What is a legitimate target in warfare? (1 Viewer)

[loquasagacious]

This is a thread sparked by two things the muslim thread and a paper released by the Land Warfare Studies Centre (http://www.defence.gov.au/army/lwsc//Publications/complex_warfighting.pdf).

My starting point is the question of what does and does not constitute a legitimate target in warfare. As a kick-off point is a couple of quotes from the LWSC paper:

Combatant/Non-Combatant. The distinction between combatants and noncombatants is eroding. The use of contractors in the battlespace, and the
application of the national effects-based approach (NEBA) to warfighting, has
meant that civilians who do not directly engage the enemy nevertheless generate
critical war-winning effects. The enemies against whom we are currently engaged
clearly regard these ‘non-combatants’ as legitimate targets. In any case, the
traditional distinction between combatants and non-combatants is blurring.

Virtual Theatres. During the Afghan war in 2002, CIA operatives in Langley
Virginia flew Predator remotely piloted aircraft, armed with Hellfire missiles,
against Taliban targets. By the traditional definition, Virginia is not part of the
Afghan theatre. But with globalised communications, an operator in Langley can
participate in operations as effectively as can a soldier in Kabul. Langley is thus
‘virtually’ in theatre – the Predator operator needs some form of command and
control relationship with the theatre commander, contributes significant combat
power to the operation, and might be considered a legitimate Taliban target (hence requiring force protection. Hence, an ‘Area of Operations’ is now an area where the effects of an operation are felt, not necessarily an area where the forces conducting an operation are physically located. Forces contributing to effects, but not physically within theatre, constitute part of a Virtual Theatre.

What then is a legitimate target? Any idividual or edifice directly contributing to the 'war effort'? This would render non-military contractors targets, in addition to such infrastructure as sanitation, electricity and water supplies.

Is it moral to target a contractor, afterall they directly contribute to the war effort by supporting (in theatre nonetheless) the actions of an enemy?

A modern fighting force's operational capabilities will be hindered if sanitation, electricity and water supplies are interrupted. The larger the force in question the larger the threat they pose and the larger the effect of an interuption will be. Is it thus legitimate to target such infrastructure given that it will also effect non-combatants in the region?

Is it moral to do as both Nazi Germany and the Allies did in WWII, that is to engage in tactical operations against a population for the purposes of lowering their strategic loss threshold (that is the point at which continuing the war is no longer acceptable for an enemy group). The blitz, the Dresden bombings, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are all examples of this.

Personally i would argue that it is moral to target contractors, though not neccaserily populations and infrastructure, though certainly training, manufacturing, command and control locations.

 

[Meldrum]

I love how the conservative governments of the world see targets as physical, tangible things - never ideas, always people. Again, please forgive the cliche, they're forgetting past wars. What are they teaching at Westpoint and Duntroon?!

But at this stage in the war, after Iraq's conventional armies have been destroyed, the US have to target civilians. If they don't, the body count continues to rise. But in doing so, they aggravate the rest of society into action. Whilst I don't think it's moral to target civilians, I must agree that there have to be sacrifices on the path to a free Iraq.

Quite the Gordian knot.

But also, if America left now, the country would just revert back to warlord-based warefare. And whilst that was what traditional middle-eastern society was based on, those countries have to be brought forward into a modern, globalised community in which democracy is as much a unit of currency as the Euro or the Dollar.

Thus:I agree with you, Sacrifices have to be made; I believe it is moral to target contractors, training, manufacturing, command and control locations.