Lawfare - Theory & Practice

[Schmedlap]

That's the easy one. What if the operation is an absolute military necessity ?

What is your announcement then - if you have to clear the village ?

Then, imo, it's about timing. Instead of trying to "get ahead of the news cycle" after the fact (which, by definition, is too late), you hold the press conference as the operation kicks off. "This is what is occurring now. This is the most recent satellite imagery that we have. In order to mitigate this clear violation of the LOAC, these are the measures that we have taken. We will continue to update you as the operation unfolds." Ideally, the spokesperson would also take a moment to flip off any reporters from al-Reuters and challenge them, "try to spin that into another baseless allegation, you POS."

[jmm99]

Then, imo, it's about timing. Instead of trying to "get ahead of the news cycle" after the fact (which, by definition, is too late), you hold the press conference as the operation kicks off. "This is what is occurring now. This is the most recent satellite imagery that we have. In order to mitigate this clear violation of the LOAC, these are the measures that we have taken. We will continue to update you as the operation unfolds."

from an Infofare and Lawfare standpoint (those two are joined at the hip), but I think there could be some rebuttal from an OpSec standpoint. There always is a potential Infofare and Lawfare vs OpSec debate.

Probably, some sort of a generalized Infofare and Lawfare campaign should be planned and implemented ahead of any operations clearing villages - and even in a peace enforcement operation those situations will occur.

A perception problem comes from the publication of a zero civilian casualities goal (see thread on Astan ROE Change). Once that policy is tatted into people's skulls, any civilian casualties become a breach of faith by the US.

[Schmedlap]

from an Infofare and Lawfare standpoint (those two are joined at the hip), but I think there could be some rebuttal from an OpSec standpoint. There always is a potential Infofare and Lawfare vs OpSec debate.

Once the operation is underway, I think the OPSEC concern is negligible, most of the time, other than the threat of attacking the force during exfil. But that threat already exists during any significant operation due to the early warning systems that the enemy generally has in place (if it doesn't tip-off the target, it at least alerts operatives in the surrounding vicinity).

[jmm99]

on evaluating OpSec in terms of operations.

Would like to hear from more of them in this thread. Lawfare is much more operational and informational than legal.

[slapout9]

We need to find Charlie Dunlap.....get his email and send him SWC Draft notice.....nah send him a subpoena

[jmm99]

Major General Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., USAF, is Deputy Judge Advocate General, Headquarters U.S. Air Force - official bio.

Sam Liles knows him. Anyone else ?

Because of his position, he might well be unlikely to post here. It would be nice though to get his views directly.

Schmedlap could get his questions answered.