Combatant-NonCombatant Distinction

[therealUT]

With less and less avowedly non-Representative governments left in the world, does the Combatant-NonCombatant distinction (which functions to keep Civilians from being directly targeted) still make sense? Or, should we side with Orwell, who made the following statement:

War is not avoidable at this stage of history, and since it has to happen it does not seem to me a bad thing that others should be killed besides young men. I wrote in 1937: 'Sometimes it is a comfort to me to think that the aeroplane is altering the conditions of war. Perhaps when the next war comes we may see that sight unprecedented in all history, a jingo with a bullet hole in him'. We haven't seen that yet...but at any rate the suffering of this war has been shared out more evenly than the last one was. The immunity of civilians, one of the things that have made war possible, has been shattered...I don't regret that. I can't feel that war is 'humanized' by being confined to the slaughter of the young and becomes 'barbarous' when the old get killed as well. War is of its nature barbarous, it is better to admit that. If we see ourselves as the savages we are, some improvement is possible.

19 May 1944

[MG1968]

without a doubt, the focus on minimizing civilian casualties has made the US' ROE a lot more dangerous for soldiers on the ground

[therealUT]

Originally Posted by MG1968

without a doubt, the focus on minimizing civilian casualties has made the US' ROE a lot more dangerous for soldiers on the ground

Agreed; however, you have to keep in mind that if you get rid of the Combatant-NonCombatant distinction, then you could also end up legitimizing the terrorist attacks in 2001 (as well as most terrorist attacks throughout history). Removing the Combatant-NonCombatant distinction might make it safer for Soldiers on the ground; however, it might make it much more dangerous for citizens back at the 'homefront'.

[hog88]

When the POTUS decicides to go to war, it should be left to the warriors to win at whatever cost. No enemy life is worth more than an American.

[therealUT]

Originally Posted by hog88

When the POTUS decicides to go to war, it should be left to the warriors to win at whatever cost. No enemy life is worth more than an American.

Why is the life of an American more valuable?

[slh1089]

Originally Posted by therealUT

Why is the life of an American more valuable?

In war, do you not desire your side to win?

[TennTradition]

Originally Posted by slh1089

In war, do you not desire your side to win?

What does what I desire have to do with inherent value of life?

[Burhead]

Originally Posted by slh1089

In war, do you not desire your side to win?

Not at the cost of slaughtering thousands of innocent people.

[slh1089]

Originally Posted by Burhead

Not at the cost of slaughtering thousands of innocent people.

Did I compare one American life to slaughtering thousands of innocents? No so you can take that comparison that you just pulled out of left field elsewhere.

[slh1089]

Originally Posted by TennTradition

What does what I desire have to do with inherent value of life?

Well it is reality that in war lives get turned into pieces of a brutish and incredibly violent "game". If my country is involved in one, I then become involved because what happens to my country directly impacts my life. Therefore, I am going to assign more value, due to my desires, to a life that is fighting for the side which is representing my country.

[TennTradition]

Originally Posted by slh1089

Well it is reality that in war lives get turned into pieces of a brutish and incredibly violent "game". If my country is involved in one, I then become involved because what happens to my country directly impacts my life. Therefore, I am going to assign more value, due to my desires, to a life that is fighting for the side which is representing my country.

Ok. So the body fighting for you is more inherently valuable because it gets you what you want.

I suppose it depends on value systems.

I can agree about more important to your lifestyle. I'm reluctant to agree that this gives one's life more value.

Besides, we aren't only talking about the combatants here.

[slh1089]

Once the enemy has no borders and dresses as a civilian, is it the fault of a soldier if he is tricked into killing the civilian or the combatants fault for endangering the civilians lives when he made the step of disguising himself as said civilian?

[TennTradition]

When I say we're not only talking about the combatants, I'm lumping US non-combatants in there as well as foreign. The OP wasn't restricted to foreign civilians where combatants used them as shields or blended in with them.

[slh1089]

I am well-aware. And I will venture to say that if you ask a foreign national to choose between the life of an american or a soldier from his or her own country that try will choose their fellow countryman.

[TennTradition]

Originally Posted by slh1089

I am well-aware. And I will venture to say that if you ask a foreign national to choose between the life of an american or a soldier from his or her own country that try will choose their fellow countryman.

Choosing the life could have less to do with acknowledging one has more inherent or innate value and more to with acknowledging that you place more value on that life...either emotionally or pragmatically.