I agree with this much more, but there's some nuance left out of it. Clausewitz has the best explanation:
War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will. Force, to counter opposing force, equips itself with the inventions of art and science. Attached to force are certain self-imposed, imperceptible limitations hardly worth mentioning, known as international law and custom, but they scarcely weaken it. Force - that is, physical force, for moral force has no existence save as expressed in the state and the law - is thus the means of war; to impose our will on the enemy is it's object. To secure that object we must render the enemy powerless; and that, in theory, is the true aim of warfare. That aim takes the place of the object, discarding it as something not actually part of the war itself.
War crimes are a self-imposition, since a true enemy already rejects the moral force of his opponent.
However, to be clear, the reason for this self-imposition is both political and spiritual. Atrocities unquestionably cause demoralization among a people claiming morality, because the crimes are so taboo and counter to the self-image of the people can be extinguished. We know of the "Melian Dialogue" in the first place because the Athenians were so appalled that their navy had genocide Melos without a pre-existing war, or even a warning to anyone, even on their own side. This demoralization creates the delegitimization of the people conducting the atrocity.
Further, mercy is inherently an act of strength. It pre-supposes that you are strong enough to grant that mercy in the first place, and that it is towards a defeated enemy. It effectively does the opposite of an atrocity. It legitimizes the power of the victor, as a benevolent ruler, showing that the war itself is inherently illegitimate because the fear of the victor's will is unfounded. It additionally moralizes the people by reinforcing their moral framework. It subversively tells the defeated that they are already conquered by the will of the merciful, and that all they need to do is relent.
This is also why false mercy is an atrocity in and of itself: a fake surrender, the execution of prisoners, rebuking an agreed peace deal, etc. It's admission by the person doing it: "I was never legitimate".
Exactly. You just reminded me of when Nietzsche pointed out how laughable it is when people without the capacity for effective violence consider themselves virtuous for being non-violent.
I agree with this much more, but there's some nuance left out of it. Clausewitz has the best explanation:
War crimes are a self-imposition, since a true enemy already rejects the moral force of his opponent.
However, to be clear, the reason for this self-imposition is both political and spiritual. Atrocities unquestionably cause demoralization among a people claiming morality, because the crimes are so taboo and counter to the self-image of the people can be extinguished. We know of the "Melian Dialogue" in the first place because the Athenians were so appalled that their navy had genocide Melos without a pre-existing war, or even a warning to anyone, even on their own side. This demoralization creates the delegitimization of the people conducting the atrocity.
Further, mercy is inherently an act of strength. It pre-supposes that you are strong enough to grant that mercy in the first place, and that it is towards a defeated enemy. It effectively does the opposite of an atrocity. It legitimizes the power of the victor, as a benevolent ruler, showing that the war itself is inherently illegitimate because the fear of the victor's will is unfounded. It additionally moralizes the people by reinforcing their moral framework. It subversively tells the defeated that they are already conquered by the will of the merciful, and that all they need to do is relent.
This is also why false mercy is an atrocity in and of itself: a fake surrender, the execution of prisoners, rebuking an agreed peace deal, etc. It's admission by the person doing it: "I was never legitimate".
Exactly. You just reminded me of when Nietzsche pointed out how laughable it is when people without the capacity for effective violence consider themselves virtuous for being non-violent.
Yes, weakness as a virtue.