According to the British (during the Malayan Emergency) and Americans (during Operation Ranch Hand), indiscriminately starving enemy civilians by spraying Agent Orange everywhere was legal.
In more recent history, we of course have Captain Drone Strike’s reign of terror against wedding parties and aid workers in Afghanistan.
The only thing that’s changed since the Geneva conventions of 1949 is that when civilians are targeted, the rest of the world says “tut tut, that’s a war crime” before it proceeds not to do anything about it.*
* Unless you’re from Africa or the Balkans, apparently.
According to the British (during the Malayan Emergency) and Americans (during Operation Ranch Hand), indiscriminately starving enemy civilians by spraying Agent Orange everywhere was legal.
In more recent history, we of course have Captain Drone Strike’s reign of terror against wedding parties and aid workers in Afghanistan.
The only thing that’s changed since the Geneva conventions of 1949 is that when civilians are targeted, the rest of the world says “tut tut, that’s a war crime” before it proceeds not to do anything about it.*
* Unless you’re from Africa or the Balkans, apparently.
What does that have to do with civilians being legitimate targets in war?
It depends on your definition of “legitimate”, I suppose.
My point is that the targeting of civilians is still and always has been common in war. It may now be de jure illegal but it is de facto not policed.