What constitutes a military target? (moral, choices, choice, worship)

[Booko]

There has been a lot of discussion and criticism these past days concerning what is a valid military target during this conflict in Lebanon.

For that reason, I thought it might be worth discussing what is a valid military target and why, esp. in light of developments there.

While obviously there is a moral side to this question (!), I would prefer we try to keep it to the military aspects.

For example:

Does bombing the main road from Lebanon into Syria serve any military purpose?

Does bombing bridges have any military purpose? It can prevent refugees from escaping an area under bombardment, but is there any good military reason to do so?

What possible military reason could there be for bombing a civilian airport?

What reason could there be for bombing a house or neighborhood?

OK -- have at it -- but please keep it more civilized than warfare.

[krashlocke]

War is a dirty game - people get hurt, sometimes innocents suffer. Obviously it's a priority to minimize civilian casualties, but it's close to impossible. The problem of being on the outside looking in is that we are not privy to the same level of intelligence. While the target may not appear to our eyes to be military, it may be housing and or facilitating the conduct of the enemy. In conventional warfare, often the first targets are those that facilitate trade and movement, particularly if it is a route between the enemy and a well-known supplier of that same enemy.


What complicates to Lebanon issue is that you have a terrorist organization deeply embedded within the established government and by all rights holds greater power than that government due to having greater force of arms than the military proper. They fight in a hidden guerilla fashion often hiding among civilians knowing full-well the complications this brings for typical western rules of engagement. This means that while a weapons-cache or training facility to located in an office building downtown next to an apartment, a school, and a mosque, by the time you've gathered the necessary intelligence (what goes on, assessed priority, best time for strike, methods of minimizing casualties, etc.), and approved it for strike, they have already decided that it's time to move on. What's left? A news report of the destruction of a office building empty of anything military and several civilian losses. All the better for their needs.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by krashlocke

War is a dirty game - people get hurt, sometimes innocents suffer. Obviously it's a priority to minimize civilian casualties, but it's close to impossible. The problem of being on the outside looking in is that we are not privy to the same level of intelligence. While the target may not appear to our eyes to be military, it may be housing and or facilitating the conduct of the enemy. In conventional warfare, often the first targets are those that facilitate trade and movement, particularly if it is a route between the enemy and a well-known supplier of that same enemy.

Truthfully, I was surprised the IDF waited until yesterday to knock out Hezbollah's TV station and radio stations.

Cutting off communication is usually a top priority, to deny command and control.

It may be that IDF was showing some restrait by leaving communications up so that there would be something there to help those getting refugees out.

What complicates to Lebanon issue is that you have a terrorist organization deeply embedded within the established government and by all rights holds greater power than that government due to having greater force of arms than the military proper. They fight in a hidden guerilla fashion often hiding among civilians knowing full-well the complications this brings for typical western rules of engagement. This means that while a weapons-cache or training facility to located in an office building downtown next to an apartment, a school, and a mosque, by the time you've gathered the necessary intelligence (what goes on, assessed priority, best time for strike, methods of minimizing casualties, etc.), and approved it for strike, they have already decided that it's time to move on. What's left? A news report of the destruction of a office building empty of anything military and several civilian losses. All the better for their needs.

There are some reports of lauchers being hidden in places like living rooms of private residences. If someone allows a launcher to be hidden in their house and doesn't leave, how can they really complain if they get hit?

There has been a lot of controversy about taking out the road to Syria and various bridges, but the sad fact is that even in the midst of this conflict there is evidence that Hezbollah is getting resupplied though those routes.

The crappy thing is, blowing bridges and roads also makes it that much more difficult for the innocent to get *out*.

But seriously, what is the IDF supposed to do? Leave the road and bridges intact and allow materiel in that has the potential to strike Tel Aviv? That would also be irresponsible.

If they have two lousy choices to choose from, their responsibility lies with protecting their own people.

The was the option to take no military action, but I'm not convinced that was a viable one.

[kreeden]

Originally Posted by Booko

There has been a lot of discussion and criticism these past days concerning what is a valid military target during this conflict in Lebanon.

For that reason, I thought it might be worth discussing what is a valid military target and why, esp. in light of developments there.

Good question . And the answer is pretty much open to interpertation . However , the Geneva Conventions define it as ...

Legitimate military targets include: armed forces and persons who take part in the fighting; positions or installations occupied by armed forces as well as objectives that are directly contested in battle; military installations such as barracks, war ministries, munitions or fuel dumps, storage yards for vehicles, airfields, rocket launch ramps, and naval bases.

Legitimate infrastructure targets include lines and means of communication, command, and control—railway lines, roads, bridges, tunnels, and canals—that are of fundamental military importance.

Legitimate communications targets include broadcasting and television stations, and telephone and telegraph exchanges of fundamental military importance.

Legitimate military-industrial targets include factories producing arms, transport, and communications equipment for the military; metallurgical, engineering, and chemicals industries whose nature or purpose is essentially military; and the storage and transport installations serving such industries.

Legitimate military research targets include experimental research centers for the development of weapons and war matériel.

Legitimate energy targets include installations providing energy mainly for national defense, such as coal and other fuels, and plants producing gas or electricity mainly for military consumption. Attacks on nuclear power stations and hydroelectric dams are generally, but not always, prohibited by the laws of war.

While obviously there is a moral side to this question (!), I would prefer we try to keep it to the military aspects.

For example:

Does bombing the main road from Lebanon into Syria serve any military purpose?

Does bombing bridges have any military purpose? It can prevent refugees from escaping an area under bombardment, but is there any good military reason to do so?

What possible military reason could there be for bombing a civilian airport?

What reason could there be for bombing a house or neighborhood?

OK -- have at it -- but please keep it more civilized than warfare.

Just about any civilian location could be used by the military . However ...

" Article 52 of Additional Protocol I states, “In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house, or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.”

Thereforth , roads that refugees are using to flee upon , could be later used by the military ... the question is , when do they become " legitimate military targets " ?

The source I used to copy the definations from is http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/l...ry-target.html , if you are interested .