Becoming Complacent with The Laws of War is not an Option

Civilian casualties are an unfortunate and yet expected part of the collateral damage incurred during armed conflict.  Nations in the international community, however, have nonetheless gone to great lengths to ensure that civilian casualties not be written off.  A recent article on Defense One explains that the Trump Administration plans potential relaxing of the rules meant to limit civilian casualties in counter-terrorist operations.  This would mean that “areas of active hostilities” would have fewer rules of engagement, especially in conducting drone strikes and counterterrorism missions outside conventional war zones.  This is not a new practice; President Obama issued a similar declaration in Libya which involved a prolonged air campaign that drove ISIS from the city of Sirte.  The Trump Administration’s plan would only be temporarily removing constraints on airstrikes and raids with the intent to target individuals suspected of being militants, and the initial plan would serve as a test to determine if the government can more broadly extend the relaxed rules of engagement. 

Allowing a greater range of air strikes and raids has previously proven effective in driving terrorist fighters out of cities and hiding.  Generally, States must distinguish between military objectives and non-military objectives for targetability, and under international humanitarian law and customary international law, civilians are never targetable.  So long as civilians are not the principle object of the attack,  however, collateral damage to civilians is often justifiable following a proportionality analysis to determine whether the military advantage gained outweighs the loss of civilian life and property.  If the military advantage gained does not outweigh the loss of civilian life, the campaign cannot continue.  The United States could easily make the argument, and be well supported by individuals on both sides of the aisle, that the distinct military advantage of eliminating terrorist group presence in these cities is a significant advantage not only for the United States but also for the other countries engaging ISIS. 

                  There are two fundamental reasons why such an approach could be a strategic nightmare for the United States.  First and foremost, if the United States loosens the rules of engagement regarding civilian casualties it will not be incompliance with international humanitarian law or customary international law.  Both indicate that civilians may not be the direct object of a military attack.

 Second, continuing to relax the rules of engagement in relation to civilians could severely jeopardize the United States’ mission in fighting ISIS.  If the United States hopes to succeed in the conflict in the Middle East, it must have the support of the American people and nations, specifically those within the war-torn regions.  If civilians are the constant indirect or direct target of attack, the United States will fail to maintain any good-will relations that have been built.  The people in these regions have been ravaged by war for years  and civilian casualties are already excessive.  For example, in Yemen, one of the countries already declared to be an “area of active hostilities” there is a significant number of civilian casualties.  If this trend continues, the United States could risk upsetting the delicate relations between itself and the people of these war-torn countries by becoming the main force of their suffering.  The United States must maintain its role as protector rather than attacker.

 While expanding the rules of engagement could have the effect of successfully eliminating more terrorist fighters and threats, it could have the extremely dangerous effect of turning the civilian population against the United States.  Abiding by the customary rules of engagement will enable the United States to maintain the moral high-ground in the continuous fight against terrorism both domestically and internationally. 

March 6 Executive Order

Dear President Trump,

One benefit to being President is that you have an entire army of government bureaucrats to weigh the pros and cons of any idea that pops into your head. This begs the question, what are you doing?

Your latest Executive Order issued on March 6, 2017 (and going into effect on March 16) is a second attempt to “keep America safe.” From what exactly? As those of us who make up your constituents have unfortunately come to expect, your administration has still offered no facts to indicate that nationals from the remaining six targeted countries – Iran, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Syria – pose a unique risk to national security. And DHS has confirmed that in fact, people from these countries pose no such risk.

The Executive Order cuts the refugee program to 50,000 refugees and still bans Syrian refugees in renewable 120-day increments, essentially creating an indefinite ban. This is despite consistent evidence indicating that refugees pose no increased risk to national security and that accepting refugees is instead a “hugely profitable investment” for the United States economy.

Although the Order now does not provide minority religions preference (kudos!), the constant anti-Muslim fearmongering by the Administration provides little comfort that the intent behind the order is not still to institute a Muslim ban. Furthermore, the rhetoric coupled with the mere image that the United States is banning people based on their religion fits precisely into anti-American terrorism propaganda and fuels recruitment.

So, what is the ultimate goal, President Trump? If it is, in fact, “protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States,” it might be helpful to do some research. Because what you have done today may manipulate your base for now, but it will certainly not protect Americans.

Concerned citizen,

Alison W. Davis