Enemy Combatants

[Jake_Ellison]

Someone asked me about how the principle of "inalienable rights of all men" coexists with enemy combatants receiving special treatment, on the part of the US gov. Here's wht I wrote, I thought I submit it for your critique:

There is no distinction between what rights Americans and non-Americans have, everyone has the same rights. However, if you, from that, are looking to make the leap that the Federal Government ought to protect everyone's rights, equally, that would be a mistake.

The authority of each of the three branches of the Fed. Gov. is limited to specific actions enumerated by the Constitution, in principle, for the purpose of protecting the rights of the people in its geographic jurisdiction. So, the primary concern of the American government is the rights of the people in the US (and US residents traveling abroad), and all subsequent concerns are the derivatives of that primary concern.

Enemy combatants have rights, they just don't have the protection of US Law, which was set up "by the people, for the people". (people meaning Americans, Afghanis have nothing to do with setting up the US government and its laws) The US Executive can't just round up innocent people and put them to work in various camps abroad (because that's not a derivative of its purpose: the protection of Americans' rights), but it also isn't limited by the civilian Courts and their rules and procedures, in the course of acting to protect Americans' rights, on foreign soil, or against the agents of an enemy government or terror group at home.

Here's the jist of my position on the entire issue:

The actions of the military should be governed by laws based on the same principles of reason and justice as the Criminal Justice System, but applied in the context of wars and the fight against terrorism, not law-enforcement. (that means that the requirements for legal representation for prisoners, and the limits on the actions of soldiers in capturing, holding and interrogating them should be more relaxed, and should vary depending on the level of danger the prisoner and his camp present to the US.)

[JeffS]

The actions of the military should be governed by laws based on the same principles of reason and justice as the Criminal Justice System, but applied in the context of wars and the fight against terrorism, not law-enforcement. (that means that the requirements for legal representation for prisoners, and the limits on the actions of soldiers in capturing, holding and interrogating them should be more relaxed, and should vary depending on the level of danger the prisoner and his camp present to the US.)

If everyone has the same rights, then how can the rules of due process be different for soldiers than for police? If those rules are based upon the same principles of reason and justice, and reason and justice are immutable, shouldn't the rules be the same?

[Jake_Ellison]

If everyone has the same rights, then how can the rules of due process be different for soldiers than for police? If those rules are based upon the same principles of reason and justice, and reason and justice are immutable, shouldn't the rules be the same?

No, in different contexts different procedures lead to the same result of justice. In the context of WW2, for instance, sending cops to mirandize Hirohito wouldn't have lead to justice, it would've lead to a few extra American prisoners in concentration camps.

There is a difference between inalienable rights and so called "legal rights", which are just procedures in which a defendant is allowed to take certain steps to defend himself. Depending on the circumstances, the procedure and the "legal rights" can change.

[DavidOdden]

If everyone has the same rights, then how can the rules of due process be different for soldiers than for police? If those rules are based upon the same principles of reason and justice, and reason and justice are immutable, shouldn't the rules be the same?

The function and nature of soldiers is radically different from that of police. Police enforce laws in a context where it is valid to assume that individuals are rights-respecting and peaceful, and their function is to restrain those few who violate that assumption and bring them to justice in a court of law. The purpose of the soldier is to make the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country. The assumption of innocence is fundamentally wrong; in fact, you must assume that everyone is guilty.

There has been a context where the assumption of innnocence also holds within war, namely when applied to soldiers versus civilians. In modern warfare, though, the distinction now seems to be spurious.

[Zip]

Why is the US trying to apply due process in the first place? You are at war.

You fight your enemy, if he is captured you put him in a prison camp and unless he broke the law of armed combat he is tried for exactly nothing.

You keep your prisoners of war until the war is over, treating them fairly and humanely and then you send them home. If they continue to fight then, since the war is over that is the problem of whoever controls that territory.

Would you be releasing "terrorists" onto the population of that territory? Possibly, but in the case of German prisoners of war who were brought to England or North America some of them return on their own as immigrants later, or asked to stay rather than return.

Could the bad guys regain control of the country, possibly but again, it wouldn't be your problem, and should they make it your problem then you sort it out as necessary.

[freestyle]

I agree with your position.

There is no distinction between what rights Americans and non-Americans have, everyone has the same rights. However, if you, from that, are looking to make the leap that the Federal Government ought to protect everyone's rights, equally, that would be a mistake.

I assume this would be the basis for the attempt to prove a contradiction. When you speak of "no distinction" between rights, you must make explicit that you are talking about the fundamental, inalienable right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. "Man's rights." That is where there is no distinction.

Once that distinction is established, one can argue about whether or not a system of ostensibly objective laws respects that fundamental right or not. Does the person you are having the discussion with contend that no distinctions can be made for legal "due process" based on the alleged offenses and/or specific, known circumstances?

Forget "alleged" just for one moment. Should there be no acknowledgment of the existence of enemy combatants at war with your government?

Bottom line: "Innocent until proven guilty" is not a fundamental truth of reality. It is an honorable standard used in a civilized country's criminal legal system. It would be a naive and stupid legal standard to adopt in trials of people at war with that country.

[VECT]

Why is the US trying to apply due process in the first place? You are at war.

You fight your enemy, if he is captured you put him in a prison camp and unless he broke the law of armed combat he is tried for exactly nothing.

This.

You keep your prisoners of war until the war is over, treating them fairly and humanely and then you send them home. If they continue to fight then, since the war is over that is the problem of whoever controls that territory.

Would you be releasing "terrorists" onto the population of that territory? Possibly, but in the case of German prisoners of war who were brought to England or North America some of them return on their own as immigrants later, or asked to stay rather than return.

Could the bad guys regain control of the country, possibly but again, it wouldn't be your problem, and should they make it your problem then you sort it out as necessary.

A terrorist who would only terrorize his own population could very much be your problem in the sense that his action is destroying a possible future trading partner that you could benefit from.

It would be much better instead for the military to ask citizens whether or not they have the interest and want to make donations in order to fund persecution trials against certain foreign prisoners of their choosing before the military just release them all.

[Zip]

A terrorist who would only terrorize his own population could very much be your problem in the sense that his action is destroying a possible future trading partner that you could benefit from.

You do not throw the lives of men away on the possibility of trade. Wars are fought to an end against an enemy and with a defined objective. There are many reasons why the US should have been in Afghanistan (wholeheartedly in it) from the start, but that doesn't include the possibility that you will end up selling Afghani's Cheerios and Ipod's. That isn't the governments business.

It would be much better instead for the military to ask citizens whether or not they have the interest and want to make donations in order to fund persecution trials against certain foreign prisoners of their choosing before the military just release them all.

Of who's choosing? The civilians? Just how exactly are you or any other guy off the street going to decide one Ahmed is more of a threat than the other?

My main point is that you do not charge soldiers with crimes unless you can prove that they were guilty of crimes against humanity or outside of the realm of the law of armed conflict. The US didn't fill up jails full of Viet Cong during the Vietnam War and then try to charge the VC with murder for fighting against them, that is almost as stupid as the concept of a war against "terrorism".

[VECT]

You do not throw the lives of men away on the possibility of trade. Wars are fought to an end against an enemy and with a defined objective. There are many reasons why the US should have been in Afghanistan (wholeheartedly in it) from the start, but that doesn't include the possibility that you will end up selling Afghani's Cheerios and Ipod's. That isn't the governments business.

My second part was commented towards what you said about releasing captured prisoners who are possibly terrorist back into their home population after the war is over; I wasn't talking about launching military operations to liberate foreign nations (although there is nothing wrong with launching military operations to liberate foreign dictatorships for a free nation if you got enough volunteers and donations for that operation)

Also, what I said isn't limited or pertaining to the US Afgh/Iraq scenario, but to a broader free-capitalistic nation at war scenario (not trying to imply US is 100% capitalistic here). If for whatever reason, a free nation fought a war and won it, and you got a bunch POWs on your hand, even though as the government/military of the free nation you don't have the default duty to investigate and persecute possible criminals among the POWs for their native population, if there are enough donations from your private citizens who are interested and wants to see justice done, and the service men are willing, then there is nothing wrong with putting said POWs on trial instead of just releasing them back into their native population. And one of the reasons why private citizens would be interested in donating their cash for such trails instead of just letting them get released is what I said about trade (another reason could be they just want to see justice done...etc.).

Of who's choosing? The civilians? Just how exactly are you or any other guy off the street going to decide one Ahmed is more of a threat than the other?

Not sure exactly what are you trying to ask here in context to what I posted(and also to what I explained further in this post).

My main point is that you do not charge soldiers with crimes unless you can prove that they were guilty of crimes against humanity or outside of the realm of the law of armed conflict. The US didn't fill up jails full of Viet Cong during the Vietnam War and then try to charge the VC with murder for fighting against them, that is almost as stupid as the concept of a war against "terrorism".

And I never said you should charge soldiers with crimes that includes combat engagements. My main point is that if an enemy POWs you captured was or could be a terrorist or a dictator henchman who have committed crimes against individuals of his native land, if there is interest from private citizens backed up with cash and also willingness of your own soldiers, you can try and persecute said POWs instead of just releasing them back to do their dirty work.

[JeffS]

No, in different contexts different procedures lead to the same result of justice. In the context of WW2, for instance, sending cops to mirandize Hirohito wouldn't have lead to justice, it would've lead to a few extra American prisoners in concentration camps.

There is a difference between inalienable rights and so called "legal rights", which are just procedures in which a defendant is allowed to take certain steps to defend himself. Depending on the circumstances, the procedure and the "legal rights" can change.

But aren't both derived from the same principle: man's life qua man? Either it is right, just, and necessary for Man's life qua man, to follow certain procedures when an individual is alleged to have committed a crime, or it is not. If it is right, just, and necessary, then it is right, just and necessary for all men - regardless of what collective(s) he belongs to.

Let's take your cops-mirandizing-Hirohito example: why couldn't they? Well, because Hirohito had an army protecting him; those cops couldn't just walk through the door. If they could have, if Hirohito's soldiers simply would have let them walk right by - is that how Hirohito should've been handled? Or should he simply have been shot on sight?

If the principle is "no man should initiate force against any other," then what objective justification is there for Soldier A to fire first upon Soldier B? Soldier A's country may be at war with Soldier B's, but even supposing Country B started it doesn't seem to justify Soldier A opening fire on Soldier B at first sight. To assume it does sounds an awful lot like a collectivist argument: Country B started it, Soldier B is a member of that collective, therefore it's not an initiation of force. The problem with this argument is clear: countries don't start anything - individuals do. The men who dropped bombs on Pearl Harbor initiated force, the men guarding Hirohito's palace may not have. (A "War on Terrorism," to me, is fraught with even more problems since the collective nature of the combatants is exceptionally vague and transient.)

Cops walking into Hirohito's palace to mirandize him can reasonably expect some resistance, so it would probably be wise to bring some backup; perhaps a lot of guys with very big guns. If anyone shoots at them, they can certainly return fire, but does anything justify the Allied troops opening fire from the get-go?

The function and nature of soldiers is radically different from that of police. Police enforce laws in a context where it is valid to assume that individuals are rights-respecting and peaceful, and their function is to restrain those few who violate that assumption and bring them to justice in a court of law. The purpose of the soldier is to make the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country. The assumption of innocence is fundamentally wrong; in fact, you must assume that everyone is guilty.

Based on what, and how does that direct the soldier's actions? Should he assume everyone is guilty of initiating force against him and open fire on whomever he sees? Again, this seems like a collectivist argument to me, somewhat akin to racism: you're making an assumption about individuals based upon their affiliation with a particular group, or their presence in a particular context.

I think this issue really boils down to: How should wars be objectively fought? Around 700 individuals, flying about 300 aircraft, initiated force against American citizens - they bombed Pearl Harbor. Certainly the US government can retaliate against them. What form should that retaliation take? Should it attempt to arrest them, does Man's life qua man require he be given an opportunity to defend himself against possibly false accusations? Or, should they simply be shot on sight? What of those who ordered the attack? Can the US government retaliate against them? Is directing others to initiate force equivalent to initiating force? What of those who neither ordered the attack, nor participated in it - can the US government retaliate against them? Based on what principle? Should we have immediately, given the capability, destroyed the entire country of Japan in retaliation for the actions of, at most, 1000 individuals?

Don't get me wrong, I want both you and Jake to be right. The issue seems a lot more complicated than presented, though.

[Zip]

A soldier is a tool of the lawful will of the people as directed by their lawfully chosen government.

Soldier A not only has the right to fire on soldier B he is obligated to do so by law in order to defend the rights of the people of his country.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Zip

[DavidOdden]

Based on what, and how does that direct the soldier's actions?

It means that unless otherwise told or if it would be strategically unwise, he should kill every enemy soldier that he can.

Again, this seems like a collectivist argument to me, somewhat akin to racism: you're making an assumption about individuals based upon their affiliation with a particular group, or their presence in a particular context.

War is hell. You're making a pacifist argument.

How should wars be objectively fought?

By objectively destroying the enemy's ability to wage war. Not by whining at the UN that the evil Japanese bombed us, but by bombing them harder. Using mushroom clouds, if that is necessary. The point is to stop the aggression, and finer-grained questions are contextually pointless conjecture about strategy. If killing the Queen Ant would end the war, kill the Queen Ant.

What form should that retaliation take? Should it attempt to arrest them

Absolutely not. Kill them before they attack if you can; kill them after they attack if you must. The notion of "arrest" is completely irrelevant when your nation is being attacked by another nation. "Arrest" presupposes rule of law which both nations are subject to, which obviously they are not.

Or, should they simply be shot on sight?

Yes, by all means.

What of those who ordered the attack?

Well, the legal practice is not to execute the leaders of aggressor nations, but that is a mistake, so I would say yes, the leaders who ordered the attack should also be killed.

Should we have immediately, given the capability, destroyed the entire country of Japan in retaliation for the actions of, at most, 1000 individuals?

Is it militarily necessary?

The issue seems a lot more complicated than presented, though.

You haven't show that there is any real complication.

I will tell you what the one complication is, that contemporary war is not a well-defined struggle between nations. It is an undefined struggle between a civilized nation and a swarm of ants. These ants do not wear uniforms which allow you to distinguish soldiers from civilians, they do not have anything resembling a government, and the cannot (and do not) surrender. Terrorists have obliterated the distinction between soldier and civilian. To survive, we have no choice but to broaden the concept of "enemy".

[Jake_Ellison]

But aren't both derived from the same principle: man's life qua man? Either it is right, just, and necessary for Man's life qua man, to follow certain procedures when an individual is alleged to have committed a crime, or it is not. If it is right, just, and necessary, then it is right, just and necessary for all men - regardless of what collective(s) he belongs to.

Why would that be true? What principle are you applying there? Is it "all tasks have the same solution, if the task stems from applying the same principle"? Because I beg to differ: for instance solutions to the necessity of getting rid of pests in one's house are derived from the same principle, and yet you wouldn't suggest that the solution is always the same, be it bees, mice or bears you're trying to get rid of.

The solutions to the necessity of having energy in your house are derived from the same principles, yet there are different solution to the problem, depending on context. (if you're next to a river, its a dam, if you're next to a natural gas pocket, it's a natural gas thingy)

[Jennifer]

I have a question about this.

In regards to atomic bombs, why are they necessary? They seem like they are over the top given our military capability. We have many other means of devastating an enemy to a point that is relatively similar as far as actual destruction. In this day and age, just as it was in WW2, atomic bombs are likely to be used in extreme cases where civilian casualties may be necessary for a country to achieve properly objective means to end their ability to continue aggression. However, does that mean we should be using weapons that can devastate the land it affects for many many decades, and cause over the top and unnecessary suffering of survivors or those that have not been immediately killed by such attacks via the radiation and other factors? I would assume a similar argument holds for things like weaponized chemical weapons that can cause severe agony in the process or otherwise cannot avoid civilian casualties. We have the killing power we need to take anyone on without these dubious-in-effect weapons.

[DavidOdden]

In regards to atomic bombs, why are they necessary?

They may not be. If the Soviet Union had launched an all-out attack against the US, they would almost certainly have been. Alternatively, if North Korea manages to actually launch something that doesn't fall back to earth and wipe out most Pyongyang, use of at least one to eliminate their capital might be. (This has to do with the fact that they are completely crazy). The issue is, what is the cost to us of waging non-nuclear war, and how does that compare to dropping 1 or 100 H-bombs?

As an example of hypothetical way over the topness where it would not be appropriate to drop the bomb, suppose that the government of Equatorial Guinea invades the US embassy in Malabo and kills the ambassador, resulting in a state of war. We could end the war with about 7 nukes (destroying every city); or we could end the war with about 70 tons of conventional bombs (destroying every city). We could probably end the war with about 7 well-placed bullets. The point is that H-bombs are sufficiently destructive and unnecessary, since Equatorial Guineans do not support their government and it would suffice to topple the dictatorship.

The proper consideration is, how can we best terminate this war with minimal loss to us -- but loss must be thought of from a long-term perspective, including the potential of future trade.

[Jennifer]

They may not be. If the Soviet Union had launched an all-out attack against the US, they would almost certainly have been. Alternatively, if North Korea manages to actually launch something that doesn't fall back to earth and wipe out most Pyongyang, use of at least one to eliminate their capital might be. (This has to do with the fact that they are completely crazy). The issue is, what is the cost to us of waging non-nuclear war, and how does that compare to dropping 1 or 100 H-bombs?

As an example of hypothetical way over the topness where it would not be appropriate to drop the bomb, suppose that the government of Equatorial Guinea invades the US embassy in Malabo and kills the ambassador, resulting in a state of war. We could end the war with about 7 nukes (destroying every city); or we could end the war with about 70 tons of conventional bombs (destroying every city). We could probably end the war with about 7 well-placed bullets. The point is that H-bombs are sufficiently destructive and unnecessary, since Equatorial Guineans do not support their government and it would suffice to topple the dictatorship.

The proper consideration is, how can we best terminate this war with minimal loss to us -- but loss must be thought of from a long-term perspective, including the potential of future trade.

Glad to see a cool-headed and in my eyes and acceptable answer Odden. Your answers are always great. I am glad to hear this because I have been in the chatroom a few times where it has been said that using nukes is always preferable to other actions if it saved even 1 more American life than another method (i.e. governments job to defend American lives goes over the edge and into irrationality). and it greatly disturbed me and I was hoping this was not the majority's view, and I am glad it does not seem to be. I certainly could not see Ayn Rand making any such suggestion.

[Grames]

The issue is, what is the cost to us of waging non-nuclear war, and how does that compare to dropping 1 or 100 H-bombs?

This is von Clausewitz' economy of force principle. The force to be economized is not the force the enemy feels, but our own commitment of blood and money. In the American way of war it is considered superior to spend money on bullets and bombs expended on the enemy than to spend soldiers' lives.

[VECT]

That's not just some American way. It should be the standard of any free nation going to war.

What should be done politically during a full blown war is to have the generals of a free nation post out a list of operation plans that the generals consider viable for that war. Then have the private citizens vote on those plans with donations and volunteers.

Nuclear option is probably the cheapest but also the most damaging long term. So depends, if the other more costly operations gets enough donation and volunteers the generals should carry those out instead. But if not enough people sees the other options as worthwhile to donate up wealth and lives for that war, then chances are the cheapest, nuclear option, will be the one to be carried out, and that will be that.

[Grames]

What should be done politically during a full blown war is to have the generals of a free nation post out a list of operation plans that the generals consider viable for that war. Then have the private citizens vote on those plans with donations and volunteers.

That is just silly. Very few private citizens have the professional expertise to make a rational decision about war strategy. No competent government puts its military plans up for a vote.

And operational expense is not the only factor but also the goal of the war, the definition of victory. I'm not going to go into a general lecture on the conduct of war here, but I don't want to mislead anyone that economy of force is the only important principle of war.

[VECT]

That is just silly. Very few private citizens have the professional expertise to make a rational decision about war strategy. No competent government puts its military plans up for a vote.

Maybe you didn't quite catch what I said about "voting". It's not with paper ballot, but with cash donation and volunteers, the two things that make any military operation in a free nation happen in the first place.

The generals are the ones that draw up viable plans. For a certain war, maybe the generals determine there is only one viable military plan, or maybe they determine there are five. The rational decisions on how to carry out those war strategy is up to the generals, but whether to carry them out or not (ie to fight or not), to pay or not, is up to the people.

And in the unlikely case that a large number of private citizens become moronic and choose to donate cash and volunteers to plans outside of what the generals recommended as viable, the present general can just refuse to carry them out.

It's the same thing when you have a health problem and you go to see a doctor. He diagnose the problem and give you viable options. Whether to go through with those options or not is up to you since you are the one paying the bill. But if you suggest something outside of what the doctor recommended to you based on his expertise, he can just refuse to accept your payment and tell you to go find a different doctor.

The standard of a free nation is the individual's life. Therefore, how to protect his life is entirely up to his own choosing. Just as government have no right to force an individual to fund a war against his will, so a government cannot force an individual to fund certain war plans against his will.

[Grames]

The standard of a free nation is the individual's life. Therefore, how to protect his life is entirely up to his own choosing. Just as government have no right to force an individual to fund a war against his will, so a government cannot force an individual to fund certain war plans against his will.

This is bad logic. How an individual chooses to protect his life is not entirely up to his own choosing. There are the constraints of rationality, ethics, law, procuring the cooperation of others, operational security, and military necessity. Only one war plan can be carried out at a time and no refunds can be offered to the armchair generals. And once somebody volunteers, that is the last big decision that person makes until he is released from his obligation. Any other arrangement is not a professional military but a casual undisciplined mob that will slink away at the first difficulty. Individual citizens and soldiers do not get to micromanage a war, or even their own participation in it.

[Jake_Ellison]

Maybe you didn't quite catch what I said about "voting". It's not with paper ballot, but with cash donation and volunteers, the two things that make any military operation in a free nation happen in the first place.

The generals are the ones that draw up viable plans. For a certain war, maybe the generals determine there is only one viable military plan, or maybe they determine there are five. The rational decisions on how to carry out those war strategy is up to the generals, but whether to carry them out or not (ie to fight or not), to pay or not, is up to the people.

It's still silly. Even if it weren't immoral to have a government declare war based on who the highest bidder is, it would be silly to announce military strategies to the enemy weeks before they are carried out.

It's the same thing when you have a health problem and you go to see a doctor. He diagnose the problem and give you viable options. Whether to go through with those options or not is up to you since you are the one paying the bill.

It's up to you because it's your body, and your money. Primarily, because it's your body. Which is why it's nothing like war, where it's not the donor's country, it's everybody's.

[DavidOdden]

What should be done politically during a full blown war is to have the generals of a free nation post out a list of operation plans that the generals consider viable for that war. Then have the private citizens vote on those plans with donations and volunteers.

Plausible "vote with your wallets" options are not a good idea during war. I hope you realise that secrecy is important to successful military operations.

But if not enough people sees the other options as worthwhile to donate up wealth and lives for that war, then chances are the cheapest, nuclear option, will be the one to be carried out, and that will be that.

Clearly not. Tactical decisions of that nature are not made by the mob. Either you support the government's action during the war, or you oppose it. The government should not and would not go begging for whatever is the most popular option. If the society is so irrational that it can't be arsed to throw a buck into the pot for its own salvation, and yes, contribute without a clue or a hope of knowing what the military has up its sleeve, then that nation will probably crumble.

[VECT]

This is bad logic. How an individual chooses to protect his life is not entirely up to his own choosing. There are the constraints of rationality, ethics, law, procuring the cooperation of others, operational security, and military necessity.

The logic here is simple. No one has the right to force an individual to protect his own life nor force him to support methods other than his own choosing. The do or not do is ultimately up to him. If the individuals decide to do, then the "how" is up to the government/military and not of his own choosing. But in the case that commanding generals find multiple broad military plans equally viable in achieving the objective (e.g. occupation vs nuking) then the decision should be given to the people. If the citizens can come up with enough donation and volunteers to pay for the more expensive option of occupation, then it's occupation. If not, then the cheaper method of nuking will be used. How to execute occupation or how to nuke, that's up to the military.

Only one war plan can be carried out at a time and no refunds can be offered to the armchair generals.

And only one war plan will be carried out in the end. As for refunds, I have no idea what exactly you mean.

And once somebody volunteers, that is the last big decision that person makes until he is released from his obligation. Any other arrangement is not a professional military but a casual undisciplined mob that will slink away at the first difficulty.

And once somebody volunteers for an military operation that will be that. I never said they are allowed to break their contract and desert once the operation starts.

Individual citizens and soldiers do not get to micromanage a war, or even their own participation in it.

Individual citizens and soldiers don't get to micromanage a war, but they sure as hell have the right to decide whether to participate in it or not.

Edited December 11, 2009 by VECT

[VECT]

It's still silly. Even if it weren't immoral to have a government declare war based on who the highest bidder is,

It's crystal clear obvious what I said concerns with general war plans AFTER a war is already morally sanctioned and declared.

it would be silly to announce military strategies to the enemy weeks before they are carried out.

Plausible "vote with your wallets" options are not a good idea during war. I hope you realise that secrecy is important to successful military operations.

Of course secrecy is important to successful military operations. But secrecy matter a lot less the more general the plan released or the weaker the enemy is. That is ultimately up to the generals to decide. If they deem even releasing such a general level of plans such as occupation, nuking..etc. will be detrimental to that war, then they don't have to release them. And the citizens will be informed of that and their only option will then be to either support whatever the one plan the generals have, or not.

That would be the case against an equally powerful opponent during a total war. But for situation such as taking care of a vastly inferior rouge state, where many options are viable, and the cost of those options differ somewhat greatly, then generals should present those options to the citizens and let them decide though volunteer and donation.

It's up to you because it's your body, and your money. Primarily, because it's your body. Which is why it's nothing like war, where it's not the donor's country, it's everybody's.

If you volunteered for an operation that didn't get chosen in the end, you are not forced to participate in the operation that will be taking place.

Clearly not. Tactical decisions of that nature are not made by the mob. Either you support the government's action during the war, or you oppose it. The government should not and would not go begging for whatever is the most popular option. If the society is so irrational that it can't be arsed to throw a buck into the pot for its own salvation, and yes, contribute without a clue or a hope of knowing what the military has up its sleeve, then that nation will probably crumble.

Up to the generals. If the generals deem somehow an occupation is necessary during the course of a war in order to complete the objective, then that will be that, for the citizens it's take it or leave it. But if they deem a nuclear strike and an occupation would both achieve the objective, the differences would be the cost, then they should give the choice to the citizens in that if people have personal interest in not nuking and want to go conventional instead, then pay up the cost with volunteers and extra donations. If not enough volunteers and donations comes in, then it's nuke time.

Edited December 11, 2009 by VECT