>>34372552>that's assuming an invading or insurrectionist force will honor our legal system>snowballs chance in hell of happening
Congratulations, you've completely miss the point.
No, invasions rarely work out if the local population doesn't agree that it's okay that foreigners with guns have a real good reason to be there. Every single time the USA has put troops on the ground we've cited legal reasons for it, the Soviets did it, Nazi Germany did it, even Imperial Japan had legal mumbo jumbo supporting it's decision to go into China. Otherwise you're Genghis Khan, you're a barbaric piece of shit, ergo nobody should support your presence and the local insurrection balloons out of control.
There's a reason why Iraqi Army soldiers weren't sent to Gitmo despite resisting the 2003 invasion, they had every legal right to defend themselves. Insurgents? That's different, they had no legal right. They're not enemy soldiers, they're not subject to the same rules that the USA agrees to when we go into fight. This is an internationally-recognized set of rules, violating them constitutes a war crime and yes it would make everyone's lives harder.
So no, there isn't a "snowballs chance in hell.">>34372605>where many factions playing both sides of power had a credible claim to the continuity of government
I must also add that when we went into that part of the world nobody was treated like dirt and summarily executed for being a partisan. Instead they were enemy soldiers despite the complete lack of authority some of the factions had for being there, even though we didn't recognize their legal justification for doing ____ we still recognized that they recognized their justification.
We also legally prosecuted people for war crimes, and you know what? Nobody said boo about it precisely because it was done like that.