Rules of engagement and the myth of humane war – The Guardian

Samuel Moyn is right to emphasise how humanising war has distracted attention from questioning whether there should be a war in the first place (How the US created a world of endless war, 31 August). We could go further and argue that the permissive interpretation of the rules that he highlights has actually led to a dehumanisation in war.

The last 20 years have seen torture, multiple targeted killings by drones controlled from a safe distance, apparently self-explanatory categories such as law-of-war detainees, law-of-war targets, and the destruction of objects contributing to what has been called the war-sustaining economy. It is as if once one accepts one is at war, we accept that sticking a law-of-war label on all the killing and destruction makes it inevitable and acceptable.

Deep in the concept of war lies a need to adopt a state of mind that dehumanises the enemy. We should be careful not only about claims that war has been humanised, but also be aware that the very idea of war creates a state of mind where the enemy is dehumanised. Andrew Clapham Professor of international law, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies

The article on Americas endless wars raised many interesting issues. The idea that the US could strike over long distance by drone without incurring casualties is now an entrenched military maxim. This may not always be valid.

Some years ago I listened to a specialist in military ethics consider the balance of action and reaction to drone strikes from a legal standpoint. He suggested that if the target was a legitimate objective, its remote pilot or any of its supporting personnel, perhaps in Nevada, were themselves potentially legitimate targets from an adversarys perspective .

Civilian casualties associated with these targets would not be legitimate, but, as with so many innocent victims of drone warfare, might possibly be described as unfortunate examples of collateral damage. The general conclusion from this discussion was that drone warfare, even at a distance, posed major challenges for any advocate of a just war on terrorism and for anyone supposing it might be free of deadly consequences for its operators. Prof Keith HaywardLondon

To add some context to your long read, its worth remembering that there have been global wars initiated and inspired by the US since the end of the second world war. The first was the war on communism, AKA the cold war, which some would say was a major factor in the current situation in Afghanistan because the US funded, armed and supported the forces fighting the Soviet Unions occupation forces, seen by Washington as representing communism.

Then there is the continuing war on terror and the continuing war on drugs; the latter is now in its 50th year and the cause of tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of mainly civilian deaths across the world.

What all have in common is that they were and are unwinnable, and just go on and on with no pause for reflection or consideration of what the wars are actually achieving. George Orwells 1984 foresaw endless war. However, his intention was prophecy and warning, not the provision of an instruction manual. Blaine Stothard London

Surely Britain deserves the headline on this article more than the United States, since it has been involved in so many wars for many centuries.Margaret VandecasteeleWick, Caithness

Have an opinion on anything youve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.

Continue reading here:

Rules of engagement and the myth of humane war - The Guardian