Proposed: Solution to Win the Iraq War

...

Problem 1: Uniforms
It’s very difficult to fight a war when the opposing soldiers don’t wear a uniform to distinguish them from civilians. The Geneva Conventions provide certain protections for “Lawful Combatants,” but such protections do not apply to “Unlawful Combatants.” One of the requirements to be a “Lawful Combatant” is that they be “a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war.”1

Since terrorists (or “freedom fighters” as your beliefs prefer) do not wear a “fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance” (commonly referred to as “uniforms”), nor to they “carry their arms openly” they are, by definition and legal code, “Unlawful Combatants” and not protected by the Geneva Conventions. But that doesn’t do anything to help win the war, so what to do?

Solution 1: The U.S. Military needs to put together a definition of what the enemy’s “uniform” looks like, as politically incorrect as that may been. That might include the wearing of a turbin and/or burka, and/or any other “distinguishing” or “distinct” sign, symbol, or attire. Under this new definition many civilians will be classified as “Lawful Combatants” erroneously. There are two solutions to this quandary: (1) the enemy may choose to carry their arms openly and wear a distinguishable uniform in accordance with law, or (2) the civilians can distinguish themselves from the “uniformed army” by not wearing clothing that would apparently align themselves with the standing army’s “uniform.”

Problem 2: Religious Buildings/Shrines
Presently, religious buildings and shrines are off-limits to attacks. The reason? They’re religious buildings.

Solution 2: Any religious building that hosts enemy soldiers and/or Unlawful Combatants is being used as a military outpost and is no longer “protected” as a religious building. It’s ridiculous not to strike a religious building if the religion (or branch thereof) is “proselyting” military orders. That’s like expecting the enemy not to hit our barracks or command posts because inside them we’re “preaching” marching orders. Absurd! If the religious leaders don’t want their buildings bombed, they must disallow use of said buildings by soldiers and/or Unlawful Combatants.

Problem 3: The Media
The media reports on the items of interest, that means things that will get them the most ratings. As sad as it may be, people love blood and gore, and get outraged when they see the realities of war. Do you remember how unified we were as a country when the Towers were struck and we were under attack by an “unknown enemy”? Everything in the media was about the realities of war that were forced upon us, the dead and dying, and the destruction. We were united.

Now, the media is reporting all the things that “we” are doing “wrong” and showing how “poorly” the war effort is being run. Why? It’s all about the ratings. The downside is that this drives public opinion, which shapes the war policy, and forces the war effort to be “politically correct.” Political Correctness will do more damage than the enemy!

Solution 3: Prohibit the media (any media) from being present in or around the theater of war. Detain any and all media representatives (including corporate officials) that broadcast any material that may give aid and comfort to the enemy. By definition, that’s High Treason (or sedition, espionage, or sabotage as the circumstances warrant). Detain them, deny them habeus corpus until after the war is over.

Yes, all these problems are controversial, and yes, the proposed solutions are even more so. The bottom line is that to win the war, you need to fight the war, not pander to public opinion which is too easily swayed by a biased media. Let the Legislature and High Ranking Military perform oversight, not the media conglomerates.

3 thoughts on “Proposed: Solution to Win the Iraq War

  1. What a naive, fool you are. In fact, you’re a top contender for a nomination in Shrub’s administration with such a childish, 3 step suggestion!

    Next time, try comedy, I think it suits you best.

  2. Joe, why don’t we just enlist all US Citizens (big time draft). Give them all uniforms and then start marching on all other countries? Anyone that doesn’t look like us then “Off with their head!!!”

    Don’t know how much it will cost or if it’s even morally correct but why not.

    How about not.

  3. DieNowForPeace, you call me a “naive, fool you are” and my “3 step suggestion” approach “childish,” yet you don’t rebut any of the points. Name calling won’t get any of us anywhere, please, I invite your constructive criticism of the 3 problems that I outlined, and your suggestions to solve them.

    hellinabucket, you asked why I wouldn’t enlist/draft all of us, dress us in uniforms and march us off to war. Simply put, I’m not an elected official, I’m not a military official, I don’t have the authority to do so — nor would I want to. You then imply the I’m racist with your “decapitation for people that don’t look like us” reference. I don’t know what you look like, nor do you know what I look like. I don’t know your race, color, creed, or religion for that matter — nor do you know mine. Making such statements is simply inflammatory — where are your constructive remarks? If you’re an American you have the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed, rather than flinging mud why not think about the ideas that I expressed (also guaranteed) and debate them with me. It’s obvious that we don’t see eye to eye on the matter, but by your failure to illustrate (constructively) what you think is wrong with my ideas, and what ideas you have then aren’t we all just spinning our tires?

    – Joe Levi, http://www.JoeLevi.com

Leave a Reply