Terrorism and the Hague Convention of 1907

I'm going to state up front that I have quite a few issues with this article that I found linked at Bainbridge.

The refusal of groups like Al Qaeda to play by the rules poses serious problems for states fighting against them. First, it means that literally anything is a target-- subways, busses, commercial buildings, schools, shopping malls, and so on. It is impossible in any society, let alone a free society, to begin to protect all such targets. Second, it places legal constrains on state combatants that do not seem to affect the non-state actors. We are to play by the rules, even as they explicitly refuse to do so.

Some have suggested that the United States and its allies should set aside the traditional rules relating to the conduct of war. In this Global War on Terror, the gloves should be completely off, and we should do what is necessary to win. But that approach poses more problems than it solves. Abandoning the laws of war undercuts our international legitimacy and, even worse, turns us into the very thing that we fight.

This argument is really getting old for me. Let's parse out some of the reasons why the Hague Convention and the Geneva conventions also don't apply to this topic.

First the easiest of them all. Go directly to the Hague Convention Article 1.

Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer
corps fulfilling the following conditions:
1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
3. To carry arms openly; and
4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."

Now I want someone to tell me that this article is being upheld by the terrorist groups. It obviously doesn't apply. They fall outside of the classification of the norms of warfare as defined in the convention, thus they deserve no protections outlined therein. Article 2 even reinforces this concept.

Next, jump to article 22.

Art. 22. The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.

Does this need discussion?

Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

Art. 26. The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.

Should we discuss Chapter III on flags of truce? Not that the insurgency hasn't killed quite a few soldiers of the coalition while surrendering or under a flag of truce. Oh, wait, they have.

I could continue discussing how the terrorists don't provide any of these protections to our combatants thus nullifying their own protections. Anyone who argues that will only mean that our soldiers won't be provided these protections has been living under a rock.

The call that we should follow every rule of war, while they violate every one is ludicrous. This "war on terror" is only a war in the most trivial sense of the definition.

I'm not advocating the violation of the norms that we provide for non-combatants. I believe those hold themselves as self-evident for civilized cultures.

As to de-legitimizing our cause, that is just bizarre. Should I wear a bulls-eye on my forehead to make my murder more simple? Each conflict needs to be fought with the means necessary to survive. Where the line is drawn is up to the culture (in our case) to define.