Abu Wabu

Updated
Belmont Club's Wretchard presents an illustrative sampling of fascism's total lack of humanity or ethos and poses the question of the age:

It's doubtful whether either the warlords or the Islamists have much regard for the Laws of War and one wonders what exactly the "U.N.-backed transitional government" actually does. British Defense Secretary John Reid created a stir by suggesting that the Geneva Convention be updated to reflect the realities of terrorism. "The legal constraints upon us have to be set against an enemy that adheres to no constraints whatsoever." It is probably fortunate that a European has posed this question because this ball really belongs in the court of the transnationalists. Any attempts to obtain realistic rules of engagement against terrorists by a US administration will be branded as fascistic. So let's pose the question: how should one deal with combatants who have no regard for ceasefires, women, children, flags of truce, churches, mosques or the Rules of War?

Without ruth.

I'm reminded of this alternative answer from a long-ago posting at Neo-neocon:
At 12:14 PM, June 28, 2005, Anonymous said...

No, Goesh, it's not the first time for any of those things, so you think we might have learned something by now, especially about putting ourselves into situations like that in the first place. Nobody gets a free lunch, except Bush and Rumsfeld, apparently.

From my personal notes:
In other words, now that you know war is hell, don't ever go to war.

There's a term for that: suicide.

Thanks, but I'll stick with Bush and Rumsfeld.