4 ms·

... as opposed to the unpunished crimes acknowledged to have been committed by State actors? I really don't see why you draw a distinction. War crimes are war

... as opposed to the unpunished crimes acknowledged to have been committed by State actors? I really don't see why you draw a distinction. War crimes are war crimes, and should be punished regardless of the perpetrators.

calgoo 11y ago
Of course they should, and I dont argue against that. However, I see private actors such as Blackwater (or whatever he calls it today), that directly make money of the war, and are not held accountable at all are a huge problem that needs to be dealt with. Regarding state actors, I am 100% for punishing them, but see this as a bigger issue of corruption of morals and ethics in general. In the military i see the issue as a failure in the oversight processes and support frameworks. Military has always been secretive about their mistakes etc, which in my mind is understandable (not excusable). However, it seams like the compartmentalizing of the different areas of operations have completely sealed off the solders from any kind of support framework. Which means that anything that should be reported, never gets to the people who needs to see it. This last part applies to the Blackwater types as well, with probably even more pressure to not do anything and look the other way etc.
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  Sure. But you seemed to be implying that just being a mercenary - regardless of whether you committed any war crimes - ought to be in and of itself a crime. Perhaps I misunderstood.
- lmm 11y ago
  I still don't see the difference. Maybe state-military generals don't stand to profit directly, but they have plenty to gain from war - promotion, influence, status - money is attractive not for itself but for what it represents. So I don't think there's any inherent problem with one that doesn't occur with the other - either way you need to beware of principal-agent problems and ensure that your actions are actually working towards your goals.

calgoo 11y ago

Of course they should, and I dont argue against that. However, I see private actors such as Blackwater (or whatever he calls it today), that directly make money of the war, and are not held accountable at all are a huge problem that needs to be dealt with. Regarding state actors, I am 100% for punishing them, but see this as a bigger issue of corruption of morals and ethics in general. In the military i see the issue as a failure in the oversight processes and support frameworks. Military has always been secretive about their mistakes etc, which in my mind is understandable (not excusable). However, it seams like the compartmentalizing of the different areas of operations have completely sealed off the solders from any kind of support framework. Which means that anything that should be reported, never gets to the people who needs to see it. This last part applies to the Blackwater types as well, with probably even more pressure to not do anything and look the other way etc.

duncan_bayne 11y ago
Sure. But you seemed to be implying that just being a mercenary - regardless of whether you committed any war crimes - ought to be in and of itself a crime. Perhaps I misunderstood.
lmm 11y ago
I still don't see the difference. Maybe state-military generals don't stand to profit directly, but they have plenty to gain from war - promotion, influence, status - money is attractive not for itself but for what it represents. So I don't think there's any inherent problem with one that doesn't occur with the other - either way you need to beware of principal-agent problems and ensure that your actions are actually working towards your goals.