Can low-tech armies fight legal wars?

Posted By David Bosco Wednesday, March 23, 2011 - 4:20 PM Share

Libya has been an intervention largely premised on violations of the rules and norms of warfare. At least according to the official story, it was the Gaddafi regime's brutalities, and specifically its attacks on civilians, that put it beyond the pale and opened the door to international intervention. I've got no quibble with this rationale, although the scale of the killing and atrocities in Libya remains somewhat murky. But it does raise an interesting question: can a low-tech army fight a civil war, particularly in urban areas, without regularly violating the laws of war and endangering civilians?

Imagine for a moment that a poor country is fighting a civil war with a low-tech and spottily trained army. Imagine further that the government leaders have no intention of abusing civilians but are determined to prevail against the rebels, most of whom don't wear uniforms. Is this kind of army even capable of conducting operations that don't fall well afoul of the rules of war? It may be that developments in the laws of war and changing norms have made lawful war almost impossible for all except the most advanced militaries, blessed with precision weapons and enormous budgets.

 

DOUG12

5:07 PM ET

March 23, 2011

Can low-tech armies fight legal wars?

This article brought to mind warfare between Hamas, Hizbollah. and the Israelis. Hamas and the Israelis have both been faulted within the Goldstone report for excesses. Other than that, I can't think of any other examples describing the complex nature of fighting an insurgent war.

 

GRANT

8:45 AM ET

March 24, 2011

Difficult to say, especially

Difficult to say, especially when the low tech armies seem to be surrounded by factors that make them unlikely to attempt to follow the laws more than they are absolutely required to such as corruption, unyielding support for political elites and the lack of likely prosecution. Perhaps we should if that's a consequence of being low tech or it's because of their countries political systems*? We already know that the Russian military has abuses related to the treatment of new recruits, I'm surprised that we don't have anything on the Chinese military. Is it because China has been in far fewer wars or is it more opaque?

*Please no comments on abuses by the U.S military except when it can be shown to be widespread, supported by at least some local officers or officials and not the isolated actions of a few soldiers. In other words Abu Ghraib might count for this but a soldier shooting civilians in a rage wouldn't. Guantanamo Bay probably wouldn't because that seems to be more linked to intelligence agencies.

 

JEDO

8:47 AM ET

March 24, 2011

Modern armies

Good point. But can't the same be said about 'modern' armies who prefer airstrikes and use of drones over using ground troops? The use of such warfare has led to civilian deaths in Kosovo and Afghanistan (and might be the case in Libya) where there has been a reluctance to put troops in harms way. Even with precision weapons, fighting a war from afar can lead to civilians being killed and may also breach laws of war.

 

David Bosco reports on the new world order for The Multilateralist.

Read More