International Law Redux

The ongoing discussion of the treatment of POWs, and the issue of Iraqi irregular troops, wholly underscores the fragility of international law and agreements. One can assert that it is “illegal” for the Iraqis to parade our servicemen and women in front of the cameras, the President can state that we “expect” the Iraqis to treat our prisoners well, and General Franks can point out that fake surrenders that turn into ambushes are against the “rules” of combat, but the bottom line is that the force of “international law” cannot make the Iraqis behave. The War Referees, dressed in black and white stripes (and really loud whistles) are not going to pop up from behind a sand dune and flag the Iraqis. Indeed, the only power that is going to make the Iraqis adhere to the rules is the force applied to them by coalition forces. We can punish, ex post, war “criminals” but the reason we will be able to do so, is because we will win the military conflict.

And specifically on the topic of the Geneva Conventions, it is highly noteworthy (and indeed, has been noted by many, including James at OTB, that we follow the rules and humanly treat prisoners because that’s the way we do things, not because a treaty says so. At its root, international law is enforceable only by force, and only when the rules have already failed.