Rule of Law in Iraq & Afghanistan

[Polarbear1605]

LawVol: Gald to see you are safe and sound. To steal a line from the movie “The Last Samurai”…I truly enjoy our “conversations”.

because I'm headed out to one of the provinces shortly.

The COIN mission dictates that LoW and RoL apply simultaneously in that, as I've previously indicated, LoW in a subset of RoL.

Nope …yes, we have to use the LOW and pursue the ROL…but all military operations are governed by the LOW. On the battlefield there is no subset.

I really like the “Bob’s World” solution; it is (IMO) thought out, different and viable. Let’s assume Bob’s Striker BDE scenario for a sec (I do like it). I would envision the BDE driving into the village (just to let any hidden bad guys in the vill know that the good guys are here) or not (it would be up to the Joint Task Force Law commander), the BDE sets up a perimeter around the ville…everything inside the vill is ROL and everything inclusive of the perimeter and out is LOW. Coordination Point is designated on the perimeter on the main road to the vill … police chief, judge, or gov official meet there with the BDE commander and agree that everything inside the perimeter is LOW and everything outside the perimeter ROL. Further coordination: BDE states that any ROL incident or situation will be brought to the judge and passed to his police at this coordination point; and if a LOW incident occurs in the vill; ie – an undetected or hidden insurgent cell that your police can’t handle attacks you, my troops will enter the vill to do their thing (that you need done) under the LOW. The two players shake hands and each goes to work on their side of the street.
FM 2-24
(1-160) “…insurgents are constrained by neither the law of war nor the bounds of human decency.”
(2-24) Human decency and the law of war require land forces to assist the population in their AO’s.”
(D12) “When insurgency occurs during occupation, the law of war includes rules governing situations in which the military forces of one state occupy the territory of another.”

Last comment on the separation of the LOW and the ROL (and LawVol, I do think that in many ways we are saying the same thing but differently). After 9/11, the president was faced with a decision to apply either the LOW or the ROL to this terrorist incident and the Global War on Terrorism (AQ). Yes, neither fit well; generally speaking, the LOW applied to states and nations not terrorist organizations; the ROL does not extend outside the territorial limits of the US. The Pres, however, had to made a decision, either or. The president picked LOW and then his administration started to build an apparatus (procedures) that attempted to fill those gaps in the LOW applied to the war on terrorism. If they are not two very different things why did the President have to choose? If you get the chance read “New Wars, New Laws? Applying the Laws of War in the 21 Century Conflicts” by David Wippman & Matthew Evangelista. The book is a compilation of papers and speeches…generally; there is no discussion or debate that the LOW and the ROL are different or separate.

In other words, complying with LoW demonstrates some aspect of RoL.

Yep…agree as does implementing the ROL when it is ready, using the LOW.

I think he is disturbed by the over-legalization of the battlefield to the extent that it places lives in danger.

Absolutely, and reputations and the legal rights of our Soldiers and Marines at the expense of politics.

In other words, to the extent that ROE jeopardizes American lives, blame politicians and commanders not lawyers.

I understand my tone can be ruff, but don’t recall blaming lawyers. I do blamed commanders, specifically generals regularly.
Generals also state the bright shiny dogma that ROL and WOL are the same. In fact, they constantly exchange the terms as they fill their sound bits with the buzz words. Different subject, but this joint article by Generals Krulak and Hoar (and I think highly of both officers), starts with the LOW arguments and then concludes with ROL bright shiny dogma. http://www.federaljack.com/?p=11123 In reality, the Bush administration was attempting to draw the line (in our favor) in a LOW definition that is wide open. The definition is wide open because when we sit down at the “let’s decide what the laws of war should say” table, the opposition is sitting there across from us and they ain’t going to vote yes on any wording that puts them on report.

Ok next up…why do we not prosecute insurgents for war crimes? We are back to Questions 1, 2 and 3.

…1) how many Afghans, Taliban, and/or insurgents have been brought to trial for killing US service men and women? 2) Another question, if this is working so well why have Afghan casualties gone up significantly each year since and inclusive of 2008?...3) By not applying the laws of war to the insurgents you are undermining your own strategy and efforts. Another question: How many spies have been prosecuted or are there none in Afghanistan?