Originally Posted by Chris Case
Okay, Chris, you are going to have to educate me. I do not see how preparing our force to be more responsive to a rapidly changing enviroment is illegal.
Bill Jakola
Chris, you are going to have to educate me.
Okay, Chris, you are going to have to educate me. I do not see how preparing our force to be more responsive to a rapidly changing enviroment is illegal.
Bill Jakola
Preventive War
Here you are asserting a slightly different claim, but I assume the intent is the same. Preparing to be responsive to a "rapidly changing environment" is not illegal. I did not make that claim. Your claim went beyond preparation to an ability "to respond to the next challenge rapidly and at the earliest sign of trouble, by actively seeking out the weak signals, we are more likely to address the problem when it is small and less costly in resources of blood and treasure, to nip the problem in the bud so to speak." This is called preventive war in Just War Theory and preventive war is illegal in international law [see UN Charter, Art. 39-51]. This is rather uncontroversial. President Bush's NSS in 2002 makes an expanded claim for preemption "where the threats are large enough [p. 15, note 1]," but it did not claim a right to go around the world finding "weak signals" and eliminating possible future threats. Some claim that his NSS advocated preventive war and that this is the "Bush Doctrine," but neither the President nor his legal advisors made that claim. If you are interested, check out Jus ad Bellum criteria for more information on when it is considered justified for states to resort to the use of force.
Ludicrous conclusion ...
by Chris Case that this, simply as stated:
constitutes a prescription for either preventive or preemptive war.from Bill Jakola
If we have a quality professional force prepared to respond to the next challenge rapidly and at the earliest sign of trouble, by actively seeking out the weak signals, we are more likely to address the problem when it is small and less costly in resources of blood and treasure, to nip the problem in the bud so to speak.
Bill's prescription does not necessarily call for a resort to armed force ab initio - nor, does Bob's World in his numerous posts on "nipping things in the bud".
Regards
Mike
Last edited by jmm99; 11-05-2010 at 11:59 PM.
Mike, your view is closer to what I am trying to say.
Look, I am not advocating preemptive war but keeping an eye on potential future problems seems only prudent.
Mike,
Your claim is true--but my pointing out the possibility is hardly "ludicrous" as the title of your reply claims. I also did not claim there was any "necessity" in what Bill said either. In fact I even stated that I doubted "anyone in the military necessarily wants to intentionally violate these laws and norms." So I don't know where your claim that I somehow bestowed "necessity" of any sort on Bill's claim gets it support? But, I am the one who draws "a ludicrous conclusion" according to you. Thanks for your careful attention to what I wrote.
In addition, you claim that I somehow think that Bill's remark "constitutes a prescription for either preventive or preemptive war." I am not sure how my pointing out that descriptively his claim was (particularly without further qualifications), by definition, a description of a form of preventive war. I am not sure what you understand "prescribe" to mean, but my reply to Bill's claim was in an effort to clarify what he was describing. His response continues this effort towards a clear description. He has asserted that this is not what he meant to describe. Great. I never assumed he had bad intent or motives, but I do think we should make an effort to be clear when thinking about these things.
Now, if we want to get into a discussion of what sort of means that the military can use "to nip things in the bud" ab intitio that doesn't constitute force, war, etc., that could be interesting.
Best regards,
Chris
Last edited by Chris Case; 11-06-2010 at 12:19 PM. Reason: addendum
"nipping things in the bud" is what the Special Forces community is doing in dozens of countries around the world every day. It is the largest aspect of Foreign Internal Defense. It is done best by small footprint operations executed with a regularity and in a manner that builds enduring relationships at the personal level. It works well.
Security Force Assistance is a steroid infused version of the same that could potentially see the Army attempting to send BCTs into a mission typically addressed by an ODA. Bigger footprints, different manner, less personal, less frequent. Another example of "Means-driven" operations. How to justify all these BCTs as operations draw down in Iraq and Afghanistan, employ them against an enduring mission that someone else is already doing just fine.
The Army did the same thing prior to the Balkans kicking off when it got involved with NORTHCOM and the National Guard's mission domestically. Increased OPTEMPO overseas soon made them wish they hadn't attempted that hostile takeover.
Yes, we need a professional core to the army, but we also need an army that does more than just change missions, it must change size as well.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
This is interesting. How do we classify these types of actions? Are they acts of war, politics, justified self-defense, etc.? Also, regarding the claim that "It works well," I personally think we need to be more specific. Works well for what?
My thought at your initial comment was
"Make standing broad jumps at wrong conclusions often?"
That does not equate to ludicrous, a judgment call, however it does seem to imply that your comment was perhaps a bit hasty.Perfectly understandable and I agree with you that he wasn't clear. Still, it helps to phrase questions with a "Did you mean..." as opposed to "That is flipping criminal..."...my reply to Bill's claim was in an effort to clarify what he was describing...
FWIW, you can use the search function on the site and discover that many discussions on the topic have been held and the post above by Robert C. Jones stating his opinion on what should happen have been echoed by me and others -- still others have posed alternatives.
Here are some Threads on or near the topic: LINK, LINK, LINK.
It would also help if we actually conducted diplomacy, and had a robust diplomatic corps, and used the DoS instead of the DoD to elminate the need to constantly "nip things in the bud" militarily.
Thanks for your comments. Please do not take this the wrong way, but since it already appears that I am off on the wrong foot in the "Small Wars" community, I will push ahead hoping that trying harder with the same strategy will eventually lead to success. Perhaps you could clarify a few things for me to make me a better discussion forum participant?
That does not equate to ludicrous, a judgment call, however it does seem to imply that your comment was perhaps a bit hasty.Perfectly understandable and I agree with you that he wasn't clear. Still, it helps to phrase questions with a "Did you mean..." as opposed to "That is flipping criminal..."
.
A bit hasty? How is this implied? I don't follow. Is their an implied rule to wait for people to respond to their own posts to clarify comments they have already made? If so, what is the point of a "discussion forum?"
I am not certain why it supposed to be nicer, more charitable, etc. to assume that someone has not stated what they mean when they assert something. Is it proper etiquette on discussion forums to assume people don't mean what they say? Is the assumption that they don't understand their own words or how others may interpret them? This clearly happens and is the point of discussions, but I think assuming that people mean what they say is actually more charitable and less condescending than starting with "Did you mean...."
Also, endorsing clarity while putting words ["flippin"] and implicature into my reply that were not there, all the while accusing me of somehow running afoul of being nice, is a nice touch. The implicature could be the result of me not understanding how my words would be taken given the way people on the forum seem to think--fair enough. It appears to be the case that I have run afoul of the norms of this discourse community. In the future I will avoid being hasty and responding to posts, I will assume people to not mean what they say in their posts and if I have a question that I hope will further the discussion in a thread, I will do a search through previous discussions so that I can find the answer (or something close) in a different thread so that I can keep the my proposed discussion to myself.
Feel free to vote me off your island. I don't seem to fit in very well. But, thanks for the brief opportunity to pop in to discuss the "profession of arms."
To answer Chris Barnes' question from earlier in the thread, I think the moral-ethical and political-cultural domains will require the most amount of study and will be the most difficult given the Army's culture.
Umbrage abounds.
You assumed he could mean 'preventive war,' used that as an interrogative subject line and then went into a discussion of that topic. I merely suggested that instead of imputing something not said, a question of intent might have been more appropriate.It's a question civility, no more. This is an imperfect medium, the little nuances of gesture and tone that we all use in face to face communication are lacking here, so one should IMO attempt to replace those missing body language hints with simply a little caution in reading into things.I am not certain why it supposed to be nicer, more charitable, etc. to assume that someone has not stated what they mean when they assert something. Is it proper etiquette on discussion forums to assume people don't mean what they say? Is the assumption that they don't understand their own words or how others may interpret them? This clearly happens and is the point of discussions, but I think assuming that people mean what they say is actually more charitable and less condescending than starting with "Did you mean...."My apologies. My wife has long contended my attempts at humor don't hack it...Also, endorsing clarity while putting words ["flippin"] and implicature into my reply that were not there, all the while accusing me of somehow running afoul of being nice, is a nice touch.Not really, you assumed something and we all do that. jmm's post and mine were merely suggestions that it is usually better to try to avoid doing that -- you're free to ignore them.The implicature could be the result of me not understanding how my words would be taken given the way people on the forum seem to think--fair enough. It appears to be the case that I have run afoul of the norms of this discourse community.I don't think you need to go that far. Searching threads is not necessary prior to commenting -- civility is. Thinking a second before posting helps. You were not un civil, initially, however, your first post did seem to me and others to be bit hasty is assuming implications not seen by others who have seen the discussion before. That you had not is understandable and non problematic. That you received what you apparently think are less than civil responses seems to have led to this:In the future I will avoid being hasty and responding to posts, I will assume people to not mean what they say in their posts and if I have a question that I hope will further the discussion in a thread, I will do a search through previous discussions so that I can find the answer (or something close) in a different thread so that I can keep the my proposed discussion to myself.I don't think anyone wants to vote you off the island, rather your participation is welcome. However, no one's going to put up with what could seem to be unnecessary chips on shoulders. Undue sensitivity can be a detriment.Feel free to vote me off your island. I don't seem to fit in very well. But, thanks for the brief opportunity to pop in to discuss the "profession of arms."I think you're correct on both counts.To answer Chris Barnes' question from earlier in the thread, I think the moral-ethical and political-cultural domains will require the most amount of study and will be the most difficult given the Army's culture.
Chris has a point with clarity
I was not clear, and Chris is right to insist on precise language when discussing war, since so much depends on getting it right. So let me try again to present this idea of increasing the adaptability of our forces to provide the political leadership as useful a military as possible.
We now have a better understanding of a limitation on this concept, as Chris made clear, we want to remain within the legal constrains of preventive war. However, as Bob's W pointed out we routinely do prevention with our SF and other units in the FID mission. So perhaps we need to sharpen this distinction between what exact actions are legal and what are not.
The changing character but enduring nature of war that Clausewitz described is helpful here, since we now face a more transparent, faster paced, more competitive, more decentralized operational environment. These factors are changing the character of war in ways we have not fully anticipated or prepared our forces to address. I hesitate to narrow our focus to the operational environment because we actually must prevail in all environments. And there in lies the problem.
Preventive war legalities do not adequately arm us for the changing character of war. For example, we live in a time when there is a deep blurring of lines of responsibilities, missions, and roles that goes beyond purely defined war as a continuation of politics with other means. This blurring now has Soldiers making political decisions like a company commander organizing local a government, or a commanding general influencing a the leadership of foreign country. Moreover, humanitarian missions like the recent earthquake response to Haiti or the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico are not strictly war but rather roles where force is potentially necessary but not exactly the point of the mission. We now depend on our military to work with other federal state and local agencies, as well, as a cornucopia of international organizations, foreign governments and their military and civilian leaders.
So in this environment of multiple roles for our forces, defined as the full spectrum of operations, where Soldiers must be able to conduct, offense, defense, and the stability operations/civil support missions where does war and the use of force begin; when Soldiers are building water treatment plants, providing food and shelter or the requisite security to protect a population.
When does a Soldier have to stop preventing war; when even by the mere existence of an army can and does prevent war.
I'll give Chris his preventive war point a try as well here. Why is this a law? I imagine we would want to keep nations from using force when a less that lethal solution exists. For in it's extreme, preventive war would dictate all powers would attack all other powers to prevent being attacked.
I see the value in not using force if something better will work, but better than what. Avoiding war at all cost results in weakness and slavery. So where do we draw the line of demarcation between preventive war and preventing a war.
Exactly what is allowed under the law as it exists? Why would we not install metaphorical smoke detectors in our environment and train and equip our fire department to respond rapidly to the weak signals of the smoke alarm beeping? Should we wait for a raging fire before we react?
As a profession of arms we are tasked with the defense of the nation. Our duty is to make that profession as capable and useful as possible for ensuring that defense. In our environment of transparency, rapid change, more competition, and blurring of roles we need a profession with high resiliency, one that maximizes it's ability to see and react to weak signals so we can solve problem with the least cost in terms of blood and treasure of all parties.
Okay, I was not much clearer here, but the more I think about the tension between avoiding preventive war and how we need to build our profession, I find a clear line established by our founding fathers to provide an answer. The founders subordinated the military to the civilian political leadership. We can use structure to solve our dilemma. As Soldiers we simply build the best army we can with our signal detectors and all and allow the civilian political leaders decide when and how to use that army. In other words, military focus is on providing the capability to conduct preventive war, and political responsibility is the use of that capability.
Too many legalisms do not
a good professional military force make.
The thread title says the profession of arms. Perhaps, DoDD 3000.05, etc., has added the profession of politics as well. Even if that is so, the military is not and will not become the profession of law; nor would you want it to be.
That is particularly so where the legalisms deal with the issue of going to war (in modern jargon, engaging in an armed conflict), which in our (US) system is placed constitutionally in the hands of the executive and legislative branches.
These Wikis (read as neutrally as possible - read their caveats) illustrate the slippery nature of that international law topic: War of aggression (Crime against peace); Preventive war; and Preemptive war. I skipped "Just War Theories", which is really moral theology varying by religion.
Of course, if you want every trooper to delve into those topics, I suppose you could do that.
I expect more important things have to be done. Substantial civil-military operations have been added to the mix. That means that the military will have to make decisions on whether operations are to be governed by the Laws of Wars (LOAC; IHL) or by the Rule of Law (civil laws). That is a difficult enough area - tying in to ROEs, RUFs, EOF, etc.
All this being said, military law is certainly with us and is no longer the province of "Spaight's Ambitious Subaltern" (bold added):
Ah, the good old days...... for an ambitious subaltern who wishes to be known vaguely as an author and, at the same time, not to be troubled with undue inquiry into the claim upon which his title rests, there can be no better subject than the International Law of War. For it is a quasi-military subject in which no one in the army or out of it, is very deeply interested, which everyone very contentedly takes on trust, and which may be written about without one person in ten thousand being able to tell whether the writing is adequate or not. James Molony Spaight, War Rights on Land (1911), p.18
A decent article from the ICRC on the "antiquity" of the Latin terms, Robert Kolb, Origin of the twin terms jus ad bellum / jus in bello. No, they don't go back to the Romans.
Regards
Mike
Last edited by jmm99; 11-07-2010 at 03:31 AM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks