In Honor of our Uniformed Dead, Dismembered, Disillusioned

"Soldier Suicides at Record Level," reports the Washington Post.

Given the anguish expressed by the letter in the previous post, one can imagine some reasons why.

I agree with Nolocontendre's take on it.

Fuzzy Logic?

This letter, supposedly from a Corpsman in Iraq, has been making the rounds on military blogs for a bit. Interesting read.

"...It's a safety issue, pure and simple. After assaulting through a target, we put a security round in everybody's head. Sorry al-Reuters, there's no paddy wagon rolling around Fallujah picking up 'prisoners' and offering them a hot cup o' Joe, falafel, and a blanket. There's no time to dick around on the target. You clear the space, dump the chumps, and move on.

Are Corpsmen expected to treat wounded terrorists? Negative. Hey Libs, worried about the defense budget? Well, it would be waste, fraud, and abuse for a Corpsman to expend one man-minute or a battle dressing on a terrorist. It's much cheaper to just spend the $.02 on a 5.56mm FMJ. By the way, in our view, terrorists who chop off civilian's heads are not prisoners, they are carcasses. Chopping off a civilian's head is another reason why these idiots are known as 'unlawful combatants.' It seems that most of the world's journalists have forgotten that fact.

Let me be very clear about this issue. I have looked around the web, and many people get this concept, but there are some stragglers. Here is your typical
Marine sitrep (situation report): You just took fire from unlawful combatants (no uniform - breaking every Geneva Convention rule there is) shooting from a religious building, attempting to use the sanctuary status of their position as protection. But you're in Fallujah now, and the Marine Corps has decided that they're not playing that game this time. That was Najaf.

So you set the mosque on fire and you hose down the terrorists with small arms, launch some AT-4s ( Rockets ), some 40MM grenades into the building and things quiet down. So you run over there, and find some tangos (bad guys) wounded and pretending to be dead. You are aware that suicide martyrdom is like really popular with these idiots, and they think taking some Marines with them would be really cool. So you can risk your life and your fire team's lives by having them cover you while you bend down and search a guy that you think is pretending to be dead for some reason. Most of the time these are the guys with the grenade or a vest made of explosives. Also, you don't know who or what is in the next room.

You're already speaking English to the rest of your fire team or squad, which lets the terrorist know you are there and you are his enemy. You are speaking loud because your hearing is poor from shooting people for several days. So you know that there are many other rooms to enter, and that if anyone is still alive in those rooms, they know that Americans are in the mosque. Meanwhile (3 seconds later), you still have this terrorist (that was just shooting at you from a mosque) playing possum. What do you do? You double tap his head, and you go to the next room, that's what!

What about the Geneva Convention and all that 'Law of Land Warfare' stuff? What about it? Without even addressing the issues at hand, your first thought should be, 'I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.'

Bear in mind that this tactic of double tapping a fallen terrorist is a perpetual mindset that is reinforced by experience on a minute by minute basis. Secondly, you are fighting an unlawful combatant in a Sanctuary, which is a double No-No on his part. Third, tactically you are in no position to take 'prisoners' because there are more rooms to search and clear, and the behavior of said terrorist indicates that he is up to no good. No good in Fallujah is a very large place and the low e nd of no good and the high end of no good are fundamentally the same ... Marines end up getting hurt or die. So there is no compelling reason for you to do anything but double tap this idiot and get on with the mission.

If you are a veteran, then everything I have just written is self evident. If you are not a veteran, at least try to put yourself in the situation. Remember, in Fallujah there is no yesterday, there is no tomorrow, there is only now, Right NOW. Have you ever lived in NOW for a week? It is really, really not easy. If you have never lived in NOW for longer than it takes to finish the big roller coaster at Six Flags, then shut your mouth about putting Marines in jail for 'War Crimes.'

Semper fi. From A Marine."

Discuss.

Satellite Security v. Human Security

A while back I blogged about the concept of "human security." But not expansively. My students sometimes get a little confused about this term, it meaning so many different things to different people. And Roland Paris up at University of Ottawa has argued famously that the concept represents more hot air than a genuine paradigm shift in strategic thinking.

So here's a story that both illustrates the concept of human security and lends credence to Paris' argument. It seems a US spy satellite is dropping out of orbit and will likely hit ground somewhere in North America in the next few weeks. Big issue for the US military, it seems.


A human security frame, which privileges protecting individuals from threats to their security, would probably encourage consideration of the populated areas that could be affected. Instead, according to the London Register, experts at the defense thinktank Global Security is primarily concerned with the risks to "the secrets of the satellite":

"One concern the intelligence community is going to have is that parts of this satellite will fall into the hands of the Russians or Chinese or somebody else," says Global Security director John Pike.

According to Pike, the satellite carries a new generation of spy equipment, able to provide round-the-clock intelligence.

"The hopes were that this was going to be a more capable, less expensive spy satellite or radar satellite that could see objects through clouds and in the dark."

Oh yes, that would have been just fine.

Can Robots Fight Humanely?

Fascinating new report from Georgia Tech discusses the specs and moral conundrums involved in the DoD's gradual shift toward the use of AI on the battlefield.

It's not a new trend - DOD has been deploying the equivalent of Imperial droids in Iraq and Afghanistan for years - but the concept that robots might actually be better than their "emotional" human counterparts at upholding the laws of war is catching on now in the popular consciousness.

Would robots be inherently more humane, less susceptible to group-think and the kind of "passion" that supposedly led Wuterich and his gang to massacre civilians in Iraq? So argued Ronald Arkin, director of the Mobile Robot Laboratory at the Georgia Institute of Technology, at a conference this week sponsored by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.

Of course, as Dave Grossman has detailed in his brilliant book On Killing, it's emotions (like, empathy, honor, compassion) that account for weapons-bearers' uncanny ability to stay atrocity. Would robots instead simply be the perfect tools by which to carry out the unlawful orders of their programmers?

A great deal of faith is being placed here on the idea that the generals, civilian policymakers, and their minions in the R&D industries want the troops to behave well, and it's just the bad apples who muck things up. A lot of history suggests otherwise. Maybe we need robot robot-programmers, as well...

Don't Laugh Yet.

Sorry, but I can't help directing you to this story from the Rutland Herald:

"Brattleboro residents will vote at town meeting on whether President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney should be indicted and arrested for war crimes, perjury or obstruction of justice if they ever step foot in Vermont."

OpEd News asserts:

"This has been well thought out, is connected with well grounded legal theory, and is consistent with the duty of Americans to defend the US Constitution from domestic enemies. Congressional inaction on impeachment does not oblige We the People to remain silent or do nothing about alleged war crimes and the President’s alleged criminal conduct."

The rationale for such efforts, being undertaken not just in Vermont but in Massachusetts and Kentucky, is the 10th amendment to the US Constitution, which reads:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Interesting. Also, very gutsy.

Those Self-Righteous Americans

Dan Drezner has written, in a new article based on available polling data, that Americans - the people, not the government - pay lip-service to multilateralism but don’t respect it for its own sake. One example he gives particularly caught my attention. Citing Kohut and Stokes’ book America Against the World, Drezner writes on p. 18:

“Although a majority of Americans endorse the ICC as a concept, a majority also oppose allowing US soldiers to be tried in the Hague.”

On this basis Drezner infers in the same paragraph that:

“Public attitudes toward the ICC… show that support for multilateralism – as an abstract principle – is weak.”

But why not draw the opposite conclusion from this data? The International Criminal Court is a court of last resort. It is based on the principle of complementarity, which is to say that national courts have primacy over war crimes trials of their own citizens. (For basics about the ICC click here.)

The ICC would kick in only, for those countries under its jurisdiction, in cases where the national government was unable or unwilling to prosecute its own accused war criminals. The US is certainly quite able to do so. The only issue then, is whether it is willing.

It is entirely consistent with support for multilateralism in general and the ICC in particular to argue that the US should support the court, and also never allow a US soldier to be tried in the Hague. No US soldier would ever be tried in the Hague, even if the US were a signatory to the court, as long as those soldiers accused of war crimes faced due process here at home. For which the USG is already obligated anyway under the Geneva Conventions.

Such a seemingly paradoxical set of survey answers then might be interpreted as support for multilateralism – support for the USG complying with its existing multilateral obligations to hold its own soldiers accountable. If we were willing to do this consistently, we’d have nothing to fear from joining the ICC.

Kristof on China's "Genocide Olympics"

Nicholas Kristof's latest rant in the New York Times excoriates China's continuing sale of A-5 Fantans, helicopter gunships, and light weapons to the Sudanese government - what Musa Hilal, the former janajweed leader recently appointed by Khartoum to a senior government post has gratefully called "the necessary weapons and ammunition to exterminate the African tribes in Darfur."

Kristof writes: "China is crucial. If Beijing were to suspend all transfers of arms and spare parts to Sudan until a peace deal is reached in Darfur, then that would change the dynamic.

Without his Chinese shield, Mr. Bashir would be more likely to make concessions to Darfur rebels and negotiate seriously with them, and he would no longer have political cover to resume war against South Sudan. That would make long-term peace more likely in Darfur and also in South Sudan."

Kristof hopes that the "Genocide Olympics" campaign, global civil society's response, will exert a moderating effect on Beijing sooner rather than later. But without a genuine boycott, what are the chances?

Why Not Nuke 'Em All?

I wouldn't have thunk it. I've long been a fan of Nina Tannenwald's argument that a strong taboo exists against the use of nuclear weapons, even as countries scramble to acquire them for symbolic reasons. But according to Democracy Now: "Military Chiefs Assert First-Strike Nuclear Option for NATO":

"A group of former top military commanders in NATO countries including the U.S. are calling on their governments to insist on the right to pre-emptive nuclear attack. In a new manifesto, the former army leaders—including ex- joint chiefs of staff chair General John Shalikashvili —say NATO should maintain that a “first strike” nuclear option remains an “indispensable instrument.” The group says this is in part because there is “simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world.” The proposal is likely to be reviewed at a NATO summit in April.

Evidence that the Bush Doctrine is actually contagious? This would represent an grim and dangerous weaking of the nuclear non-first-use norm. Important to watch and see what happens in April. And a good opportunity for global civil society to mobilize in opposition?

Meanwhile, FP's Passport Blog reports the following complaint by President Musharraf regarding the media framing of his country's nukes:

"We are a nuclear state, and it is just unfortunate that we are seen to be unstable; that our nuclear assets can fall into wrong hands, into the hands of the terrorists... this is an Islamic bomb that Pakistan has. I really don't understand why the world calls it an Islamic bomb, and why there is no Hindu bomb, or a Jew bomb, or a Christian bomb, or a Buddhist bomb. Why is this bomb an Islamic bomb? I don't understand. And the man on the street in Pakistan does not understand this.

He makes a good point, eh? Particularly since Pakistan is only a Muslim-majority country, not an "Islamic" theocracy. The correct corrolary being not "Christian" bomb to describe the US/UK arsenals but rather "Liberal Secular Godless Bomb."

Discuss.

It's Realpolitik, Stupid

Warren Hoge offered a grim assessment in Sunday's New York Timesof the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, popularized in UN circles:

"Three years after the United Nations adopted a groundbreaking resolution to help it intervene to stop genocide, even longtime supporters of the rule acknowledge that it has not helped the organization end the violence in Darfur.

The General Assembly resolution, approved in 2005, held nations responsible for shielding their citizens from mass atrocities and established the right of international forces to step in if nations did not fulfill this new "responsibility to protect."

The United Nations has tried to take the lead in Darfur, the crisis-ridden region in western Sudan. But it has been stymied by the failure of major member states to fulfill promises to support action and by the intransigence of the Sudanese government.

In addition, countries with advanced militaries have not come forward to answer United Nations appeals for the sophisticated aviation and logistics assistance that the force needs.

Darfur, in short, has shown that there is a great difference between gaining acceptance for a working theory and making the theory work."

Well, duh. No one who lobbied for the R2P thought that simply having the norm codified would lead to its non-selective implementation. New rules aren't simply magic bullets. Historically, genocides have been stopped where a powerful state with the means and motive (usually ulterior) stepped in.

But to say the R2P doctrine hasn't ended the slaughter in Darfur is to mischaracterize what was gained in 2005. R2P was never meant to end genocide itself. It was meant to legitimize such efforts when and where they happened to occur. It was meant as a response to China and Russia in Security Council deliberations, who have historically argued against any right of intervention in the internal affairs of states.

Judging by the fact that these countries now routinely abstain, rather than block, resolutions to try to 'do something' in places like Darfur, I'd say R2P is having an effect. That more isn't being done isn't for lack of international legitimacy. It is for lack of true political will.

"Why Not Kill Them All?"

Just finished up this book – my light holiday reading. Impressed enough by its breadth and depth to blurb it here. Basically the authors have provided an overview of the history of genocide through an analytical lens focused on explaining why it happens and how it might be stopped, based on the best available evidence.

With glib, easy-to-read prose and sub-headings like “How to Get Ordinary People to Become Butchers,” Chirot and McCauley demonstrate the “normality of genocidal mass murder.” In so doing, they reverse the puzzle as it is usually expressed by social scientists. Rather than ask, how is it possible for ordinary people to do horrible things, they ask: since the socio-psychological mechanisms and socio-political conditions for mass murder are quite normal and prevalent, why are there so few such cases? What functions to contain violence?

The bulk of the book then provides an interesting analysis of some strategies societies have used to limit warfare, including exogamy and cultural rules limiting the slaughter of noncombatants. It then explores contemporary strategies for genocide prevention, concluding rather unsurprisingly that strong ties at the level of civil society are the best bulwark against the kind of in-group/out-group think that can lead to spirals of violence.

There are points of weakness in the argument. It is occasionally circular, and the authors move back and forth from a rather optimistic view of human nature to concluding that “There is no sign that occasions of inter-group violence are decreasing.” (Untrue, actually: the Liu Institute’s 2005 Human Security Report found a general decline in genocidal episodes since the end of the Cold War.) The authors also don’t themselves conduct original research for the project.

But the book brilliantly ties together the available literature on mass killing and presents it in a highly readable and matter-of-fact way that I found quite refreshing.

Video Worth Watching of the Week...

Is we made America safer?

“Today, we are safer, but we are not yet safe.”

That was the quote from President Bush on the 5th anniversary of the Sept 11th attacks, in which 2973 Americans died… 11 days later, the death toll for American soldiers killed in combat due to the undeclared war on an idea that has existed for over 2 millenia crept over that mark.

Yet, even discounting the deaths of those centurions on the far edge of the Empire, how factual was the President’s statement?

America is not a safe place, but the real threats are far more insidious than any martyr-bound jihadist, and could have been largely eradicated over the course of the last five years for a fraction of the cost of the debacle in the Middle East.

If David Letterman had done a ‘top ten threats to American safety’ list in 2001, it would have read like this:

1. Heart Disease - 700,142
2. Cancer - 553,768
3. Stroke - 163,538
4. Respiratory Disease - 123,013
5. Accidents - 101,537
6. Diabetes - 71,372
7. Influenza and pneumonia - 62,034
8. Alzheimer's disease - 53,852
9. Nephritis, nephrosis - 39,480
10. Septicemia - 32,238

That’s right, terrorists weren’t a measurable threat to US safety in 2001. Didn’t make the top ten… didn’t make the top 15… In fact, you were more likely to drown while engaging in watersports than to become a victim of a terrorist attack.

If the Bush Administration had really sought to make America a safer place, here’s what they could have spent their 486 billion dollars on, and which civil liberties might have been better sacrificed to make America safe.

Money: The National Institute of Health has spent about 2 billion dollars on all medical research over the past 7 years; less than 0.4% what we’ve spent in Iraq. And while no American has died as a result of an Iraqi attack in the US during that period, about 7.2 million Americans have died just from heart disease, cancer, and stroke. How many of those deaths could have been prevented if we had even merely doubled our spending on research and education? The fact is that we could have increased our research spending by 10 times, spent an additional 8 billion dollars on accident prevention, and still had enough money to give a $1000.00 grant to every man, woman, and child in the United States – all 300 million of them.

Civil Liberties: We’ve done away with the right to a fair trial, habeas corpus, and privacy, none of which can be empirically linked to a decrease in American mortality. If government was really going to interfere for the benefit of the people, all it had to do was ban the sale and use of tobacco products (a causal factor in 435,000 deaths annually), ban the private ownership of firearms (28,000 fewer deaths per year) and require all obese people to undergo a strictly regimented routine of diet and exercise, administered by the National Guard. That would save an additional 494,921 lives each year, according to a study in 2000.

Safer today than on 12 Sept, 2001?

It’s safe to say you’re not, but it didn’t have to be that way.