Compass Points - Proportional War?
Stop matching and start winning
October 8, 2024
.
Many US politicians are suggesting any response by Israel to Iran's recent 181 ballistic missile attack on Israel must be proportional.
In the year since Israeli civilians were attacked and slaughtered by Hamas terrorists, some observers have urged Israel to limit their response to something proportional.
The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) describes what can and cannot be done in war. Most often the concept of proportional response is not well understood by politicians nor military leaders. As one Compass Points reader has said,
.
================
.
The Law of Armed Conflict requires interpretation and if the senior military leadership cannot explain their orders and actions, politicians will step in via the media with poisoning information and policies that work against combat operations and undermine the military leadership. Every General Officer once selected and before he pins on his first star should be required to read “Fighting Today’s Wars – How America’s Leaders Have Failed Our Warriors” – by David G. Bolgiano and James M. Patterson. They should also be instructed on the dangers of strategic legalism.
-- Polarbear
.
================
.
While the Law of Armed Conflict is voluminous and complex, it is not in favor of extended operations. Short wars, generally, create less suffering. In some ways, it all comes down to MTS.
Some commanders in combat, either through poor legal advice or due to their own incomplete understanding of the Law of Armed Conflict, may restrict their combat units from fighting as forcefully as they should. The Law of Armed Conflict is a body of laws and agreements which has developed over time and attempts to put reasonable boundaries on commanders and troops in war. The Law of Armed Conflict is designed to be reasonable and practical. One wise Marine commander over his career has often given the guidance to his Marines, "if something is dumb, don’t do it, just don't do it." The Law of Armed Conflict is designed to make commanders humane, not dumb.
One of the terms that often leads to confusion is ‘proportionality.’ While most people feel they understand what proportionality means in war, their understanding is often mistaken.
Israel's famed Iron Dome and related missile defense systems, over many years and many attacks, have proven to be more than 90% effective. More than 90% of incoming rockets and missiles are destroyed. For example, early in August 2022 – more than a year before the horrific attacks of October 7, 2023 -- Hamas fired more than 1100 missiles at Israel. Iron Dome shot down virtually all of them. One Hamas rocket or missile went up, then one Israeli missile went up and destroyed it. Perfect proportionality. But that is not what proportionality in war means. It does not mean matching the actions of the enemy.
The purpose of war is to win a better peace. It means using enough force to MTS - Make Them Stop. Good guys must make the bad guys stop. Matching knife with knife, gun with gun, missile with missile prolongs the fighting. To win the peace, to make the bad guys stop, it is necessary to shake them, surprise them, disturb them, and finally shatter their cohesion and will. It is impossible to shatter the will of the enemy by repeating the same safe and predictable response.
Well over 100 years ago in the US, on April 24, 1863, President Lincoln signed what has become known as the Lieber Code. The Lieber Code put restrictions on the conduct of wars.
.
===============
.
Military necessity does not admit of cruelty - that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. It does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of the wanton devastation of a district. It admits of deception, but disclaims acts of perfidy; and, in general, military necessity does not include any act of hostility which makes the return to peace unnecessarily difficult.
-- Lieber Code, article 16
.
===============
.
Down through the years, other codes and agreements have outlawed certain weapons, including poisoned gas, poisoned bullets, biological weapons, and others. Still, commanders in combat may always use all reasonable and necessary force to respond to enemy attacks with enough force, not just to match them, but to MTS - Make Them Stop.
This was the failure of Iron Dome in August of 2022. Yes, the Iron Dome shot down nearly every missile, but the Iron Dome did not make the bad guys stop. The result? For the next fourteen months, Hamas planned, trained, rehearsed, and built up its store of missiles. Then, on October 7, 2023, Hamas launched their surprise attack. They fired 5000 missiles at Israel and then invaded peaceful, unarmed villages, targeting civilians with the most grotesque and vile forms of torture, mutilation, and death.
On October 7, 2023, Hamas clearly violated the rules of war.
.
===============
.
Protecting civilians during armed conflict is a cornerstone of IHL, which provides a robust framework within which civilians are protected. This protection extends to their direct environment and property, also known as ‘civilian objects’.
-- Red Cross - Casebook
.
================
.
What is a proportionate response? It is enough force to make the bad guys stop without going beyond. Under the LOAC, Israel could not have used a nuclear weapon on Hamas forces in Gaza, but it could have used all reasonable force against legitimate military targets.
Hospitals, schools, churches, museums may not be intentionally targeted. What if the enemy hides in a hospital, billets troops in churches, and places artillery on a school playground? In these cases, the enemy has transformed what were off limit civilian locations into legitimate military targets. The destruction to the previously civilian structures is entirely the fault of the enemy who turned the locations into military targets.
In the same way, civilian non-combatants may never be intentionally targeted. But when the enemy uses civilians as shields, the unintentional deaths are the fault of the enemy.
The goal of the Law of Armed Conflict is to encourage reasonable limits on war to help win a better peace. Israel's Iron Dome system is a superb piece of technology. But Iron Dome only shoots down incoming missiles. By itself Iron Dome does not make the bad guys stop. Defense alone does not defeat an enemy. Defense left Hamas free to plan their next attack. Defense alone will leave Iran free to plan their next attack.
This is the same problem with the Marine Corps' neo-Maginot line on islands in the Pacific. Defense alone does not make the bad guys stop. To make them stop, disciplined, humane forces must be relentless, fearsome, and creative in their unwavering mission to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver.
Many US politicians are suggesting any response by Israel to Iran's recent 181 ballistic missile attack must be proportional. A better perspective is to respond in a way that disrupts and disorients the enemy.
It all comes down to MTS - Make Them Stop. When bad guys attack, a "proportional" response does not mean merely matching what the enemy has done. Proportional means using all the reasonable force -- but no more -- that is necessary to make them stop. Nations and military commanders must refuse the foolish path of matching what the enemy has done. Matching the enemy prolongs the fighting and lets the enemy choose the place, time, and method for the next attack. Stop matching. Attack the enemy with all reasonable and necessary force.
War is brutal and can bring out brutality in combatants, but, for more than two-hundred years, the Marine Corps has been the model for the fearsome, unstoppable, offensive force that nevertheless remains disciplined, professional, and humane. When deterrence fails, the best thing to do is not sit on defense, but attack ferociously and defeat the enemy quickly and completely. That shortens the conflict, saves lives, and produces peace. US commanders must be instructed that when an enemy attacks, commanders are not to respond by merely matching the enemy attack. Instead, commanders must use all reasonable and necessary force to shatter the enemy's cohesion and will. Employ creative, combined arms combat power to make the bad guys stop. Proportionality does not require merely matching what the enemy has done. Stop matching and start winning.
.
- - - - -
.
International Committee of the Red Cross
Casebook - Protection of Civilians
https://casebook.icrc.org/highlight/protection-civilians
.
- - - - -
.
General Orders No. 100 : The Lieber Code
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lieber.asp
.
- - - - -
.
Middle East Forum - 10/04/2024
Should Israel’s Response to Iran Attack Be Proportional?
Jerusalem Must Decide Whether to Tolerate Repeated Attacks or End the Multi-Front War Iran Wages on Israel
By Jim Hanson
https://www.meforum.org/mef-observer/should-israels-response-to-iran-attack-be-proportional
Constrained Rules of Engagement
“At our 25th Annual National Security Law Conference we were honored to have LTG Charles “Chuck” Pede, the U.S. Army’s Judge Advocate General, as our speaker at the conference dinner. We are pleased to bring you his remarks as he makes many vitally important points. For example, he observes that after 19 years of counterinsurgency (COIN)/counter-terrorism (CT) operations, commanders (and, really, their lawyers as well) are imprinted with habits formed by fighting under highly-constrained rules of engagement (ROE).”
Highly recommend that you read General Dunlap’s (Duke University Law School Executive Director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security) introduction and General Pede’s speaking remarks. https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2020/03/07/ltg-pede-on-the-coin-ct-hangover-roe-war-sustaining-targets-and-much-more/
I attended the 25th Annual National Security Law Conference back in 2020. Frankly, I about “fell off my chair” as I listen to the General’s comments because he was stating what was being obviously observed in both the Iraq and Afghanistan war.
He started his remarks with the rhetorical question of “What keeps me up at night?” His answer: “…in short – it is whether we’ll have enough legal maneuver space on Battlefield Next…I call this problem 19 years of internal wiring, or habit…Our Army today is spending its time training out the habits formed from fighting in highly constrained rule sets. We know these rule sets as rules of engagement, or ROE. ROE are typically more restrictive than the law of armed conflict.”
How could the US military senior leadership let this happen? Restrictive ROEs will get our warriors not only into legal trouble but also can get them killed. Again! ” Every General Officer once selected and before he pins on his first star should be required to read “Fighting Today’s Wars – How America’s Leaders Have Failed Our Warriors” – by David G. Bolgiano and James M. Patterson”. In addition, if you really want to get your head squared away on the LOAC read; The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict by Yoram Dinstein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoram_Dinstein This book is a “door stop” but worth the read. Start with his section on “The Principle of Proportionality” p.172.
The application of the LOAC is subjective. The LOAC have to be subjective in order to be applied to an ever-changing combat environment. The combat ROEs are the responsibility of the Commander and not his lawyers. The Commander’s judgement of the ROE application must be made with the situational eyes of the individual warrior who puts his front sight post on a threat. Always start with the Commander’s judgement and not the NCIS or CID criminal investigation.
FINALLY. A view of this conflict that makes sense.