I think you should look at actual military occupations that have occurred such as the US occupation of the Philippines or of Japan. I think people miss the point that the manual is intended as the laws we, the United States believe in and we are likely to be occupiers. It's laws that constrain us, just as the Constitution constrains politicians and police.

The whole idea that you basically tuck your tail and get ruled

Also it would concern me because none of our population was called to fight back against occupation.

I don't think you could say they tucked their tail or didn't fight back.

this has not proven true for the vast majority of human history.

Neither did human rights or freedom of speech. This is why the Laws of War were written in the first place. It's the same kind of achievement, same advancement even if they are not perfectly followed.

The law of war manual has nothing to do with devolution. It was something that was started being talked about in the 1990s and then worked on for like a decade. The first draft was turned in in 2010. It's not about the politics of this moment.

I think you should look at actual military occupations that have occurred such as the US occupation of the Philippines or of Japan.

The whole idea that you basically tuck your tail and get ruled

Also it would concern me because none of our population was called to fight back against occupation.

I don't think you could say they tucked their tail or didn't fight back.

this has not proven true for the vast majority of human history.

Neither did human rights or freedom of speech. This is why the Laws of War were written in the first place. It's the same kind of achievement, same advancement even if they are not perfectly followed.