CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY DAREN BOWYER JUST WAR DOCTRINE

never succeeds is, unfortunately, a myth. Half-hearted repression conducted by
self-doubting persons of liberal conscience certainly does not work. That will be
as true in the future as it was in the past. Whether or not contemporary and
future changes in values in many societies will deny regular belligerents
extreme, indeed purposefully disproportionate, terroristic violence as a practical
option in the conduct of irregular war, remains to be seen. 132
However, an argument may be made that Western democracies have indeed reached the
stage where society’s values, coupled with an omni-present media, have indeed denied
their regular forces ‘purposely disproportionate, terroristic violence’ as a means in the
conduct of irregular war. If they are, then, to avoid, the inevitable failure of ‘half-
hearted’ repression, they must not go down the repression route at all!
How, then, is proper conduct to be ensured, whilst operational effectiveness is
maintained; how can it be ensured that those who commit wrongful acts are brought to
account, without the majority being hampered – as some elements of the media have
suggested they are – by concern about over-restrictive rules limiting their use of force?
It is helpful here to reiterate explicitly a distinction that should already have become
apparent. Discussing the issues of Rules of Engagement (RoE) in Iraq, Richard Holmes
offers the following:
Breaches of both the law in general and these specific rules (RoE) occur in two
broad sets of circumstances. In the first, men overreact in the stress of combat,
perhaps by using more force than the situation warrants, or by engaging
individuals who have not in fact made themselves liable to attack under the rules
of engagement. … … …
The deliberate mistreatment of prisoners is quite another matter: here the soldier
is usually at little risk, and rarely acts in hot blood, although the memory of
recent acts by the prisoners or their friends may fuel his resentment. But a
minority of soldiers may too easily imagine that it is absurd to behave with
studied correctness towards men they regard (often not without cause) as
torturers and murderers; they may believe that they are helping their own cause
by giving prisoners a ‘hard time’, and they will be inclined to interpret a nod and
a wink as a veiled order to behave badly. 133
The second set of circumstances is straightforward. We can sympathise with soldiers’
stress, but we cannot condone improper treatment of the wounded, of prisoners, or of
the civilian population. Those who act wrongly dishonour their nations and their
profession. Armies, having recognised that the nature of asymmetric warfare may
296