Combatant-NonCombatant Distinction

#1
T

therealUT

Rational Thought Allowed?
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
30,347
Likes
4,191
#1
With less and less avowedly non-Representative governments left in the world, does the Combatant-NonCombatant distinction (which functions to keep Civilians from being directly targeted) still make sense? Or, should we side with Orwell, who made the following statement:

War is not avoidable at this stage of history, and since it has to happen it does not seem to me a bad thing that others should be killed besides young men. I wrote in 1937: 'Sometimes it is a comfort to me to think that the aeroplane is altering the conditions of war. Perhaps when the next war comes we may see that sight unprecedented in all history, a jingo with a bullet hole in him'. We haven't seen that yet...but at any rate the suffering of this war has been shared out more evenly than the last one was. The immunity of civilians, one of the things that have made war possible, has been shattered...I don't regret that. I can't feel that war is 'humanized' by being confined to the slaughter of the young and becomes 'barbarous' when the old get killed as well. War is of its nature barbarous, it is better to admit that. If we see ourselves as the savages we are, some improvement is possible.

19 May 1944
Click to expand...
 
#2
#2
without a doubt, the focus on minimizing civilian casualties has made the US' ROE a lot more dangerous for soldiers on the ground
 
#3
#3
MG1968 said:
without a doubt, the focus on minimizing civilian casualties has made the US' ROE a lot more dangerous for soldiers on the ground
Click to expand...

Agreed; however, you have to keep in mind that if you get rid of the Combatant-NonCombatant distinction, then you could also end up legitimizing the terrorist attacks in 2001 (as well as most terrorist attacks throughout history). Removing the Combatant-NonCombatant distinction might make it safer for Soldiers on the ground; however, it might make it much more dangerous for citizens back at the 'homefront'.
 
#4
#4
When the POTUS decicides to go to war, it should be left to the warriors to win at whatever cost. No enemy life is worth more than an American.
 
#9
#9
Burhead said:
Not at the cost of slaughtering thousands of innocent people.
Click to expand...

Did I compare one American life to slaughtering thousands of innocents? No so you can take that comparison that you just pulled out of left field elsewhere.
 
#10
#10
TennTradition said:
What does what I desire have to do with inherent value of life?
Click to expand...

Well it is reality that in war lives get turned into pieces of a brutish and incredibly violent "game". If my country is involved in one, I then become involved because what happens to my country directly impacts my life. Therefore, I am going to assign more value, due to my desires, to a life that is fighting for the side which is representing my country.
 
#11
#11
slh1089 said:
Well it is reality that in war lives get turned into pieces of a brutish and incredibly violent "game". If my country is involved in one, I then become involved because what happens to my country directly impacts my life. Therefore, I am going to assign more value, due to my desires, to a life that is fighting for the side which is representing my country.
Click to expand...

Ok. So the body fighting for you is more inherently valuable because it gets you what you want.

I suppose it depends on value systems.

I can agree about more important to your lifestyle. I'm reluctant to agree that this gives one's life more value.

Besides, we aren't only talking about the combatants here.
 
Last edited:
#12
#12
Once the enemy has no borders and dresses as a civilian, is it the fault of a soldier if he is tricked into killing the civilian or the combatants fault for endangering the civilians lives when he made the step of disguising himself as said civilian?
 
#13
#13
When I say we're not only talking about the combatants, I'm lumping US non-combatants in there as well as foreign. The OP wasn't restricted to foreign civilians where combatants used them as shields or blended in with them.
 
#14
#14
I am well-aware. And I will venture to say that if you ask a foreign national to choose between the life of an american or a soldier from his or her own country that try will choose their fellow countryman.
 
#15
#15
slh1089 said:
I am well-aware. And I will venture to say that if you ask a foreign national to choose between the life of an american or a soldier from his or her own country that try will choose their fellow countryman.
Click to expand...

Choosing the life could have less to do with acknowledging one has more inherent or innate value and more to with acknowledging that you place more value on that life...either emotionally or pragmatically.
 
#16
#16
slh1089 said:
I am well-aware. And I will venture to say that if you ask a foreign national to choose between the life of an american or a soldier from his or her own country that try will choose their fellow countryman.
Click to expand...

Does it matter what a foreign national says? Is one's value of life higher or lower depending upon where that person was born? If so, why is such a value attached to a situation that an individual has absolutely no power over (I did not choose my place of birth; I imagine that you did not choose your place of birth, either)?

If there is no Combatant-NonCombatant distinction, then another mechanism must be in place to keep each American Citizen from being a legitimate target of war. This mechanism cannot simply reduce to a purely subjective preference in which you value Americans more highly than, say, Iraqis. If it does reduce to to such a subjective preference, then I would imagine that Iraqis would give subjective preference to the lives of Iraqis over the lives of Americans. This, of course, would only lead to a circle and to competing claims, each with as much legitimacy as the counter. Moreover, both morals and natural human rights must be universal. Obviously, such a subjective criterion is not universal.
 
#17
#17
TennTradition said:
Choosing the life could have less to do with acknowledging one has more inherent or innate value and more to with acknowledging that you place more value on that life...either emotionally or pragmatically.
Click to expand...

Exactly, in war that is what it comes down to. If you were being shot at, or in some similar situation where your life is at risk, then innate value of one's life will go out the door.
 
#18
#18
therealUT said:
Does it matter what a foreign national says? Is one's value of life higher or lower depending upon where that person was born? If so, why is such a value attached to a situation that an individual has absolutely no power over (I did not choose my place of birth; I imagine that you did not choose your place of birth, either)?

If there is no Combatant-NonCombatant distinction, then another mechanism must be in place to keep each American Citizen from being a legitimate target of war. This mechanism cannot simply reduce to a purely subjective preference in which you value Americans more highly than, say, Iraqis. If it does reduce to to such a subjective preference, then I would imagine that Iraqis would give subjective preference to the lives of Iraqis over the lives of Americans. This, of course, would only lead to a circle and to competing claims, each with as much legitimacy as the counter. Moreover, both morals and natural human rights must be universal. Obviously, such a subjective criterion is not universal.
Click to expand...

I'm not searching for a universal moral claim. Simply stating that the life of one fighting for you is (or should be) more important than against one that is not. Idealism doesn't really go over well in war. One is best served to be pragmatic.
 
#19
#19
slh1089 said:
Exactly, in war that is what it comes down to. If you were being shot at, or in some similar situation where your life is at risk, then innate value of one's life will go out the door.
Click to expand...

This is good as it is applied to a infantryman being fired upon by a "civilian"; however, in war, not every situation is one of imminent self-defense for the individual actors. Strategic bombers and Apache pilots are rarely in situations in which their own life is at risk; yet, they are often responsible for the destruction of innocent, civilian lives in situations where they are not provided any type of tactical air support to ground units.
 
#20
#20
therealUT said:
This is good as it is applied to a infantryman being fired upon by a "civilian"; however, in war, not every situation is one of imminent self-defense for the individual actors. Strategic bombers and Apache pilots are rarely in situations in which their own life is at risk; yet, they are often responsible for the destruction of innocent, civilian lives in situations where they are not provided any type of tactical air support to ground units.
Click to expand...

Not the pilot's fault when civilians are killed because the militant, who is the target, decided to use their location for hiding.
 
#21
#21
slh1089 said:
I'm not searching for a universal moral claim. Simply stating that the life of one fighting for you is (or should be) more important than against one that is not. Idealism doesn't really go over well in war. One is best served to be pragmatic.
Click to expand...

Are you stating that the life of an individual who is fighting for you is more valuable than the life of an individual who is fighting against you? Or, are you stating that the life of an individual who is fighting for you is more valuable than the life of an individual who is not fighting?

I do not agree with either of the claims you are making; however, I would appreciate it if you could clarify which claim you are making.
 
#22
#22
slh1089 said:
Not the pilot's fault when civilians are killed because the militant, who is the target, decided to use their location for hiding.
Click to expand...

Dresden. Coventry. What militants were hiding in those towns?

What militants were around when Apache pilots engaged and killed nine teenagers who were collecting firewood?
 
#23
#23
slh1089 said:
I'm not searching for a universal moral claim. Simply stating that the life of one fighting for you is (or should be) more important than against one that is not. Idealism doesn't really go over well in war. One is best served to be pragmatic.
Click to expand...

More valuable...or more important to you?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top