The military is simply doing its job when presented with a task
That was presented as a defense of My Lai and was a not successful argument.
The military is achieving far more value
You're going to need to quantify this statement, because from this distance it doesn't look like much is being achieved at all. Yemen has fallen to the rebels and ISIS still hold much of northern Iraq.
answers like "don't invade other countries" are pretty worthless.
Absolutely not! It's a simple, clear, actionable, moral rule. It's also a core principle of international law. I'm not sure why this is so much of a problem.
> That was presented as a defense of My Lai and was a not successful argument.
I'm not sure how that's relevant. The "job" here being of far larger scope along the lines of "prevent future terrorist attacks". If you're the military presented with that task, you will go down generally the same route that US has, though perhaps without the same level of consideration for innocents.
The real "solution"(which is only in retrospect) is to identify the factors leading to extremism in the first place(American foreign policy) and change them. But that wasn't done, so here we are. Are you to argue that we simply stop trying to fight them on their soil? Instead we hope they don't retaliate?
> Absolutely not! It's a simple, clear, actionable, moral rule. It's also a core principle of international law. I'm not sure why this is so much of a problem.
I totally agree, but it's not applicable to the current situation. I'm not sure why people think this is a "solution" rather than a "yeah, we should have done that instead".
I'm trying to avoid Godwin territory here, but widespread ignoring of the Geneva conventions is not an excuse. It's not just a consideration, it's international law.
"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities ... [prohibited] violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds"
"the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples"
It is convenient for the US to deem anyone in the same building as a combatant to be "involved in hostilities". That does not make it true, and indeed it's a serious erosion of the concept of "civilian".
simply stop trying to fight them on their soil? Instead we hope they don't retaliate?
Are people more or less likely to retaliate if you murder their relatives and countrymen? This seems to be a fundamental point of disagreement.
In the end, coalition forces have withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan. Drone strikes are ongoing in Yemen and Pakistan; I believe NATO airstrikes have been carried out against ISIS positions in Iraq but not Syria. Turkey are holding at the border with occasional sorties. Coalition forces should resist the idea of getting involved in Nigeria, Syria, etc. and withdraw from the internal conflicts in Pakistan and Yemen. Supply defensive assistance to places that request it (Kurdistan and the Yazidis), but no further.
> Absolutely not! It's a simple, clear, actionable, moral rule. It's also a core principle of international law. I'm not sure why this is so much of a problem.
> It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!
This quote seems very fitting here. It is indeed a simple, clear, actionable, moral rule - just one that doesn't bring in profits.
That was presented as a defense of My Lai and was a not successful argument.
The military is achieving far more value
You're going to need to quantify this statement, because from this distance it doesn't look like much is being achieved at all. Yemen has fallen to the rebels and ISIS still hold much of northern Iraq.
answers like "don't invade other countries" are pretty worthless.
Absolutely not! It's a simple, clear, actionable, moral rule. It's also a core principle of international law. I'm not sure why this is so much of a problem.