“It is unclear if the U.S. intentionally struck [Iran’s] water facilities, or knew what was in the buildings. Deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure could constitute a war crime under international law.” – The New York Times
A few crybabies are claiming the United States’ recent bombing of Iran’s water storage and distribution facilities constitutes a war crime. But listen to the criteria for proving it was a war crime: we need to have known which buildings our missiles were going to strike and what was in those buildings.
How can anyone expect our military leaders to know what’s inside the buildings we’re bombing? Do you have any idea how similar weapons storage warehouses look to water treatment facilities and girls’ volleyball games?
What about the words “indiscriminate bombings” don’t you people understand? (For us, it’s the word “indiscriminate”—that’s a big word! We’re not nerds.)
As for the other war crimes criterion, of course we had no idea where our missiles would land. Yes, we call these “targeted strikes” with “precision munitions,” but “target” and “precision” are relative concepts. The missiles struck precisely within the target of Iran (not counting the ones that killed those Indian sailors in the Strait of Hormuz).
Have these war crime hawks considered that the so-called “victims” of our so-called “war crimes” are, themselves, war criminals? (The Iranian leadership, not the Iranian villagers whose water supply has been cut off—although nothing inspires war criminality like extreme thirst caused by foreign military action, so it’s only a matter of time.) We haven’t read the international rules of engagement because that’s also geek stuff, but we assume that if your enemy commits war crimes, you’re allowed to commit war crimes. That’s just how the law works.
Oh, sorry, smartypants, that’s not how the law works? Even more evidence that we’re not competent enough to stand trial for war crimes.
It’s unreasonable to expect the people commanding the world’s most powerful military to know the ins and outs of international law governing military action. We’re too busy choosing lapel pins that give “sexy sailor but in a very hetero way” and delivering speeches calling our generals fat.
No judge or jury could look at the last year and a half of this administration and imagine it knows anything at all, let alone something important like what international laws are, where missiles will fall, and what’s in the locations the missiles hit.
And no, the President posting “We’re going to bomb Iran’s civilian infrastructure” and then bombing Iran’s civilian infrastructure is not strong evidence of deliberate intent. Why would someone planning to break the law publicly announce that they were going to break the law?
In fact, it’s the President’s ninja-level incompetence that makes the best case against war crime accusations. To find out what’s inside targets and then intentionally strike them, we’d need intelligence: the number one thing we’ve spent this administration proving, beyond the shadow of a doubt, we have none of.
