Let’s invade Geneva! The Conventions don’t stop the jihadists from beheading. I say, take along with the troops, some ACLU and the Humane Assoce. as we run into the Islamos. Allow the two orgs. to interrogate and cry over them. Then kill ‘em and threaten the two orgs. with a deal in which we trade them to Iran for some nice rugs.
True, but the conventions keep the civilised world from doing the things that the baddies do, for if we did, then we would be no better than the enemy we are trying to destroy. Its like trying to defeat Nazi Germany with Stalins Russia, no good comes from it.
Also, as much as the Coalition would enjoy being able to dictate who and what comes in and out of Iraq, we can’t. Iraq is a sovereign nation, and we are there at the request of Iraq and the UN. Thats why they can avoid calling it an occupation.
Two, really bad things, happen when you violate the Geneva Convention.
1. Your own soldiers know they stand little chance of avoiding torture if captured. It makes them extremely hesitant to enter certain combat situations, and much more likely to break ranks and run when holding on just a few more minutes coiuld have secured victory for your side.
The longer a given battle goes on, the more likely it is to reach a point where both sides are evenly matched and playing “chicken”. Uneven contests quickly turn into a rout for one side or the other. When both sides are suffering heavy losses, oit can be a matter of almost random chance as to which one loses nerve and breaks first. You can’t give away the edge of the moral high ground, and at least the hope that captured prisoners will be treated humanely if you want to win the close ones.
2. When you order your men to break the Conventions, they know you are acting against orders and doctrine, in effect, putting your own priorities higher than the war’s original objectives. In so doing, you give them every excuse they need to act exactl;y the same way, except then they put THIER personal interests first, not yours, not the country’s, they lose all sight of the bigger picture that is critical when asking men to lay down their lives, knowing the risks going in.
When you order your men to commit atrocities, they can either obey or disobey, no other choices are possible. If they disobey, you have lost control of them, and you have lost the ability to fight with them before battle is even joined.
If they obey you, they disgust themselves, they blame you for it, and again, you have given away what was an effective fighting force before you crossed the line.
Honing a group of men to a keen fighting edge, and yet preventing them from crossing the line on their own is a delicate balance. It takes everything you have, and even then you may find yourself in a position where your men have been pushed beyond their limits, given into extreme temptation by extreme provocation, and broken the rules.
Of you want to keep your army in terms of it remaining an effective fighting force, respect, honor and obedience demand that you make examples of those who cross the line, in the hope it will prevent others from giving in when there is reason to do so.
Of the two reasons listed above, practicality and self interest far outweight the fears of men who will probably be mistreated if captured anyway.
The primary reason to respect the Geneva Conventions is because it’s the only way to maintain your own army in the medium and long term views. You could even argue that its a matter of practicality over honor, but I believe that the two merge into one and the same.