The rules of war: too '20th Century'?

The rules of war: too '20th Century'?
By Paul Reynolds World Affairs Correspondent, BBC News website

John Reid called for new rules of war in a new ageThe British Defence Secretary John Reid has called for changes in the rules of war in the face of "a deliberate regression towards barbaric terrorism by our opponents."

He has put forward three areas for
re-examination:

The treatment of international terrorists

The definition of an "imminent threat" to make it easier to take pre-emptive action

When to intervene to stop a humanitarian crisis.
'Anomaly'

Perhaps the most controversial element was the first.
If we do not [re-examine these conventions], we risk continuing to fight a 21st Century conflict with 20th Century rules
John ReidDefence Secretary

Although he framed his speech in the form of raising questions rather than proposing answers, he came close to suggesting that the way to end the "anomaly" of the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay was to change international law.

"Anomaly" is the word chosen by the British Prime Minister Tony Blair to describe Guantanamo and it has never really been defined. Mr Reid went some way towards doing that.

There are two ways of ending an anomaly - remove the anomaly or change the situation that makes it one. He appeared to favour the latter.

"On the one hand it is against our values," he said during questions after a speech to the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in London.
"But we need to understand how we got to this unsatisfactory anomaly. It is not enough to say that it is wrong. We ought to discuss how it happened."

More @ http://tinyurl.com/phhf2 news.bbc.co.uk

There is no 'anomaly' rather what has happened is warfare with all its attendant horrors is once again being waged as it was meant to be waged. The 'romantic notion' that warfare can be waged in a, 'gentlemanly fashion' is and always has been just that, a 'romantic notion'. Warfare should be waged by using whatever advantages you have to there fullest application.

Quote from the article: "a deliberate regression towards barbaric terrorism by our opponents."

What the terrorists are doing is not a regression towards barbaric terrorism, its simply using the one advantage they have as best they can. Terrorists cannot win set piece battles against modern professional armies so they use the one tactic they have that works well. This has been true any time the odds have been overwhelming in ones sides favor. It was true during the American Revolution and its true today.

The only way nation states can defeat terrorists is to kill them in greater numbers than they can be replaced and to allow no sanctuary for terrorists to retreat into and regroup. In addition the very idea that warfare must have a 'set of rules' that must be adhered to is ludicrous to say the least. How can anyone believe that the most destructive of human endovers is about rules and gentlemanly conduct.

There is only one rule in warfare: "Apply as much force as can be applied and utterly destroy your enemy." Winning in warfare is all that counts and all that has ever counted.

Read Sun's treatise on warfare and you'll see what I mean.

Here http://tinyurl.com/36nvw www.chinapage.com