In the past I wrote that we should renounce the Geneva Conventions. My argument was simple, almost all of those we are likely to fight (North Korea, Iran and terrorists without a national affiliation) are unlikely to abide by them, especially the terrorists, as they are not signatories. Yet we will be expected to abide by the rules, even when fighting non-signatories, even when they fight out of uniform. Basically the agreements will no longer serve their original purpose, being an agreement between equals to treat one another's captives humanely, and instead will simply be a means of hobbling our military and scoring PR victories, while imposing no restraints on our enemies. (See "Goodbye Geneva", "Why Nuremberg?", "Last Thought on the Topic".)

Since then I have found another term that needs to be eliminated. "Civilian". This weasel word is used to make us (and Israel) the bad guy no matter what we do. You see, terrorists fight out of uniform, and hide among sympathizers who are likewise not in uniform. And so, when we (or the IDF) kills them, maybe killing collaborators, and sympathizers who hid them, we are guilty of killing "civilians". (See "Do Liberals Even Read What They Write?", "A Pet Peeve", "Another Pet Peeve", "A Hypothetical Situation", "The Failure of Negotiation", "Moral Equivalence".) Yet, when the terrorists hide among non-combatants, they are not guilty of endangering civilians, as they are not soldiers themselves, just "civilians". In fact, terrorist can target civilians specifically and draw no accusations, as they are not an army, just "civilians" fed up with "intolerable circumstances."

Until we capture them. At that point the Geneva Conventions would allow us to execute them, either as civilian terrorists or partisans, or as soldiers fighting out of uniform.But the terrorist sympathizers suddenly claim these "civilians" are soldiers and deserve every protection under the Geneva Conventions. At least until they reach the POW camps, then they become "civilians" again and deserve civilian criminal trials, not military detention until the end of hostilities. (See "Guilty Until Proven Guilty", "Somehow The Media Missed This", "Questions Raised by Boumedine", "Confirmation, If It Is True".)

It is enough to drive you mad.

We need to redefine civilian. We also need to redefine what is and is not allowable in war. We once understood this. in World War II there was not a collective rending of garments and wails of protest over civilian deaths.We recognized the German people made the Nazi war machine possible, even if some sympathized with us not the Nazis. So we accepted that killing them in the process of taking out factories was permissible. We didn't even get too upset over actions which seemed to target civilian centers. Some did, but the public for the most part accepted that war was fought to win, and that bombing Germany would win the war. We would have been disturbed to hear of random execution of civilians, but short of specifically targeting civilians, we were fine with collateral damage.

But now, it seems we will not allow even one non-combatant death. We even count terrorists, their families and supporters among the "civilian casualties". Ever wonder why the numebrs vary so much over Iraqi "civilian deaths"? Maybe because some count as a civilian anyone not wearing a uniform, be they terrorist, soldier in mufti, or Iranian infiltrator. (Also, because some "estimate" by taking every reported death and multiplying by 10 or 100, the same way rape advocacy groups "assume" only "1 in X rapes are reported" and generate absurd figures like 1 in 2 women will be raped. But that is a topic for another blog.)

What we need are two changes in our way of thinking about war.

First, we need to define civilian as someone who is not involved in the conflict, someone who does not attack us, does not support those who attack us, does not hide them, does not provide them with supplies, in short, someone completely outside of the conflict. Anyone else is a combatant, in uniform or not.

Second, we need to realize it is not a question of civilian casualties or no civilian casualties. It is a question of accepting a few civilian casualties in battle or many, many more civilian casualties in a terrorist attack. I knwo the left claims every civilian casualty in Afghanistan or Iraq causes more terroists, but I disagree. We tried being nice under Carter and Clinton, even under Reagn (see "Lebanon and Saint Reagan", "Foreign Policy", "Iran Gets What It Wants ", "I Figured It Out (A Semi-Comic Post)") and it stopped nothing, it gave us 9/11. But, despite the claims of some, terrorists are not all fanatics. There are some, but many are sensible men, who, seeing that being a terrorist will get them killed, will choose another line of work. Those are the supporters, the enablers, the logistics guys, and so on. But without them the suicide bombers can't function, and can't recruit. If we can encourage the rank and file to stop supporting the terrorist hard core, then that hard core will eventually disappear through attrition, or be reduced to impotence. (See "What About The Crusades?", "Thoughts on Islam and the Current Conflict", "Winning Over Moderates", "Perceptions of Iraq".)

And that is what I mean by my question of where the civilian casualties will be. Would we rather accept a few civilian deaths in the pursuit of victory or have a lot of deaths in the US? The ironic part is that many Iraqis are more patient with civilian deaths in Iraq than we are. Not all, but many are willing to accept that there were some deaths to prevent even more deaths had Saddam remained in power (or that there are deaths now to prevent Iranian or Syrian takeover, or a Baathist restoration). Yet the US, which, if anything, would face worse consequences, while suffering fewer civilian (though more military) deaths, is not willing to accept that some Iraqi civilians might die in this conflict, even if it brings safety to the US, and freedom to Iraq.

It makes no sense to me.

Then again, as those who disagree with me invented the many definitions of "civilian" applied to terrorists, I don't think I would trust them to explain it to me.