U.S. troops face Afghan enemy too young to kill

[jmm99]

My last post touts Dave Bolgiano's book. This one covers his Strategy Research Report at the War College, Bolgiano, Training America's Strategic Corporals (2008), a short 30-page summary of key ROE points and training methodology.

Here are two key points. The first is a declared hostile force, where PID is material (a status determination):

There are two – sometimes distinct – manners by which a military member can lawfully employ deadly force: (1) subject to a target being declared hostile by competent authority or (2) in response to a demonstrated hostile intent or hostile act (intended to inflict death or serious bodily injury to self or friendly forces).

Against a declared hostile, once PID is established, then there is no legal obligation to detain, capture or otherwise take less intrusive means. By way of example, a Soldier could walk into a barracks room filled with sleeping enemy combatants who have been declared hostile and shoot them. There is no legal obligation to wake them, capture them or make it a “fair” fight. By direct analogy, if a tactical operations center can lawfully drop a 2,000 lb laser-guided bomb on that barracks room (subject to collateral damage and proportionality analysis), then it is axiomatic that a lone Soldier could kill them with his M-4. For some reason, however, when some judge advocates and commanders review these close-in killing situations, they mistakenly analyze them under a self-defense methodology as set forth below.

The second is self defense, where PID is not material but hostile acts or threats thereof are very material (a situational determination):

In matters of individual or unit self-defense, as spelled out in the unclassified portions of the Standing Rules of Engagement (SROE) and Standing Rules for the Use of Force (SRUF) for U.S. Forces [30], service members possess an inherent right of self-defense predicated solely on a reasonable response to a demonstrated hostile intent or hostile act (intended to inflict death or serious bodily injury to self or friendly forces). In self-defense situations, PID is irrelevant and proportionality is rarely an issue. Soldiers need to understand that they can use reasonable force to quell such a threat until that threat is over.

30. CJCSI 3121.01B (13 June 2005)

And, emphasizing the right of self-defense in several other quotes:

First, Understand the Law: Self-Defense

"One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!" [11]

11. Oracle Homeland Security Solutions, “Leveraging Information Technology to Secure America” (2003), quoting Sir Winston Churchill.

and:

As recently stated by Major General Gary L. Harrell, [37] USA (Ret.), former Deputy Commanding General, US Army Special Operations Command,

"The only tactical solution when confronted with an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury is to immediately respond with overwhelming force and continue to apply that force until the threat is over.”

37. Major General Harrell made these comments in 2006 in a video-taped interview for the Navy’s Center for Security Forces as it was developing its own Judgment-based Engagement Training for its Riverine Forces. General Harrell formerly commanded Special Operations Command Central during OEF and OIF, 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta (Delta Force), and at the Company, Troop, and Squadron level commands at that unit.

Too often, commanders and judge advocates with little or no true CQC experience, attempt to substitute their own notions of reasonableness for the warrior on the scene.

The Supreme Court of the United States [38] has consistently recognized this as folly for our domestic police forces,

… such reasonableness must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight … the calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.

38 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).

This is nothing new under the sun in US law - in fact, it is US law (FM 27-10 is still doctrinal).

Calm reflection and legal analysis cannot be imposed in the face of a raised dagger or an AK muzzle.

cont. - next post

Regards

Mike