Granting Permission

 When I was a kid, newborn until I left for boot camp, my family lived in the inner-city.  Now, as it turns out we were poor but, some of our neighbors were much closer to middle-class.  That made a bit of a difference in what you had but doubtless due to our shared culture, it did not make much of a difference in what you did.

One of the things we did was play.  We didn't have big, well-maintained parks but we did have lightly traveled streets so, a lot of our play occurred there.  We would play a heavily modified version of football.  Typically, rather than tackling our unpadded friends and family to the hard and hot asphalt, we would play "two hand touch".  For the most part, we did not engage in full contact.  We played with the largest even number that could be gotten from the group that showed up but, even when it was an odd number, we altered the rules a bit and had the quarterback play for both sides or some other workaround.  

We played basketball, inside courts when we could but if there was sufficient light and it was not storming, outside courts would not be avoided either.  We looked around at who was there and agreed on a format.  One-on-one, two-on-two, etc up to five-on-five, we made it work.  We played half-court or full-court according to the conditions.  

Regardless of whether we were playing football, basketball, baseball, dodgeball, kickball everyone knew and agreed to the rules and traditions of the field or neighborhood or group.  Making up new rules mid-game was not a thing.  We tacitly agreed to the rules and granted permission for the others playing to enjoy the same freedoms and restrictions.

Again, we were kids playing and most of us came from poor or near-poor families.  As such, we did not have the money to hire referees or umpires or judges.  We knew the rules and we abided by them - unless we didn't.  A kid that routinely violated or ignored those rules and traditions would likely find themselves in the last group when teams were being chosen or even simply left on the sidelines.  The only power we had to enforce those rules was to avoid the rule breakers.  At the end of the day, everyone had to play by the same rules regardless of whether they made one better or worse at the game.

Oddly enough, war has some similarities to the play we engaged in as kids.  That should probably not be especially shocking given that I went from playing in the street to wearing a uniform and following orders in a disturbingly short period of time.

A given nation/military will decide, or have a decision foisted upon them, which other nation/militaries they wish to fight alongside.  Essentially they are choosing their team.  While prior allegiances and traditions will heavily influence which team chooses which player, news that nations who are allies in other paradigms are on opposing sides isn't really news.  It happens and it happens with sufficient frequency as to be largely unremarkable when it happens.

Another aspect of our play that shows up in the military is the establishment of rules that will apply in the conflict.  We grant others, and in turn are granted by them, permission to operate fully within the parameters established by those rules.  When our cartoonish SecDef Pete Kegsbreath illegally and unadvisably called for "no quarter", he was establishing the rules by which our team would operate.  Unfortunately, traditionally the phrase is an abbreviation.  The full statement is "No quarter shall be asked or given". 

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about it.  "No quarter asked or given" is a military term meaning that combatants will not take prisoners, offering no mercy and expecting none in return; those who surrender are killed. It signifies a fight to the death, which is considered a war crime under international law and the Hague Conventions." 

He was effectively giving "the opposing team" permission to treat our team as barbarically as they see fit.  He did this unilaterally.  As far as I have been able to discern, he has not walked back or clarified his statement.  He is standing by granting Iran and their allies permission to do anything they so desire to our troops whether they are wounded and helpless, attempting to surrender, or otherwise incapacitated.  I really want you to think about this.  Most of our military work in support roles.  Intel, logistics, communications, engineering - those sorts of things.  The direct combat folk are frequently (and reasonably accurately) described as "the tip of the spear".  The opposing team is not going to care and probably will not even know your prescribed role.  If "no quarter" is the understanding then the daughter who signed up to get money for college and works in the mail room on the ship or base, will be treated the same as the Rambo-esque Marine in your mind.  Which is to say, they will be unceremoniously killed or tortured or both should the other team have the opportunity.

Most of our allies have a different relationship with war than does the USA.  We are geographically privileged with friendly neighbors and two ginormous oceans to protect us.  They see war up close.  They don't have to wait for the 6 o'clock news, they can walk outside and look around to see as much unimaginable horror as they can stand.  Those allies, and those who are ostensibly unaligned, were not consulted about what the parameters and rules of the conflict would be.  They know that they can be held legally and/or politically liable for anything that happens to their sons and daughters if they agree to "play" by those illegal rules.  So far, they are all making the rational, moral and obvious decision to stay out of the fray for now.

If you have a son or daughter in the U.S. military, you should probably go ahead and contact a lawyer to sue POTUS and SecDef should they suffer as a result of that particular illegality.  Whatever happens to your loved ones will happen because those two unqualified entertainers ignorantly granted Iran permission to do that.