While I deeply admire and respect Patrick's knowledge, work and positions,
but on this particular issue we are in disagreement. While he is perfectly
correct that the United States had for a long time been a leader in
attempting to make war more lawful and regulated, it is also true that the
moral leadership of the US in these matters has been very limited in the
past thirty years.

Nuremberg is one of the few good things that emerged from WWII, and the US
was a real leader in that effort. But, Dresden and Tokyo are also realities.
And few would defend the sanctuary given in the US, Europe and South America
to many Nazi leaders who proved to be useful (one need only think of general
Wolf, the intelligence chief in West Germany).

Few would argue that in recent years the US exercised a leadership role in a
wide range of human rights issues-rules of war being one aspect of it. The
US has not accepted the UN Declaration f Human Rights, it is not a signatory
of many of the recent Hague Conventions, and its active attempts to
undermine the ICC is directly motivated by fears of having war crimes cases
be brought against it and some of its closest allies (Israel comes to mind).
The fact that the ICC specifically prevents prosecution for past crimes
means that there is reasonable expectation by the US that there will be
actions done in the future by their forces that will qualify as war crimes.
This is not a climate of morality and law.

The recently emerged scandal from the US Air Force Academy I think amply
illustrates the pervasive culture of illegality, denial, and cover-up that
is part of current American military culture. Should one expect better from
an institution, when its Commander in Chief is found to have based his
arguments for justifying a particular war, in part, on "massaged" data?

At best, in an actual combat situation law and fair play go mostly by the
wayside, but in this specific instance I see no evidence to indicate that
there was serious attempts at ensuring proper protection for cultural
heritage. The destruction of the Baghdad Museum, the National Library and
the hundreds of archeological sites should, and could have been prevented.
And that failure in leadership speaks for itself.

It is my contention that the massive militarization of American culture
since WWII has seriously corrupted many of the best practices of American
morality and rule of law. But, that is another issue.
nburlakoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of P Boylan
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 4:09 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: marines in iraq

I don't recognise the original description of what is supposed to be
happening in Iraq, but equally I find it hard to believe Nicholas'
caricature either.

Contrary to what he implies, there have been determined efforts to
establish laws and standards for the conduct of war for centuries,
arguably going back to Alexander the Great, and certainly for more than
two centuries.  (Indeed, there is a strong strand of self-interest in such
rules, as they are based not just on abstract principles of humanitarian
behaviour, but on reciprocal standards: how you yourself would want to be
treated by the enemy if you were unfortunately enough to be captured or
injured.)

In fact the United States was one of the first countries in the world to
bring all of their own forces, plus all irregulars and civilians in areas
under US military control, under a clearly defined legally binding code of
military conduct, with systems for legal enforcement through both
Courts-Martial and the civilian legal system, and with penalties up to and
including the death penalty.

The United States system and principles were very closely reflected in
successive international legal codes, most notably the 1907 Hague
Conventions on the Laws and Customs of War (the authors of which insisted
that they were not creating new international law, just setting out what
were already accepted as well established universal values in relation to
the conduct of armed conflicts). These principles and values have been
followed in e.g. the later versions of the Geneva Conventions (1949 and
-especially - 1977, though sadly the USA refuses to ratify the current -
1977 - version of Geneva), and in our own area of interest - the 1954
Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of
Armed Conflict.

Similarly, since the at least the time of the American Civil War it has
been recognised that all members of the armed forces must be properly
trained in the laws of conduct in war relevant to their own level of
operation or responsibility, and this obligation is explicit in the
international codes and laws of war of the past half century or more.

Further, under the domestic military law and under international laws of
war there are very serious penalties not just for deliberate breaches of
humanitarian law, but also for any failure by senior officers to
adequately control both their own troops and the civilian population of an
area under military control, under the "command responsibility"
doctrine, which was strongly reinforced by rulings of the Nuremburg and
Tokyo war crimes trials.

My own experience, which has included seeing and in one case assisting in
the training programmes of the US Army, is that training in the
obligations (and potential penalties) under both the national and
international laws of war is taken very seriously by many countries, not
least the USA.

I don't deny that military personnel  (and politicians - under the
command responsibility doctrine) do from time to time engage in
criminal behaviour up to and including war crimes: we have well documented
cases such as Srebenica and the mass killings in Rwanda in our own time.
However, I seriously question Nicholas' apparent assumption that such
criminality is either normal or (by implication) that when it occurs it
is ignored or covered up.



Patrick Boylan

(City University London, and an international consultant and adviser on
the protection of cultural proerty during war and other armed conflicts)

=====================================

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Nicholas Burlakoff wrote:

> It is obvious that neither responder to the original posting ever served
in
> an active military situation. The reality is obviously so strange and
> foreign. War is the state of lawlessness and end of civil society; every
> side perpetrates atrocities. No one would give an order to use a civilian
> for target practice. It just happens, as a young person is transported by
> fatigue, heat, diesel smell, overwhelming stench of his comrades, and
doses
> of adrenalin to a hazy reality. In this reality the vague shape of a
> civilian on the horizon is not a person but just a nice opportunity to set
> your sights, get the range of your weapons, or lash out to still that fear
> that has been haunting you since you saw your buddy shot. The casual
killing
> of civilians in a war situation is not news. Conversely, in this reality
you
> will also find instances of incredible kindness.
>
> That is the problem. When you unleash the dogs of war you unleash all the
> forces that are found within people. Above all, you unleash nearly random
> but ever-present death.
>
> My post, however, was not to dwell on the target practice using civilians.
I
> thought that the excerpt showed the complete unawareness about the loss of
> Iraqi cultural heritage or the significance of that. To me it illustrates
> that the command obviously did not train the troops to consider this
aspect
> of their duties. The marine quoted, in fact, showed a matter of fact
> sympathy, by countering with examples of worse occurrences. To me, the
> exposition sounded very real and in accord with my own military
experiences.
> We shot civilians for target practice in Vietnam, we regularly killed our
> own officers (recent studies claim that 25% of US officers killed in
Vietnam
> were by their own troops), we raped villagers and city dwellers. Forty
years
> later we are doing the same things to a different people, and then try to
> pretend that the killing is being done by God-fearing boy scouts according
> to some book on fair play. Give me a break. No adult has the right to be
> that naïve.
>
> The statement of "but they were only following orders" is not only
> materially incorrect in some instances, but even when correct found to be
a
> non-defense at Nuremberg.  The upcoming war crime trials of Iraqis will
have
> plenty of instances of "we were following orders", and they will still be
> found guilty despite that claim.
>
> Last point. I am shocked by the vehemence of the attacks on the reporting
> "human shield." These people put their own lives at risk to protect
someone
> else's hospitals, houses of worship, and important civilian installations.
> Few of these folks are politically motivated most become "human shields"
out
> of religious and conscientious reasons. These are probably the most honest
> and giving folks in our society.
> nburlakoff
>
> PS The armed force in Iraq are not comprised of teenagers. The average
age,
> I believe, is 24.
>

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message
to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help"
(without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
[log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff
Museum-L" (without the quotes).

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).