Rules of Engagement
and why Shakespeare might have been right
By streiff Posted in Military Roundtable — Comments (58) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
What you are looking at below is a frame of video taken from a US Air Force reconnaissance drone. The frame depicts some 190 high ranking members of the Taliban attending the funeral of Taliban fighters slain in recent combat with NATO and Afghan forces. Great news, eh? Except they are all still alive and they are alive because we decided to let them live.
Read on.
War has not been a free-for-all for some time. Perhaps that is for the better, reducing the inherent barbarism in warfare is certainly a concept that can be logically argued against. In the US military the application of violence is limited by a concept called Rules of Engagement or (ROE).
The absurdity of allowing large numbers of enemy combatants escape has been an ongoing tragicomic feature of the GWOT. During the Afghan campaign
As many as 10 times over the last six weeks, the Air Force believed it had top Taliban and al Qaeda members in its cross hairs in Afghanistan but was unable to receive clearance to fire in time to hit them, according to senior Air Force officials.
…
At one point in October, a Taliban military convoy was moving north to reinforce positions facing the front lines of the Northern Alliance, the Afghan rebel army. Air Force targeters thought it was a prime target -- easy to hit and of clear military value. The JAG, Navy Capt. Shelly Young, declined to approve it on the grounds that "it might be a trick," the officer said. The target was so obvious that it worried Young, who suggested that the Taliban might have put children in it. Overall, this officer said, Central Command officials "were deathly afraid of a setup."
Again in Afghanistan (this from a 15 February 2002 Los Angeles Times article by Esther Schrader entitled War, on Advice of Counsel Every U.S. strike and raid is vetted by the attorneys versed in international combat rules. Did one ruling help Taliban leader avoid a missile attack? , not available, as far as I can tell, on the internet):
A week earlier, it was a lawyer, operating at the right hand of commanding Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who at first advised against firing a missile at a line of Jeeps that intelligence officials believed was carrying Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. The lawyer feared the attack might violate a policy against assassinating a head of state.
…
Under the Geneva Convention, warring nations are required to weigh the military effect of their actions against the likelihood of civilian deaths. And neither civilians nor civilian institutions such as churches and cultural sites are to be intentionally targeted.
In the case of the same lawyer's advice not to strike at the convoy believed to be transporting Omar, two things gave Young pause, according to lawyers and Air Force generals familiar with the discussions. The Geneva Convention prohibits government-sponsored assassinations, and Omar could be considered a foreign leader. And the aircraft carrying the missile, an experimental Predator unmanned spy plane armed with a Hellfire missile, had not been vetted by legal staff for use as a weapon. Under Pentagon protocols, weapons must not be deemed unnecessarily cruel or capable of doing disproportionate damage to non-targets.
There is an element of the absurd to such legal distinctions. A bayonet with a hook on its end developed by the Pentagon in the 1960s, for example, was rejected by lawyers, who judged that the hook mechanism was unnecessarily cruel. But America's nuclear arsenal, with the capability to kill many thousands of civilians, is considered legal.
While the insinuation of lawyers into targeting decisions might be unavoidable, there have been hints that this is happening at the tactical level:
An Army judge advocate general (JAG) temporarily banned Army and Marine Corps snipers from using a highly accurate open-tip bullet.
The JAG, we are told, mistakenly thought the open-tip round was the same as hollow-point ammunition, which is banned. The original open-tip was known as Sierra MatchKing and broke all records for accuracy in the past 30 years.
The difference between the open-tip and the hollow point is that the open tip is a design feature that improves accuracy while the hollow point is designed for increasing damage when it hits a target.
About 10 days ago, the Army JAG in Iraq ordered all snipers to stop using the open-tip 175-grain M118LR bullet, claiming, falsely, it was prohibited. Instead of the open-tip, snipers were forced to take M-60 machine gun rounds out of belts and use them instead.
At times one cannot help but think that Shakespeare was right, The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. (link supplied to combat the myth that this quote is actually a defense of the legal profession).
What is the utility of restrictive ROE? Should we be prohibited from engaging enemy forces in cemeteries or at funerals? What role should lawyers have in making targeting decisions or in proscribing classes of targets and target areas which are not proscribed by the Geneva Conventions?
« Thoughts on "A Failure of Generalship" — Comments (8) | B Troop — Comments (10) »
Rules of Engagement 58 Comments (0 topical, 58 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Lawyers only state the law as passed by duly-elected representatives of the people.
And I for one want civilian control of the military.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
But I don't want lawyers involved in targeting. Unless they are targeting law firms.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Why shouldn't the decision makers be permitted to get legal advice to cover themselves?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
What do you think war is, a dispute between neighbors about a barking dog?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
In our legal climate, with the Supreme Court perilously close to imposing absurd interpretations of the Geneva Conventions and other laws, they do. So the only relevant question is, do we let them get help avoiding getting sued, or don't we?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
We are going to lose this battle by being oh-so-much-nicer than our enemy. The b*astards are trying to kill us; they don't care how they do it, they don't care how many of us die in the process.
We need to restrict the JAGs to preparing wills and reviewing contracts for base garbage removal. Lawyers do not belong in targetting decisions. War is a dirty, nasty business and it doesnt't get cleaner and nicer because some d*mn lawyer decided the combatant commander can't hit a target.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
Before shooting, bombing or killing anyone, we should supoena them for a deposition and conduct other available forms of discovery in support of a Motion for Termination. Once a judge rules favoreably on said motion, then and only then should our military punch their ticket to Virginville. This methid should provide an affirnative defense should a case be brought before Judge Judy.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Of "Unfit for command"
If a Commanding Officer is unwilling to take the risk of failure on his own shoulders, then he should not be in that command position. We should Not allow lawyers of any stripe into the tactical equation (they do have a place, albeit extremely limited, in strategic operations).
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
members of the US military who might be accused of violating the terms of the McCain Torture amendment for starters. Secondly, since the Geneva Conventions do not provide for prosecution outside of the ICC, to which we are not signatories, stepping over that line won't do much other than get us sanctioned by the UN. Which is fine with me.
I have a real problem with da**ed lawyers fine-tuning points of interpretation in war time. If they are so concerned about possibly killing a civilian or two, hand them an M16 and parachute them in so they can make sure they only kill the "right" people. Do not send infantry support, they can only get air support if needed.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Bush is going to have to do just that. Because Levin, etc. are going to come after those guys at some point in the future just like they came after the CIA with the Church Committee.
It worked out quite well for us. He had the requisite security clearances to see a good bit of our planning. Our JAG didn't have veto power over any mission - but let us know when we were skating on thin ice, or as in some cases, no ice.
The key is the training and background of the JAG officer, but most importantly his/her relationship within the targeting cell.
FYI, in general, I do not hold lawyers in high regard.
Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum
can you give an example of "thin ice" and "no ice." I think that would be useful for everyone who hasn't had that experience and I've got to say that my battle staff experience is at brigade and lower where lawyers fear to tread.
Our law of armed conflict (LOAC) is derived from customary international law, treaties (the Geneva Conventions are one such treaty) and generally accepted past practices. For military folks, these are codified by various DOD and service regulations from general to specific, leading to the Rules of Engagement (ROE) for a particular conflict (which can change on a daily or even hourly basis). Service members are required to follow all LOAC regulations as well as the ROE both in planning and executing a war plan. These regulations are quite extensive and define many aspects of a specific conflict.
The regulations also discuss proportionality and legitimate targets. For example: Suppose one wants to neutralize an enemy's anti-aircraft missile capability during the early stages of a conflict. Destroying the enemy's missiles/launchers may be one component of this war plan, another might be securing electric power to the missile or radar site. Shutting down the electric power might involve bombing electrical substations, transmission facilities etc - all most likely legal. However, destroying an entire town that housed a major electrical substation would most likely not be allowed. Same goes with blowing up a hydro power facility in order to shut down power to enemy air defenses - it's okay to bomb the transformers, not okay to blow up the dam and flood the valley etc. The laws and regulations cover religious facilities (its okay to attack the Mosque if a sniper is shooting from there) etc.
One weak point in the entire LOAC/international law tradition is that one side of the current GWOT is not following any sort of international law. Terrorists (unlawful combatants) are not subject to the protections of the Geneva Conventions or international law but the public and MSM are ignorant of the issues and history.
Another problem (my opinion) is that one result of precision ordnance has been an unwillingness to tolerate collateral damage - LOAC regulations and current ROE is being written (again my opinion) too strict and only for best case scenarios. Some of this comes from inside the military - justifying the latest high-tech gizmo and surgical strike capability. Sometimes it's more humane to undertake massive carpet bombing and overwhelming violence to force an early surrender vice letting a surgical strike campaign stretch out for years.
Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum
In Desert Storm and Bosnia. There was never any restraint from attacking enemy anti-aircraft missile sites during Desert Storm. But in Bosnia we could not attack an enemy anti-aircraft missile site until AFTER it shot at us (at which time you're quite busy evading the missile). I would have gladly brought Clinton or Wesley Clark up flying and see how much they enjoyed their foolish rules when their butts were on the line. Bosnia was full of such restrictive regulations that prevented us from acting and resulted in UN supply convoys getting ambushed, Muslims being slaughtered by Serbs etc.
Again, like I said in my first post, I have never seen a JAG officer veto a strike plan or have the authority to do so. In my experience they interpreted the many many pages of LOAC and ROE making recommendations for strike planners.
Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum
And I would extend that to graduates of law schools who are members of Congress.
But, the ONLY pertinent question in a tactical situation is (or should be): "Are we killing bad guys?" If the answer is yes, proceed. If the answer is something like "we'll get some civilians", proceed anyway.
And if lawyers are found in the targeting area, call in more firepower. You hold the ba***rds in much higher regard than I do.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I can't imagine a JAG making a call vis a vis the thickess of the ice. The problem stems not from the competence or security clearance or comprehension of the JAG, it stems from the very idea that combat decisions are made by anyone other than the combatant command on military grounds, much less legal. The fact that "law" has worked its way into war is assinine. War is the organized destruction of the enemy, the wilful taking if lives and the destruction of assets --- I for one cannot wrap my brain around the idea that you can make that legal or illegal, it simply doesn't enter into the equation.
Its probably a good thing that JAG had no power in WW II or we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
differing understandings of the same legislation is a big reason why we have so many contests in court.
Who claim that it was not ROE that caused this.
Today on FoxNews, there was a talking head stating that he had a reliable source in the Pentagon who stated that they had clearance up the chain of command, but that our forces were not in position, the drone was unarmed, and we couldn't get a weapon on target.
Besides, I'd rather we send a couple more drones to track these idiots to their headquarters, then attack; but that's just me.
I don't know what kind of drone took this video but I think we can be safe in assuming it was most likely Predator (which is armed [Editor's note: it isn't always armed but can be armed]) followed by Global Hawk (unarmed). Were it anything smaller than Predator it would be within the range of either tube or rocket artillery.
I'd feel comfortable in saying this was an armed drone but let's assume it isn't.
There are lots of strike aircraft constantly in the air over Afghanistan. From A-10 to B-52. It is possible that there wasn't anything around but not terribly likely. It is also possible that some overachieving targeteer decided that Hellfire was suboptimal for the target and was waiting around for something bigger to arrive when they departed.
There were 190 guys here so it would probably take a lot more than a couple to track them. Considering the speed they move, you could launch and airstrike long before additional drones could arrive on station.
I prefer to kill them where I find them; but that's just me.
It's not "just you". I suspect you've got LOTS of company, but I know you've got at least me in the canoe with you...
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
...But always let a couple escape (must remember to follw them) to lead you to their buddies so you can kill Them where you find them, too...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
it was a Predator. They are not always armed. The Global Hawk is officially unarmed, but you'd better believe that sucker can carry some firepower! Remember, Predator was officially "unarmed" for the first five or six years of its aknowledged existence.
Yes, I agree with you on killing them where I find them. However, since these were leaders (and a large number of them), I would like to know where they were going afterward. Such intel is absolutely invaluable. Most likely, many of them were travelling together. We can follow the largest convoys and find out where they are hiding. If they're in Afghanistan, we can easily find and destroy them. If in Pakistan, so be it, and the truce between the Waziristan tribesmen and the Pakistani Army ends so much more quickly. If Iran, all the proof we need to show the world Iran's true colors...
carpet bombing them one or two would survive. Follow their trail back to the nest and kill the rest of them there.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
What is the utility of lawyers in combat situations? They have a peremptory effect on otherwise sagacious action. So now all those troops live to fight another day and potentially kill our soldiers. How does that make sense? Given our new legalistic approach are they afraid of torts?
How about they provide precise rules of engagement which allow the field commander to make the call without a need to CYA? What a concept.
I have personally seen GCF of a GBU being dropped on a crowd of terrorists runing down the street in Iraq. What has changed since then?
If it was my call, the last two utterances on this tape would have been Fox 1 and Shack.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
as opposed to the Fallujah video you reference is that these guys were in a cemetery. I guess we were afraid of accidentally killing dead guys.
I forgot that bombing dead people might be an unacceptable form of torture. It's that whole don't wake the dead thing.
My only problem is the enemy had no problem doing that in Fallujah. I guess they forgot to consult their JAG team.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
By the way, that gathering was labeled a TST with an initial location outside a mosque. I am glad they ran or it would have been another atrocity.
mors ab alto
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
How do we know how many of these people are Taliban fighters? I wouldn't draw conclusions based upon an MSNBC generated news story. And when they say "high value targets", how do we know that to be true? Does the predator drone have special capabilities that can distinguish between "high value" and "low value" targets. It just seems that the story sounds better when everything is stated as a "fact", when those "facts" may not be established.
like radio and cell/sat phone intercepts, HUMINT, eyes on the ground reconnaissance.
But, even assuming for a moment you are right, it doesn't affect the rest of the story which apparently was too much trouble to read.
I just don't trust the premise. The simple fact that MSNBC trots out a story to show the ineptitude of the military doesn't make me spring into action.
most of which has nothing to do with MSNBC, you would have found lots of other examples. Too much trouble. I understand.
Just questioning the veracity of the first example...didn't mean to tread on your over-sensitive toes.
These folk are, by definition, "the enemy". The appropriate tack to take when confronted by same is to kill them, preferably down to the last man in the quickest and most efficient way possible. If some of them happen to be either "female enemies" or "youth enemies" tough.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
It seems almost surreal to be required to state this.
I mean, really, what exactly are we doing if this sentiment does not provide the ultimate guidance for our efforts during a war?
Technology has reduced "real" war to nothing more than a video game for folks who have no clue what it means to hear bullets snap when they go by your head. Vietnam introduced us to televised bloodshed at dinnertime with Walter. Gulf 1 gave us smart weapons and video that looks almost as realistic as some of the better war game games available.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
the terrorists are not above using women and children to kill us, we should have no more qualms than they when confronted with a female enemy or one of their young jihadis.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
questioning because you don't have anything beyond your "feelings" on the subject. That you refuse to acknowledge the other two, 2000+ word, articles just leads me to believe you don't care about the subject and are attacking a single item, without proof, to try to make that the issue.
Glad to know that you are aware of my inner thoughts, sir. I like reading your posts. But, your angry (did I write "angry"?) defense of this latest post might also need some analysis. Look inward please. Jack Murtha had "military sources" as well. So, I can be pretty sure that the American soldiers in Haditha are cold-blooded murderers. So, since they are cold-blooded murderers, we should recount all of the other examples of the like, therefore establishing Jack Murtha as the Oracle.
"over-sensitive" toes wasn't right..."hyper-sensitive" sounds better.
this has a point though try as I may I can't see it.
To date your posting on this thread has been to discuss your beliefs on one frame of video without a whit of evidence. If is delete that photo and reference it does nothing at all to change the issue.
You've declined to discuss two long articles (WaPo and LA Times) which buttress the original provenance of the video still. You didn't even address the shorter article (Washington Times) on the same subject.
I don't know your inner thoughts but I can describe your behavior very accurately.
You are trying to threadjack the discussion into one of whether or not the video still is accurate. That isn't the discussion and your trolling really needs to stop.
Sometimes "rules of engagement" are the COVER for factors that can't be shared with the public. IF one of those "190 Taliban" was an important undercover informant, then maybe just a handful of people in the American military know it, and no matter how much the public or the grunts protest "rules of engagement," we'll never get the real story in this case. Sometimes, people at the top actually know what they're doing. It's rare, but it CAN happen.
By being undercover. Besides, what would validate his undercover buddies more than to have one dropped by an attack. Kind of cynical, I know, but if the people targeting him don't know he's there, He knew the risks going in...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
...to our current and potential future undercover agents and informants -- hey, just to keep your cover, we may drop a bomb on your head!
Good way to encourage folks to come over to our side.
That comment reminds me of many I have seen during my time Dkos: that people who joined the military knew what they where getting into, so they caused their own deaths, and one person even said of a fallen soldier that he deserved the darwin award.
Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.
isn't really a new and untested concept. I mean if the guy were a Delta or SAS trooper or CIA undercover that would be one set of facts. If he were a paid Taliban informant I can see where it might be worth writing him off as a business loss. Figure that those 190, given the tribal nature of the Taliban, probably represent some 3800 years of guerilla experience.
If Al Gore or John Kerry were the President, and this matter came up, we would all be calling for impeachment. At least I would.
The problem is that the military, just like all government entities, has been infiltrated and to some point taken over by career oriented, sackless numbskulls. Their main objective is one big CYA excercise, instead of making tough decisions, and we should not be surprised if we see more of this type situation in the near future. We need to kill the enemy, wherever they are and whenever we can, and if children are in the way we need to offer our condolences and blame the parents.
We will win this war if we decide to, but we will lose it otherwise.
1. We are rapidly running down the path of completely substituing Law for Common Sense. The civil litigation mentality has mestacicized into a legal hierarchy that has replaced factual and practical decision making patterns.
We are so unbelievably screwed if this continues. Common sense is already being persecuted in our court system, teh next step is to outright ban it.
There is no way a politician/legistator has either the ability/training or the intelligence (well maybe a few have this attribute) to create laws that govern complex situations in civilian affairs, much less in military conflicts.
2. The second issue is the 'over-exposure' problem. As laws (particularly stupid laws) proliferate, people become more and more numbed by them. Examples include rolling stop signs or construction areas or tax law.
The dems have already descended into this pit of idiocy by advocating hate crime laws that increase the sentence of a murderer if he had 'hate' (hate defined as offending PC sensibilities) in his heart while commiting the crime.
At a point in the not too distant future, people will begin ignoring important laws as they now ignore stupid laws. This would be a very bad thing for civilized society.
The JAGs I worked with never gave me the sense that they were trying to tie a commander's hands. Instead, they seemed most concerned with keeping the commander and his/her staff out of trouble.
It's not the lawyers' fault. Fault the DOD and service leadership who give off the impression that, when push comes to shove, they'll allow a field officer or two (or ten) to be court-martialed, or investigated, or pilloried in public by a publicity-hungry Senator or talk show host, whenever there's a cry of "atrocity" or "war crime!" Nowadays, it is VERY easy for a commander to get into trouble. We have MSMers and politicians and CAIR-types and jihadhi-propagandists-in-green-helmets who will scream "war crime" at the drop of a hat. And, often you get the sense that the Beltway leadership is more inclined to throw the wounded to the wolves, instead of standing behind their embattled subordinates.
I don't see the JAGs as the villains. There's too much murk in the ROE now, and virtually no forgiveness if the actions you took are eventually--and often in hindsight--judged to have been a mistake. The JAGs are simply pointing that out.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
SJA lawyers don't have any operational authority at all. They are part of a commander's special staff, like a chaplain. They provide advice to the Cdr, and he doesn't have to take their recommendations. A lawyer can't veto a strike, only recommend it.
Just remember: lawyers were put on staffs by operational commanders, who know what they need.
I can't count the times I've wanted to choke the $#&* out of some oplaw lawyer who has come up with an idiotic interpretation of the rules in combat. I very nearly punched one in the mouth once. But the rules are there, they aren't going away, and the commander deserves to have someone on his staff to advise him on how not to run afoul of those rules.
For the posters claiming we don't need any ROE at all, you are too stupid to comment on national security matters.
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
Even in WW2 we tried to not destroy France. Come to think of it, maby we were wrong on that one.
Everyone with a family member suffering from diabetes, Parkinson's disease or heart failure wishes Bush had kept that veto pen in his pocket.
can sometimes be our undoing. The enemy never shows so much as a fraction of consideration for anyone else as fellow human beings. This situation called for such obvious action that only a JAG could stop it.
I'm sure more than a JAG often gets in the way but I really believe attacking an enemy funeral shouldn't be against ROE's because the idea is to necessitate those funerals in the first place. The residents of tomorrow's Afghanistan can judge us in hindsight all they want.
If we aren't going to fight to WIN, the screw it. Let's just go home.
I would prefer to kill every bad guy using any means necessary. They can sue us in international court if we killed them in an illegal manner. THEN we can use these lawyers.
------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the IRS and all payroll taxes! http://www.fairtax.org
Perhaps they should be strapped to the ordinance.
The idea that a lawyer would have the ability to even comment on a strategic or tactical situation leaves me speechless. Well, OK, I'm almost never speechless.
Personally, I find no utility in restrictive ROE. The only results are to provide the enemy with a way to avoid engagement (put baby carriages or nursing mothers in the front of every squad), and to cost the lives of US troops.
Lawyers should have no say at all and should be banned from attendance at any chain-of-command meeting in time of war.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?