Mass Atrocity Response Operations
Mass Atrocity Response Operations: A Military Planning Handbook, 5 May 2010
A Collaborative Effort Between the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard Kennedy School and the US Army Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute.
Quote:
A Mass Atrocity Response Operation (MARO) describes a contingency operation to halt the widespread and systematic use of violence by state or non-state armed groups against non-combatants. The term MARO is not yet enshrined in military doctrine—but it should be. The United States does not currently recognize mass atrocities as a unique operational challenge, and there is no operational concept or doctrine that might help commanders understand the dynamics and demands of responding to mass atrocities. As a result, the US is not fully prepared to intervene effectively in a mass atrocity situation. This Military Planning Handbook is guided by the core belief that the nature of mass atrocity, and the focus of a mission to stop it, means that a MARO presents unique operational challenges requiring careful preparation and planning. This Handbook aims to create a shared understanding of the specific and even unique aspects of mass atrocities and a common military approach to addressing them.....
There is an existing thread on this subject:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=5598
Mass Atrocity Response Operations Project
Mass Atrocity Response Operations: A Military Planning Handbook, 5 May 2010
A Collaborative Effort Between the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard Kennedy School and the US Army Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute.
Quote:
A Mass Atrocity Response Operation (MARO) describes a contingency operation to halt the widespread and systematic use of violence by state or non-state armed groups against non-combatants. The term MARO is not yet enshrined in military doctrine—but it should be. The United States does not currently recognize mass atrocities as a unique operational challenge, and there is no operational concept or doctrine that might help commanders understand the dynamics and demands of responding to mass atrocities. As a result, the US is not fully prepared to intervene effectively in a mass atrocity situation. This Military Planning Handbook is guided by the core belief that the nature of mass atrocity, and the focus of a mission to stop it, means that a MARO presents unique operational challenges requiring careful preparation and planning. This Handbook aims to create a shared understanding of the specific and even unique aspects of mass atrocities and a common military approach to addressing them.....
Copied to this existing thread.
USA responds with an Atrocities Prevention Board
This is the thread I know of on genocide / atrocities, if there's is a more recent one let me know. (Added) Maybe some of the issues have been covered in this newer thread 'Responsibility To Protect' aka R2P:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...&highlight=R2P
I've not seen any other reports so hat tip to the UK-based blogsite Open Democracy and their article opens with:
Quote:
In a speech at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) on 23 April 2012, President Barack Obama launched a "comprehensive strategy" to "prevent and respond to atrocities". He has charged his new Atrocities Prevention Board (APB) with "helping the US government identify and address atrocity threats, and oversee institutional changes that will make us more nimble and effective".
Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/martin-...ity-prevention
After the initial post (above) courtesy of a FP Blog emailing there are two points of view:http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/...pisrc=obinsite and http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/...ard_a_chance_0
Zenpundit has a commentary, try this for a critique:
Quote:
The Atrocity Prevention Board is a great sounding bad idea that represents an impossible task in terms of Ways, unaffordable in terms of Means and unacheivable in relation to Ends. (Later) This is a bureaucratic brief for global micromanagement by the United States that makes the Bush Doctrine appear isolationist and parsimonious in comparison.
Link:http://zenpundit.com/?p=8197
Not that either of them is concerned...
I rarely agree with Stephen Walt but generally do agree with Zenpundit. In this case, both of them have it right. That APB should have an All Points Bulletin issued to be killed on sight... :rolleyes:
Whither the Atrocities Prevention Board?
As mentioned in this SWC post,
From "At Water's Edge" (which accords with Anne-Marie Slaughter) Whither the Atrocities Prevention Board?:
Quote:
Back in August, President Obama signed into existence
PSD-10, a Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities. When it was first released, PSD-10 was well-received by liberal interventionists and those who believe that preventative diplomacy and coordinated action can head-off mass killings,
Anne-Marie Slaughter and myself included. ...
...
... The Directive determined that an interagency study, led by the National Security Advisor, would be complete within 100 days, to determine the full mandate and make-up of the body, as well as its processes. The resulting Atrocities Prevention Board was to begin its work 120 days after the signature of PSD-10, on August 4, 2011. It has now been 147 days.
Since August 4th, precisely nothing has come out of the White House on the matter. There have been no stories written, in the mainstream media on the development of the Board since late August. None. Nothing on interagency squabbles that would prevent its creation, nothing on how close it is to launch, nothing on how
David Pressman’s War Crimes, Atrocities and Civilian Protection directorate at the NSC is proceeding. Nothing.
That was posted on December 29, 2011 (BTW: David Pressman and George Clooney are friends).
From Human Rights First:
Quote:
DNI Testimony Reiterates Administration Priorities on Genocide Prevention
2-10-2012
By Crimes Against Humanity Program
Last week, a little-noticed passage on mass atrocities made its way into the Director of National Intelligence’s (DNI) annual testimony to Congress. The passage reaffirmed the President’s proclamation that the prevention of mass atrocities and genocide is a core U.S. national security interest and moral responsibility, and committed the U.S. intelligence community (IC) to play a significant role in the forthcoming Atrocities Prevention Board.
The personnel appointed to the board and its staff will show its direction, since they will shape its findings and proposed COAs. As the President stated in the Directive:
Quote:
In the face of a potential mass atrocity, our options are never limited to either sending in the military or standing by and doing nothing. The actions that can be taken are many: they range from economic to diplomatic interventions, and from non combat military actions to outright intervention. But ensuring that the full range of options is available requires a level of governmental organization that matches the methodical organization characteristic of mass killings.
The President appointed Samantha Power, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights, as chair. Nuff said.
Regards
Mike
What does the APB do? A response
The following text is from a SWC reader, who was responding to Post 26 and the first linked article (written unlike the others by a non-American):
Quote:
The author raises serious considerations but appears to be off track with respect to the intent for the APB. Reading between the lines, one can construe this article as a criticism of preventive warfare policies or more specifically a diatribe against perceptions for the potential for military adventurism to take place. I do not agree with the criticism Here is my view.
First and foremost: Despite an almost unwavering disregard for the concept of R2P by the international community's military establishment, the APB is about just that. Call it what you will, genocide, mass atrocity, ethnic cleansing or what have you, the fact is that the concept of R2P is central to whatever kind of collective or unilateral response that takes place.
Secondly: There should be concern over the likes of the Samantha Powers and Susan Rice types in the world who promote the use of force in support of R2P, (from an emotive standpoint vice a calculated standpoint) without adequate consideration beforehand for issues such as collateral damage, vital national interests, and, how much force is necessary to get the job done along with the associated resources to do so.
Third: Idealism v. Realism - We have to consider that R2P is dangerous and dirty. It is not a clean, clinical, academic treatment sanitized of the goriness of war. It is about the tactical use of force, and all the inherent ugliness that controlled military violence brings, in support of protecting civilian populations at risk. In my view, R2P runs counter to the aims of civil society in the short term but clearly supports those aims in the long term.
Fourth: Clearly, from a purely historical context, there has been a lack of political will to engage on behalf of threatened populations using military force. Political inertia / indecisiveness and competing national interests contribute to a mindset of wanting to wait to see how things unfold before commiting to any type of substantive action. Just think in terms of what took place in Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur, and Myanmar.
Fifth: So what is the reality? The APB in my view is another feel good measure championed by idealists who harbor disdain for the use of military force and bemoan the use of military force in support of national interests, despite the fact that R2P emanates from the deepest most rudimentary core of human values. As such, they percieve those values as being somehow poltically manifest, and aligned with western values, without due consideration for the amount of violence that even the most minimal of military interventions entails.
In summary: The article is purely judgemental and speculative without consideration for the true purpose or intent of the APB -- establishing a mechanism to effect R2P collectively when required. The APB is an outgrowth from perceptions of political malfeasance and a need for personal as well as political atonement (aka Romeo Dallaire) as a result of mass atrocities which took place in the late Twentieth Century. The reality is that the APB will not drive military decision making in some constructive manner unless the collective western military establishment changes its views on R2P. In the meantime, innocent people will continue to die, cultures will continue to be lost, and national interests may or may not evolve to incorporate humanist interests as they related to the senseless killing of innocent civilians.