5cjxburmr

element of war has been viewed as important in understanding the nature of war. 59 The violentnature of war has also meant that suffering has been an unfortunate and tragic, but unavoidableconsequence of war. 60Law of war treaties such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions have been negotiatedwith the understanding that suffering and destruction are unavoidably part of war. 61 But thesetreaties and the principle of humanity seek to reduce unnecessary suffering and destruction. 621.4.2.2 Nature of War – Limited and Unreliable Information – “Fog of War”.During war, information is often limited and unreliable. 63 The uncertainty of information in warresults from the chaotic nature of combat and from the opposing sides’ efforts to deceive oneanother, which generally is not prohibited by the law of war. 64The limited and unreliable nature of information available during war has influenced thedevelopment of the law of war. For example, it affects how the principle of military necessity is59 MARINE CORPS DOCTRINAL PUBLICATION 1, Warfighting, 14 (Jun. 20, 1997) (“War is among the greatest horrorsknown to humanity; it should never be romanticized. The means of war is force, applied in the form of organizedviolence. It is through the use of violence, or a credible threat of violence, that we compel our enemy to do our will.Violence is an essential element of war, and its immediate result is bloodshed, destruction, and suffering. While themagnitude of violence may vary with the object and means of war, the violent essence of war will never change.Any study of war that neglects this basic truth is misleading and incomplete.”).60 For example, Friedrich II, Letter to Lord Marischal, Nov. 23, 1758 reprinted in THOMAS CARLYLE, V HISTORY OFFRIEDERICH II OF PRUSSIA: CALLED FREDERICK THE GREAT 386 (1865) (“Our Campaign is over; and there hasnothing come of it on one side or the other, but the loss of a great many worthy people, the misery of a great manypoor soldiers crippled forever, the ruin of some Provinces, the ravage, pillage and conflagration of some flourishingTowns. Exploits these, which make humanity shudder: … .”).61 Edward R. Cummings, Acting Assistant Legal Adviser for Politico-Military Affairs, Remarks at Symposium atBrooklyn Law School, Sept. 25, 1982, III CUMULATIVE DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONALLAW 1981-88 3421, 3422 (“The Conventions referred to today, such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions, areimportant ones and are strongly supported by the United States. They have helped reduce the suffering caused bywars. But one should not ask the impossible of these agreements. They were not intended to make war ‘humane’ orto ban war, or to make wars more difficult to fight. They were modestly intended to reduce the inhumanity andbarbarity of war when militarily possible. Anyone who has read the negotiating records of these old agreements willnote that they were largely negotiated by the military. In fact, the first agreement of this kind, the St. PetersburgDeclaration, was agreed to by a military commission. Unrealistic provisions which just would not be accepted orrespected in battle were not favored.”).62 Refer to § 2.3 (Humanity).63 See, e.g., United States v. List, et al. (The Hostage Case), XI TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THE NMT 1297(“The course of a military operation by the enemy is loaded with uncertainties, such as the numerical strength of theenemy, the quality of his equipment, his fighting spirit, the efficiency and daring of his commanders, and theuncertainty of his intentions.”); CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ, ON WAR 140 (1989) (“the general unreliability of allinformation presents a special problem in war: all action takes place so to speak, in a kind of twilight, which likefog or moonlight, often tends to make things grotesque and larger than they really are.”).64 Refer to § 5.25 (Ruses of War and Other Lawful Deceptions).17