Different Laws of War

King Thomas

Banned
It would have one of two effects.

1-It enables the US troops to do what they need to do to pacify Iraq, or
2-things get even worse in Iraq.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if the Lieber Code (http://www.civilwarhome.com/liebercode.htm), rather than various Hague/Geneva/other Conventions, was still the only law governing the conduct of US troops in war or occupation, and the people felt this to be right and reasonable? How could it affect Iraq and the War on Terror?

Nothing would be different because of:

14. Military necessity, as understood by modern civilized nations, consists in the necessity of those measures which are indispensable for securing the ends of the war, and which are lawful according to the modern law and usages of war. (emphasis added)


That would put international concerns to the fore; if anything American troops would be even more limited, but in all likelyhood there would be no significant chage.
 
Nothing would be different because of:

14. Military necessity, as understood by modern civilized nations, consists in the necessity of those measures which are indispensable for securing the ends of the war, and which are lawful according to the modern law and usages of war. (emphasis added)


That would put international concerns to the fore; if anything American troops would be even more limited, but in all likelyhood there would be no significant chage.

Perhaps I was a bit unclear in the OP, but what I meant was, they have this 19th century law and a mentality to match. So do the rest of the world; this is what's OK.
 
These bits are bad news for the insurgents:
82. Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities, whether by fighting, or inroads for destruction or plunder, or by raids of any kind, without commission, without being part and portion of the organized hostile army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but who do so with intermitting returns to their homes and avocations, or with the occasional assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers--such men, or squads of men, are not public enemies, and therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates.

85. War-rebels are persons within an occupied territory who rise in arms against the occupying or conquering army, or against the authorities established by the same. If captured, they may suffer death, whether they rise singly, in small or large bands, and whether called upon to do so by their own, but expelled, government or not. They are not prisoners of war; nor are they if discovered and secured before their conspiracy has matured to an actual rising or to armed violence.
 

Hendryk

Banned
Perhaps I was a bit unclear in the OP, but what I meant was, they have this 19th century law and a mentality to match. So do the rest of the world; this is what's OK.
And what caused the world to remain stuck with 19th-century societal values? This would require a POD pretty far back, which in turn would make your question moot since there would be neither an Iraq War nor possibly even a United States.
 
If that code was followed to the letter, there would not have been the need for a long occupation.

The chaos due to power loss, sporadic water supplies and all of those would be minimized by the infrastructure saving elements and the occupiers would have been required to stop the looting of the national museum, a positive PR moment if there ever was one.
 
Top