Battlefield Tactics

Shortly after the end of the Persian Gulf War, Congressional investigators found that some US bulldozer units had deliberately buried thousands of Iraqi troops alive even as the Iraqis tried to surrender. The investigators and other commentators criticized this method of fighting as a violation of international law; it was also a violation of orders, which directed the units to bypass Iraqi fortifications.

Burying opposing troops alive is not an accepted battlefield tactic, but it is not surprising that a modern army did it. Modern armies often use equally destructive tactics. Some, like "free-fire zones" (areas in which the US forces in Vietnam were authorized to kill anything that moved), violate international law. Others, like the use of "anti-personnel" weapons (weapons which are specifically designed to wound and maim rather than to kill), may not.

The Christian "Just War" theory, which is discussed in more detail in Chapter 14, provides standards not just for deciding when war is justified, but for deciding which tactics are acceptable. If you accept this or some other form of "just war" theory, you've probably got your own ideas about which tactics are acceptable and which are not. If you reject all wars, you may wonder why you should worry about whether particular tactics are acceptable, but it's an important issue for everyone. It's best if the fighting never starts; but once it does start, it is likely to be less destructive if armies follow international law. In the long run, that benefits all sides.

Go to next page