Aerial Counterinsurgency

Jim Michaels reports for USA Today on the increased use of airpower in Afghanistan and Iraq. Chris Albritton wants it noted that this is not just a strategic disaster, a violation of what we know about counterinsurgency, but also:

Plus, and just as important, they kill civilians, the moral wrongness of which seems to be lost in this story. Yes, it’s good to decrease reasons for locals to hate America, but not killing innocent people is a good unto itself, no? Am I the only one getting tired of seeing civilian casualties as something to be avoided for tactical reasons and not that it’s supposed to be wrong to kill innocent people?

Indeed.

Comments

The use of aerial weapons reflect the Air Force desire to remain relevant in COIN operations. The AF is losing big time to the Army and Marines in the budget games on the hill as there's no perceived value to the AF besides doing the airlift mission. The fighter jocks running the Air Staff want to have their shiny new toys (F-22, JSF), and in order to keep Congress from further slashing their budgets, they want to show their aircraft can be relevant. The ground commanders go along with this approach to reduce friendly casualties, not taking into consideration effect on collateral damage and Iraqi reaction.

Posted by Pan | October 22, 2007 9:33 AM

This is a political war and it calls for discrimination in killing. The best weapon for killing would be a knife, but I'm afraid we can't do it that way. The worst is an airplane. The next worse is artillery. Barring a knife, the best is a rifle--you know who you're killing.

-- John Paul Vann, quoted in A Bright Shining Lie

Posted by croatoan | October 22, 2007 9:50 AM

Neocons dispute the assertion there are innocent Muslims, innocent Arabs or even innocent brown people of any nationality of religion. Killing Afghan and Iraqi civilians means people die before you've had the chance to prove their ties to a terrorist organization. As oil becomes more scarce the U.S. is going to have to kill more and more of them anyway. They're squatting on what is rightfully ours. Crazy talk? Seek out the descendents of the Navajo or Sioux and have a talk about what it means to stand in the way of what white Americans want. It means you get killed. Afghans and Iraqis: The new Native Americans.

Posted by steve duncan | October 22, 2007 9:50 AM

Steven Poole quotes this CENTCOM story (this is in Iraq):

...Upon assault, Coalition forces were engaged by small arms fire from the target building. Responding in self-defense, supporting aircraft engaged the enemy threat. After securing the area, the ground force assessed 15 terrorists, six women and nine children were killed, two suspects, one woman and three children were wounded, and one suspected terrorist was detained.

Coalition forces assault people in a building, assaulted people shoot back, coalition aircraft acting in self-defense levels the building.

In the end there are 15 dead terrorists (any dead male is undeniably a terrorist, apparently), 6 dead women and 9 dead children. Survived males are called "suspects".

Nice, eh?

Posted by abb1 | October 22, 2007 9:58 AM

It's worth noting that the abstract point of this whole counterinsurgency thing is to prevent the deaths of innocent people.

Posted by southpaw | October 22, 2007 10:24 AM

Winning hearts and minds...and unidentified body parts.

Posted by Northern Observer | October 22, 2007 10:32 AM

Steve is exactly correct. Remember, those "innocent civilians" are actually being blamed for not rising up and lavishing a flowers-and-candy welcome on the people who just bombed them into oblivion.

Posted by Jason | October 22, 2007 10:33 AM

This is a larger issue of message tailoring. Surely there's a pretty broad consensus among the anti-war side of the debate that killing innocents is morally wrong and that's reason enough to not be using aerial bombardment to take out small groups of on foot insurgents hiding among the populace.

But clearly there is a strong belief being clung to by supporters of the war that somehow the collateral damage of innocents dead is made up for by a greater good from killing the insurgents. And so the message that is thought to be most effective in arguing against war supporters is the clear truth that in Iraq right now, use of air power is pretty much the worse thing we can be doing strategically and tactically, irregardless of the morality.

And indeed, this is the most efficient way of resolving any debate on the matter. All human life is precious, but that does not mean there isn't a very reasonable debate in situations where there really is strategic benefit to actions that will have as an unavoidable side-effect the killing of innocents. Situations, for example, like the fire-bombing of Dresden in WWII, Hiroshima, whether Air Force jets should have shot down the hijacked planes on 9/11 had they had the opportunity, etc. So "innocents will be killed" is not unfortunately an argument that immediately resolves a tough decision. But "it's the worst possible strategic move" really separates the tough situations to situations driven by insane hubris like Iraq, and so is a pretty good argument to keep voicing.

Posted by Will Hutchinson | October 22, 2007 10:52 AM

Apparently neo-cons never watched The Godfather Part 2.

If you wage war like a vendetta, you're going to get vendetta.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 22, 2007 10:59 AM

"Am I the only one getting tired of seeing civilian casualties as something to be avoided for tactical reasons and not that it’s supposed to be wrong to kill innocent people?"

Well, the problem is that the Bush-Cheney Administration is making two contradictory arguments: they're promoting a culture of life, so liberals should support them; and also, anyone who doesn't want to kill whoever it takes, including random innocent people, is a pussy.

The best part is when you realize that one of the (post-WMD-whoops-where'd-they-go?) fall-back excuses for invading Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was a violent dictator who tortured and killed his own people.

Well, if by "best" one means "most fucked-up and ironic" as opposed to "best" implying any kind of actual beneficial policy or philosophical coherence or even basic morality.

Posted by Chris | October 22, 2007 12:14 PM

No one is innocent.

Posted by Leila's Weird Friend | October 22, 2007 12:17 PM

Innocence and guilt terminology does not belong in discussions of warfare. Conventions cover legitimate targets and whenever possible, sparing non combatant populations from direct war.

If all civilians are innocent, does that make all our soldiers guilty?
How does that impact Reservists? Are they innocent then turn guilty when activated and called to duty?

At what point does a militia fighter who considers himself a civilian but will go out and cleanse other civilians, or join in an ambush of US troops after a IED attack, become guilty? Only when armed and shooting?
When do they revert to "innocent civilian"?

What about someone drafted against their will into the regular Iraqi Army or a neighborhood militia? What is the dividing line then between innocence and guilt? Being 14 vs. 18? Having bad eyesight and being rejected by others as fit to bear arms?

Geneva and Hague cover many areas of protection of non-combatants, but most of their Law is predicated on societies at war maintaining physical separation between combatants and non-combatants, and civilians avoiding being in or around legitimate war targets. When civilans hang with combatants, chose to be in a house where fighters are shooting back at legitimate government forces on security missions, or occupation troops approved in that role by UN and Iraqi Gov't ---said civilians risk their asses. And true blame and responsibility for harm, in Hague and Geneva Law - goes to the fighters that hide behind women and children, and to the civilans themselves for their fate if they voluntarily remain in the company of shooters and bombers.

In this case, armed troops are conducting a security sweep looking for bloody Shiite militia killers and their weapons encounter, per the Petraeus "Surge Strategy" approved by Iraqi and America leaders last winter, armed resistance from a house. In self-defense, the house and all it's occupants then becomes a legitimate target in combat. In accordance with Hague, in accordance with Geneva.

Posted by Chris Ford | October 22, 2007 1:00 PM

No one is innocent.

Just letting you know I caught the reference. (In fact, I was thinking of posting it myself but deemed it a little too obscure.)

Posted by James Gary | October 22, 2007 1:22 PM

Ford, as usual, is completely wrong in all respects.

Let us take our usual leisurely walk through his post, demolishing it point by point, yet again...

"Innocence and guilt terminology does not belong in discussions of warfare. Conventions cover legitimate targets and whenever possible, sparing non combatant populations from direct war."

Who said anything about "innocence" and "guilt"? Only Ford, apparently. When one refers to "innocent civilians", it is merely a term referring to "noncombatants." The actual term "civilian" is defined in the Geneva Conventions fairly precisely - which Ford ignores.

"If all civilians are innocent, does that make all our soldiers guilty?"

Guilty of conducting war, yes - whatever that means. Since the question was meaningless, the answer is irrelevant.

The actual question is whether our soldiers should be using methods that kill civilians on a regular basis while not winning the fucking war...If they do, they're "guilty" of war crimes and cowardice.

"How does that impact Reservists? Are they innocent then turn guilty when activated and called to duty?"

Again, a meaningless point since no one is referring to some generalized concept of "civilians" and "military" in regards to "guilt" or "innocence."

"At what point does a militia fighter who considers himself a civilian but will go out and cleanse other civilians, or join in an ambush of US troops after a IED attack, become guilty? Only when armed and shooting?"

According to the Geneva conventions, yes. If you are bearing arms, you are a combatant. If you are not bearing arms and cannot be identified as a combatant by other means by the military, you are required to be treated as a civilian.

Naturally, this is convenient for an insurgency - but nobody said counterinsurgency was easy. If you don't know how to deal with that unfortunate fact, I suggest avoiding getting involved in counterinsurgencies.

There is even this clause:

"3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c)."

"When do they revert to "innocent civilian"?"

When you can't tell them apart from a civilian because they are not bearing arms or otherwise engaging in hostilities against you.

Obviously.

"What about someone drafted against their will into the regular Iraqi Army or a neighborhood militia?"

Or the US Army during Vietnam? You are a slave who nonetheless under the Geneva Conventions are responsible for your actions, regardless of the fact that you were "just following orders" in lieu of being sent to prison by your oh-so-democratic state.

Don't like it? Desert, defect, or commit suicide.

Or become a politician so you can avoid the draft due to "having other priorities".

" What is the dividing line then between innocence and guilt?"

Killing a civilian due to incompetence, stupidity, or maliciousness.

" Being 14 vs. 18? Having bad eyesight and being rejected by others as fit to bear arms?"

Or "having other priorities" while still being willing to give orders to someone else to kill civilians and making up lies about other nations to justify war.

"Geneva and Hague cover many areas of protection of non-combatants, but most of their Law is predicated on societies at war maintaining physical separation between combatants and non-combatants, and civilians avoiding being in or around legitimate war targets."

"Predicated" is not the case. While WWI and WWII were frequently of that nature, they were also of such large proportions that civilians were frequently caught up in the fighting.

The Geneva Conventions do not distinguish between war and counterinsurgencies. They specify the proper relationships between the military and civilians in a conflict. Period.

I quote:

"Reaffirming further that the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and of this Protocol must be fully applied in all circumstances to all persons who are protected by those instruments, without any adverse distinction based on the nature or origin of the armed conflict or on the causes espoused by or attributed to the Parties to the conflict,"

And further:

"3. This Protocol, which supplements the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims, shall apply in the situations referred to in Article 2 common to those Conventions.

4. The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations."

Your excuses for war crimes were not and are not being taken into account by the Geneva Conventions. Sad to say for you.

What does NOT take that into account are the strategies and tactics of most modern military organizations. That is where the problem lies - not in the principles of avoiding civilian casualties and unnecessary loss of property in war.

"When civilans hang with combatants, chose to be in a house where fighters are shooting back at legitimate government forces on security missions, or occupation troops approved in that role by UN and Iraqi Gov't ---said civilians risk their asses."

This is true. And it is also true that this is called "nature's way of eliminating the stupid."

"And true blame and responsibility for harm, in Hague and Geneva Law - goes to the fighters that hide behind women and children, and to the civilans themselves for their fate if they voluntarily remain in the company of shooters and bombers."

No, it does not. In case one, where fighters use "human shields", this is explicitly against the Geneva Convention rules.

This is also extremely rare. Most insurgencies do NOT do this tactic, because it provokes hostility from the populace - the same populace which they are trying to hide in generally, and for whom they are allegedly conducting their insurgency.

This is more a tactic which one side is accused of rather than a tactic which is actually regularly employed.

In fact, most of the time, for example, in Korea, it was employed by official military forces of the STATE, rather than any insurgency. The STATE can afford to make human shields of its citizens, since it is already oppressing them.

There is therefore no surprise to find that Israel IDF soldiers have been accused of using human shields of Palestinians.

More importantly, unlike your implication, there is NO equating this situation with the necessity of protecting civilians in such situations in the Geneva Conventions.

The second case cannot be equated with the first. Civilians who are in proximity to combatants - an unavoidable situation many times in urban insurgencies - are STILL granted immunity from harm by the Geneva Conventions, unlike your lies.

There is this explicit protection:

"3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character."

"In this case, armed troops are conducting a security sweep looking for bloody Shiite militia killers and their weapons encounter, per the Petraeus "Surge Strategy" approved by Iraqi and America leaders last winter, armed resistance from a house. In self-defense, the house and all it's occupants then becomes a legitimate target in combat. In accordance with Hague, in accordance with Geneva."

No - only according to the cowardice of the US and Iraqi military forces, who don't have the balls to go in and deal with the limited number of persons who might be in a house, despite their overwhelming numbers and military firepower.

The proper resolution of the fight is to surround the house, wait out the occupants, then arrest them when they run out of food, water, sleep and ammo. This is the standard tactic for law enforcement in hostage situations, and I see no reason to deviate from it in an urban counterinsurgency.

The alternative tactic of calling in an air strike on a house - especially if you think human shields or hostages are involved - is the equivalent of bombing a bank where bank robbers have taken hostages. It's simply stupid and cowardly. Which is why law enforcement and counterterrorist teams don't do it.

Only a moron like you, Ford - or the morons who run the US military - would argue for a resolution of that sort.

The use of air power or (indirect) artillery in a populated urban environment where the alternative is easily the use of proper infantry (or even armored) tactics is simply and purely a war crime.

It's that simple.

"4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;

and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;

and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."

And it's caused by bad strategy, bad tactics, cowardice, and a malicious indifference to the existence of other people's lives.

It's that simple there, too.

And the duties in that regard are clear:

"Art. 87. Duty of commanders

1. The High Contracting Parties and the Parties to the conflict shall require military commanders, with respect to members of the armed forces under their command and other persons under their control, to prevent and, where necessary, to suppress and to report to competent authorities breaches of the Conventions and of this Protocol.

2. In order to prevent and suppress breaches, High Contracting Parties and Parties to the conflict shall require that, commensurate with their level of responsibility, commanders ensure that members of the armed forces under their command are aware of their obligations under the Conventions and this Protocol.

3. The High Contracting Parties and Parties to the conflict shall require any commander who is aware that subordinates or other persons under his control are going to commit or have committed a breach of the Conventions or of this Protocol, to initiate such steps as are necessary to prevent such violations of the Conventions or this Protocol, and, where appropriate, to initiate disciplinary or penal action against violators thereof."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 23, 2007 2:21 AM

Example of what NOT to do:

U.S. says Iraq air strike kills 11, mostly civilians
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071023/ts_nm/iraq_dc

Money quote:

"Major Peggy Kageleiry, the U.S. military spokeswoman in northern Iraq, said an Apache attack helicopter had spotted five men planting a roadside bomb near the city of Samarra, 100 km (60 miles) north of the Iraqi capital."

Okay - if true.

"The helicopter had "engaged" the men and continued firing as they ran into a nearby house."

Here is where it becomes a war crime. Some men run into a house. A chopper pilot has no way of knowing (absent any IR facility to see inside the house) how many individuals are in there, how many are civilians, etc.

At this point the pilot should have disengaged and called in supporting ground units to surround the house, while making sure no one escaped the house.

This is standard police chopper procedure.

"They chose to go into a house with civilians to hide. They endangered folks on the ground by doing that. We send condolences to the families of those victims and we regret any loss of life," she said."

Wrong. The US military under the Geneva Conventions are specifically prohibited from this sort of action:

"(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."

You have an attempted IED plant which has been stopped, the attackers identified and located and confined to a specific location. Why the hell do you have to destroy the house?

Is there no reason to try to capture these alleged insurgents for intelligence purposes?

Clearly the military objective of whacking five men falls under the category of not justifying the deaths of up to 16 women and children!

"Police and residents of the village of Djila, however, gave a different account, saying the group of men attacked by the helicopter were three farmers who had left their homes at 4.30 a.m. (0130 GMT) to irrigate their fields.

Two were killed in the initial air strike and the survivor ran back to his home, where other residents then gathered, said Abdul al-Rahman Iyadeh, a relative of the victims.

The second air strike completely destroyed the house, killing 14 people, including six members of the Ibrahim Jassim family and five from another, he told Reuters.

A local police officer, Captain Abdullah al-Isawi, put the death toll at 16 -- seven men, six women and three children."

War crime. No question about it - even if the seven men, six women and three children were "supporters" of the insurgency. If they weren't "bearing arms", those six women and three children are civilians, they outnumber the men, none of whom were clearly identified as insurgents.

War crime.

The pilot and any officer giving him orders needs to be arrested, charged, tried by military court, convicted on the basis of the evidence, then sent to prison for quite some time.

Of course, I'm not in favor of "punishment" as a solution to all things - but if you're going to arrest some black kid for sticking up a liquor store and send him to prison for five years, then that pilot and his officers need to go to prison for twenty.

That simple.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 23, 2007 6:37 PM