3 thoughts on ““New Rules” For Warfare?

  1. Even considering the fact that this will probably be used as a method for justifying some rather unsavory practices, I do think that there is a legitimate need for a reevaluation of the Geneva Conventions, which were created in an era of pitched, symmetrical warfare.

  2. Even considering the fact that this will probably be used as a method for justifying some rather unsavory practices, I do think that there is a legitimate need for a reevaluation of the Geneva Conventions, which were created in an era of pitched, symmetrical warfare.

  3. We need to be clear about the use of the term ‘war.’ The term ‘war on terrorism’ is merely a metaphor, like the ‘war on drugs’ and the ‘war on poverty.’ None of these terms refer to a real ‘war.’ In the ‘war on poverty,’ surely we’re not trying to kill anyone. Wars are conducted between states and involve the use of armies. Terrorism is stateless. The Geneva Convention is applicable only to genuine warfare. States that defy the rules of the Geneva Convention, or that can’t contol those within the state who defy them, as happened in Lebanon, are responsible for what they do. This should hardly require a revision of the Geneva Convention. We’d better be careful about what we do to the Geneva Convention, taking into account the confusions we create when we call conditions that are not ‘war’ war.

Comments are closed.