4 ms·

I am aware that warfare implies deadly violence by definition. But civilized warfare should bound and focus that violence towards the accomplishment of rational

I am aware that warfare implies deadly violence by definition. But civilized warfare should bound and focus that violence towards the accomplishment of rational objectives while preserving a minimum of human rights. I was under the impression that, under Geneva Conventions, non-combatant, medical units should not be the subject of disproportionate enemy "attention", in spite of the obvious greater military value of nullifying a multiplication factor for the enemy (each doctor can treat and potentially send back to the front a great number of combatant units that would otherwise result in casualties). I am not talking about an operation assuming any risks in order to spare enemy doctors, but if the whole point of the operation is to take down the doctors in the first place, I'd call that shady. It is equivalent to gunning down unarmed civilian peasants in order to deny food to the enemy's forces. I do not think that was allowed in Geneva Conventions either, though I am well aware that US people has an incredible and almost infinite capacity to look the other side when their forces engage in that kind of issues.

mpyne 12y ago
> I am not talking about an operation assuming any risks in order to spare enemy doctors, but if the whole point of the operation is to take down the doctors in the first place, I'd call that shady. Targeting doctors would be flat out illegal, if marked as doctors. But recovering wounded (which is what's being described here) is not a job performed by doctors or medics in these specific cases. Even for U.S. forces, the initial extraction of wounded soldiers is almost always performed by other soldiers on the battlefield so that the the medic (normally only one) can work in a somewhat safer spot while they stabilize the casualty for MEDEVAC. If there are cases where a second shot is launched without militarily actionable intelligence that reasonably indicates the follow-up shot is also against military targets (i.e. not doctors, chaplains, civilians, etc.) then that would be a crime too. I'm not trying to say second shots are always permissible just because there have been times when Taliban have committed perfidy, you'd still need good intel each and every single time that tactic is used for it to be legal. But what I am saying is that often the story you read about actions in war are completely one-sided to make you believe that people are really going around doing things "equivalent to gunning down unarmed civilian peasants in order to deny food".

mpyne 12y ago

> I am not talking about an operation assuming any risks in order to spare enemy doctors, but if the whole point of the operation is to take down the doctors in the first place, I'd call that shady. Targeting doctors would be flat out illegal, if marked as doctors. But recovering wounded (which is what's being described here) is not a job performed by doctors or medics in these specific cases. Even for U.S. forces, the initial extraction of wounded soldiers is almost always performed by other soldiers on the battlefield so that the the medic (normally only one) can work in a somewhat safer spot while they stabilize the casualty for MEDEVAC. If there are cases where a second shot is launched without militarily actionable intelligence that reasonably indicates the follow-up shot is also against military targets (i.e. not doctors, chaplains, civilians, etc.) then that would be a crime too. I'm not trying to say second shots are always permissible just because there have been times when Taliban have committed perfidy, you'd still need good intel each and every single time that tactic is used for it to be legal. But what I am saying is that often the story you read about actions in war are completely one-sided to make you believe that people are really going around doing things "equivalent to gunning down unarmed civilian peasants in order to deny food".