"American-Like" Musings

After reading American Myths: What Canadians think they know about America and having a bit of a conversation in the comments attached to a previous entry, I decided to pick up another book that I acquired along the way: The History of American Wars: From Colonial Times to World War 1 by T Harry Williams.

(I'm a compulsive book buyer. At least 2/3 of the books I own are still waiting for me to read them. One of the best places to buy books is at public library book sales. They periodically try to dispose of books that no one is borrowing or reading any more, and they go really, really cheaply.)

But anyway, back to my musings. On the top of page 22 of this tome are the following two paragraphs, in reference to what is known as The Seven Years War, or, in America-speak, The French and Indian War (Emphasis mine):

"Because it was a new kind of war and because the Americans were a new people and not as bound as Europeans by old rules, the conduct of the war departed in significant ways from the eighteenth-century pattern. This was most apparent in the American's disregard of accepted rules of war, in part a legacy of their experience with the Indians [Ed. who broke all the rules, or rather, didn't know such rules existed and would probably have laughed at them anyway and maybe did.]. They occasionally embarked on winter campaigns, at the time a practice almost unheard of -- partially because of the logistical difficulties involved but also because by the prevailing leisurely standards there was no need to fight in disagreeable weather.

The Americans performed in ways the British considered savage or treacherous. Their riflemen aimed at and shot officers, who as gentlemen were not be be fired at deliberately, a least not by common soldiers. A British officer stigmatized this American practice as showing a lack of "modern good breeding." [Ed. Maybe therein lies the source of Canadian anti-Americanism. Pretentious notions about superior "breeding". LOL!] Americans often resorted to unprecedented trickery. At the battle of Bennington a rebel militia force opposed British regulars who had been joined by Loyalist militia of the area. Neither militia group was in uniform, of course, but each wore distinguishing rosettes. A body of patriot militia fashioned Loyalist rosettes and infiltrated the British flanks and rear and from these vantage points poured in a devastating fire when the battle was joined. The result was a slaughter of the British and a shocking blow to feudal notions of honor in war."

Okay. What's the point of quoting these passages here? Well, quite simply, war tactics change over time. The pre-revolutionary wars, at least in Europe, were fought on open fields with lines of soldiers facing each other, picking each other off. It's a scene more likely to cause laughter today.

Likewise, our obsession with the Geneva Conventions and with modern "rules of war" may be our undoing. While it's perhaps not necessary to dispense with all of that good stuff, it may be helpful to understand that these conventions and rules were crafted based on, what was then recent, war-time experiences.

Terrorists and their sponsoring states do not play by those rules. To win, we must not delude ourselves into thinking that we are superior (of superior breeding) if we don't stoop to their level. Military innovation is often what gives the winning side the advantage. And that innovation appears in more than just the hardware used on battlefields or in the air. It also appears in rules and customs of combat. I mean, really, why wouldn't or shouldn't officers be shot? So too, why shouldn't captured terrorists be subjected to waterboarding, to name just two examples. If someone can release a worm like Stuxnet and cripple Iran's nuclear program, you know the conduct of war has evolved. And if a drone can eliminate in one shot three big al-Qaeda ringleaders, then hallelujah!

Geneva Conventions, Islamist Thugs and Wikileaks

Great article at American Thinker.

"Nations fighting terrorism are subject to the Geneva Conventions, while the terrorist groups are not. Additional articles and protocols are absolutely necessary to cover terrorist acts and military action, as well as the individuals and nations that fund, supply, and protect terror organizations within their own borders and elsewhere. The same ought to be true for cyber-crimes, such as the unrestricted disclosure of military classified material on the internet.

WikiLeaks describes itself as "a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public." By "sensitive materials," WikiLeaks means secret, classified, proprietary material not intended for public consumption. WikiLeaks further appointed itself as adjudicator of "transparency in government activities," which it believes "leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies." WikiLeaks further states that "We believe this scrutiny requires information" and "with technological advances the internet, and cryptography -- the risks of conveying important information can be lowered."

Would WikiLeaks, as well as those dutiful contributing whistle-blowers, journalists, and activists who approve it, countenance the release of their own medical and psychiatric histories, their financial information, and so forth? Or would they prefer the protection of the laws for their privacy? Given that posting classified information breaks laws practically everywhere, the rest of us theoretically need that "sensitive" information about WikiLeaks in order to decide for ourselves who is actually providing a valuable and "multi-jurisdictional public service." How does WikiLeaks' biased agenda makes it morally superior to the governments and agencies whose secret materials it exposes?"

Remarks in the comments also bring up the issue of the lack of leadership in the White House about this. RTWT