of war; but neither would we be held responsible for adhering to a set of rules of war that the enemy has refused to abide by. No more, "it's OK for the enemy to cut off your head on Al Jazeera, but if you put a pair of panties on his head, you're gonna go to prison" stuff.
This one needs more care. You could make the case that Hezbullah wasn't hiding behind their own civilization but rather Lebanon's. Is the civilian population willing supporters of terrorists such as the Palestinians or are they a people held hostage like Iraq and Lebanon?
You're darn right it needs more care. Were the civilians in the villages that had been turned into Hezbollah strongholds captives, innocents who had their towns taken over by thugs, or were they a willing, welcoming civilian infrastructure that supported Hezbollah's presence?
My initial reaction when things started was the former, but now I'm not so sure.
We learned, among other things, that many of the southern Lebanese considered Hezbollah to be their Great Liberators after the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon some years back. They saw Hezbollah as their first line of defense in case the Israelis invaded again.
Now, we look at it a little differently, and try to make the point that "if you didn't have terrorists living among your southern Lebanese population centers using them as a base to attack your neighbor Israel, then you wouldn't need to worry about the Israelis invading you". Now, it seems that the Christian villages on the southern border understand that, but the muslim villages don't. So they willingly let Hezbollah live in their midst and they rent out their houses to Hezbollah to store rockets.
Those people are not hostages. If they didn't want to live with Hezbollah, they could move north. Even if Hezbollah prevented them from leaving their villages during the recent conflict, they could have left before all this started. I know if my neighborhood was taken over by thugs, I'd move. They made their choice.
You are drifting to the dark side. Against Hezbullah fighters or all populations whose leadership supports Hezbullah?
I knew that "genocide" comment would get a response from somebody! And Lord forgive me, my mind has been going into some pretty dark places lately.
I mean, against all Hezbullah fighters. Make every attempt to warn "innocent" civilians to leave in order to avoid collateral damage. Accept the fact that if you are fighting an entity that is not a signatory to the Geneva convention, they may try to use unwilling "human shields", and any blame for any misfortune that befalls these innocents is blood on the hands of those who held them hostage and hid behind them, not yours. And then, with a clear conscience, unleash Hell upon the enemy. Destroy them as completely as possible using methods that will kill them and not expose your troops to harm. As I said in my last post, fuel-air explosives.
You know, this all reminds me of an old Bill Cosby skit from back in his stand-up comic days, where he asked the question "What if the American Revolution was run according to football rules?"
"At the beginning of the game, the ref tosses the coin and says 'home team wins the toss and chooses to defend'
"Visiting team will be required to wear bright red uniforms and march in straight lines out in the open. Home team can dress in dark clothing and hide behind rocks and trees and shoot at the visiting team".
It was funny then, but it's not when we let the enemy dictate the rules of the conflict in real life, today.
Technically, I think that's what we have now. But that brings up two points.
First, what do we do when signatories don't abide by it? I mean Hizbullah agreed to the cease fire which effectively calls for there disarmament in Lebanon, yet they already have announced their intention not to abide by it. Even if they signed the Geneva convention, they are unlikely to abide by it. What then?
It's a gentlemen's agreement that has no teeth, and not all signatories are gentlemen. It does shape world opinion of which side is good and bad, so it probably plays a role in military aid, but how many countries are willing to jump into a war on behalf of side A because side B fouled?
Second what are appropriate combat methodologies when confronting non-signatories?
As you point out, the world opinion is still that we should abide by it. The combatants that we have restrained in Guantanamo aren't under the Geneva convention's protection, but we mostly adhere to it anyway, because we are a civilized people.
There are some things we don't want to do in war, like genocide, because of our own beliefs, regardless of whether the other side does them or not. We don't intentionally target non-combatants. We don't use rape and torture as a means of terrorizing the enemy.
But what about torture to extract military information? We usually don't, because we don't want our own people tortured. But against an enemy that will torture our own regardless, should we not use such means as a tool of war? I don't know. It has pros and cons.
Again, the country that won't is considered to be a more peaceful country and more likely to win world support. The very use of such methods, leads to greater acceptance and use of such methods. Do we avoid it completely, so we don't have to draw the line? Those are tough issues that need to be fleshed out.