Rules of Engagement: Listener Discussion
The Gatling Gun patent drawing (1865). The gun was patented on May 9, 1865, and was officially adopted by the U.S. Army on August 21, 1866. Courtesy of the National Archives.
America’s use of targeted drone strikes in Pakistan and elsewhere has raised questions about what is — and is not — an appropriate way to wage war. In this episode, the History Guys will look at the ways previous generations have answered these sorts of questions. From the advent of automatic weapons to the atomic bomb; from the suspension of habeus corpus to the use of torture as an interrogation technique; we’ll consider how Americans have drawn the line between what is fair and what is foul.
What questions do you have for the History Guys? Have you or someone you know been forced to deal with the complexities of battle first hand? Are you curious about the deep history of “enhanced interrogation techniques?” Let us know!
In the 2003 documentary “The Fog of War,” Fmr. Secretary of Defense William McNamara asked “How much evil must we do in order to do good?” That question is troubling, profound and maybe even prophetic. Consider what America’s Armed Forces have done in the name of “good.” How well did that gibe with the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights? Depending on how the BackStory team is approaching these 53-minutes, that question warrants a segment.
During the Nuremberg Trials the U.S. Chief Prosecutor, Robert Jackson, admonished engaging in “aggressive war.” I found that bizarre; War is aggressive! In fact, Gen. William T. Sherman supposedly said that “war is hell.” One can argue that it is equivalent to state-sponsored homicide which has a policy objective. A dispute over the idea of aggressive war is worthwhile.
QuoteIn the 18th- and 19th-century Western international system(s), what did a declaration of war signify? It seems plausible that the declaration that a state of war existed was a declaration the that laws and accepted conventions of international war would be observed by the declared belligerents, not the rules that applied to outlaws or rebels. Thus a country that declares that war exists could accept that (eg) privateers operating under its enemy’s letters of marque would be treated as lawful combatants, not as pirates, and could expect that its forces would be accorded the same treatment. This sense of a declaration of war functioning as a country’s statement to other countries that it would limit how it carries out its wars reemerged, of course, in some of the debates in our own time.
Quote2 questions: (1) After so much discussion about interrogations techniques (including the constitutionality of them and whether they are effective) in connection with the current war on terror, I was wondering if these questions have previously surfaced – WWII with Japanese (including Japanese Americans), Germans or Italians, Civll War with Confederate soldiers or sympathizers, War of 1812, Revolutionary War with the British and Loyalists. (2) After watching US forces “invade” Pakistan (our ally) to kill Bin Laden and launch drone attacks, I was wondering if there have been other instances of us “invading” or “attacking” allies. Our involvement in Laos and Cambodia come to mind as possibilities. How do we justify “invading” or “attacking” countries that are supposed to be our allies (or who are neutral)? Lastly, I just wanted to say that I love the show.
QuoteWatched you guys on CNN today. Glad to have found your radio station on line after your CNN debut. Any chance on getting your show broadcasted up here in Connecticut, The Constitution State
QuoteI’m interested in 17th and 18th century war crimes committed by English colonists, for example during the Pequot war. I’ve heard (I believe in the writings of Jill Lepore?) that the Pilgrim’s native american allies were appalled by the slaughter and considered the massacres to be war cimes at the time, which raises an interesting question about cultural ideas about the proper laws of war among different native american ethnicities, and how these might have shifted after encountering the European invasions.
I don’t want to propound the racist myth of the noble savage that didn’t really engage in warfare here – some native american tribes apparently committed genocide against others, and many enslaved war captives. However, my understanding is that European total war tactics genuinely shocked and appalled some tribes – even when they weren’t the targets.
Another example that I believe doesn’t get near enough attention is George Washington’s orders to Major General John Sullivan to commit war crimes against Iroquois factions in 1779 (for Washington’s orders, see http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=WasFi15.xml&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=165&division=div1). Apparently, both the Iroquois and Washington’s forces committed war crimes, and Brodhead and Sullivan followed Washington’s orders to destroy villages, with devastating results. See, for example: http://www.historynet.com/massacre-retribution-the-1779-80-sullivan-expedition.htm.
QuoteAnother aspect that I’m interested in, and have a more personal involvement in through my role as a co-founder and now a volunteer on the GI Rights Hotline (www.girightshotline.org), is people throughout US history who have, for reasons of conscience, refused to commit or spoke out against war crimes.
Roger Williams spoke out against the Massachusett’s Bay Colony’s attacks on native americans, opposing the theft of native land and calling forced conversion, “monstrous and most inhumane” (http://www.iangoddard.com/roger.htm). His opposition to religious coercion was one of the main “crimes” that resulted in the theocratic authorities exiling him from the Colony.
There are examples from throughout US history, but I’m most familiar with Vietnam Veterans Against the War’s (including John Kerry’s) exposure of US war crimes in Vietnam through the Winter Soldier hearings (https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/VVAW_WinterSoldier.html), and the Winter Soldier II hearings to air evidence of US war crimes committed in Irag and Afghanistan (http://www.ivaw.org/wintersoldier).
My colleague Chris Lombardi is working on a book on this subject: I Ain’t Marching Anymore: Soldiers Who Dissent, from the Boston Massacre to Bradley Manning (http://aintmarching.net/about-the-book-and-this-site/).
QuoteGlad you found us, Fred! BackStory has aired from time-to-time as a special on various CT stations, but we haven’t yet secured a weekly slot there. Why don’t you drop your local pubic radio station a line to share your thoughts about the program? A little feedback goes a long way!
QuoteI’m interested in hearing more about the Lieber Code, the Civl War, and it’s influence on later codes of war. I’ve seen historians cite the Lieber Code as being the first code of modern warfare, at least for Europe and the Americas, but it seems to me that before I needed to do actual research on the subject, I had never heard about it. Did it actually have any influence on future U.S. laws or policies? How often was it cited or used?
Looking forward to listening to the show!
QuoteTo my mind, one of the most shameful commands ever uttered by a US military officer was Gen. Jacob “Howling Jake” Smith’s order to his troops to “kill everyone over the age of ten” and to make the island of Samar “a howling wilderness” during the Philippine-American War (1899 – c.1902). The command was in retaliation for a massacre of 48 American soldiers by Filipino guerrilla fighters in the town of Balangiga on the island of Samar in September 1901. Smith followed up his order by telling his subordinates, “I want you to kill and burn. The more you kill and the more you burn, the more you will please me.”
The command was a clear violation of the accepted rules of engagement at the time. Smith was eventually court-martialed for this command, but he received nothing more than a slap on the wrist by the American military courts.
How was Smith able to get away with this crime? Some historians claim it was simple racism: who cares that a bunch of Filipino peasants who were fighting against American rule were killed. Others say it was the public’s fatigue with the war to pacify the Islands. What do you guys think?
Oh, and as for the origins of enhanced interrogation techniques, you should look into this same conflict, the Philippine-American War (called the Philippine Insurrection in some history texts). The Americans applied the “Water Cure” to Filipinos who were suspected of helping rebel fighters in order to extract information about their whereabouts. It is the first use of water-boarding by the US, a technique the Americans learned from the Spanish Inquisition.
Oh, and I have one final question regarding the Philippine-American War. It’s been said that the Colt .45 was invented because the American military needed a handgun with enough stopping power to fell the fierce Filipino rebel fighters during this conflict. True?
Thanks, guys. Love the show.
QuoteSorry, forgot to point something out. The Philippine-American War was a guerrilla war, fought by American soldiers who were opposed by an enemy force that did not wear a uniform and could disappear into the local population at will. To many in the US military, any Filipino may very well secretly be an enemy fighter, or supporter. This heightened paranoia led to a request to change the rules of engagement on the battlefield. Basically, the military asked to be able to shoot Filipinos more freely. How frequently have the rules of engagement been changed in the course of the US military’s history? Are there different rules of engagement for guerrilla wars or for today’s war on terror?
Quote