Fighting Lawfully

This is possibly the best short explanation of the rules of war that I've read. I missed it when it was first written.

Too often, international complaints that we or Israel violate the rules of war (Law of Armed Conflict, or LOAC) simply complain about our effective use of force that is completely lawful against enemies who actually violate the rules of war as a matter of policy. This should be printed and carried by every reporter writing about warfare:

The fundamental aim of LOAC is to prevent unnecessary casualties and destruction within the context of military conflict. In pursuit of that goal, three principles govern: necessity, distinction, and proportionality. In general, “necessity” requires that combatants only attack targets necessary to accomplish military objectives. “Distinction” requires that combatants not only distinguish between civilians and combatants, but they also distinguish themselves from civilians (through the wearing of uniforms, use of clearly identified military vehicles, etc.). Finally, “proportionality” requires a combatant to use only that force necessary to accomplish the military objective. It does not require you to use the same force as your enemy (you can bring a JDAM to a gun fight).

I'd want a better description of the "proportional" principle. After all, Eisenhower noted “Never send a battalion to take a hill if a regiment is available.” Was Eisenhower advocating a war crime? Obviously not.

After all, you might be able to take that hill with only a battalion. Is it then "disproportionate" to use a regiment? No. One part of being necessary to accomplish the mission is to understand that you want to minimize the casualties you endure and the time you need to take that objective--because taking the hill is just one mission for the bigger mission of winning the war. Suffering too many casualties because the force used is simply great enough to overcome the enemy at that particular objective could cripple that unit's ability to carry on future missions in the short run. And taking too much time to accomplish the objective allows the enemy time to continue resisting more effectively.

Further, absolutely crushing the enemy to demoralize them rather than forcing them to grudgingly give ground in the face of your attack is also an objective. Once an enemy stops resisting, you must stop killing them. But while they resist, maximum violence is not only allowable--it is advisable.

Perhaps this would be better:

The fundamental aim of LOAC is to prevent unnecessary casualties and destruction within the context of military conflict. In pursuit of that goal, three principles govern: necessity, distinction, and proportionality. In general, “necessity” requires that combatants only attack targets necessary to accomplish military objectives. “Distinction” requires that combatants not only distinguish between civilians and combatants, but they also distinguish themselves from civilians (through the wearing of uniforms, use of clearly identified military vehicles, etc.). Finally, “proportionality” requires a combatant to use only that force necessary to accomplish the military objective immediate and broader military objectives. It does not require you to use the same force as your enemy (you can bring a JDAM to a gun fight).

Too many people who write about American or Israeli "violations" of the laws of war are simply attempting to make us less effective in fighting our enemies. All is not fair in war, to be sure. But all is fair in love of our enemies, it seems.

As a funny aside, CBS doesn't seem to observer their definition of "proportionality" when fighting their own foes. Tip to Instapundit.