>>>>"Battlefield" has become a somewhat murky concept - especially in asymetric warfare. If I am a soldier in Iraq and I catch a guy planting an IED are we on a battlefield? Is he a "criminal" Does he have rights under US law?
>>>
>>>If the US law somehow applies to a citizen of a foreign country, then that country is de facto a colony. The US then have all the obligations as an occupying force, as per Geneva convention - they need to provide a lot. Which they have failed for five years, and keep failing. So why not give up if not up to the task?
>>
>>I think the *last* thing we want is a colony.
>
>Makes bad TV, indeed. Client country with subservient dictator, who will get his country into forever debt to buy weapons to defend himself from his own people is far better.

It is the only colonial model that ever worked very well. Britain ruled India for 200 years with few troops than we have in Afghanistan. (actually didn't work out badly for the Indians either, considering the alternatives.)

>
>>I am perfectly happy our being an occupying force in a subjugated country with all the rights and privileges that has historically entailed - including shooting anyone who doesn't see it that way, stealing anything that isn't nailed down (hard to nail oil) and going back to the ships with the best looking women over our shoulders. This thing about winning wars and then taking responsibility for the vanquished is really giving war a bad name.
>
>Well, I'm glad that you're happy. How is it?

Well, as I said, we are not following that model but we have followed instead the model of conquer and then assume responsibility for fixing everything that was broken even before we got there. And do it at our expense. War for oil myass. I don't want to build nations, just punish bad behavior, extract reparations and move on. ( gee, I guess I'm channelling my inner Colonel Blimp today ;-)