Genocide

[Chagos]

Understood.

I concur.

Agreed.

Again, we are in accord.

While I would quibble, for the reasons stated, I appreciate the specific points you are making, and that they are germane to the topic.

I appreciate all of that. I am perhaps persnickety about it because, being a lawyer, that is my mindset. I started this thread for a specific discussion about a specific topic and I very much value your sticking to that topic and making comments that are specific to it. I thank you.

Seems like we agree more than disagree, but not only for that reason I enjoy our discourse.

Where my mindset was pretty firm already, it's always good to be "provoked" into checking it again now and then.

And I can certainly understand how going at the topic from the legal angle (as you do) will lead (you) to different conclusions.

Beyond "dry" technicality, the whole thing is, for me, more of a moral issue and even a philosophical one, if you like. I understand that law cannot always concern itself with those aspects of a take like mine, or we would, otherwise, not have any law at all, probably.

Fortunately the whole thing does not put me in any position where I have to break a law to let my standpoint prevail, nor do I have to sue anyone.

 

[snakestretcher]

Define "indiscriminately".

The US carpet bombed Iraqi forces. Not Baghdad.

https://upstatedroneaction.org/wp/the-persistent-myth-of-us-precision-bombing/?print=pdf

Iraq Body Count report: how many died and who was responsible?

Iraq Body Count has produced its annual comprehensive audit of deaths in Iraq. As the US leaves Iraq, what do the figures show?

www.theguardian.com

 

[snakestretcher]

What about the cluster munitions that are killing Ukrainians RIGHT NOW as ordered by the evil murderous thug
Putin. Does that bother you at all?

Of course, but it doesn't absolve the West.

 

[Fledermaus]

https://upstatedroneaction.org/wp/the-persistent-myth-of-us-precision-bombing/?print=pdf

Iraq Body Count report: how many died and who was responsible?

Iraq Body Count has produced its annual comprehensive audit of deaths in Iraq. As the US leaves Iraq, what do the figures show?

www.theguardian.com

Nothing there screams indiscriminate bombings.

Quite the opposite.

You will find the number one killer of Iraqis is other Iraqis.

 

[Evilroddy]

@NWRatCon

In your Post #1 you asked what Genocide is. In your Post #9 you said the following:

I acknowledge that I am taking an advocational position here. But, I am confident, as legal matter, that my position is correct. Whether appropriate prosecutions will ever take place is a different matter than if they should. And I'm not alone in that belief....

That seems to be a statement articulating that you intend to change what genocide is to what you think genocide should be. You are advocating to move the goal posts of international law. But IMHO that casts a shadow over your argument of what genocide actually is at this moment in time. I understand that law is an evolving continuum and not a static snap-shot of an instant in time, but I have been answering your question from the position of the facts as they are now, not as they should be. That may be the root of our disagreement to date.

I do want to point out two very tangential but I think vitally important points about moving the international goal posts of such dreadful international crimes. One is that states and nations must explicitly agree to such changes in international law or they will likely not recognise the shifting international laws, thus making them moot. China and the USA being just two examples of states doing so. The second tangent is when trying to prosecute genocide the international community must be very, very, very careful to avoid tipping the world into a position where an authoritarian leader, whose state is cornered and unable to evade such laws and the attendant economic warfare that comes with breaking them, then decides to commit biocide by escalating towards full-scale thermonuclear war as a bizzare way of trying to deescalate a military crisis by escalating it in the short term. We must be careful to not kill the many in order to save the few, even if those "few" are counted in the millions.

Law and lawyers have their limits in a world where savagery and ambition still will not be constrained by law. We live in a world where top-tier and second-tier super-powers (global and regional) behave like street gangs fighting for profit or turf or both without regard or respect for law. They will commit appalling violence and horrendous atrocities in order to get what they want (satisfy their national interests). No law can and will constrain them including the laws against genocide. War is a suspension of law and a setting aside of civilisation and ethics for mass-homicide and unfettered expediency by violence. So trying to constrain war, genocide committed during war and crimes against humanity committed during war in a nuclear-armed world may be a noble idea and a good aspiration but may also be, at best paving a road with good intentions to you know where and may be, at worst a trigger for global biocide from which no civilisation may reemerge. War will one day go to war with the advancing constraints of law, and war will win while law is vanquished.

That is why the waging of wars of choice by nuclear-armed states is the highest international crime and one which moots all other international crimes while dooming all legal remedies for redressing those other crimes.

Be well and stay alive.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

That's a good precis and a sound argument. I happen to disagree with the conclusion, however. My argument accepts all of your assertions:

But, as with any such analysis, the question is, why?

Why? To win the war. Russia's hoped-for war of rapid manoeuvre plus shock and awe to topple the Kiyv regime's grasp on power in Ukraine failed. The shift is now to a war of brutal and very destructive attrition where the goal is to kill, maim and de-house so many Ukrainians that they lose their will to fight and then submit to conquest and subjugation. That's how war works, and no law will change that.

You posit

Again, a good argument, but incomplete.

The war between Ukraine and invading Russia is a total war, where every civilian who is or could be aiding the Ukrainian armed forces is a target for destruction. The fact that those civillians are hidden in built-up areas (BUA) and intermingled with Ukrainian military and civilian combatants who are also hidden in the BUAs means that Russian artillery, rocketry, missile strikes and airstrikes have no way to distinguish between passive civilians and active combatants. Thus the whole population is attacked even if there is no intention to kill non-resisting civilians. There is however an intention to kill even passive civilians in order to create terror and to break the will,of Ukrainians to fight.

Here, I'm afraid, you are incorrect. That was credibly claimed to be genocidal at the time.

Claimed but in no way acted upon. No serious investigations and no Indictments were made, just claims.

The subjugation of Chechnya by Stalin, and the mass deportation of Chechen and Ingush people (as well as Tatars, Lithuanians, and Ukrainians) is widely regarded, now, as a genocide.

And yet at the time the Western Allies, who created the Nuremberg process, agreed to and supported the forced, mass-migrations of 16 million ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe westwards, a migration which killed between a million and 2.5 million Germans who were forced westwards into a Germany unable to absorb, feed or house them. Has the international community retroactively recognised Roosevelt's, Churchill's and Stalin's forced mass-migration of ethnic Germans after the war as a genocide or even as a war crime? No. If it was a crime of genocide for Stalin to drive populations to migrate against their wills behind the Iron Curtain then it must have been a crime of genocide to drive Germans westwards out of Eastern Europe. But apparently it wasn't. It was the politics of an inchoate Cold War, not law which was behind these retrospective declarations of genocide.

But remember, the term had not gained currency at that time, having only been coined in 1944. Stalin engaged in many such deportations and ethic extermination efforts during his Russification efforts.

The term was well-understood by the time WWII was over and the Nuremberg process was well underway. But forced mass-migrations by the Allies were underway as the Nuremburg process ran its course, blind to these acts which could be today, called genocide.

His actions reflected Russian history, as a continuation of Tsarist policy during the empire period. The argument has been plausibly made that Putin is carrying forward Stalin's programs (and pograms) in his adventurism amongst his neighbors (Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova) as well as internally amongst native populations. Rather than being a new genocide, the argument goes, he merely continuing, or reviving, the old one.

Agreed. Both Stalin and Putin have followed a Russian Imperialist imperative born in the 16th and 17th centuries, much like Britain France, and other European countries did and still do.

To be continued...

I hate cliff-hangers! I will deal with the continuation soon, when time allows. A very good discussion to date which has been most thought-provoking. Bravo sir.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[NWRatCon]

In your Post #1 you asked what Genocide is. In your Post #9 you said the following:....
That seems to be a statement articulating that you intend to change what genocide is to what you think genocide should be. You are advocating to move the goal posts of international law.

I'm sorry, my friend, but you've misinterpreted both posts. In the first I was explaining what the international standard is (as presently defined), in the latter I was discussing why it applies here.

But IMHO that casts a shadow over your argument of what genocide actually is at this moment in time. I understand that law is an evolving continuum and not a static snap-shot of an instant in time, but I have been answering your question from the position of the facts as they are now, not as they should be. That may be the root of our disagreement to date.

Rather, I think you're using a perception that is out of date. My analysis is based upon the current international standard, and applying that standard to current events.

The standard of the Genocide Convention (reiterated by the Rome statute, has been in place nearly 75 years, and accepted by both the United States and the Soviet Union. It has been deemed customary international law for at least 25 years. I'll note, however, that Putin no longer feels himself bound by any international standards, especially those adopted by the former Soviet Union, as he has explicitly stated.

 

[Evilroddy]

I'm sorry, my friend, but you've misinterpreted both posts. In the first I was explaining what the international standard is (as presently defined), in the latter I was discussing why it applies here.

NWRatCon:

I do not agree. We both know that law is based primarily on four sources. Those are legislation/regulation/decree, jurisprudence, doctrine and custom and usage. What you are quoting and focusing upon is legislation of a sort encoded by the United Nations based on the doctrine put forward by Raphael Lemkin in the closing years of WWII. However there is no real custom or usage of international genocide laws and no real body of jurisprudence. There is only international prohibitions and statements of criminality which have never been truely tested against a nuclear-armed super-power. The law is more than what those who write it down commit to paper. It must be actionable and enforcible before it becomes law. So I dispute your claim that you are simply articulating the state of international law regarding genocide as it is today. What you are articulating is untested and unenforcible doctrine and aspirational legislation created by an international body which has no firm mandate or effective power to do so.

Rather, I think you're using a perception that is out of date. My analysis is based upon the current international standard, and applying that standard to current events.

I would argue that you are using an aspirational perception of written law and doctrine which has not yet been established by foundational jurisprudence nor custom and usage. In other words, pie in the sky law which only exists on paper but is not universally accepted and which cannot be reasonably enforced against agents of powerful states.

The standard of the Genocide Convention (reiterated by the Rome statute, has been in place nearly 75 years, and accepted by both the United States and the Soviet Union. It has been deemed customary international law for at least 25 years. I'll note, however, that Putin no longer feels himself bound by any international standards, especially those adopted by the former Soviet Union, as he has explicitly stated.

Article II of the Genocide Convention offers a very narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements necessary to demonstrate genocide:

A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

A physical element, which includes any or all of the following five deliberate acts:

• Killing substantial numbers of the members of the group
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to substantial numbers of the members of the group
• Deliberately inflicting on the whole group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

As you have said, establishing intent is the most difficult element to determine in any prosecution including genocide prosecutions. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of the perpetrators to physically destroy one of four protected groups; a national, ethnic, racial or religious group and to do it by violence. Cultural destruction of a group does not suffice, nor does changing the regime ruling over the group nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent to use violence against a targeted group for the purpose of destruction of the group which makes the crime of genocide so unique.

If Russian artillery fires into a city or suburb which contains Russian Ukrainians as well as other Ukrainians, then it is almost impossible to prove either focused intent and the use of selective violence directed at a "targeted population" because the "target population" is heterogenous and cannot be accurately targeted by indirectly firing artillery within the urban BUA. The victims of genocide must be deliberately targeted, not randomly so, and the targeting must be because of their real or perceived membership in one of the four protected groups listed above. This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals huddling in war contested cities or towns which are military objectives in a military campaign.

Continued next post.

 

[Evilroddy]

Also note that "political groups" are not protected groups under the laws against genocide and thus their destruction by violence does not constitute genocide. Thus the Russian state could simply claim to be targeting Western-style liberal democrats and their leaders in power with an intent to change the Ukrainian regime rather than admitting to be attempting to liquidate the population for who they are or what gods they follow.

So, no, I do not think that your belief that genocide law is on a firm foundation is necessarily true and thus I see your advocacy for it as attempting to better establish aspirational law rather than describing operable law which is in place right now.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Also note that "political groups" are not protected groups under the laws against genocide and thus their destruction by violence does not constitute genocide. Thus the Russian state could simply claim to be targeting Western-style liberal democrats and their leaders in power with an intent to change the Ukrainian regime rather than admitting to be attempting to liquidate the population for who they are or what gods they follow.

So, no, I do not think that your belief that genocide law is on a firm foundation is necessarily true and thus I see your advocacy for it as attempting to better establish aspirational law rather than describing operable law which is in place right now.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

I suppose if you fire enough rockets into apartment buildings you're bound to eventually get a liberal.

 

[Evilroddy]

This, I think, is the crux of your argument (correct me if I misinterpret).

Yup, your interpretation is correct. The present calls for genocide prosecution are politically expedient for the West to promote now as lawfare against Russia. However when the West was involved in genocidal warfare in Korea, Vietnam, and in Latin America the allegations of genocide were muted or discounted as fringe calls for perverse justice.

No, but...

Raqqa is a poor example, as it was in the throes of being systematically dismantled by ISIS at the time. The prejudices of individual soldiers, while individually reprehensible, do not meet the definitions cited earlier, do they? You're getting off track, my friend. But, I'll clarify: genocide is specifically directed at the intent of leadership.

Taking the example of post 2003 Iraq, the United States Government covertly funded and trained Iraqi sectarian militias as de facto death squads under the direction of the same man who twenty years before had trained death squad paramilitaries in Central America. His name was Colonel Steele and he was an agent of the leadership of the US Government. So there was provable intent on the part of the US Government.

Again, missing the point. Distinction is a separate issue from deliberate targeting. I'm on record in lamenting put targeting discipline and it being a potential war crime. This is not that, as I explain below.

If you know there are innocent civilians in the blast zone of even a precision weapon system and you choose to go ahead with the attack, then you have wilfully targeted those civilians along with your military target. Your action is deliberate nonetheless. The distinction vs. deliberate targeting argument is meaningless, because the person directing the attack made the wilfull decision to carry it through despite the presence of civilians who the director of the attack knew would die. They were in the cross-hairs too, so they were attacked deliberately even though they were not the primary target.

this is true...

and I would agree with that assessment you haven't made...

No comment.

Continued next post.

 

[Evilroddy]

Again, wrong tree. Not relevant. Nor is the bombing of WWII or Vietnam, as precision bombing was practically nonexistent.

I do not agree. The RAF's "Bomber" Harris and the British Government deliberately targeted civilians in German cities as part of a morale breaking policy and as part of an official dehousing policy. The civilians were the targets. It does not matter that the ordinance dropped on them were unguided bombs because they were on record as being the targets. In Korea the US Air Force quickly destroyed the military, communications and industrial targets they wanted to and went back to retarget them periodically. But under Truman's and LeMay's leadership the USAF repeatedly attacked agrarian villages, over and over again to kill the farmers who grew food. The farmers and their families were the targets of the USAF attacks and it made no difference that the ordinance used against them were unguided bombs and rockets.

The same argument can and is made for Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos fifteen years later. Again the same argument for UK forces in Oman and Sarawak who deliberately targeted civilians during British operations in those two parts of the crumbling British Empire. The same argument can be made for the proxy-genocides committed by US-trained militaries and paramilitaries in Central America in the 1980's and by the US-trained and supplied Colombian military and paramilitaries in the late 1990's and early 2000's where civilians were directly targeted and then dressed up post mortem as insurgents to boost kill numbers and cash bonuses.

So why not genocide then when the West was killing hundreds of thousands to millions but genocide now when Russia is killing tens of thousands? Politics is my answer. That is the crux (or in my perception the fulcrum) of the matter. Allegations of genocide are a useful tool for the West to use now. Don't get me wrong, I am not excusing Mr. Putin's Russia. They are committing war crimes and likely will commit crimes against humanity in Ukraine but it is my opinion that the charge of genocide is still a bridge too far, for now.

Here I strongly disagree, as that intent is the sine qua non of the charge. That is the point of my argument.

Again, there are three different issues involved here: war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. An action may be a war crime without being either of the latter; and an action may be both a war crime and a crime against humanity without being the last.

The distinction is the intent, the aim of that action. I acknowledge it can be a fine line, and difficult to prove, but here it has been writ out boldly. Denying, and more precisely, trying to eliminate a nationality is, by explicit definition, genocide. "an 'intentional effort to completely or partially destroy a group based on its nationality". It could hardly be clearer.

Attacking a political entity like the State of Ukraine or political groups within Ukraine are very likely war crimes but are not genocide as political entities and political groups are not protected groups under the definition of genocide in the Genocide Convention. Attacking and attempting to destroy Ukrainian culture is not genocide either. Attacking cities where there are mixed Ukrainian and Russian Ukrainian populations is not genocide either. The sine qua non of your argument is not as firm as you seem to believe.

Deportation has already occurred, reportedly, and explicitly attempted.

Are these reported deportations mass deportations? Are they forced deportations? Are the deported free to move on to new destinations once moved out of the combat zones and into more peaceful parts of Russian-controlled Ukraine or Russia proper? I don't know the answers to these questions yet. Therefore I don't think the threshold for genocide has been met yet.

Hear, hear.

Too, too true.

Cheers, be well and stay alive.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

Link to support the claims of the second paragraph of post #61:

Revealed: Pentagon's link to Iraqi torture centres

Exclusive: General David Petraeus and 'dirty wars' veteran behind commando units implicated in detainee abuse See the full-length documentary film of the 15-month investigation

www.theguardian.com

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[NWRatCon]

My friend, your thoroughgoing (if misguided ) posts deserve a similarly detailed response, which I have been unable to complete, but I intend to provide. On a couple of points we clearly agree:

A very good discussion to date which has been most thought-provoking. Bravo sir.

Indeed! That is why I enjoy our discussions so immensely - even when you are wrong. Okay, that is too harsh. Misguided.

Honestly, ribbing aside, there is a great deal that you have written that I substantially agree with, but we are approaching the question from different angles. My approach, from the outset, was to lay out what the legal standard for a prosecution of "genocide" is, then apply those standards to the current circumstance. You, however, begin by looking at the practical realities of enforcement in international affairs and dismissing (if that is not too harsh a term) the application of the concept entirely, as unworkable, or at least, inequitable. (At the core, I believe you are a pacifist, as am I.) They are, in fact, different worldviews that may lead to Scotland by different routes. But, I think those differences are important, so I'll belabor them. Indeed, I hope to convince you (and other dear readers) otherwise.

It's going to take a number of posts, and I will necessarily elide much of your excellent disquisition to meet character (of the typographic kind) limitations, but I hope to respond to the gist and ask you correct me if I miss anything of substance. Let us continue...

Russia's hoped-for war of rapid manoeuvre plus shock and awe to topple the Kiyv regime's grasp on power in Ukraine failed.

We agree that is the current circumstance. (I would submit it was always inevitable.)

The shift is now to a war of brutal and very destructive attrition where the goal is to kill, maim and de-house so many Ukrainians that they lose their will to fight and then submit to conquest and subjugation.

Here I disagree. There was not a shift. Perhaps they hoped not to have to pursue that course, but massed artillery barrage is always "Plan A" in the Soviet manual (which is the playbook Putin lives in - much more on that later). The Russian style of combat has, since at least the Tsars, been one of brutality and massed, indiscriminate, firepower. Russians fetishize artillery, and victory by any means. It's well-established historically and doctrinally. That is NOT the way of "modern warfare" (post WWII, and particularly post-Vietnam) as trained in the Western nations (under the NATO umbrella). From an outsider, these distinctions may not be as noticeable, but they do definitively exist and are profound. Again, more on this as we go.

That's how war works, and no law will change that.

Not true, as I will elucidate. Whether the law can change that is a matter of conjecture and opinion (and ultimately the point of this thread). I insist that it can, it has, and it will. That is, in fact, the core of my belief system and life's work.

The war between Ukraine and invading Russia is a total war... Thus the whole population is attacked even if there is no intention to kill non-resisting civilians. There is however an intention to kill even passive civilians in order to create terror and to break the will of Ukrainians to fight.

There's a lot of unpacking to do here. Yes, from Putin's perspective, this is a total war, and it has certainly become existential to Ukrainians. But, your additional assertions I take great exception to. "where every civilian who is or could be aiding the Ukrainian armed forces is a target for destruction." and ""The fact that those civilians are hidden in built-up areas (BUA) and intermingled with Ukrainian military and civilian combatants who are also hidden in the BUAs means that Russian artillery, rocketry, missile strikes and airstrikes have no way to distinguish between passive civilians and active combatants."

There is a great deal of excellent literature on this topic, but I'll cut to the chase - Russia (and you, I'm afraid) approaches warfare with a pre-WWII mindset. There has been a huge change in how war is and should be conducted in the last 75 years, at least by developed nations, in capabilities, lethality, and most importantly, precision. From precision comes a heightened, not limited, requirement for distinction (between lawful and unlawful targets) - what I consider the most important foundation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

More to follow... {<insert suspenseful music here>}

 

[NWRatCon]

Continued ...

Since mid-19th Century, the core of IHL has been distinction between combatants and noncombatants. Soldiers and military facilities are presumptively combatants, and civilian and civilian infrastructure are presumptively noncombatants. There are exceptions to these presumptions, but they are limited to specific circumstances affecting combat. For example, wounded, shipwrecked, and captured soldiers are "hors de combat" out of combat and thus are "protected persons". Civilians who take up arms are combatants while in combat. However, since multiple generations preceding us, noncombatant civilians are never valid targets in wartime. Never, not ever, ever, ever. It is every combatant's responsibility to protect them as much as possible, and a "grave breach" of IHL to deliberately behave otherwise - a war crime, and a serious violation.

Now, you accuse me of being aspirational in my beliefs - which is only partially true. In the main, my beliefs are based not only on adherence to the law, but also the practical effects of the law in combat. Following the law not only avoids prosecution, but makes one a much more effective combatant. Shooting and killing civilians is not only a waste of ammunition, it is counterproductive. It inspires resistance. It degrades intelligence gathering. It creates a battlefield nightmare where everyone is a danger, and an administrative nightmare when territory is occupied. "The United States has invested more reconstructing Iraq and Afghanistan than it did rebuilding Germany after World War II. $60.45 billion has been spent in Iraq, more than $100 billion in Afghanistan. For comparison, the U.S. spent less than $35 billion in today’s dollars in Germany from 1946 through 1952." (Face the Facts) And that was as of 2014. Russia has no intention of doing any reconstruction in Ukraine, and has never done so in other conflicts, which is why they fail so often.

 

[NWRatCon]

Before I plunge back into the weeds, I'd like to make some global observations, generally in response to these comments.

I would argue that you are using an aspirational perception of written law and doctrine which has not yet been established by foundational jurisprudence nor custom and usage. In other words, pie in the sky law which only exists on paper but is not universally accepted and which cannot be reasonably enforced against agents of powerful states.

Where my mindset was pretty firm already, it's always good to be "provoked" into checking it again now and then.

I, too, like my ideas to be challenged. Especially when challenges come from those I respect. Responding can either require me to dig deeper into why I hold my opinions, or be persuaded to change my opinions. Either outcome tends to be a good thing.

And I can certainly understand how going at the topic from the legal angle (as you do) will lead (you) to different conclusions.

For me, the law is a distillation of philosophy and morals into a practical, and enforceable, guide to behavior. That is never more necessary than in combat.

I spent 30 years of my life in the uniform of my country. I trained to heartlessly dispatch enemies in mortal combat, although killing is never a heartless endeavor. At the same time, I studied to become, and became, a lawyer.

Rather than a contradiction, I found that both educations gave me greater appreciation for both "professions". I came to understand the absolute necessity for a strict code of behavior in combat, and how legal strictures mold behavior throughout society, particularly at the bottom tiers of Maslow's hierarchy (which combat most definitely is).

For a dozen years or so of my professional life I was able to happily marry both aspects of my studies in Operational Law, a significant portion of which entailed teaching combatants the rules of behavior. For that reason, I vehemently disagree that those are merely aspirational, or philosophical. I had the opportunity to observe the rules in action, and how our military implemented them. I therefore bristle at broad brush condemnation of those behaviors and whataboutist argumentation.

Complying is hard, really hard, and oftentimes counterintuitive. "When the enemy ignores the rules, why should we follow them?" My response, not glibly, is, "because it works." As LTC Vindman stated, "This is America, and here, right matters." You may not believe that, but having seen it in action, I know it to be fundamental to the US military - and all professional soldiers. That is what makes us professionals and highly trained. Those that don't follow the rules are sloppy, ineffective, and reprehensible.

I understand the impulse, especially when one is a peacemonger at heart (as I am), to lump all military action into one deplorable pot. War is messy, war is hell, and war destroys - and often not its targets. But if one cannot discern the differences in approach and appreciate the effort involved, then one cannot talk intelligently on the matter. It's that simple.

War is a human endeavor, and in all human activities, mistakes are made. Questionable choices are made. But, as with all human endeavors, gradations occur. This is no different.

As I have noted, there are war crimes, there are crimes against humanity, and there is genocide. The point of this thread is to identify the differences, and discuss how they interact with facts on the ground. As long as that is the agenda, I will respond respectfully and specifically. I will not, however, accede to baseless or uninformed broadsides not directed at the subject of the thread.

 

[Chagos]

truncated to stay within the word count

~........................................Rather than a contradiction, I found that both educations gave me greater appreciation for both "professions". I came to understand the absolute necessity for a strict code of behavior in combat, and how legal strictures mold behavior throughout society, particularly at the bottom tiers of Maslow's hierarchy (which combat most definitely is).

For a dozen years or so of my professional life I was able to happily marry both aspects of my studies in Operational Law, a significant portion of which entailed teaching combatants the rules of behavior. For that reason, I vehemently disagree that those are merely aspirational, or philosophical. I had the opportunity to observe the rules in action, and how our military implemented them. I therefore bristle at broad brush condemnation of those behaviors and whataboutist argumentation.

Complying is hard, really hard, and oftentimes counterintuitive. "When the enemy ignores the rules, why should we follow them?" My response, not glibly, is, "because it works." As LTC Vindman stated, "This is America, and here, right matters." You may not believe that, but having seen it in action, I know it to be fundamental to the US military - and all professional soldiers. That is what makes us professionals and highly trained. Those that don't follow the rules are sloppy, ineffective, and reprehensible.

I understand the impulse, especially when one is a peacemonger at heart (as I am), to lump all military action into one deplorable pot. War is messy, war is hell, and war destroys - and often not its targets. But if one cannot discern the differences in approach and appreciate the effort involved, then one cannot talk intelligently on the matter. It's that simple.

War is a human endeavor, and in all human activities, mistakes are made. Questionable choices are made. But, as with all human endeavors, gradations occur. This is no different.

As I have noted, there are war crimes, there are crimes against humanity, and there is genocide. The point of this thread is to identify the differences, and discuss how they interact with facts on the ground. As long as that is the agenda, I will respond respectfully and specifically. I will not, however, accede to baseless or uninformed broadsides not directed at the subject of the thread.

Oh, beyond condemning war as a catastrophic extension of diplomacy (Clausewith go f*** y'sel'), I'm certainly not equating everyone's conduct in it as equal by default. Where any code of military conduct may be breached by those in possession of any such instrument, be the breach from abrogating it in general (i.e. from the top downwards) or by individual irresponsibility, all the way to mental fatigue, I'll certainly support the army that has taken the trouble to have installed such code upon its members and has attempted, however successfully or not, to instill it in the same.

I too have been to war and in its course tempted to behave in the negative manner outlined above, but the awareness of how the stance of "well. they're doing foul things so why not we/us" can, by the standards we have placed upon ourselves, only result in the "chasm looking back", fortunately having precluded me from initiating further nightmares than the ones I already have.

Civilization cannot work without regulations, not in war and not in peace and when we ignore that we're on the road to become like those that we condemn. To me that's not a question of being better (as an aspirational goal), it's of not being as bad or even worse.

But the lines get blurred very easily in both cases (perhaps more in combat than in peace) and that's where I agree on the necessity of strict definition.

Which brings me back to our original dispute over what constitutes genocide and what does not. I don't wish to go into the habitual tu quoques that others so enjoy going into here, but I'll make the exception here that a pilot (for instance) laying waste to a line of mostly civilian cars on the ground does not equate to a "special unit" murdering unarmed civilians in pursuit of the ultimate goal of murdering each and every one of their kind, in compliance with a state or group philosophy that each member of such unit has signed on for.

The first instance is reprehensible no matter what motive drives it, the second IS genocide.

And I ain't budging.

 

[NWRatCon]

Truncated to avoid lengthy agreement..

Which brings me back to our original dispute over what constitutes genocide and what does not. I don't wish to go into the habitual tu quoques that others so enjoy going into here, but I'll make the exception here that a pilot (for instance) laying waste to a line of mostly civilian cars on the ground does not equate to a "special unit" murdering unarmed civilians in pursuit of the ultimate goal of murdering each and every one of their kind, in compliance with a state or group philosophy that each member of such unit has signed on for.

The first instance is reprehensible no matter what motive drives it, the second IS genocide.

And I ain't budging.

I know how shocking the "highway of death" seemed, but it was not genocide, as you say. Moreover, it was not a crime against humanity, and it was not even a war crime.

I reviewed that particular targeting process after the fact. The optics seemed bad, but the reality was quite different.

First, the targets were not the soldiers, but the equipment. The vast majority, tens of thousands, of soldiers were allowed to escape. Hundreds were killed.

Second, and contrary to some reports, civilians were not amongst them. None of those claims, to my knowledge, were ever verified. Some were affirmatively refuted.

Third, this was a combat formation - an army in retreat. They were still in Kuwait. Retreat is a combat maneuver, repositioning of forces. They chose not to leave the equipment. It is not surrender, they were not out of combat. The civilian vehicles were stolen property, and filled with stolen property - loot. This was not a disciplined army.

The Russian army has gotten bogged down between Belarus and Kyiv. At one point the column was 40 miles long and out of fuel. I doubt anyone would bat an eye if the Ukrainian air force strafed the column from one end to the other. That would be no different.

 

[NWRatCon]

In retrospect, friend Chagos, it appears you weren't taking about the highway of death incident. That was Evilroddy. My apologies. The analysis, however, still stands.

 

[Chagos]

In retrospect, friend Chagos, it appears you weren't taking about the highway of death incident. That was Evilroddy. My apologies. The analysis, however, still stands.

I'd propose the "Haditha massacre" to be more of a point of comparison. Again undoubtedly a war crime, even where rooted in irresponsible (derelict) behaviour of the commanding officer (sergeant, actually) , but never genocide.

Ruminating thru the recesses of my cerebral RAM of course brings up My Lai immediately, but the same distinctions apply there as well.

 

[Evilroddy]

In retrospect, friend Chagos, it appears you weren't taking about the highway of death incident. That was Evilroddy. My apologies. The analysis, however, still stands.

NWRatCon:

Nope, I never brought up the "Highway of Death" specifically.

Be well and stay alive.
Evilroddy.

 

[Peter King]

Murdering civilians on the street; killing a pregnant woman and her baby; slaying a man waiting to get some bread.

Yes, sir/ma'am!

That is genocide.

The savage responsible for all of this must get his comeuppance!

I disagree, killing civilians can be a war crime and most likely is a war crime. But the reason for this war is control of the Ukrainians and stop the EU or NATO from encroaching on former Soviet lands. Russia has already lost control of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, they do not want to lose more countries to the EU/NATO.

Killing soldiers and civilians is part of wars, That does not make it genocidal. The Russians are not rounding up masses of Ukrainians and sending them to death camps or take them out into the woods and massacre them there. Killing Ukrainians is not the goal. So that already does not make it genocide.

What Russia has to be punished for is war crimes but not genocide.

 

[TheParser]

Russia has already lost control of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, they do not want to lose more countries to the EU/NATO.

Thank you for your civil & thoughtful reply regarding the definition of "genocide"

Some people probably feel, however, that Latvia and Estonia and Lithuania are not Russia's [territories] to lose in the first place, What impertinence on the part of Russia to think so.

Have a nice weekend!

 

[NWRatCon]

NWRatCon:

Nope, I never brought up the "Highway of Death" specifically.

Be well and stay alive.
Evilroddy.

My apologies.

 

[NWRatCon]

I disagree, killing civilians can be a war crime and most likely is a war crime. But the reason for this war is control of the Ukrainians and stop the EU or NATO from encroaching on former Soviet lands. Russia has already lost control of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, they do not want to lose more countries to the EU/NATO.

Killing soldiers and civilians is part of wars, That does not make it genocidal. The Russians are not rounding up masses of Ukrainians and sending them to death camps or take them out into the woods and massacre them there. Killing Ukrainians is not the goal. So that already does not make it genocide.

What Russia has to be punished for is war crimes but not genocide.

There is some question about "the reason for this war", and that is directly relevant to the question of genocide. The excuse that Putin has used for initiating the war is, as stated, opposition to NATO expansion. But, as with most things Putin says, that's a lie.

Nor, frankly, does it explain the tactics. I don't think it can plausibly be denied that Russian forces are deliberately targeting civilians, of itself a grave breach of international law. What distinguishes genocide from "mere" crimes against humanity is intent.

To get to that intent, one has to get into the minds of the leaders. Why are they doing what they are doing? Putin, at least, has given that away in his speeches and writings. He doesn't believe in the independence of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, or the Baltic states. In his mind they belong to Russia. They are Russian. They have no other nationality. That's important to defining and discerning genocide.

Since nearly his ascension, Putin has been on a project to rehabilitate Stalin. "Over the past 20 years, the Kremlin has carried out projects of re-Stalinization in Russia, rebranding the former dictator as an effective manager and a harsh but fair ruler. Putin is using Stalin’s tactics in the current war, too. Authorities in Mariupol report that Russian forces are forcibly deporting the beleaguered city’s inhabitants." Putin Is Just Following the Manual (the Atlantic). Deportation, by the way, is a genocidal tactic, and a favorite of Stalin.

Continued.