The enemy

This past week in american studies we have examined the issue of civil liberties and their appropriate restrictions by a nation's government in times of war. This got me thinking as to the required treatment of the opposing side, as opposed to one's own, during a war. Are their manners of conduct and rights that ought to be given to the enemy? Should war follow rules?

The Geneva conventions, signed in Switzerland, were official agreements among several participating countries as to the humane conduct of warfare http://www.reference.com/browse/Geneva+Conventions. Terms included the forbidding of the targeting of enemy medical facilities, and the humane treatment of prisoners of war. My initial reaction to this idea was puzzlement. In a time of conflict where two nations seek to destroy and overpower the over, how it is possible to adhere to a set of rules? Isn't the objective of war victory at all costs?

While this was my initial reaction, my thoughts changed quickly. While wars are a clash of force between two countries to settle a conflict, how we conduct wars determines our moral status. In fighting the war against terrorism today, if it may be called so, the USA places limits on the allowed practices for interrogating captives of the other side. We do not permit torture, as used to be common practice several hundred years ago, despite the enemy's intent to destroy us by any means possible. In war, while treatment of our own side must clearly be managed appropriately, so must treatment of the other side.