The door opened quietly; as quietly as if it were on well-greased rollers. In the dim light a figure entered the confined space. The room was stuffy and devoid of air circulation. Smells assaulted the nose and olfactory senses. The odors of long-unwashed human bodies, rancid and fetid waste as well as dead and rotted flesh. Who or what could abide this stench was yet to be determined. The stabbing light from a powerful flashlight revealed a hanging dust cloud. The flashlight emitted an umbra and penumbra creation appearing like two cones superimposed one over the other.

Suddenly another form moved from the darkness. Another flash of light was but a reflection of the brilliant flashlight. The razor-like sharpness of a knife sliced through the air. Slicing at the source of the double-coned beam, a sigh of sound and lightning-like reflection was the only indication of the horror aimed at the possessor of the illumination.

The startled response was a pffttt-pffttt-pffttt and flame outlining the muzzle flash. Bullets and brass punctuated the darkened room. Readjusting the focus of the cones of light the shooter turned to face the source of the knife-wielding attack.

A dim conglomeration of fabric, ropes and the ever-ominous form of the knife was the result of the being as it appeared preparing to launch another attack. Again, the pffttt-pffttt-pffttt settled the dispute. The adage of bringing a knife to a gun fight spoke loudly. The form writhed on the stone and dirt floor of the room clutching at flames of pain screaming in its body.

Realizing the fight was over, the gunman backed away and surveyed the writhing mass on the floor with his flashlight. Guttural, painful sounds issued forth from the pile of fabric. The knife was gone. Where had it gone?

Stepping back from the wounded mass, the shooter flashed his light around the body and slowly moved the beam farther out in ever-widening circles. Without a knife in sight, the only assumption was that the target still maintained control of the implement. Moving any closer to the wounded subject endangered the shooter as well as others entering the room. More lights confirmed the initial survey. The knife must still be in control of the subject.

The shooter yelled out in the language of the subject, “Knife! Knife! Where is the knife?!”

No response from the subject except groans and garbled words of pain.

Once again the shooter demanded in the target’s language, “Knife! Knife! Where is the knife?!”

Again no response. The target rolled to its side revealing rapidly spurting blood fountains. The arm it rested against was hidden. Did it conceal the deadly weapon? Help and assistance awaited the badly injured target, but without confirmation of the close-in deadly weapon, no one moved forward to assist. The body twitched and rolled over to the opposite side. No razor-sharp knife appeared there either. Still no one moved to assist. There were far too many folds of clothing soaked in blood to declare the enemy safe enough to render assistance.

The Rules of Engagement permitted deadly force to be used if engaged by the enemy first. Clearly the rules were being obeyed. Still the humanitarian rules of assisting the wounded combatant were being neglected. The deadly implement of the initial attack could not be located. Should aid be rendered to the enemy?

The medic waited for the on-scene commander to declare the situation safe enough to assist the combatant still moving on the floor. The initial call for assistance finally came as the subject ceased moving and uttering guttural sounds. Although the pile of garments soaked up much of the blood, the puddle of crimson issuing from the man was substantial and growing.

Further palpating of the corpse revealed the sought-after deadly object. Gripped in the concealed hand was the razor-sharp knife. Even though badly wounded and dying, the enemy combatant could have inflicted severe wounds to anyone rendering aid. The on-scene commander made the correct call…this time. Was it possible that a violation of the humanitarian Code of Conduct could override the Rules of Engagement? This is the dilemma fighting men and women face every day all over the world.

Throughout history codes of conduct have governed fighting men and women in the field. Do I render help and assistance to injured or helpless opponents who are still trying to kill me? Or do I let them die by neglecting their needs and face the slings and arrows of a frenzied press or politicians in places far away from the conflict?

Codes of Conduct reflect laws of nations and humanity. Whether written or understood, agreed or implied, mankind relies on a basic core doctrine of action by other humans to eliminate wanton acts of horror. Some actions have a basis in signed treaties and some in custom. When is it permissible to commit heinous crimes against others? When is it totally irresponsible to omit simple customary actions within a country’s borders? All of these rules can be found written down or experienced by trial and error. Unfortunately, those situations experienced by trial and error often lead to serious bodily harm or death. Not knowing Codes of Conduct or national and/or religious laws is not an excuse.

Frequently Codes of Conduct can be traced to historic mores. For example, Judaeo-Christian biblical references often guide Codes of Conduct within countries shaped by conflict and treaties with nations who center their belief structures in the Bible or Torah. The Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses to name just two.

Early Greek city-states had Codes of Conduct based on warrior actions considered honorable. What about the honorable feelings of Spartan mothers sending their sons off to battle and desiring them to return carrying their shields or be brought back dead on their shields. This implied an honorable death in service to their comrades; a death keeping their nation-state’s honor above the individual.

Far Eastern mores have guided warriors and soldiers in actions for millennia. What seems to be horrible and wanton death activities to us as Westerners is frequently considered perfectly normal and even expected in their society. With the Japanese, committing suicide rather than accepting dishonor to their family names is considered perfectly acceptable. To Westerners, this is blasphemous and goes against every teaching we understand and accept. Seppuku or harakiri are an anathema to most Westerners. Ritual suicide, indeed suicide of any form, is frowned on in western culture.

By the same logic, it is difficult to understand how human suicide bombers create anything but carnage and hatred against those who use them. What does it gain a person to ritualistically commit suicide? If used by western military groups such actions would generate a horrible outcry of war crimes. In this way, Codes of Conduct, i.e. moral and religious rites, form a basis for Rules of Engagement.

What are the differences between Codes of Conduct and national laws? Codes of Conduct are often based on laws of a nation. Perhaps the biggest difference is the punishment aspect of violation. In times of war, violations of Codes of Conduct can and have been punished by immediate imposition of death. Under peacetime laws, violations usually are less harsh. Legal wranglings frequently provide drawn-out court battles leading to less stringent punishments.

In some cases, violations of Codes of Conduct are enforced to provide a warning to combatants emphasizing that even borderline violations will be severely dealt with. Such examples often see the interjection of political leaders who commute and pardon such offenders. The recent court cases of combatants being accused of “crimes against humanity” sound harsh and unyielding. Such cases frequently are being overstated to give warning to all combatants that violations of Code of Conduct will not be tolerated. It is such cases political leaders interject compassion by pardoning the supposed participant or participants. An example was LCOL Oliver North conducting the “drugs for guns” operation of the CIA. This case was a classic pardon for a participant caught in a no-win situation. His violation of Codes of Conduct would have had the result of him being courts-marshaled and imprisoned for well over a decade. On the other hand, his obedience to those orders were against the law of the land. His pardon basically let him avoid being a scapegoat to either penalty.

Codes of Conduct are the overarching values of military personnel in lands where their activities do not conflict with laws of the nations they are stationed in. Instead, the higher standards they observe are considered consistent with the values implied in the presence of a moral support base. This is often the goal of an occupying force of the United States of America; the Christian standards seeking to demonstrate a higher level of compassion to an enemy.

Unfortunately this is often a “bridge too far” in practice. Resorting to violent action while espousing peaceful intent is sometimes impossible to achieve. Hence the need for constant review of Codes of Conduct and Rules of Engagement. Is it easy? No, but realizing the basis of such Codes and Rules sometimes explains why results vary all over the political spectrum. It is extremely sad when the political winds try such cases in the media. Families as well as combatants suffer. Often results of such “trials by media” only heighten the “fog of war.” Unless a developer of such rules or codes has experienced the horrors of actual combat, it is far too difficult to encompass all aspects of a far-reaching or fair set of standards.

Feeble attempts to modify Rules of Engagement come at the cry of those whipped into a frenzy by political radicals. Such actions by political radicals are a function of a “Third Column.” By Third Column, referral is made to rear action fighting designed to take lives and morale. This includes radicals acting in the press presenting lies as truth. Whipping anger and “false facts” into  actions against the government or military. Classic examples include the First and Second Vietnamese Wars. The victims of the First Vietnamese War were the French people. The second were combatants and citizens of the United States. The plight of the Vietnamese people reflected only the results of the Communist Third Column actions against the protectors and supporters of an innocent and peaceful people. The Vietnamese Communists could not win either conflict using military means alone. Instead, it was a third column effort to undermine and destroy morale from within the mightier combatants; a war on the streets of each nation caused by the press and media.

Does modification of Rules of Engagement modify Codes of Conduct? Without a doubt, ultimately it can and does. Codes of Conduct, however, take much longer to modify because they are based on mores and even religious standards. Such mores take decades, centuries and even millennia to modify. Still without Codes of Conduct, conflicts are reduced to the basest of horrors. War is without doubt base, degrading and immoral, but still requires a basis for conduct. Rules of Engagement are effective for specific periods of time and areas of conflict, but Codes of Conduct reach far into the psyche of the combatants and cannot be nor should be quickly changed. Codes of Conduct are what we are, our very moral fabric. Codes of Conduct should never be treated as a rule, but as a way of life; a standard of ethics and morality.