There are no rules in warfare other then the one the winning side makes up after the war is over. Most of these are in retribution to acts committed during the war. Acts they may themselves done if faced with the prospect of losing.

And if the Winning or upperhand side does not accept the The Geneva Conventions rules about the POWs then what?

Why, you get a salute by the UN.

Sort of looks like this:

Too bad!

Nothing happens except a lot of smoke blowing and BS at the UN and the it is forgotten.

have you been hanging out with DVader again? your analysis (while accurate) seems a bit dark for your normal sunny disposition.

Geneva convention set mostly standards for how prisoners are treated. In the battle field the don't think anyone from the Geneva Conventions around to throw a red flag if there is a violation. In a life death situation you fight to win no rules. Its war not a sport.

Just as I said the Geneva Convention was an attempt to punish the loser after the fact.

That's politics not warfare!

Warfare is merely politics (or diplomacy) by other means. Therefore there really is no real bright line difference between the two.

Politics/Diplomacy = warfare. Two groups fighting a war because of the differences between them does not equate to diplomacy. You are sure putting a bang in what communication means at the barrel of a gun. Two groups may fight a war in their differences in politics maybe motivated by politics. But warfare itself is not politics.

ozzb, I wasn't the person who said that originally, it was Karl Von Clausewitz who did. I'd suggest he is probably in a better position to know than either one of us. =b

Clausewitz was a hack and a warmonger.

(Truthfully, I don't know the guy. But his quote has been used by simpletons all over ever since to justify their inability to deal gracefully with the rest of the world.) (Sometimes, you've got no other choice. But those situations are really rare.)

Actually he is probably one of the best known and studied Military Strategists to have ever lived. Him and Sun Tzu are the two most quoted military strategists around.

The military is merely a tool that politicians use to exert power when words or economic leverage is insufficient to achieve their desires. People hate the military because they make war. Just like people hate guns because they can kill people. But in both cases, they are tools wielded by others and can be used for good or ill. It is entirely up to the skill and intent of the user whether they are used for good or evil.

Let's quote it right.

"War is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of the same by other means,"

Karl Von Clausewitz

As described by Christopher Bassford, professor of strategy at the National War College of the United States:

One of the main sources of confusion about Clausewitz's approach lies in his dialectical method of presentation. For example, Clausewitz's famous line that "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means," ("Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln") while accurate as far as it goes, was not intended as a statement of fact. It is the antithesis in a dialectical argument whose thesis is the point – made earlier in the analysis – that "war is nothing but a duel [or wrestling match, a better translation of the German Zweikampf] on a larger scale." His synthesis, which resolves the deficiencies of these two bold statements, says that war is neither "nothing but" an act of brute force nor "merely" a rational act of politics or policy. This synthesis lies in his "fascinating trinity" [wunderliche Dreifaltigkeit]: a dynamic, inherently unstable interaction of the forces of violent emotion, chance, and rational calculation.^[1]

Clausewitz may have have been a great general but there are many questions and his theories on what war is.

All war is just a lack of love.

Chris

The silliness or admirability of trying to put rules on war aside, it occurs to me that the cyber-battlefield makes it easier to actually enforce such rules. (I think. I have to spend more time mulling this one over.) If our hackers are better than theirs, we can dictate exactly what is or is not allowed. There is no such thing as insurgency in cyber-war, unless you want to call a denial of service attack an insurgency.

Rules? Now that is just silly.

There have been many many attempts at defining "rules of war" over the centuries but the simple fact of the matter is that following the rules usually means your side loses because the other side won't. In reality there really is only one rule: Win.

"In reality there really is only one rule: Win."

And the definition of "win" is sometimes not what you think it may be.

AH, I THINK I know what you are getting at but just to be clear could you elaborate a bit? Are you talking about Pyrrhic victories? Pyrrhic victories result when the commanders fail to grasp ALL of the peripheral circumstances and variables surrounding the battle, instead of merely the variables specific to the battle itself.

That could be one.

We just had another one announced (of a different nature) in Iraq, where we declared victory and quietly hand over ultimate control of that country to Iran, which was the total opposite of what we wanted.

In politics the definition of victory is very fluid.

Eh, I kinda see what you are getting at there but I don't think the Iraq situation is quite the way you perceive it (although at some point in the not too distant future that is still a possibility). There are still several thousand US troops in Iraq, they've simply been "reclassified" as non-combatant. Again definitions can be very fluid. it gives Obama a chance to claim that he has fulfilled his campaign promise while continuing with the status quo at the same time.

Of course the answer is to take on Iran, but that presupposes that our leadership has at least one testicle between them.

Surprisingly, Obama has actually done better in this domain than I would have expected. I have my criticisms, but I think he has the capacity to strike if he sees a long term value to the effort. The real counterbalance to such an action (domestically) is his political base, which he must answer to and has with the time tables in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The only country that could successfully strike Iran is the US. Israel could not do it alone. A successful strike would require three phases. However, before any such strike could take place some of the fangs in the cards Iran holds must be at least partially neutralized.

Curiously, this may be happening. Hezbollah has been undergoing some extraordinary pressure in Lebanon. Of all countries, Saudi Arabia appears to be playing a part in driving a wedge through Hezbollah. If Hezbollah can be diminished or at least kept busy trying to keep its self intact, the effectiveness of this organization may be diminished enough to keep this card from being played. While Hezbollah has cells in the US, pulling the trigger on these cells would seriously compromise Hezbollah's well being. Hezbollah has grown into a world wide organization with both legal and illegal businesses to fund the organization. Losing that would be a serious blow.

If Shiite influence is suppressed sufficiently in Iraq the need for US resources to come to the rescue would be at a lower state of risk. I don't know what action is going on in that domain. If the Shiite population feels sufficiently threatened (much like the Sunni population did prior to the surge) there may be a shift in alliance. I just don't see that, but who knows.

Lastly, the control of the Straight of Hormuz would require a very coordinated strike by the US Air Force. This is a task that the Air Force is up to coupled with the second to none ability for the US to put special forces on the ground at key locations to direct the course of fire.

If the Air Force essentially takes out every port along the coast of Iran and takes out the supply bunkers that harbor the mines inland, the threat of shutting down the waterways may be defanged. While the capacity exists to do this, it would still be a huge operation, much like Iraq's opening hours in the Gulf War II.

Once the threat of closing the Straight is neutralized the US would be free to go after the nuclear sites. The downside is that most of the brainpower behind Iran's program would be long gone before those strikes could take place, but between the destruction of the labs and manufacturing facilities and the prospect of internal revolution, the program would be set back a good bit.

All this could be done without boots on the ground, except special forces. That would sit well with the Congress and the President.

If the regime falls due to the resulting chaos, that's okay, too. I doubt that any pro-Western regime would take it's place, but it's hard to think of a worse regime filling in the vacuum. We would still have a anti-Western state, but they would likely respect us a little more.

I think the probability of a strike is less than 50%. However, I expect to see a lot of saber rattling going on and efforts to downgrade the cards that Iran holds now. We have already been sabotaging Iran's nuclear program with defective components (pretty sneaky). This has caused delays in the program, but can not stop it. If enough rattling goes on Iran may be willing to make some deals, but so far they have been playing the game of thumbing their nose at the US very, very well.

eh, everybody says Israel has no chance at effectively strike Iran, I'm frankly not so sure about that. Iran has a lot of internal problems and the Imams are only holding things together by the threat of force. But if the Imams were to suddenly undergo rapid random disassembly at the hands of an Israeli intermediate range ballistic missile during a parliamentary meeting(or whatever passes for that in that country), I'd be willing to bet that the populace would be more than willing to throw a major monkey wrench into things. The problem with dictatorships is that they tend to be light on the whole transfer of power/succession thing. they also tend to not allow underlings to exhibit much in the way of independent thought. Anyone who shows the least bit of independence soon finds themselves hanging from the rafters of some jail cell with live wires attached to to unmentionable body parts. if there were a sudden power vacuum at the top of the political food chain, I'd be willing to bet that nobody would have the authority to order a counterstrike.

Further, it is my understanding that those centrifuges don't particularly like losing power suddenly. They tend to undergo their own flavor of rapid random disassembly when they spin down through their resonant frequencies uncontrolled, particularly when the maglev bearings fail. I'd be looking at the power connections for the Natanz facility. It's buried but it has to come to the surface at some point, and I'd be willing to bet it glows pretty brightly in the IR...

Third, I am told Iran follows the old soviet model of placing apartments for the workers near the facility. take out the apartments and there are no workers to keep the facility running.

I'd be willing to bet a multi-pronged attack on all of these fronts would be pretty successful.

THe problem is that Israel can not do that alone. It must have the US working with it.

Remember Iran's three cards; Hezbollah, Shiite control in Iraq, and the Strait of Hormuz. Only the first card would directly impact Israel. However, Israel would be in great peril if it strikes Iran and leaves the world with the aftermath of the other two cards.

Israel might be able to pull off a limited and surgical strike on primary targets in Iran, but it can't neutralize Iran's revenge, Israel simply doesn't have the resources without going nuclear, which is an even bigger can of worms.

Right now Israel is probably playing the mad dog for the US. In other words, Israel is making all kinds of noise signaling an imminent strike and the US is pretending that they are keeping the rabid dog in check as a negotiating tool.

I have become increasingly sure that Israel will not strike because Israel must work in concert with the US to strike Iran. Israel needs the rights to go through various airspaces, which at a minimum would be Saudi Arabia, Iraq (US), and Jordan.

Turkey was on the original flight plan, but the row with Turkey has shut that down. That flotilla event has been traced back to Turkey and who do you think ultimately endorsed that fiasco? I think Iran, which has been warming up to Turkey, played a key role in creating that mess so that Turkey would deny airspace access to Israel.

Lastly, Obama views Israel as a thorn in his side and that of the Muslim world. Obama believes that resolving the Palestinian/Israel issue will defuse tensions between the Muslim world and the West. Obama's goal is to mend those relations so that the US can disengage from the two theaters of war. If the US allowed Israel to attack Iran, that dream would evaporate because the Muslim world would hold the US and the West directly responsible. There is little chance that the US will let Israel strike on its own and little chance that the US would even coordinate with Israel on this one.

No, I think if there is an attack, only the US would and can politically do it.

The prime minister here (Turkey) wants to be famous and a name on the world stage. As he is a religious type he has a chance only with the arabs (actually none there either but he doesn't believe it).

Iran had nothing to do with the flotilla - just the political ambitions of the prime minister and trying to make points with the arabs.

The Saudi Government is at least as scared of a nuclear Iran as Israel is and it is my understanding that SA has already given back room approval to officially look elsewhere when the time comes for Israel to do what needs to be done. It is my understanding that they have even given approval for Israel to use a base in Northern SA as a forward staging base. So SA is definitely on board, at least unofficially. They can't afford Iran shutting down the strait any more than the rest of the world. Oil exports are their ONLY cash crop, and they haven't exactly been saving for a rainy day. They can't afford a disruption.

It is also my understanding that American forces in Iraq are under orders to not molest Israeli aircraft. And given the animosity that the Suni minority have over the long war, they wouldn't be all that upset about it either. They will probably claim that Israel violated their airspace without authorization, just for deniability reasons, same with SA.

But again, if Israel can decapitate the Iranian leadership, who will be sending the orders to Hezbolla/Hamas/Republican Guard troops?

Israel has no choice but to take out Iran.

If someone was to threaten the life of my wife or my daughter, they would be exterminated...............period.......or I would

I'm glad I finally found the political round table.

See my post #37 above.

I think there is no chance in hell that Israel will strike Iran. They don't have the resources and the aftermath would be unthinkable.

Good post....IMO, if Iran continues to rattle it's sabre...and continues it's pledge to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.....and finally has deployable nuclear weapons, (which is close), Israel will have no choice but to carry out a pre-emptive strike against Tehran, with or without our help.

I read your opinion, and this is mine.

One thing to consider. Iran has the potential to make one or two nuclear bombs in the next year. Iran still has to deliver them, which they have some capacity to do, but not certainly. Delivering and detonating a nuclear warhead is not trivial.

Israel has somewhere between 100 to 200 nuclear weapons and a number of operational platforms to launch them from, now.

Even if the SHTF, the likelihood of retaliation is probably 100% and would elevate Iran to the position to be an official nuclear waste dumpsite.

To the current leadership of Iran this is exactly what they want. We have to remember that this is fundamentally different from the US/Soviet standoff. Not all players are rational. The Imams believe that out of the nuclear fire will emerge the 12th imam who will lead Islam to victory over the entire world. Insane, but there it is.

"Insane, but there it is."

I couldn't agree more

in the world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

I think we should teach everyone in the world programming, at least in pseudocode...

then perhaps when these things get written down, they might be able to apply critical thinking to their dogmatic creations.

IF
. I do whatever [Religious Interpreter] says that the [Arcane Religious Source Document - Version 123] says to do THEN Kill Others in the name of [Religious Deity's Username]
ELSE
. Die Gloriously
END IF

Chris

yes... long post.. _^(ga) I'm so glad we don't discuss politics on CR4.

It's so refreshing to finally find a site that refuses to discuss politics." BLOGS ONLY"

We are not smart enough to discuss politics or religion. Don't you get it?

You need to settle down and stop being so uppity.

I'm pretty sure Chris was joking.

So was I. I tried to convey that with my smiley face. I just like to give Chris a hard time occasionally.

Politics usually ends up in a flame war all its own, and isn't informative to anyone. This one is being carried out with a scary degree of insight and credibility.. I like it.

I'm not informed very much about middle east politics. (what I know I learned from Jon Stewart) I will say this though.. the greatest weapon is... timing.

Did you see this 'ultimate weapon'? Is that what you mean by saber rattling?

Chris

The Iranian president doesn't know the difference between a V2 rocket and a drone - no one who does know is interested in explaining!

that was sort of my thought too.... ^{_{(ps.. I think you mean V1 rocket)}}

The V2 was to be the successor to the V1 but was so secret that no one knew about it - not even the Germans! As no one knew about the V2 it didn't affect the balance of power.

Got me - guess I got carried away.

Yes....These people are deadly serious and need to be treated as such.

I like these conversations also. I think all of us would be wise to try to keep up on what's going on around the planet.

Even though we are not allowed, it's nice of the bloggers to start political discussions for us.

Hell, in this case we're actually showing that we can have these discussions without going into a crazy melt down.

Hope you didn't take me seriously when I called you uppity.

ya my friends treat me worse than my enemies...lol

My brief reply to this very off-topic political discussion is:

AH and I don't often agree, but his analysis is right (as limited by MY ability to get it right). That's got to mean something. It's a damn shame that someone like Dick Cheney isn't as bright.

A nuclear-capable Iran isn't the end of the world. They're more rational than they let on.

Don't forget that the losses we suffer in Iraq and Afghanistan are militarily insignificant. Politically very significant, personally unendurable, but no big deal in the big picture.

Afghanistan is a Just War. Iraq was Just Nuts.

"Dick Cheney isn't as bright"

I'd have to disagree. He was very bright.. but patently evil, and conducted his activities under the veil of secrecy.

Evil? Oh, I really don't think so. Far less so than ANY of the current administration.

must disagree. I still cringe at the thought of him... and that puppet he controlled. (W)

Still, it is all BS... the real power is elsewhere, behind the scenes... (bilderberg group, et al.)

chris

Actually, I would be interested in hearing what people may know/speculate about any current cyberwar that is ongoing with Iran.

I am sure it is happening as I write. I would suspect that the US and perhaps others are pinging and testing Iran on a broad spectrum of electronic fronts.

Partly to gain intelligence on Iran's defenses and current internal state, partly to keep Iran nervous and guessing. If you keep poking at someone, threatening to attack, but always pulling back before the act, eventually that someone just assumes that this time is just another provocation and not an attack. It's all a game.

So, how would cyber-warfare play in this role and any possible attack?

The recent Seimens SCADA exploit that has been found in the wild has been mostly infecting the middle/far east since most of those countries prefer to do business with the Germans since they aren't picky about who they sell their equipment to. Pakistan, India, Turkey, and Iran are among the countries with highest rates of infection. it has been speculated that it is coming from China, but I have to wonder if that is really the case. Looking at who benefits would tend to point elsewhere.

Cyber warfare will do us little good in the Middle East. We do have things that can fry all electronic devices. Not a lot of help.

The more sophisticated we get in these wars, the less sophisticated they get. The frustrating part is, the successes they derive through simplicity and lack of technology. We see it almost daily.

I'm afraid these wars will have to be won the old fashioned way. Bullets and bombs.

Don't get me wrong, predator drones and all of the other electronic goodies that we have certainly help, but we're dealing with people that have been fighting either each other, or someone else for centuries. It's what they do......

Our offensive cyber capabilities - I'm assuming they're substantial - have a limiting effect on a potential enemy's sophistication. Iran and anyone else looking to take us on probably realizes that the more they computerize their weapons systems, the more vulnerable they are to meddling. That's not to say a top-of-the-line opponent like China or Russia can't preserve some substantial electronic capability (they've got smart people too) and/or create headaches for us, but just given what's made public, I believe we both utilize and take seriously the risks of utilizing computers in warfare better than anyone.

Iran isn't a primitive society by any means, but we've been doing computerized warfare longer and are better at it. They should forget about remote control of anything, and like kramarat says, need to rely on old school methods. In the meantime our drones and GPS weapons will retain (most of) their capability.

Iran only has one oil refinery and it runs Seimens SCADA equipment. they have to import virtually ALL of their refined products. If that refinery were to go belly up and imports were squeezed by international sanctions, Iran would be in a world of hurt.

I have a saying that is probably appropiate here.

win if you can, lose if you must, but always, always cheat.

In war there is no such thing as cheating!

I always liked the quote (I forget who said it)....

It is not the soldier's duty to die for his country. It is his job to convience his enemy to do that.

Or something along those lines.

"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."

General George S. Patton

I always liked 'ol George...

He did have a way with words!

Personally I think he was probably one of the best generals the US has ever had. He was definitely the most effective, even if he didn't get along with people all that well. While I can't say as I agree with his politics, but Nathan Bedford Forrest was pretty dang effective as well.

Who was the general in Korea that when told his station was surrounded exclaimed, 'Good, then we don't have to worry which way to shoot!'

People that get things done, will always have enemies.

Good thing for him he couldn't have joined CR4. That kind of blunt language would have kept him in the naughty chair.

Probably the first attempts at rules of war were the development of chivalry. It tried to govern the behaviour of knights. It did not apply to the foot soldiers. One of the rules of chivalry was a knight taken in battle he was to be released to fight another day. This obviously did not happen too often.

If cyberwar rules were to be implemented, the only ones that would be capable of enforcing such rules would be CR4 moderators...........I hope there are enough of them to go around.

The danger is not so much what cyber warfare can do to the military forces, but the economic engine of the private enterprise, which is very vulnerable in the free world.

There is that, but there is also the danger of what infrastructure loss/disruption can do to the civilian populace. How many ICU patients will die when the ventilators stop working? How many people will die when petrochemical plants explode? or sewage treatments stop working? or water treatment systems stop working? or older people dying of heatstroke because there is no power for the AC? or freezing to death when there is no heat?

If everybody could agree to some" Rules of War" a war would never happen. This is not the 18th century when war was a board game played by kings. Today, most threats come from groups with no national affiliation, or a handful of rogue states. Do you think that they should care to follow any rules.