The Candidates' Take on National Security

Authored By: Matthew Goepfrich

“Whatever happened to the element of surprise? We announce we are going after Mosul…for about three months. These people (high profile ISIS leaders) have all left. Douglas MacArthur [and] George Patton [are] spinning in their graves when they see the stupidity of our country”

The above is a Donald Trump quote from the last presidential debate giving significant insight into the ignorance many nonmilitary focused minds have with regard to defeating and combating ISIS. From a pure strategy point it no doubt speaks to many as being a sound argument. Why are we announcing for three months the target of our coalition’s planned military operation? As Donald Trump points out, doing so allows all high value ISIS leader targets to move out.

But people who accept and promote this view point are failing to understand the laws of war at play regarding the announcement decision, and further overvaluing the strategy that surprise would gain for ground forces involved on a sustained attack of Mosul. Indeed, from a purely strategic point, announcing for three months that Mosul will be attacked drains the enemy to exhaustion psychologically in anticipation and constant guard for the inevitable attack. Meanwhile, coalition forces for three months’ practice, improve and verify points of attack and rules of engagement for protection of citizens all while getting a good night’s sleep knowing the attack isn’t that day. And it is this overarching desire for minimizing civilian deaths that makes the three-month announcement both legally sound and more so legally demanded under IHL.

Customary international law obligates countries to give advance warning prior to an attack which may affect the civilian population. Additionally, this has been codified in Protocol I, Article 57(2)(c), specifically calling all warring parties to take the precaution of giving “effective advance warning…of attacks which may affect the civilian population.” This principle, while limited to international armed conflicts, is expanded to include non-international armed conflicts like the attack on Mosul specifically by the Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

Limiting civilian casualties is a principle of IHL and even human rights law as much as it extends and exists in the framework of armed conflicts. Warning then for three months that Mosul will be attacked allows citizens - to the extent possible - to take precautions to move out of the city. But we know how unlikely this is at this point.

ISIS is using citizen populations as human shields. Further, Mosul is being used as the sex slave capital for ISIS. Minority Christian Yazidi women, as many as 3,500, are being held in Mosul as hostages. This three-month period has allowed coalition forces to work on strategic engagement plans to both identify the locations of the hostages, the locations of the human shields, and further practice movements for funneling and protecting these noncombatants out of harm during the assault on Mosul. In this regard, coalition forces, including the Iraqi Army, are living up to the duties of IHL.

Ignorance of these facts is dangerous for anyone seeking the office of the President. MacArthur and Patton are not spinning in their graves. Rather, they are applauding our efforts to live up to the international expectations regarding civilians in times of war.