GWOT... Nope. Long War... Nope. Overseas Contingency Operation... Yes!

[patmc]

Found this off drudge this evening, from the Washington Post:

"The End of the Global War On Terror" by Al Kamen 3/24/09

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/23/the_end_of_the_global_war_on_t.html?hpid=news-col-blog


DOD is officially ditching GWOT, and discouraging use of the Long War, both old news. The replacement, however, will be Overseas Contingency Operation. That will show, al Qaeda!

Years from now at the American Legion, a youngster will ask a grizzled old vet, "Sir, what ribbon is that?" With pride, the proud veteran will reply, "That's my OCO ribbon. We didn't always think we'd win the OCO, but we stuck with it, and earned a hard-fought victory."

I personally am not a huge fan of GWOT, and prefer The Long War," but Overseas Contingency Operation? Not very inspiring, but that is just me.

[Ron Humphrey]

Found this off drudge this evening, from the Washington Post:

"The End of the Global War On Terror" by Al Kamen 3/24/09

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/23/the_end_of_the_global_war_on_t.html?hpid=news-col-blog


DOD is officially ditching GWOT, and discouraging use of the Long War, both old news. The replacement, however, will be Overseas Contingency Operation. That will show, al Qaeda!

Years from now at the American Legion, a youngster will ask a grizzled old vet, "Sir, what ribbon is that?" With pride, the proud veteran will reply, "That's my OCO ribbon. We didn't always think we'd win the OCO, but we stuck with it, and earned a hard-fought victory."

I personally am not a huge fan of GWOT, and prefer The Long War," but Overseas Contingency Operation? Not very inspiring, but that is just me.

How'd you like to be the guy who has to come up with the new recruiting slogans for the figh...( counter-contingency effort) against the west. :D

OB- you must join us in our battle to counter the hegemonist's in their efforts to help the Afghan people develop contingencies to overcome our plans to force everybody to do what we want.

newbie- Ummm HUH:confused:

[J Wolfsberger]

It will be easier to gut the defense budget if we're only involved in a "contingency operation" than it would be if we were still in a war. :mad:

[Hacksaw]

TWADDLE! :mad:

[Bob's World]

Come on, "GWOT" was always a horrible packaging for our response to the attacks of 9/11, and contributed to an excessive focus on defeating "terrorists" over actually solving the problem at hand.

Similarly, to call the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan as separate "wars" also skews thinking in ways that asigns an improper context to each's place in the overall larger effort of solving the problems that gave rise to 9/11.

With any luck, this renaming will be a first step in relooking US Foreign Policy and Strategy as a whole to determine how we best engage this globalized post-Cold War world so as to best achieve our national interests in a manner that does not create unnecessary friction. To continue to press the control mechanisms designed to contain a long defunct Soviet Union has placed a tremendous strain on our national reputation, treasure, and influence.

I'm all for moving forward, and that means we'll need to leave some baggage behind.

[J Wolfsberger]

Come on, "GWOT" was always a horrible packaging for our response to the attacks of 9/11, and contributed to an excessive focus on defeating "terrorists" over actually solving the problem at hand.

Similarly, to call the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan as separate "wars" also skews thinking in ways that asigns an improper context to each's place in the overall larger effort of solving the problems that gave rise to 9/11.

With any luck, this renaming will be a first step in relooking US Foreign Policy and Strategy as a whole to determine how we best engage this globalized post-Cold War world so as to best achieve our national interests in a manner that does not create unnecessary friction. To continue to press the control mechanisms designed to contain a long defunct Soviet Union has placed a tremendous strain on our national reputation, treasure, and influence.

I'm all for moving forward, and that means we'll need to leave some baggage behind.

GWOT was a lousy name. Separating Iraq and Afghanistan was a poor idea, and we did lose focus on the right problems. I'm all in favor of rethinking our Foreign Policy based on the recognition that we're not in 1985 any more. If I thought the name change was intended to address these issues, I'd be all for it.

But, "Overseas Contingency Operation?" That makes GWOT look like a good choice. The only way it makes sense is if the intent is to sweep things under the rug. I'll go back to my previous point. It's very difficult to gut the defense budget if you're fighting a war, and very easy if you're only "involved" in an "Overseas Contingency Operation."

[Bob's World]

GWOT was a lousy name. Separating Iraq and Afghanistan was a poor idea, and we did lose focus on the right problems. I'm all in favor of rethinking our Foreign Policy based on the recognition that we're not in 1985 any more. If I thought the name change was intended to address these issues, I'd be all for it.

But, "Overseas Contingency Operation?" That makes GWOT look like a good choice. The only way it makes sense is if the intent is to sweep things under the rug. I'll go back to my previous point. It's very difficult to gut the defense budget if you're fighting a war, and very easy if you're only "involved" in an "Overseas Contingency Operation."


My number one concern is the National Security of the United States.
An over emphasis on the M in DIME, and a resultant overly military and war-like face on our foreign policy arguably does not provide the most effective approach to National Security.

So, we can use alarmist terminology like "War on Terror" or "Gut the Defense Budget," or we can rationally sit down and ask "What are we really trying to accomplish here, and how do we best distribute a much smaller overall budget among the various participants across government that contribute to those ends."

It stands to reason that the DoD budget will get smaller. How could it not? I'm sure Soviet military leaders made similar arguments against "Gutting the Defense budget" all the way up to the point their government collapsed under the weight of it. Sometimes dropping the gut before it drops you is a good thing.

But I will say this, cuts without a plan that supports policy, that in turn supports an over-arching strategy, is just as dangerous as no cuts at all.

[J Wolfsberger]

"It sounds like your number one concern is DoD's Budget"

More accurately, my concern is repeating the mistakes of the Carter and Clinton administrations by using the defense budget as a piggy bank to finance social policy, leaving the US with an underfunded, under equipped and undermanned force. I don't think that addresses our shared number one concern.

I agree with you that an "...overly military and war-like face on our foreign policy arguably does not provide the most effective approach to National Security." To which I would add that a weak military isn't an effective approach to National Security, either. Being too weak to defend itself has worked out well for Costa Rica (for example), but I'm hard pressed to think of many countries through out history that were left in peace because of their weakness.

Furthermore, "...cuts without a plan that supports policy, that in turn supports an over-arching strategy..." is precisely what I expect. Time will tell, probably within the next week, if "Gut the Defense Budget" is an alarmist or an accurate phrase. It will be nice if I'm proved wrong, and I will put on my happy face in that event. :D

[Hacksaw]

Exactly...

In much the same as name changes involving Blackwater and AIG (in the future); I find name changes to be a tissue paper thin veil that implies a change/re-examination of Foreign Policy... "See we're charting a new course we changed our naming convention"... again TWADDLE! :mad:

What's in a name does matter, but this doesn't cut it... at a minimum it should include the term campaign so as to imply both the holistic and enduring nature of the endeavor...

I spent far too much time in TRADOC-ville, where name changes masquerade as change to be anything other than less than enthusiastic about trotting out a new name as evidence of a new approach

[John T. Fishel]

Any name that doesn't include the word "war" fails the "so what" test. When our enemy has declared "war" against us - not once but twice - and has killed more Americans on 9/11 than were killed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor clearly indicates that a "state of war exists" between (at least) the US and Al Qaeda and its allies.

[Bob's World]

Any name that doesn't include the word "war" fails the "so what" test. When our enemy has declared "war" against us - not once but twice - and has killed more Americans on 9/11 than were killed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor clearly indicates that a "state of war exists" between (at least) the US and Al Qaeda and its allies.

On 9/11 AQN (a non-state entity, conducting a regional UW campaign to incite and unite dissatisfied Sunni populaces around the Middle East to rise up in insurgency to throw off governments that possessed Western support, but lacked homegrown legitimacy) launched an attack against the perceived source of legitimacy of many of the worst governments in the Middle East.

The U.S. populace, rightfully angered demanded revenge against their attackers and a return of the perception of security enjoyed prior to the attacks.

Instead of looking at the big picture as to WHY these attacks took place, we instead colored it as "Muslims trying to destroy America" and launched a war against a tactic and a religion. The resultant operations have in large part legitimized the propaganda being spread about US intentions and have arguably put as far more at risk today than we were 7 years ago on 9/10.

I agree completely with Hack that meaningless name changes are of no value; but will argue even more vigorously that this country need a major, major strategic overhaul.

US Cold War policy in the Middle East worked. Continuing it 20 years after the fact contributed significantly to the current conflicts we face coming out of that region.

US similarly faces growing concerns of organized criminal violence coming out of Mexico. Any US solution that does not fully address the contribution of US Drug policies will be equally ineffective.

Being a good neighbor is a two-way street. Nothing wrong with strong fences, guard dogs and staying fit and well armed. But you still have to stop throwing your garbage over the fence and going around the neighborhood telling everyone what to do, and parking your oversized vehicles on the street in front of their houses, etc. The sooner that sinks in, the sooner we will truly begin to address the growing security concerns to our nation.

[Hacksaw]

From a year ago, when posited that I thought we (the US specifically, western world generally) had reached a strategic culminating point and that it was time to transition to the strategic defensive...

Rob and his big ideas

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As usual Rob has posted another of his intellectual hairballs that generates so much intellectual activity that it is nearly impossible to keep up and still do your job . A few thoughts that might already be accounted for above, but I don't have the time to digest...

Being on the strategic defense does not preclude offensive action. This is especially true if you consider STRATCOM/Info Engagement (IE) as part of the mix. Of course Clausewitz needs to be bent to fit generational changes, but he still fits in this era of fourth generation warfare.

All this gets a little hazy if you are like me and consider all actions/activities as having some IE component. I conduct a raid, I take physical action but I also convey a message to foes, friendlies, and neutrals alike based on how, when, etc...

However, if we bend our concepts of offense and defense so far that they no longer resemble their commonly understood definition (an example would be that Iraq was strategically a defensive action because it was pre-emptive of a presumed threat), then we probably just need to start over again.

As I continue on this stream of consciousness... I heard rumor (probably in this forum) that ADM Mullen proposed as food for thought that we ought to have an Info Order with an OPS Annex as opposed to the other way around. There is probably way too many cultural hurdles to scale with that idea, but that is the kind of big idea that I expect from a CJCS. If you get past your initial gut reaction, you can easily so why that is a far more useful mental construct. Unfortunately it took a squid... god help us if they are going to do all our thinking.

I suppose we are taking different avenues of approach to the same objective, I hope you lift and shift when I fire the green star cluster :D

Live well and row

[jmm99]

Overseas Contingency Operations are in response to Human-caused Disasters - the more politically-correct form of "man-caused disasters (http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/18/terrorism-is-a-man-caused-disa)". :p

I will stick with armed conflicts caused by VNSA (Violent Non-State Actors) - as in the AQ-Taliban and associated groups pursuant to AUMF.

That doesn't fit very well on a campaign ribbon either, but it does work in my little world.

[Ken White]

...The U.S. populace, rightfully angered demanded revenge against their attackers and a return of the perception of security enjoyed prior to the attacks.Nor do I agree with that -- if you use the caveat 'some of', I would agree but a bare "U.S. populace" implies most and I do not believe that's the case. The chattering classes certainly did and many who hang onto their every word (fortunately far from a majority of the populace) probably did but that's still a relatively small number.

In any event, the word 'war' wasn't the problem, the way the Administration of the day handled the media was the problem.
Instead of looking at the big picture as to WHY these attacks took place, we instead colored it as "Muslims trying to destroy America" and launched a war against a tactic and a religion. The resultant operations have in large part legitimized the propaganda being spread about US intentions and have arguably put as far more at risk today than we were 7 years ago on 9/10.The "big picture as to why" was of only marginal import. The 'why' was the issue you cite PLUS previous US actions around the world over many years PLUS the fact that the US, of all western nations due to our culture (or lack of it ;) ) offered both the easiest target and the easiest to dislike. The first two issues could not be undone and the last issue should not be -- we may be flawed but we have far more pluses than minuses.

Then there is the biggest PLUS of all that many like to elide: Our failure for over 20 years to respond adequately to probes and provocations originating in the ME. That one factor contributed more to 9/11 than the others combined.

I'll grant that some did go the "Muslims trying to destroy America" route but in fairness, the Administration, bad as they bungled their PR effort, did not do that -- in fact they bent over backwards to avoid that. The mass media and a few voluble nutcases were the beater of the anti-Islamic drum and they were a minority. Visible and loud but still a minority. So "We" didn't do what you said.

There is no question the bad guys used that visible and loud minority's stupidity to reinforce their position. The current operations do give them some legitimizing clout but more people are becoming aware that said legitimizing is a charade.

I agree that it is arguable that our operations have placed us more at risk -- and I would argue they have not. Folks in the ME are very much into pride, honor and revenge. The phrase "An eye for an eye..." after all originated there. I'm firmly convinced that our failure to react to provocations for many years encouraged more attacks (there is a Mid Eastern way of war...) and our twin responses in 2001 and 2003 will in the long run prove far more beneficial than negative.
US Cold War policy in the Middle East worked. Continuing it 20 years after the fact contributed significantly to the current conflicts we face coming out of that region.Having served there during the period, I do not agree that it worked then -- I do agree that continuing the same ideas has not worked in the ME since 1990.
...Any US solution that does not fully address the contribution of US Drug policies will be equally ineffective.Agree.
...The sooner that sinks in, the sooner we will truly begin to address the growing security concerns to our nation.I also agree with that philosophy but disagree that it is practical possibility. Further, I suspect it's not going to happen and I believe those things to be true for one reason.

We're the biggest gorilla in town right now and while we could turn the other cheek (as we did from 1979 until 2001) that would simply be seen as a sign of weakness by too many in the world. Rightly or wrongly, a big guy who's been a bully cannot get away with becoming Mr. Meeknmild. Sorry, Bob, everyone out there just isn't as nice as you are.

All that said, I agree with John T. 'War' should stay in there. If people are getting fired upon with regularity particularly by large groups of opponents with crew served weapons it's a war. Nation state involvement is not a prerequisite. Hard to justify all those CIBs, Purple Hearts and Combat decorations sans a war.

Not to mention that if the other guy strongly believes and says he IS in a war and you don't use the term, you can place yourself at a great disadvantage by not realizing how serious your problem is.

Lot of that going around...

[John T. Fishel]

that launching a war against a tactic - GWOT - is stupid.:eek: But the USG - especially former President Bush - went out of its way to make certain that it, in no way, stated or implied that it was making war on religion. It is true, however, that AQ uses its interpretation of religion to justify its jihad - holy war translation - against the US and its friends and allies. Moreover, the actions taken by AQ and its allies are acts of war. The problem is one of how you fight such a war - and you can hardly fight it if you don't call it what it is. As I said in my earlier post, if the name doesn't include the word war, it fails to pass the "so what" test. I had no problem with Long War and I certainly would have no problem with the Al Qaeda War (which has the virtue of being specific about the enemy). The analogous terminolgy comes from American 17th - 19th century history when one discusses the Indian Wars, eg Red Cloud's War (1866 - 68).

Cheers

JohnT

[J Wolfsberger]

Overseas Contingency Operations are in response to Human-caused Disasters - the more politically-correct form of "man-caused disasters (http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/18/terrorism-is-a-man-caused-disa)".

If it was part of an effort to diminish them politically and socially as a step in implementing Bob's strategy of Populace-Centric Engagement, I'd be all in favor of it. Since I have a suspicious mind, I doubt that's the explanation.

[Entropy]

Interesting discussion so far, a lot to think about.

Going back to the OP for a minute, I have never really liked "GWOT" or "Long War," but I don't see "Overseas Contingency Operation" as any better. It's completely non-descriptive, but maybe that's the entire point.

[Bob's World]

I guess just a couple of points:

1. In populace-based conflict perception is fact. The perception of US intent is not as good as it could be right now. Understanding that that is important is the first step, then getting your operations in line with your message is the second. GEN P. showed in Iraq that no matter how bad it is you can turn it around.

2. I'm not against overwhelming, no doubt you just got your ass kicked, application of US combat power. I'm just against making that our only solution to every problem. (ME is also very big on negotiation, particularly when they are sitting down with someone who they know will honorably and respectfully kick their ass if they deserve it; and pick them up off it if they don't). When you say you are at "war" you tend to go kinetic first, and ask questions later.

[Ken White]

It's a National Sport all over the region and they are masters at what we call haggling. If you'd like an indicator of how not to do it, see our President's Now Ruz message to Iran. :rolleyes:

They will only negotiate from a position of strength. If they do not believe their strength is adequate to get what they want, they will delay, whine, bluster and obfuscate until such time as they believe they're strong enough to prevail. They view ANY compromise as weakness.

Yes, they negotiate -- and we're rank amateurs at it and should be very cautious about entering into negotiations with them. In fact, some of the factors of our behavior in the ME about which you complain frequently were induced from earlier negotiations with various regimes in the ME wherein we foolishly bought a bill of goods because we thought they negotiated in good faith and meant what they said. Or would stick to an agreement after it no longer suited... :(

That said, I agree with your first point. :cool:

[Ron Humphrey]

I'm with Bob on the need to bring the perceptions in line with realities and I guess the name change is one such attempt.

That said I still feel like we would probably be ok stickin with Long War and just dropping GWOT regardless what its called this already has been and will probably still be one long war.

Any newer terminology should then be focused on the "what" or "who" it's a war against. That seems to have been the greatest issue with GWOT.

[Schmedlap]

If people are concerned about the funding and others think that the naming game is a lot of bluster over nothing, then I have a compromise suggestion: sell the naming rights (there's your funding) for the war to the highest bidder, just like you would with a stadium. For example, the Gillette War on Terror, or The Long War sponsored by Ford (built to last!), or The Overseas Contingency Operation, sponsored by Virgin Atlantic (whether you're flying overseas or fighting overseas, book your flight with Virgin!). Just a thought.

[Tom Odom]

If people are concerned about the funding and others think that the naming game is a lot of bluster over nothing, then I have a compromise suggestion: sell the naming rights (there's your funding) for the war to the highest bidder, just like you would with a stadium. For example, the Gillette War on Terror, or The Long War sponsored by Ford (built to last!), or The Overseas Contingency Operation, sponsored by Virgin Atlantic (whether you're flying overseas or fighting overseas, book your flight with Virgin!). Just a thought.


Well given that we just had the first organized western tour group here in Baghdad, I can see what you propose happening. Besides who needs a Fujji or Goodyear blimp when we have aerostats with advertising space just going to waste..

Best
Tom

[J Wolfsberger]

If people are concerned about the funding and others think that the naming game is a lot of bluster over nothing, then I have a compromise suggestion: sell the naming rights (there's your funding) for the war to the highest bidder, just like you would with a stadium. For example, the Gillette War on Terror, or The Long War sponsored by Ford (built to last!), or The Overseas Contingency Operation, sponsored by Virgin Atlantic (whether you're flying overseas or fighting overseas, book your flight with Virgin!). Just a thought.

The U.S. Army has already officially licensed the use 1st ID marks and insignias to Sears (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-02-2008/0004876959&EDATE), maybe we could also sell sponsorship of the units. 82nd ABN by Chevron? 24th ID by Ford? :D

As Tom points out, there's an awful lot of advertising real estate going to waste ...

[patmc]

"Sir, today's BUB is brought to you by Milwaukee's Best Light, Brewed to a Man's Taste!"

And Staff slides could have sponsorship logo's, like in NASCAR.



Note to my original post: On "Fox and Friends" yesterday morning, getting ready for formation, one of the guests made a pretty good joke. It was something along the lines of, "Our Soldiers are at war with the OCO. Beatles' fans tried that for years and failed."

[Schmedlap]

"Sir, today's BUB is brought to you by Milwaukee's Best Light, Brewed to a Man's Taste!"
Even the CTC's could get in on the action: "Sir, the AAR for this abortion is brought to you by Planned Parenthood."

[Bob's World]

Or Cialis:

"If you have a briefing that lasts longer than 4 hours, see a doctor."

[J Wolfsberger]

I'm not even going to try to top those. :D

Er, wait ...

[Cavguy]

From an contact of mine in DoD:


Colleagues:

The phrase "contingency operation" is a term of art in Title 10, United States Code, which is tied to the deployment of U.S. forces at home and abroad:

As outlined in the DoD definition (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/c/01233.html):

"Definition: (DOD) A military operation that is either designated by the Secretary of Defense as a contingency operation or becomes a contingency operation as a matter of law (10 USC 101(a)(13)). It is a military operation that a. is designated by the Secretary of Defense as an operation in which members of the Armed Forces are or may become involved in military actions, operations, or hostilities against an enemy of the United States or against an opposing force; or b. is created by definition of law. Under 10 USC 101 (a)(13)(B), a contingency operation exists if a military operation results in the (1) callup to (or retention on) active duty of members of the uniformed Services under certain Enumerated Statutes (10 USC Sections 688, 12301(a), 12302, 12304, 12305, 12406, or 331-335) (2) the callup to (or retention on) active duty of members of the uniformed Services under other (non-enumerated) statutes during war or national emergency declared by the President or Congress."


To this definition, I would add that "contingency operation" has specific meaning and force of law in the legal area -- with respect to 1) the triggering of UCMJ jurisdiction, and 2) the triggering of certain federal acquisition authorities, among other things.

I would speculate that the choice of this phrase was deliberate -- to bring the policy and budgetary nomenclature in line with each other. Further attempts at exegesis, and other tea-leaf reading efforts to divine meaning from this, may not produce any more substantive explanation.

[Cavguy]

At today's pentagon press conference today, the issue was addressed. Apparently this is a budgetary/policy change and not a politcial one - yet. From a reporter contact of mine:


Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell clarifies debate over GWOT term v. overseas contingency term.
Please see highlights.


MR. MORRELL: I've never received such a directive. I think the White House and OMB for that matter have been very clear about this as well, that they have never issued such a directive.

I think they've explained that perhaps somebody within OMB may have been a little overexuberant and done so. But I can just tell you, I'm the one who speaks publicly about these matters. And I have never been told which words to use or not to use. So I don't think there's anything to the story.

Q You still use the phrase.

MR. MORRELL: I think I have used it. I think I have. I don't avoid it. I don't seek it out. If it's appropriate, I'll use it. I could be wrong, but I think the president has used it. But, so I don't -- I was surprised to see that story, as well, because I know of no directive prohibiting the use of that term.

Q What's your preferred nomenclature?

MR. MORRELL: I don't really have one. I mean, I don't think a whole lot about it. I think that we are involved in global operations to protect the homeland and the American people. And a large part of that is going after terrorists, seeking them out, wherever they are, wherever they're plotting, wherever they are training to launch attacks against us.

So --

Q (Off mike) -- GWOT, global war on terror, lumps together an entire -- you know, the entire Muslim faith and an entire region.

Do you see that as a concern?

MR. MORRELL: Well, I don't think there's anything in that term that identifies any particular faith or ethnicity. I mean, there are terrorists of all faiths, of all colors, of all races and ethnicities. And so perhaps a better -- another way to refer to it would be, you know, a campaign against extremists who wish to do us harm.

I mean, there's a variety of ways to describe this. But I don't -- the point is, there has been no mandate from anybody as to how we should talk about this.

Q How do you feel about overseas contingency --

MR. MORRELL: I think that is -- that is -- the new way of referring to war spending is that overseas contingency -- it's still new to me, so let me get it right -- overseas contingency operations budget.

So.

Q So more of a budgetary term, would you say, than a kind of broader term of the administration to describe the military campaigns and --

MR. MORRELL: No, this is a budget term. I mean, this is -- this replaces supplementals. But it's not just a -- this is not a matter of semantics. There is a difference here. And the difference here is that the overseas contingency operations budget will be sent to the Hill with the DOD base budget and considered with it so that the Congress will be able to assess it together and make determinations together with the base budget. So I think there is -- even though it is above and beyond the base, it is coupled with the base, it's part of the president's budget, it goes up there packaged together and they will consider them together.

[jmm99]

Well, Cav, you DoD contact has it wired right - correlation of legal, policy and appropriations terminology. IIRC, a number of manuals (not sitting here in front of me) have been using that terminology for a long time. E.g., Operational Law Handbook 2007 (http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/law2007.pdf), has 36 hits on "contingency operations":


p.60
II. DOCTRINAL TYPES OF OPERATIONS

Military operations are divided into three major categories: 1) Major Operations and Campaigns; 2) Crisis Response and Limited Contingency Operations; and 3) Military Engagement, Security Cooperation, and Deterrence.[2] Joint Pub 3-07 further lists the following types of operations: Arms Control, Combating Terrorism, DoD Support to Counterdrug Operations, Enforcement of Sanctions/Maritime Intercept Operations, Enforcing Exclusion Zones, Ensuring Freedom of Navigation and Overflight, Humanitarian Assistance, Military Support to Civilian Authorities, Nation Assistance/Support to Counterinsurgency, Noncombatant Evacuation Operations, Peace Operations, Protection of Shipping, Recovery Operations, Show of Force Operations, Strikes and Raids, and Support to Insurgency.

Major Operations and Campaigns will most likely involve the triggering of Common Article Two. Other types of operations, however, will likely not. Of those, Peace Operations are the most common type of operation likely to involve large numbers of military forces, including JAs and Paralegals.

and


p.231
4. The Participating Nation Exception. As the JA proceeds through the regulatory flowchart of required analysis and actions, the most important and frequently-encountered problem is the “participating nation” determination. [27] This is because most overseas contingency operations do not generate the first, third, or fourth types of environmental events listed above. Accordingly, a premium is placed upon the interpretation of the second type of environmental event (i.e., major federal actions that significantly harm the environment of a foreign nation that is not involved in the action).

So, "overseas contingency operations" is a much broader term than say GWOT - of which more below.

---------------------------------------
The Pentagon spokesman was pathetic - "I mean, I don't think a whole lot about it." So, off the top of his head: "...a campaign against extremists who wish to do us harm." Which now proves (tin foil hat wearers, listen up) that the Pentagon has successfully completed the long-awaited ESP project - and we now can positively identify our "extremist" enemies based upon what they "wish" to do to us. As the Chinese guy said: Know your enemy.

In terms of GWOT (which IMO cannot be defined either legally or from a national policy standpoint), the Pentagon guy could have said: We are engaged in an armed conflict with persons who are members of, or substantial supporters of, AQ, Taliban and associated groups. See AUMF re: Astan and 9/11.

Having said all of that, we must realize (in accord with our DHS secretary) that we are dealing with "human-caused disasters". So, instead of "terrorists", we should be calling our misguided brethren - "human-caused disaster implementers", or HUDIMPS. Yes, son, I fought in the HUDIMP War.

[Jason Port]

Absolutely great stuff in the definition of the HUDIMP. However, it fails to answer the question of which law applies - Local laws and regulations (State and Federal Statutes) or the laws of warfare (UCMJ/Geneva Convention). I am ok with either, so long as there is an outcome to the processing of the HUDIMP

[jmm99]

from JP
the question of which law applies - Local laws and regulations (State and Federal Statutes) or the laws of warfare (UCMJ/Geneva Convention).

cut across a number of currently on-going threads. The answers are NOT matters of law only, although the Rule of Law (local and international) and the Laws of War do come into play.

Two levels will come into play, besides law:

1. The current study of "irregular warfare" and the military policies that will be developed from that, including the applicable SROEs.

2. The national strategic policy that is currently under development - not for the far future, but the policy that will be in effect for, say, 2010 (not 4 or 10 years in the future).

This is complicated because one size will not fit all of the situations. From a legal standpoint - and from the military SROE standpoint, I see at least four different situations that the military will have to confront:

1. Conventional warfare.

2. Insurgency (primarily focused on one nation which has one or more Domestic Violent Non-State Actors - DVNSA, with or without external support by one or more State or Non-State Actors).

3. Military action against Transnational Violent Non-State Actors (TVNSA), such as AQ, who launch attacks across international borders. Related to this is the permissible scope of civilian agency paramilitary action against the same TVNSA target. Two approaches have been taken: "War ROEs" and "LE ROEs" (these are in quotes because there are different views internationally as to what "War ROEs" should be, and what "LE ROEs" should be). Adoption of one or the other as a default does not necessarily preclude use of the other in certain defined situations. There is a huge conflict here.

4. Military assistance in LE (Law Enforcement) Operations, which may involve groups that are either DVNSAs or TVNSAs, but as to which the political decision has been made NOT to raise the status of the problem to that of an "armed conflict". In short, these generally will be regarded as domestic criminal law problems.

All of these situations require reasoned political decisions (national policy level); and hopefully mission tasking type orders to the military to allow it to formulate appropriate SROEs, and particular ROEs on a case by case basis - which will have to fit the military strategy, operations and tactics adopted for each case.

My problem (now through 15 Apr) is devoting enough time to these questions to present some coherent view of what is both a military and legal problem.

For those who want to do something in the meantime, I suggest becoming familiar with the "kill or capture" concepts inherent in the two basic types of ROEs:

1. Status-Based ROEs (based on the status of the "kill or capture" target).

2. Conduct-Based ROEs (based on the conduct of the "kill or capture" target).

The status-based ROEs are more "War ROEs"; the conduct-based ROEs are more "LE ROEs". With some digging with Google, etc., you will find discussions about this topic.

Sorry I can't be more explicit now; so, this will have to do for a start.

PS: HUDIMPS was a joke - based on experience with the imps at HUD.

[patmc]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D978J7580&show_article=1

Clinton: New team not using 'war on terror' term

Mar 30 04:03 PM US/Eastern
By ANNE GEARAN
AP Military Writer


Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the Obama administration has indeed abandoned the term "global war on terror."
Clinton says that while she hasn't seen any specific orders, the new administration in Washington simply isn't using the phrase.