The Nature of Conflict and Today’s Civilizational War – Part 1

Humanity has engaged in and suffered the consequences of warfare since the beginning of recorded history (and before).  Conflict usually arises from one of the following motivations:

• Honor – You insulted my family/village/clan/people and thus must pay, or you have attacked an ally and I am bound to come to his defense
• Resources – You have land/resources I want
• Power – You are not subject to my rule—but you will be
• Religion – My god tells me that you must follow him and I am his instrument
• Culture – My civilization is the ultimate form of government and life and you deserve to live as part of it (or under it if need be)

As the end result of conflicts usually entailed the death of everyone from combatants to non-combatants and much destruction of property, laws of armed conflict evolved over time to limit the damage.  Our current law of armed conflict (LOAC) is derived from two main sources: Customary international law arising out of the conduct of nations during hostilities and binding upon all nations, and treaty law (also called conventional law) arising from international treaties and only binds those nations that have ratified a particular treaty. 

LOAC limits the effects of the conflict (reduce damages and casualties), protects combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering, safeguards fundamental rights of combatants and noncombatants, prevents the conflict from becoming worse, and makes it easier to restore peace when the conflict is over.  It does this through the following legal principles:

Military necessity – The application of only that degree of regulated force, not otherwise prohibited by the laws of war, required for the partial or complete submission of the enemy with the least expenditure of life, time and physical resources.  Thus, attacks must be limited to military objectives (i.e., any objects which by their nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage).

Distinction – The requirement to distinguish/discriminate between military objectives and civilian objects (civilian objects are such objects as places of worship, schools, hospitals, and dwellings, but they can lose their protected status if they are used to make an effective contribution to military action).  An attacker must not intentionally attack civilians or employ methods or means (weapons or tactics) that would cause excessive collateral civilian casualties; however, a defender has an obligation to separate civilians and civilian objects (either in the defender’s country or in an occupied area) from military targets. 

Proportionality – You must take into consideration the extent of civilian destruction and probable casualties that will result and, to the extent consistent with the necessities of the military situation, seek to avoid or minimize such casualties and destruction. Civilian losses must be proportionate to the military advantages sought; however, the attacker need not expose its forces to extraordinary risks simply in order to avoid or minimize civilian losses).

Humanity (also referred to as the principle of unnecessary suffering) – It prohibits the employment of any kind or degree of force that is not necessary for the purposes of war (in other words, achieving the partial or complete submission of the enemy with the least possible expenditure of life, time and physical resources).

An aside:  The concept of “Chivalry” addresses the waging of war in accord with well-recognized formalities and courtesies.  For example, it permits lawful ruses, such as camouflage, false radio signals, and mock troop movements, but it forbids treacherous acts (known legally as “perfidy”). These acts involve the misuse of internationally recognized symbols or status to take unfair advantage of the enemy, such as false surrenders, placing anti-aircraft artillery in hospitals or religious sites, and the misuse of the Red Cross or the Red Crescent (e.g., using ambulances for military purposes to move combatants and arms on a battlefield).

As a combat targeteer, I had to follow these principles very closely.  This is the way of conflict in the West.  We know from hard experience that it is not the way of conflict for radical Islam.