CAN WE WIN WITHOUT COMMITTING WAR CRIMES?

This morning finds another story about American GIs torturing prisoners and trying to cover their tracks.

Bob Herbert also rails against the practice of grabbing suspected terrorists and flying them to countries where they can expect to be tortured.

A Marine is facing charges he murdered a couple of suspected insurgents in Iraq when he shot them after they advanced upon him while he was, in Arabic, ordering them to stop.

What do all these stories have in common? They all represent the often brutal, but sometimes necessary tactics used during wartime. Since at least the early 19th century, and maybe before, here in the West we have tried to lessen the inherent brutality of war by coming up with rules of conduct. The Geneva Conventions were the culmination of those efforts. The question that needs to be asked is; do the rules of war apply when fighting an enemy that doesn't represent a nation-state? Do they apply when the enemy is not a signatory to any treaty and has, in fact, used the most vicious tactics imaginable against primarily civilian targets?

Thus far, the official stand of our government is to follow the conventions where they apply. This means we cannot, officially, treat prisoners outside the boundaries of those conventions. But is this really the way to go against this particular enemy? Can we win by following those rules? Clearly, everywhere in the chain, our soldiers and spies are crossing the lines. They are doing so, in my estimation, not because they are brutal, sadistic people, but because they are frustrated by a brutal, inscrutable enemy who cannot be pinned down in conventional warfare.

I wish I had the answers to these questions. I cannot in good conscience advocate that our soldiers and spies commit war crimes (torturing prisoners, summary executions of suspected insurgents, etc.). Yet, I wonder if we can win this war without those kinds of tactics.