A Ruse By Any Other Name…
Lt. Gen. Michael Oates is worried that excessive adherence to war law might be undermining military effectiveness in Afghanistan:
Commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan have been reluctant to launch more secret operations because of an excess of caution about violating military rules and international law, a top Army officer says.
The tentative approach to “deception operations” has cost the U.S. military opportunities to weaken the enemy without firing a shot, said Army Lt. Gen. Michael Oates, commander of the Pentagon’s task force to counter improvised explosive devices.
The anti-IED task force has advocated dismantling insurgent networks as an effective way to combat improvised explosive devices, or IEDs.
Earlier this year, Marines in Afghanistan’s Helmand province read announcements over a loudspeaker to trick insurgents into thinking their specially modified roadside bombs couldn’t be found by U.S. minesweepers.
As a result, the insurgents didn’t bother hiding them well and Marines were able to easily find the bombs, said Marine Maj. Don Caporale, an information operations officer.
“We started finding all kinds of mines with this (modification), which, of course, was a complete hoax,” Caporale said.
Still, Oates said in an interview, “there’s a Gordian knot of law, regulation, procedure and risk aversion. We have got to do some due diligence on this problem.”
He said the main problem is a fear of violating regulations that govern when and how the military can use deception. “Mostly it is a risk aversion, in my opinion,” Oates said in an e-mail.
Such regulations and international treaties include provisions forbidding the faking of surrender to draw out an enemy and then kill them, according to the Pentagon’s guidelines on military deception.
Oates’ comments reflect a broader concern among commanders that the U.S. military is too cautious when it comes to deception.
Some might say it’s a sign of a well-disciplined military that it bends over backward to follow war law even when it’s hard. Only this wouldn’t be a case of following war law, because the Geneva Conventions actually don’t outlaw deception at all. Indeed, both the Hague and Geneva treaties acknowledge that ruses – efforts to deceive the enemy on points of fact – are an indispensable part of warfare and are permissible.
Perfidy is different. In those cases – such as feigning surrender only to gain a lethal advantage over one’s enemy – the protections of the laws themselves, and the code of conduct among warriors on which they depend, are used as a weapon. These acts are outlawed because they undermine war law itself.
None of the tactics described in the USA Today report on Afghanistan would fall into that category. So what are US troops so worried about?
Perhaps this is a case where the military has shot itself in the foot by failing to train GIs sufficiently in LOAC basics – much less make communicating actual treaty obligations to the public and media a cornerstone of its PR strategy.
Perhaps this is a case where the military has shot itself in the foot by failing to train GIs sufficiently in LOAC basics – much less make communicating actual treaty obligations to the public and media a cornerstone of its PR strategy.
Very likely, but it seems even worse — this is a 3-star general telling us this. If *officers* don’t know the laws of war, we have a much poorer military than I’d guessed.
The other possibility, of course, is that Oates knows damn well that none of this is forbidden, but the Pentagon has other reasons for wanting to stir up public hostility towards the laws of war.
Between incompetent ignorance and malice, I believe the default choice is supposed to be for the former, but I’ll reserve judgment for now.
[...] A Ruse By Any Other Name… : Lawyers, Guns & Money [...]
The same people that ran the black hole of Bagram are tripping all over rigorous adherence to international law and the Geneva and hague Conventions? Laughable. They’re bogged down in an unwinnable conflict, much like the Soviets, and as Anderson suggests above, they’re trying to propagandize the public that their hands are tied and we’d have won this thing except for the stab in the back from the DFHs/Euro eggheads/ International Criminal Court, The stink of desperation almost covers the reek of bullshit.
More than likely, lower-level commanders are aware of the Law of Armed Conflict, but afraid that using deception will be unfavorably presented in the international media, regardless of the legality of the operations.
That’s my guess too – but as I said, it’s a missed opportunity to seize the PR high ground and clearly distinguish this kind of legal deception – aimed, you will note, at protecting civilians – from the sort of treacherous acts (like hiding themselves among civilians) routinely engaged in by the enemy.
My personal guess is that military policy makers have been reluctant to empower lower level officers to make decisions on the legality of military actions, since we started torture, rendition, etc. When you are up to shenanigans, you tend to ratchet down how clear officers are on our legal and treaty obligations.
In other words, I can see a clear answer to “cui bono?” from these developments, and am unwilling to just chalk them up as missed opportunities. This confusion is the price tag of other policies.
[...] A Ruse By Any Other Name… : Lawyers, Guns & Money [...]
[...] A Ruse By Any Other Name… : Lawyers, Guns & Money [...]
The military has a million excuses for every occasion
So to illustrate how they’re not doing things that could work, because they’re too afraid of the law, this article describes a thing that they did do, which apparently worked, and which was within the law. Huh?
No, this was a Bushista-style misinformation sound bite trying to justify conducting more drone attacks and night raids, and calling the resulting civilian casualties “suspected terrorists.”
[...] A Ruse By Any Other Name… : Lawyers, Guns & Money [...]
Damndest thing, but I’m getting this weird urge to learn how to play guitar. It’s like it came outta nowhere.
[...] A Ruse By Any Other Name… : Lawyers, Guns & Money [...]
[...] A Ruse By Any Other Name… : Lawyers, Guns & Money [...]
[...] A Ruse By Any Other Name… : Lawyers, Guns & Money [...]
[...] A Ruse By Any Other Name… : Lawyers, Guns & Money [...]
[...] A Ruse By Any Other Name… : Lawyers, Guns & Money [...]
[...] A Ruse By Any Other Name… : Lawyers, Guns & Money [...]
or perhaps,
it’s their way of admitting (much like vietnam) that they don’t have a clue, and looking for any excuse, regardless of how ludicrous it is on its face, to explain away their gross ineptitude?
always a possibility.
Fox Airsoft is The Ultimate Airsoft Store. We carry professional airsoft guns, tactical gear, upgrade parts, and more. Our retail airsoft store is located south of Denver, in Parker, Colorado.
thanks for this useful info
[...] A Ruse Bу Anу Othеr Name… : Lawyers, Guns & Money [...]