Not wearing uniforms. Vapid reflections on a vapid observation.

One of my least favorite conservative themes is that "bad guy X" doesn't deserve humanitarian treatment or application of the Geneva Convention because "he wasn't in uniform". The argument frequently gets applied to modern day bad guys, whether they are Gitmo detainees from Afghanistan or Hezbollah guerrilla fighters.

And to some extent, they have a point. A lot of these bad guys don't wear uniforms. (Excepting Hezbollah who kind of have a uniform in those creepy-ass ski masks. You just know anyone in a ski-mask is a bad-guy- that's like 8yr old TV comprehension level.) Anyway, the purpose of the Geneva conventions uniform clause was to distingush soldiers, who should be treated with dignity, from spies, who should get hung. You can argue if you want that guerilla fighters should be treated as one or the other, but me, I think it's the nature of war to evolve and they're another flavor of their own.

But here's what I don't like about the uniformed/non-uniformed distinction. When you invade a country, as we did in Afghanistan, or Israel did in Lebanon, you have to expect resistance from some sorts of irregulars. If some Islamic country were occupying your hometown, you might feel inclined to fight back. Admittedly, it's a ludicrous hypothetical from the get-go, but if it were to happen...do you really think you'd go out and find a uniform before waging armed resistance? Yeah, I doubt it. Just be careful you aren't caught, because according to conservative bloggers, if you aren't wearing a uniform the occupying army is free to do whatever it wants with you.

And then there's the intrinsic contrast with our treasured American lore.* When Washington wintered the Army in Valley Forge, they famously had trouble providing shoes for the men. I'm guessing if you have half barefoot soldiers, your uniforms aren't quite up to snuff. You think the Redcoats used to bitch that the colonials didn't all dress alike? Maybe they did. They used to fight wars by lining up and shooting each other like civilized people. (Probably the purpose of the red coats was to not show the blood when your army was getting shot. Call me silly, but I much prefer the concept of camoflage.) But those crazy Americans, they kept chaging the rules. Whether it was taking potshots at convoys on windy backwoods roads, or Washington's crossing of the Deleware on Christmas for a surprise attack on the hung-over Hessians, the Americans played to win. That's the nature of war. At the end of the day, people use whatever tactics they think are most effective.

And then there's the case of the Boston Tea party, where a bunch of Bostonites not only set out to destroy the the East India Tea Company's property (worth millions in todays dollars), they dressed up like Indians while they did it. (That had to be inspired by beer.) Full props to the colonials for giving our country such a great initiation, but if a similar stunt went down today, it would probably be labeled "terrorist". Anyway, our esteemed forefathers planned and launched these little attacks from annonmity and blended in with the civillian population to escape retribution. That's our very own history, and we've known it for hundreds of years. So let's try not to be so shocked when similar dynamics pop up in other occupation situations.

*Disclaimer: The last time I took a respectable US history class was 8th grade, so this really is more lore than fact. Maybe the colonials had real spiffy uniforms, and maybe the Sons of Liberty didn't dress up as Indians. Maybe Samuel Adams and his buddies never touched the sauce. Of course all of this can be checked through the power of the internets, and if you want to, go to it! But it's my blog, so I'm gonna go with what the voices in my head say. (Except the voice that keeps telling me it's wrong to start sentences with conjunctions. Or write in fragments.) Anyway here's your disclaimer. There's probably a 50% chance I'm full of shit. That's like David Broder odds, but at least I write a disclaimer.

PS: it looks like there's some controversy over whether the Indian bit was true. Seems like an odd thing to not know. Is someone whitewashing the shennanigans, or was the whole Indian thing just a PR smear against those vandalous Sons of Liberty? Of course, you can also ask whether being dressed as an Indian that counts as a uniform, or whether you're blending in with the civilian population and using them as shields.