2 hours ago

Protecting civilians is a sign of strength – and an American ideal | Ted Widmer

Far from expressing remorse for his threat to bomb civilian infrastructure, Donald Trump is doubling down as we approach his deadline for Iranian submission: 8pm ET on Tuesday.

It’s not enough for the US to achieve a military victory – one that continues to elude him, with his stated goals for the war still unmet. Instead, “a whole civilization will die, never to be brought back again,” as he posted on social media. He then added that we are approaching “one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the World”.

That last point may actually be true, but it is hard to feel confidence in the commander-in-chief in the fifth week of a conflict that has extended well past its sell-by date, and a promise on 9 March that it would be “a short-term excursion”.

Trump has threatened to bomb Iran “back to the Stone Ages”, a quote that came from Gen Curtis LeMay, who promised to bomb Vietnam “back to the Stone Age” in a 1965 book.

LeMay’s taunt was discredited at the time – in part because carpet bombing had little military effect on the Viet Cong, and only deepened skepticism toward a war that the US would go on to lose.

LeMay made other careless mistakes during his career at the top of the air force in the 1960s. At the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, during an Oval Office meeting with Kennedy, he accused the president of “appeasement” for deciding to blockade Cuba rather than invade it. That conversation was taped, revealing just how disastrous LeMay’s advice was as the world stood on the edge of oblivion. Later, it was discovered that Russia had tactical nuclear weapons in Cuba, leading analysts to conclude that a nuclear exchange would probably have resulted if Kennedy had not trusted his instincts and worked toward a diplomatic solution.

Precise language was key to that successful outcome – Kennedy spoke in measured tones about the exact threat he faced. He avoided bluster, and took great care to provide an off-ramp for Nikita Khrushchev that allowed each leader to step back from the crisis. A year later, they had found enough breathing room that they could negotiate a nuclear test ban treaty.

Trump lacks those skills as we approach a crisis of his own making. There is no off-ramp in sight, with extreme statements from both sides. He seems determined to rain devastation on the same people he has been asking to rise up, more or less ensuring their permanent enmity toward the United States.

Wars always harm civilians, despite centuries of international law designed to protect them from the worst ravages. But Trump’s promiscuous threats to bomb power stations, desalination plants and bridges, if enacted, would almost certainly constitute a war crime, as many have already argued. Article 52 of a 1977 protocol to the Geneva conventions states clearly that “civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals”. That is why the international criminal court has been trying to arrest Russian leaders implicated in the destruction of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

But it is not the easiest thing to determine what kind of mayhem constitutes a war crime. If our weapons are precise, our words are not, especially when spoken by a president who routinely distorts reality and contradicts himself.

Still, if the bombing continues, there are ways to limit the damage, and plenty of military lawyers nearby to offer advice. The US must distinguish between power plants that serve a military purpose – by providing electricity to a nearby base or airport – and those that do not. If a cyber-attack can achieve the same goal, that causes less damage than bombing.

Similarly, a bridge that is likely to be used to transport troops or missile launchers could be a legitimate target, but not one that serves a local community. Desalination plants, providing much-needed water to civilian populations, should never be struck.

In all cases, the damage should be temporary – to serve a war that Trump has repeatedly insisted will be brief – and to avoid long-term costs. It should be noted that Iran has insisted on reparations for war damages, ahead of talks – another incentive to limit the damage with pinpoint precision.

These decisions about targeting should also be explained to the world. That will bolster badly shaken confidence in the United States, and a president who routinely taunts America’s allies for not joining his war more enthusiastically – after failing to consult them before launching it.

It will also align the White House with a long tradition, deeply rooted in American history, of trying to fight better wars, with greater purpose, and a plan for the peace to follow.

We have not always achieved that goal, as Vietnam and Iraq continue to instruct. And it should be noted that the bombing of Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in the second world war; each attack was claimed to be a military necessity at the time.

Still, for all its epic violence, the second world war was fought with worthy goals, clearly communicated. Well before the end of the fighting, Franklin D Roosevelt articulated his vision for a world united around democratic values and international organizations. In fact, he sealed the deal for the UN in a conference held in late 1943, in Tehran, of all places.

After FDR died in 1945, others built the architecture that has done so much to protect peace since then. It was built not by starry-eyed idealists, but by war-hardened survivors of a global conflagration that no one wanted to see repeated.

Careful words helped. The “Declaration by the United Nations” was issued on 1 January 1942, only a few weeks after Pearl Harbor. Anger levels were high, but the declaration promises to protect civilization, not to destroy it. It mentions human rights and religious freedom – not for Christians only, but for all peoples. Since Easter, the language of the Crusades has grown louder, but Trump and his team should remember that any ground invasion, if it comes, will need help from Turkey, an important Nato ally, and a Muslim-majority country that borders Iran.

There are other words to guide us, if we choose to read them. The Pentagon has a Law of War Manual, with a long chapter on how to protect civilians. Before the Geneva conventions of 1949, there were the Hague conventions, which also contained extensive language about civilians. They derived many of their provisions from an American source, the Lieber Code of 1863, which established protocols for the protection of the innocent. During some of the worst fighting of the civil war, Abraham Lincoln ordered that Union soldiers follow strict guidelines to safeguard the vulnerable – including African American soldiers who had escaped from slavery, often subject to fierce reprisals by Confederates.

Long before Lincoln, our first president, George Washington, also understood that it would mean a great deal to be known to the world as a country that fought fiercely, but also fairly. The Declaration of Independence takes some time to define what that means, including the protection of civilians from the burning of cities, and other examples of “cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages”. They were trying to build something better, in war as well as peace.

The Pentagon’s Law of War Manual begins with Washington’s appeal to the British that the war for independence “may be carried on agreeable to the Rules which humanity formed” and that they strive to “punish every breach of the rules of war within the sphere of our respective commands”.

By following that logic now, we will uphold long-established American values, and constrain other leaders from resorting to mindless violence. It is not a sign of weakness to protect civilians; it is the essence of strength and self-discipline, and a gesture of respect for the thousands of years of civilization that undergird all of us.