Shootings per day in the US doesn't count. To be a Party To A Conflict, not only does there have be some organisation to the violence, but the organised party has to agree to certain things, including renouncing physical or mental torture, or cruel or degrading treatment, as well as attacks on civilian population as such or civilian persons. Attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives.
(These are probably the reasons the cartels have for not becoming recognised belligerents: they likely see themselves as having unbundled the profitable aspects of violence from the unprofitable parts of governance.)
> Formally, war may be defined as the "reciprocal application of violence by public, armed bodies."
> If it is not reciprocal, it is not war, the killing of persons who do not defend themselves is not war, but slaughter, massacre, or punishment.
> If the bodies involved are not public, their violence is not war. Even our enemies in World War II were relatively careful about this distinction, because they did not know how soon or easily a violation of the rules might be scored against them. To be public, the combatants need not be legal—that is, constitutionally set up; it suffices, according to international usage, for the fighters to have a reasonable minimum of numbers, some kind of identification, and a purpose which is political. If you shoot your neighbor, you will be committing mere murder; but if you gather twenty or thirty friends, together, tie a red handkerchief around the left arm of each man, announce that you are out to overthrow the government of the United States, and then shoot your neighbor as a counterrevolutionary impediment to the new order of things, you can have the satisfaction of having waged war. (In practical terms, this means that you will be put to death for treason and rebellion, not merely for murder.)
> Finally, war must be violent. According to the law of modern states, all the way from Iceland to the Yemen, economic, political, or moral pressure is not war; war is the legalization, in behalf of the state, of things which no individual may lawfully do in time of peace. As a matter of fact, even in time of war you cannot kill the enemy unless you do so on behalf of the state; if you had shot a Japanese creditor of yours privately, or even shot a Japanese soldier when you yourself were out of uniform, you might properly and lawfully have been put to death for murder—either by our courts or by the enemies'. (This is among the charges which recur in the war trials. The Germans and Japanese killed persons whom even war did not entitle them to kill.)
> Attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives.
I don't know much about history but my understanding is this true only exists as long as it is convenient. The union didn't care for this role during the US civil war iirc
That is more an illustration of how broadly "military objectives" alone may be defined in absense of other constraints. While horrible scorched earth itself has a valid tactical purpose. Military objectives alone is a low bar to clear.
That's exactly the problem the U.S. has. As long as they find a single idiot willing to defend the status quo they won't do anything. Fact is, the amount of casualties in the U.S. from shootings would qualify any middle eastern state for some sweet democracy.
The 'democracy in middle east' is a meme. United States is incapable of maintaining occupations primarily due to its own values. this is why after World War II we forced the colonial powers to decolonize (case in point, Suez Canal conflict where we forced UK and France to back off). America just doesn't know how to maintain an occupation, because to maintain an occupation requires you to have extremely brutal power structure on the civilian population, and if our military was trained to do that then they would wreak havoc in our own countries. So we train our military according to our values which renders them incapable of being able to maintain an occupation the way Chinese army or Russian army would be able to do.
You seem to ignore that the US has had, and kept, several overseas territories. There are current movements to recoup the independence of several of such territories, like Hawaii.
> So we train our military according to our values which renders them incapable of being able to maintain an occupation the way Chinese army or Russian army would be able to do.
The US military has been involved in all sorts of atrocities since the end of WWII, they just sometimes failed at achieving their military goals, e.g. Vietnam, and sometimes the government resorted to the use of other aggression tools, e.g. Cuba economic blockade.
Being able to maintain an occupation seems highly determined by the local population will and ability to fight. In the 1980's the Russian army tried to occupy Afghanistan and the Chinese army tried to march into Vietnam. Both had extremely brutal power structure on the civilian population, and both took severe damage then left.
(These are probably the reasons the cartels have for not becoming recognised belligerents: they likely see themselves as having unbundled the profitable aspects of violence from the unprofitable parts of governance.)
to switch references from the Geneva Conventions, consider the formal definition provided by Dr. Linebarger: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm
> Formally, war may be defined as the "reciprocal application of violence by public, armed bodies."
> If it is not reciprocal, it is not war, the killing of persons who do not defend themselves is not war, but slaughter, massacre, or punishment.
> If the bodies involved are not public, their violence is not war. Even our enemies in World War II were relatively careful about this distinction, because they did not know how soon or easily a violation of the rules might be scored against them. To be public, the combatants need not be legal—that is, constitutionally set up; it suffices, according to international usage, for the fighters to have a reasonable minimum of numbers, some kind of identification, and a purpose which is political. If you shoot your neighbor, you will be committing mere murder; but if you gather twenty or thirty friends, together, tie a red handkerchief around the left arm of each man, announce that you are out to overthrow the government of the United States, and then shoot your neighbor as a counterrevolutionary impediment to the new order of things, you can have the satisfaction of having waged war. (In practical terms, this means that you will be put to death for treason and rebellion, not merely for murder.)
> Finally, war must be violent. According to the law of modern states, all the way from Iceland to the Yemen, economic, political, or moral pressure is not war; war is the legalization, in behalf of the state, of things which no individual may lawfully do in time of peace. As a matter of fact, even in time of war you cannot kill the enemy unless you do so on behalf of the state; if you had shot a Japanese creditor of yours privately, or even shot a Japanese soldier when you yourself were out of uniform, you might properly and lawfully have been put to death for murder—either by our courts or by the enemies'. (This is among the charges which recur in the war trials. The Germans and Japanese killed persons whom even war did not entitle them to kill.)