Tony Talbert

Interesting discussion -- particularly Jeff Gilbert's thoughtful comments. I was commissioned as an army 2nd Lieutenant in 1965 and have always looked at this issue as having three components: 1) The Geo-political - i.e, the determination of war, just or otherwise, declaration of war, etc. Obviously outside my ability to control except via the ballot box and public opinion. 2) Strategic Military - i.e, target selection, theatre operations, etc. At this level a senior commander would need to decide, for example, whether collateral non-combatant casualties &/or property distruction are justified by military necessity. An positive example would be General Von Choltitz's refusal to obey Hitler's order to burn Paris. 3) Tactical Military - i.e, the day to day operations by the small and medium units. This is the level that really impacts every soldier in the field. Mr. Gilbert's eloquent comment about a violation of the rules of land warfare not being worth his soul says it all. Apparently LT Calley forgot this at My Lai -- or perhaps never understood it. The rules have been developed to give us all guidelines in an endeavor that is frought with the danger of atrocities, and, to allow for punishment of nations/individuals which violate them. A situation to ponder: a SF team is deep behind enemy lines on a recce mission. Despite their best precautions they are discovered by an enemy patrol and, after a brief fire fight, one enemy soldier remains alive and surrenders. They don't believe that the mission has as yet been compromised. What do they do? Is the prisoner a non-combatant now? [ October 22, 2002, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Tony Talbert ]