Oil Wells And War Crimes

My last post got me to thinking about the whole war crimes thing. And after thinking about it for a little while, I think that the Bush Administration and me are going to have some disagreements over this issue (like they really care, but I do and that’s what matters to me).

I have done a little research, reading the relevant parts of the Geneva Conventions and the Charter of the International Military Tribunal that set up the Nuremberg War Crimes trials after WWII.

As I read it, Bush cannot be held as a war criminal for crimes against the peace as the current conflict is merely the continuation of hostilities that were originated by Saddam 12 years ago when he invaded Iraq. Should we attack North Korea, it would simply be a resumption of hostilities from 50 years ago. In neither case was there ever anything more than a cease-fire to end the fighting. There was no peace treaty in either conflict. A resumption of hostilities is not a war crime. Period.

But what about our threats to try various Iraqi leaders for war crimes? How strong are those cases?

It depends on who you look at. Saddam, his sons and “Chemical Ali” are all pretty obviously guilty of Crimes Against Humanity. The deliberate gassing of civilians is clearly a CAH and should be prosecuted as such. With there being ample evidence of the complicity of each of these individuals in the accused crimes, I don’t see too much trouble in gaining convictions and legally sanctioned punishment. And that’s fine. I believe they did it, that they’re guilty and that the crimes are clearly defined as CAH. Let’s start up the Basra War Crimes Tribunal!

Where I have problems is if we are going to hold individual commanders responsible for things like setting oil wells on fire. The use of chemical or biological munitions is against some treaty or other that I’m pretty sure that Iraq signed (I haven’t had the inclination to research that) which would make their use a War Crime. But burning oil wells, I’m not too sure about that.

The destruction of natural resources is a terrible, but not uncommon side effect of war. It has been used both offensively and defensively, with great effect and with virtually no effect. During the Civil War, Sherman’s March to the Sea was really a massive offensive scorched earth campaign, which was effective in helping to break the morale of the Confederacy. During WWII, the Russians employed a defensive scorched earth policy while they retreated in the face of the German Blitzkrieg. During Gulf War I, the Kuwaiti oil fields were set ablaze and huge amounts of oil were dumped into the Persian Gulf. In Sherman’s case, the tactic was effective; in the two later cases its effectiveness was questionable at best.

So it is a legitimate military tactic. But why would the Iraqis want to use it now?

A burning oil well puts up copious amounts of smoke. It interferes with optical targeting systems and the heat and flame can degrade the effectiveness of early generation night vision equipment or early infrared systems. The Iraqis may very well be operating under the expectation that the smoke from an oil fire will be enough to level the playing field somewhat. They know that they can’t stop our bombers, but the smoke can stop a laser-guided bomb. They know they can’t defeat our night vision, but the intense flame may be enough to degrade the function of them to make them virtually useless.

Now we know that our equipment is advanced enough that we can work around the effects of the fire. We can use GPS guided bombs or millimeter wave radar weapons instead. Our NVGs can ignore the extreme brightness of the fire; our infrared systems can ignore the unmoving heat source. We have already taken into account what might happen.

But the Iraqis don’t know that stuff. They may think we can do it all, but they would be remiss in ignoring oil fires if they even had the slightest inkling that it might disrupt us even a little. For them scorched earth becomes a legitimate defensive tactic since they do not know our capabilities. It is an environmental tragedy, and something they have to deal with should they be victorious, but in war you do what you need to to win.

So how does a legitimate (not in a legal sense, necessarily. I’m saying legit in a military sense) defensive tactic become a War Crime? Looking through the Geneva Conventions, I find nothing. Looking through the Charter of the IMT, under section b, I can see where it could be argued as the plunder of public or private property or maybe even viewed as wanton destruction.

But is it really? Is that military commander setting the well on fire really plundering? Are they really pillaging or stealing? Or are they using the nation’s resources in its defense? I think that it is more of the later. Any nation under attack for any reason has a sovereign right to use its resources to fight off that attack. It is not plundering; it is defense.

And is it “wanton destruction?” The section goes on to say that it must be wanton destruction ”not justified by military necessity.” I tend to believe that if you’re under attack, and scorched earth might give you an advantage, it’s militarily necessary. Which by definition means it is not wanton destruction of property.

War Crimes Tribunals will be needed after this conflict if the top folks are still around. Saddam, his sons, “Chemical Ali,” Tariq Aziz and other top leaders are legitimate targets of a Nuremberg style trial. But individual commanders in the field who in the defense of their country set fire to an oil well – we need to let them be. I don’t think they are committing a war crime, just creating an environmental mess. I sincerely hope the Administration is only bluffing on holding war crimes trials for that.

To do so would cheapen the importance of going after the big guys and I think really would damage our credibility in the world. It would almost be punitive enough to have been part of the Treaty of Versailles that ended WWI.

Let’s not create the basis for another National Socialist regime.