[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

as a means of retaliation against a defeated enemy.
"Then, during the course of this century, the Laws of War have become quite
important, and have often been observed; and where they are not observed there
is a good chance that the
CoDominium Fleet will punish those who violate them - particularly if the
violation involves
CoDominium citizens, and inevitably if it involves a member of the Fleet.
"Now I believe we are entering a new period; one in which the nationalist
forces will pursue a new policy of expediency, while the CoDominium and
mercenary units continue to observe and insist on the Laws of War. Now it
would appear that the outcome of such a conflict is predictable:
that the organizations which recognize no limitations save expediency will
always triumph over those which restrict their uses of military power. This is
impossible. I do not believe it will be inevitable.
However, many do believe that the Laws of War will go the way of the Rights of
Neutrals in the last century.
After all, the United States, having entered World War I ostensibly to protect
the rights of neutral vessels on the high seas, within days of entering World
War II declared unrestricted
submarine warfare against Germany and Japan; while the Allied powers, having
denounced
Japanese actions against Nanking in the 1930s, had no scruples about bombing
civilians and open cities as the war progressed, culminating in Hiroshima,
Nagasaki, and the fire raids against
Tokyo.
Page 105
ABC Amber Palm Converter, http://www.processtext.com/abcpalm.html
"By the end of World War II, few observed any limits on the use of military
power. Allied units regularly took civilian hostages and exposed civilian
officials to danger as a means of discouraging partisan activity. Most of
these actions had been taken by the German Army and of course had been
denounced at the time.
"That expedient view became so widespread that for decades no one could
conceive of another.
"However, it has not always been thus. Prior to the present era there were at
least three periods in which war became stylized and subject to rules. These
eras have been described well enough by Martin Van Creveld in his definitive
Technology and War.
"The first such era was the Hellenistic period from about 300 to 200 B.C.
During that time there were essentially no differences among the successor
states. Each was ruled by despotism built around a dynasty and generally ruled
by a single man. The ordinary citizen had no stake in this government, and
cared not a whit whether this man or that held the throne. The military units
were composed of professionals who had no personal stake in the outcome of a
campaign. As
Creveld says:
" 'Accordingly, there applied among those states a fairly strict code which
dictated what was and was not permissible in regard to the treatment of
prisoners, the enslavement of captured cities, the robbery for military
purposes of temples dedicated to the gods (this was legitimate provided that
restitution was subsequently made, or at any rate promised), and so on.
" 'The application of rules to warfare was, however, extended further than
this. While it would be imprecise to say that there existed an explicit
international agreement concerning the types of military technology that might
or might not be used, the various contestants shared a common material
civilization and knew what to expect of each other. Since they fielded much
the same weapons and equipment, but also because commanders and technical
experts frequently transferred from one army to another, they found themselves
operating on broadly similar tactical and strategic codes . . .'
"The second period of warfare treated as a game with rules was, of course, the
period of feudal chivalry, and probably quite enough has been said about it in
previous lectures. For the third, I
quote again from Creveld: " 'The play-element often present in armed conflict
was, however, probably never as pronounced as in the eighteenth century, when
war became popularly known as the game of kings. It was an age in which,
according to Voltaire, all Europeans lived under the same kind of
institutions, believed in the same kind of ideas, and fornicated with the same
kind of women. Most states were ruled by absolute monarchs. Even those who
were not so ruled neither expected nor demanded the lump-in-the-throat type of
allegiance later to be associated with the nationalist states. Armies were
commanded by members of an international nobility who spoke
French as their lingua franca and switched sides as they saw fit. There were
manned by personnel who, often enlisted by trickery and kept in the ranks by
main force, cared nothing for honor, duty, or country ..."
" 'In each of the three above periods, as well as in many others which
witnessed the same phenomenon, the transformation of war into something akin
to a game did not pass without comment. What some people took as a sign of
piety or reason or progress, other saw as proof of stupidity, effeminacy, and
degeneration. During the last years before the French Revolution, Gibbons
praised war for its moderation and expressed the hope that it would soon
disappear
altogether. Simultaneously, a French nobleman, the Comte de Guibet, was
cutting a figure among the ladies of the salons by denouncing the prevailing
military practices as degenerate and calling for a commander and a people who,
to use his own words, would tear apart the feeble constitution of Europe like
Page 106
ABC Amber Palm Converter, http://www.processtext.com/abcpalm.html
the north wind bending the reeds . . .'
"Gentlemen and ladies, I invite you to reflect on this. We live in a time when
the major powers of the Earth are governed by what can only be called self
perpetuating oligarchies. While there is more ostensible turnover in the
compositions of the Congress of the United States and the
Supreme Soviet than there was in the last decade of the twentieth century,
there is not a lot more, and what turnover there is happens to be meaningless;
the new master is indistinguishable from the old.
"Nor is it important that these oligarchs think themselves important doing
important work -
indeed that they are important and do important work. The effect has been to
alienate the Citizen entirely; while the taxpayer supports the present system
only because he fears the loss of his privileges - because he fears he will be [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]