Share This Page

We must set the new rules of warfare

| Saturday, March 30, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

WASHINGTON

In 40-some years of covering virtually every part of the world, I found myself writing not about a solid world of designated states with interstate agreements designed to keep them at peace but about popularly designed failed states and a “return to past movements” (my contribution to the new nomenklatura).

Everywhere I looked there were societies in the process of disintegration and young people choosing to be guerrillas, insurgents and jihadis, almost always using their own society's failed and forgotten past as dark inspiration.

Arguably America's foremost scholar of foreign affairs, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, has been writing on this “new age” recently.

“The dangers inherent in the degradation of the already vulnerable international system cannot be overstated,” he wrote recently in The Financial Times. “Social chaos, with paralyzing fear magnified by uncertainty as to its origins, could spread. Making matters potentially even worse, such degradation is not the product of one or another particularly menacing state. Rather, it is the consequence of the rising vulnerability of the global system to cumulative pressures: technological innovation, massive and increasingly impatient populist upheavals and a shift in the distribution of geopolitical power.”

We read about it every day now. We dreamed that after the Iraq War less attention (obsession?) would be paid to military actions and military machines. Now we find that, instead, there are endless stories about drones and new, even worse, moral and ethical questions.

Is it moral to kill people with drones, say, in Yemen or Pakistan? Is it moral to kill an American, on our soil or someone else's? Should we hit Iran, as we did, with cyber warfare? What power should an American president have in this new, dark world? Can he alone make out a “kill list” and carry it through?

The Justice Department has just argued in a white paper that the president has legal powers to kill U.S. citizens suspected of presenting an “imminent threat” to the nation. (In the 1950s and '60s, even groups like the Black Panthers might well have been considered threats by certain people.) NATO commissioned the Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare, a study recently released in which the U.S. and Israel are both criticized for a secret 2009 cyber attack that crippled Iran's nuclear program. (Now, not surprisingly, the world is getting into the act.)

We, the United States of America, should sponsor an international conference on the new rules of warfare, at some special place of significance. We should root out all the secret groups fighting in mountains and deserts. We should have the leaders of these groups at the rostrum. We should take the blame for our mistakes but force others to speak out just as honestly.

For several days, the militaries of the world, the peace people and the new insurgents would mix and talk. We should move on from where Geneva in 1949 stopped. We should cooperate with the United Nations and organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and devise new conventions to protect the sick and wounded, the noncombatants of this new world.

Once again, America would look like the moral and cultural leader of the world, and not like waterboarders and drone targeters. Surely it is time to modernize morality for a newly militarized world.

Georgie Anne Geyer has been a foreign correspondent and commentator on international affairs for more than 40 years. She can be reached at gigi_geyer@juno.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.