Corey's Guide to Modern Warfare

Senate Backs Far-Reaching Nuclear Trade Deal with India

2008-10-02T08:55:00.000-07:00

I am muchly displeased by this. How can we expect other contries to abide by the NPT if we basically reward India for violating it? How can we give Iran a hard time about developing possible nuclear capabilities and then tell India it's okay? This undermines the entire non-proliferation regime. And Pakistan's already mad enough at us. I can't imagine it'll be pleased that we're basically going to be supplying India, or at least allowing it to be supplied, with nuclear material. Well done, Congress.

Senate Backs Far-Reaching Nuclear Trade Deal With India
Measure Goes to Bush, Giving The President a Rare Victory Glenn
Kessler, Washington Post, 2 October 2008, Page A17

The Senate last
night approved a historic agreement that opens up nuclear trade with India for
the first time since New Delhi conducted a nuclear test three decades ago,
giving the Bush administration a significant foreign policy achievement in its
final months.

The bill, which passed 86 to 13, goes to President
Bush for his signature, handing the chief executive a rare victory that both
advocates and foes say will reverberate for decades. Bush and Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, who conceived of the deal, have pushed hard for it from the
earliest weeks of the president's second term.

The agreement, which
sparked fierce opposition from nuclear proliferation experts, acknowledges India
as a de facto nuclear power, even though it has never signed the
Non-Proliferation Treaty designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
India until now has been barred from worldwide nuclear trade, leaving its
homegrown industry hobbled and short of uranium fuel to run its reactors. The
administration said the deal would bring a substantial portion of India's
nuclear industry -- though not the facilities that produce materials for weapons
-- under international observation.

Supporters, moreover, argue
that the deal will help India become a responsible world power and will forge
ties between two large democracies that have had an antagonistic relationship.
With an agreement in hand, India has said it plans to spend $14 billion on
reactors and other nuclear equipment next year, though France and Russia are
also expected to be key suppliers.

The ban on nuclear trade with
India was a "Gordian knot" that had forever hampered U.S. relations with India,
said Philip D. Zelikow, who as Rice's counselor in 2005 played a key role in
developing the proposal. "The Gordian knot has been cut, and that opens the way
for India to join the world's great powers, with all the responsibilities that
go with it."

Zelikow called the deal "a long-term bet that the
enlargement of India's role in the world is likely to be for the
good."

Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control
Association, blasted the deal as a "nonproliferation disaster." India, along
with Pakistan and Israel, has never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. India
conducted nuclear tests in 1974 and 1998, despite international outrage, and
continues to produce fissile material. Kimball said the deal "does not bring
India into the nonproliferation mainstream" because it "creates a
country-specific exemption from core nonproliferation standards that the United
States has spent decades to establish."

The agreement was
controversial in India as well and appeared all but dead several times over the
past three years. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh put his governing coalition at
risk this summer to finalize the deal before Bush left office. Communist
parties, fearful that the agreement would impinge on India's sovereignty, bolted
from the government, forcing Singh to find new partners to remain in power. Once
Singh secured his coalition, the Bush administration mounted a full-court press
to win final approval in Congress.

Opponents have complained
bitterly that in the rush, the administration made concessions that fell short
of requirements in a 2006 law that gave initial approval to the pact. "Never has
something of such moment and such significance and so much importance been
debated in such a short period of time and given such short shrift," Sen. Byron
L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) said yesterday.

But the agreement had the strong
support of both presidential candidates, helping grease the way to victory. The
House approved the bill Saturday, 298 to 117.

Last month, after
heavy U.S. pressure, a 45-nation group that governs trade in nuclear equipment
and materials granted a broad waiver authorizing nuclear trade with India. Rice
and U.S. diplomats had to overcome intense skepticism from a key group of
countries that are part of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, any of which could have
blocked the deal.

The waiver was a tough sell because after India's
1974 test, the United States had pushed to create the suppliers group to close
loopholes that had allowed India to advance its weapons program through
supposedly peaceful nuclear cooperation. The controls have been so effective
that India's use of nuclear power has been severely limited, amounting to about
3 percent of the country's installed electricity capacity.

Then,
the administration had to persuade congressional leaders to sidestep a
requirement in the 2006 law that Congress be in 30 days of continuous session to
consider the deal. Rice last week also won over a leading skeptic, Rep. Howard
L. Berman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who
agreed to drop a competing bill that would have conflicted with the Senate
version. In exchange, Rice pledged that the United States in November would push
the suppliers group to issue guidelines banning sales of sensitive nuclear
equipment to countries that, like India, have not signed the Non-Proliferation
Treaty.

The change, if implemented, would undercut one of the
Indian government's key rationales for seeking the deal -- that it would open
the door for "full civil nuclear cooperation" with the rest of the
world.

In India, Singh and his aides also have insisted that the
deal would not constrain the country's right to conduct nuclear tests and would
provide an uninterrupted supply of fuel to India's nuclear
reactors.

In private correspondence with Congress that was made
public last month, the administration said the United States would terminate
nuclear trade with India if it conducted another nuclear test. But the
administration refused to add such terms to the Nuclear Suppliers Group waiver,
and an amendment to the bill that would have made them explicit failed to pass
last night. Sen. Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), the ranking Republican on the Foreign
Relations Committee, argued that the amendment was not necessary because U.S.
laws made it clear that the deal was off if India tested
again.

"There should be no doubt" because of the floor debate,
Kimball said. "There will be practical consequences if India tests."
©
2008 The Washington Post Company

2008-08-05T16:29:00.000-07:00

For my internship/job, I've been doing a lot of research on refugees and IDPs, particularly in Uganda. While I used to be pretty pro-UN, I confess that my research has made me question my loyalty to that organization, particularly the UNHCR. I realize that the UNHCR is doing the best it can do in very bad situations, and with very few resources, and lots of limitations. However, a lot of what I have read leads me to believe that the UNHCR is capable of doing a much better job than it has. For instance, refugee camps are frequently attacked by rebel or government forces. One attack could be a fluke. Two is probably bad. But three? Some of these camps have been attacked three or four times in a year. Why are they still there? For an example, try Googling Acholi-Pii camp. It should have been obvious a long time before that camp was finally evacuated that it wasn't safe. Another problem is what appears to be a limitation to people's right of movement. Refugees and IDPs have to obtain permission to leave their camp. While Uganda may wish to keep all the refugees in a few settled locations so they are easy to identify, this is a blatant violation of basic human rights.

These sorts of problems were seen in Srebrenica years ago. Why hasn't the UN learned from those mistakes?

Radovan Karadzic arrested

2008-07-22T03:54:00.000-07:00

I can't stay long, because I have to go to work, but I felt compelled to post this story. Radovan Karadzic has finally been arrested. My hats off to the Serbs. They made a very difficult, very brave decision, especially in the wake of Kosovo. Well done.

I am disappointed in The Economist

2008-07-18T11:01:00.001-07:00

I tend to favor The Economist, and read it religiously. However, after reading this article in this week's edition, I confess myself disappointed. I feel as though it was irresponsible of The Economist to have put this guy's face on the cover of their issue. Obviously, that was going to put him in serious danger. Whether the magazine obtained a release or not, it jeopardized his life. Granted, one could make the argument that he chose to participate in the protest, but it was not the role of The Economist to further publicize his identity by publishing his picture. I'm glad he's made it to the United States.

Italy

2008-06-26T12:50:00.000-07:00

The latest Italy article from The Economist makes me wonder why Italians keep voting for this guy. He's creepy, corrupt, and generally not what I consider a good person. And did I mention creepy? Smarmy, even. Yech.

Drug smuggling

2008-05-09T12:12:00.000-07:00

Apparently, the new vogue in drug smuggling is by submarine. With the amount of ingenuity and hard work that goes into drug smuggling, it makes me wonder why anyone even bothers breaking the law. these guys could probably have a real job, make just as much money, and not have to worry about being arrested.

Inappropriate news

2008-04-23T06:13:00.000-07:00

So, I think we're done with posting for class, but I intend on continuing to blog about the news (in my free time...). It's nice to have a more serious blog, compared to my silly/personal LJ. Anyway, departing from seriousness, and completely unrelated to IHL, here's an article my best friend sent me, which made the mean part of me laugh.

2008-04-18T14:51:00.000-07:00

I found this article about peace-keepers in the DRC, on BBC News. The UN troops are mandated to support the Congolese military, but there are allegations about abuses by the military. The UN peacekeepers are criticized for not speaking out about these abuses, and are also criticized by civilians for getting in their way in strikes against rebel groups.

This is an interesting reminder that UN peacekeepers are not always viewed favorably by the civilian populations they are intended to protect. In addition, what should the UN do when the civilians they are protecting don't want their protection?

Moral psychology

2008-04-12T14:19:00.000-07:00

So, I was writing a paper for my immigration class, and was up late, and very exhausted. To keep myself awake, I actually started answering some of the IMs I received (because I am really very hermitish, and also completely uninteresting and have nothing to say of any importance, so I have no idea WHY people actually talk to me, I usually don't talk online. Or on the phone. Or to other people in general). My best friend in Miami IMed me, and I mentioned my RoW psychology question, which is "Has anyone ever done any research to explain the occasional extraordinary human being who actually risks his/her life to save someone or to do something right in times of war?" History is replete with that one person who stood for something right when everyone around them went mad. Oskar Schindler, Hugh Thompson Jr. (that guy at My Lai that confronted marauding U.S. troops), etc. Why? When all the psychological research we've seen indicates that people are inherently vicious and prone to "othering", or at least have a tendency to blindly follow orders, why do these people refuse to participate? My best friend is getting her MA in psychology, so she seemed the person to talk to. I mentioned I've never heard of research explaining the heroic side of humanity, and she sent me the title of a book called The Hand of Compassion: Portraits of Moral Choice during the Holocaust. I'm not sure it answers the genuine psychological question, but it seems like a decent start for an answer to my question. Mindola, as I call my friend, also suggested checking Psycinfo. Mayhaps that's more effort than I'm willing to put forth at this *exact* moment. Since it's Saturday night, and all. Anyway, I thought that book sounded really interesting, and like some light beach reading. Because we all have nothing *else* to do. :)

Interesting article about a hybrid tribunal

2008-04-02T12:29:00.000-07:00

This article is about a commission in Guatemala that was established to investigate organized crime. While not technically about war crimes, the violence stems from Guatemala's civil war in the 1970s. I thought it was relevant to what we talked about last week because it is a sort of hybrid, or third generation, tribunal. One major problem it suffers from is its inability to protect witnesses, which is a problem we've seen with the ICTR (a second generation tribunal). In addition, the head of CICIG (the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala) lacks the ability to subpoena or indict anyone, which is rather the opposite of what we see in the ICC. Anyway, have a read. It's an interesting article.

Interesting sociological theory

2008-03-25T12:27:00.000-07:00

I would like to preface this post with a brief disclaimer, because people sometimes jump down my throat about this. I did not invent this theory, and I'm not saying I subscribe to it. I am simply saying it is an interesting idea, and pertinent to our discussion. That said...

I discovered this theory in a class on Anglo-Saxon literature and Tolkien (on top of being an IR freak, I am also a history and lit buff, so ignore the general geekiness to follow). It actually derives from an analysis of Anglo-Saxon history and literature, particularly Beowulf. There is a general underlying theme in
Beowulf in which warriors are both heroes and monsters. For example, Beowulf, the soldiers in Heorot Hall, and Grendel are all, at various points, referred to by the same kenning (kennings are different words that the Anglo-Saxons came up with to describe things, I suspect because they needed more alliteration in their poetry). Historians and English majors suspect that the point that the Beowulf author(s) is/are trying to make is that Beowulf is a hero so long as he uses his power against an enemy. He can become a monster if he turns his power inward against his own people. This is something that can be seen across Anglo-Saxon, and indeed, most of Germanic, society in the pre-Christian era. Kingdoms have to continually expand so that soldiers can take loot. Once a society ceases to grow, the warriors turn their violence inward, and shred the kingdom. For this reason, kings actually attempted to war with their neighbors. They were also known as "ring givers", because they won loyalty by giving loot to their earls. This is important because it initiated a sociological theory that war exists so as to turn the destructive forces of a people outward. Otherwise, there is internal chaos and collapse. This branches into an idea that people drawn to the military may be of a certain mindset, and will either kill foreigners, or commit crimes within the state (like I said, I don't necessarily agree with this). It's just an interesting way to look at whether we can ever end war, or at least the abuses inherent in it, because we will always need to orient destructive forces outwards.

Mistakes at Abu Ghraib

2008-03-25T11:52:00.000-07:00

3) Based on the film, the class discussion and the readings, what specific policy changes to US military doctrine would decrease the levels of atrocity by US forces in conflict situations and in detention?

I am going to specifically address Abu Ghraib, because I compulsively wrote a few notes during the video, so those thoughts are pretty fresh.

One issue that I specifically noted during the film was that the soldiers at Abu Ghraib were severely outnumbered. The atmosphere of sheer terror that must engender could only contribute to the sort of abuses that occurred there. Obviously, we're in a war, and just because more troops are needed does not mean they are available. Nonetheless, the sort of statistics the film related - was it something like eight MPs for 800 detainees? - almost require brutality simply to hold down a much larger population. Of course, that can always lead the subjugated to riot, as happened at Abu Ghraib.

Another suggestion is to ensure that the right type of soldiers are doing the right jobs. The MPs were clearly not trained to be prison guards, and certainly not guards who are supposed to control a group of enemy suspects. There have to be soldiers who are better trained to handle these sorts of situations.

Still another policy option is to ensure that detainees who hold no information are cycled through the system quicker. There were simply too many prisoners for Abu Ghraib, and the vast majority of them evidently held no intelligence that was of use to the military. As soon as military intelligence officers realized that people they were interrogating did not have useful information, they should have released them. Obviously, an intelligence officer cannot release someone on a whim, but there should be some sort of system in place for discharging people who have been wrongly arrested.

Really, all three of these suggestions come down to the same basic problem: there were too many prisoners, and too few, poorly trained, guards. It is obvious that this sort of a situation would almost automatically lead to "othering", simply in order to survive. By putting these soldiers in an untenable, terrifying situation, they were almost guaranteed to bond together and to lash out at those who are vulnerable when something goes wrong.

Also, really, the military needs to do better screening. There was at least one soldier in the film that I immediately singled out as not belonging to this war. As soon as he said "I wanted revenge" he should have been pulled out. There is a difference between wanting to defend your country and wanting revenge. I recognize that a lot of soldiers signed up after September 11 because they wanted revenge, and that we might lose half our military if we were to screen them out, but these are the people who might not distinguish between noncombatants and enemies. Because, strictly speaking, revenge is not feasible. The men who committed the attacks on September 11 died. We cannot take revenge on them. Besides, just war doctrine states that war cannot be done out of revenge. Perhaps the military should consider screening for those who seek vengeance.

An additional suggestion goes to the culture of permissiveness that had been promulgated by officials. I think this topic has been addressed ad nauseum, but it still needs to be addressed. Especially because I don't want a glaring hole in this post that will pull my grade down. Anyway, officials from the very top of the military and civilian hierarchy created a perception that all Middle Easterners are enemies, and deserve to be treated badly. The Bush Administration, and all the way down through the ranks of the military, created a system in which no clearly delineated rules were given to the troops on the ground, and in which results were encouraged without consideration for methods. To argue that they did not authorize the terrible treatment of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib is incorrect. If they did not directly authorize or know what was going to happen, they should have. Combining a bunch of terrified twenty-somethings, with no rules, a war, and a recent terrorist attack is a pretty clear recipe for mistreatment.

On the other hand, I think this sort of thing will always be a problem. The process of formal military training, and the chaos of war creates this sort of behavior, and I don't know that there is a way, short of pacifism, to prevent atrocities.

I would, however, like to point out even with all that has been said above, I still think that Americans in general are well trained and have behaved remarkably well in this war. Abu Ghraib was such a scandal becase it was seen as being inconsistent with our principles and practices. If one compares what happened at Abu Ghraib with the sort of horrors inflicted on prisoners in, for example, Latin America during the 1970s, Abu Ghraib looks like small potatos. It is very sad that this awful event has turned so much world opinion against the United States. This doesn't excuse what happened, but I try to bear in mind that whether or not the average person could become a monster, most of our soldiers haven't.

Speaking of less lethal weapons...

2008-03-01T19:47:00.000-08:00

Here's a video from 60 Minutes about that laser cannon we discussed in class.

Legal nuances

2008-02-22T14:10:00.000-08:00

I have two questions which I've raised in class, and for which I still don't really understand the answer.

The first relates to why tear gas is illegal against combatants under the chemical weapons ban. Ostensibly, it is a chemical weapon, so it should be banned. However, if the point to international humanitarian law is to make war more humane, then it seems that the international community should support the use of tear gas as one of those "less lethal" weapons. Of course, all weapons, whether declared legal or otherwise, have their risks. However, the three main teargas varieties (CS, CN, and CR), are largely non-lethal (though CR can, in unventilated areas, be lethal, and some individuals can be particularly sensitive to teargas). For the most part, teargas is not dangerous. It can subdue an enemy without permanently disabling them. Why not use it against combatants? If a military force's other option is to kill a combatant, then teargas is by far a more humane weapon.

The other question is one I brought up last class. If a military medic or chaplain picks up arms during combat for reasons other than self-defense, what becomes of their status? If captured, are they now prisoners of war, who can be held until the end of the conflict? Are they still protected persons who must be released back to to their side? Or are they unlawful combatants, who can be convicted of war crimes for perfidy? Article 24 of the First Geneva Convention states

"Medical personnel exclusively engaged in the search for, or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded or sick, or in the prevention of disease, staff exclusively engaged in the administration of medical units and establishments, as well as chaplains attached to the armed forces, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances."

I suppose that, on the basis of the laws I was able to find, if military medical and religious personnel pick up weapons, they are no longer protected. I didn't find anything about them becoming unlawful combatants. I suspect, though, that they could later be charged with perfidy in the same way that someone illegally posing as a civilian can be charged with war crimes.

2008-02-14T16:33:00.000-08:00

Omar Khadr’s fate leaves me with several questions. The first is why exactly is he being tried for war crimes? Is it because he has been labeled as an unlawful combatant who killed a U.S. soldier, or because he killed a medic? If it’s the last reason, that rather hinges on whether or not he knew the man he killed was a medic, because collateral damage is allowed. Since he allegedly threw a grenade from behind a wall, I doubt he intentionally injured a medic. I suspect, however, that the war crimes accusation hinges on Omar Khadr being an unlawful combatant.

This brings up a couple points. As a fifteen-year-old, he was a child soldier, so whether he was a translator or unlawful combatant is irrelevant; legally he should be rehabilitated and repatriated. As a fifteen-year-old, can he even be tried as an adult? Forgetting about international law, in the United States we have separate justice systems for juveniles and adults. All too frequently, however, children are being tried as adults based on the fact that they have committed “adult crimes”. This occurred famously in the case of Lionel Tate, who killed a playmate while imitating wrestling moves. He was only twelve when he committed the crime, but was tried as an adult. However, it seems to me that there are two primary reasons for dividing the justice system by age. The first is to keep adult offenders away from children. The second is that a child is by definition incompetent. If we don’t think they’re competent enough to vote, I certainly think we should not believe that they are competent enough to truly understand the ramifications of their actions. Especially teenagers, who are, essentially, hormones with skin, and should all be automatically Baker Acted until they have successfully completed puberty.

In my opinion, the prosecution of Omar Khadr is incorrect. He was, legally, not competent when he committed the crimes of which he was accused, and was a child soldier anyway, so most of this is a moot point. Whether or not he was an unlawful combatant by adult terms should not even enter the equation. I see this as part of the growing insensitivity of the United States to the question of mental competency as defined by a person’s age.

Policy memo

2008-02-10T18:08:00.000-08:00

I'm doing my last couple read-throughs of my policy memo, and just putting the finishing touches on it, and I'm still really not satisfied with it. I've been working on it forever, and every incarnation of it seems crappy. I think it boils down to the fact that I feel like the truly proper response should be "just keep plugging away", because it seems a norm like this is not likely to be established any time soon. Also, I suspect that if something hasn't been tried by CIVIC, it's probably for good reason, and that I am not likely to suggest anything special or reasonable. Alas.

I am well aware that this is completely inappropriate, but I almost died when I saw it.

2008-02-06T06:16:00.001-08:00

In case you can't read the small print, it says "Hammerzeit."

A question

2008-02-01T20:57:00.000-08:00

In reviewing the ICRC's webpage on civilians in the power of the enemy, I took a look at the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), particularly Article 4 (because that's what the webpage said to do). I've decided I don't really understand Article 4. It states the following:

"Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are."

I interpret the "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it," to mean that if your state has not signed the Fourth Geneva Convention, then you are not a protected civilian. I further see "Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are," to mean that if your state is neutral, and you happen to be in a belligerent state, and another state invades, you are also not protected by the Geneva Conventions against the invading state.

Absolutely none of this makes sense. Can someone clarify? I'm quite positive I'm misreading this passage.

Thanks.

Norms I routinely observe (or don't observe)

2008-01-30T15:02:00.000-08:00

Today, I would like to talk to you about three norms: the first involves seating arrangements on public transportation, the second involves elevators, and the third is the walking rule.

There is a certain, very specific etiquette involved when one rides public transportation. For obvious reasons, the elderly, disabled, pregnant women, and children are always given preferential treatment when it comes to seating. Most public transportation systems have seats reserved for the elderly and handicapped, usually right next to the bus or train car doors so that people who are not as mobile are easily able to find seats and don't have to maneuver all over a usually moving platform. I violate this rule, I admit, by frequently sitting in these semi-reserved seats. If I don't, some other perfectly healthy individual will do so. However, as soon as someone who doesn't appear to have the ability to stand in a moving bus enters, I give up my seat. Partially, this is because it seems profoundly wrong to let an old lady stand for five stops. Part of it, however, proves the effectiveness of shame. I would be embarassed if a pregnant woman was standing and I had a seat to give her, and chose not to do so. I glare at other people who behave like this, so I assume other people feel the same way.

The second norm that I would like to discuss is always interesting. It involves elevator etiquette. When one person enters an elevator, he or she may stand wherever they please. Once a second person enters, both people move to opposite sides of the elevator. A third person will stand in the middle. A fourth will take the place of the third one, who moves to the back and usually to one side. The fifth person to enter will take the fourth person's spot, who will move to the opposite corner from the third person. If any more people enter, there is a free-for-all, in which all persons simply try to avoid touching each other. There is no talking on an elevator, unless you know the people you are riding with. There is also a very serious attempt by all parties to avoid making eye contact, or to appear to be really looking at anyone else (unless, of course, you happen to be female, in which case it is perfectly acceptable to check out each other's shoes. Any other articles of clothing must be looked at in a very casual, quick-glance sort of way). People violating any or all of these rules will be seen as creepy, though, with the exception of groping and stealing, there really is no moral issue at stake.

My third norm is what I have called the walking rule. It is quite amazing to me that when walking, people unconsciously imitate driving. If a person is in a country where the inhabitants drive on the right side of the road, that person will walk on the right side of a sidewalk or hallway. If, however, that person lives in a place where everyone drives on the left, he or she will walk on the left. There is no real moral reason for this, other than the fact that once a pattern is established, it is best for you to follow it, in order to avoid knocking other people over. However, there is no law establishing that just because Americans drive on the right side of the road, they must walk down the right side of the hallway, while the British and Australians should walk on the left.

Three Kings

2008-01-21T21:08:00.000-08:00

Here is a list of my observations regarding the movie Three Kings.

For starters, the whole movie is predicated on a violation of IHL, which is the no pillaging rule. First, the Iraqis pillaged from Kuwait, and then the Americans pillaged from the Iraqis, though I'm not sure to what extent they were pillaging given that the goods were stolen in the first place. Anyway, I find this rule to be rather dull, because then piracy is illegal, which would invalidate all those fun pirate jokes, and then what would be the point of LIVING?

Anyway. The first scene in the entire movie actually prompted an argument between my boyfriend and me over what exactly happened and whether it constituted a violation of IHL or not. We actually watched the scene at least three times, and I'm still ambivalent. The scene I'm referring to is the one in which Mark Wahlberg shoots an Iraqi who appears to be waving something, but at the same time rotates in position and also appears to be turning his gun to face the Americans. When the Americans see the dead man up close, it becomes apparent that he was waving a white flag. However, he pretty clearly was turning, with his gun pointed at Mark Wahlberg. In other words, I have no idea what happened. Was he actually surrendering, or using the white flag as a trick to kill the Americans? I suspect that, either way, Mark Wahlberg's character would not have been prosecuted, as the situation was rather ambiguous, and he certainly was acting in self-defense. IHL requires that soldiers who are captured are not harmed in any way. In that vein, there were several instances of mistreatment of captured soldiers. There was, of course, torture. Obviously, torture is not allowed. Ever. Civilian or otherwise. Torture brings me to my second ambiguity regarding this movie. My boyfriend asked if the Americans were allowed to force the Iraqis to strip naked when they surrendered, and I said I was pretty sure they were allowed to do it, as long as it wasn't in a degrading manner. If it can be done in a non-degrading manner. It seems that the Americans had a right to be sure that none of the surrendering soldiers had, for example, secret maps stashed in their colons. Or bombs strapped under their uniforms. I'm not sure, however, whether it was technically legal because prisoners of war are guaranteed their dignity.

A very clear violation of IHL (and therefore a blessed respite from all this grey area) was the use of landmines, because they cannot distinguish between civilian and soldier, and therefore violate the principle of discrimination.

My final observation, and yet ANOTHER ambiguous moment for me, is in regards to the Iraqi army's suppression of the uprising. Certainly a sovereign state has the right to suppress an armed uprising by its citizens (though I would posit that if said state were appropriately democratic, the likelihood of their being an uprising worth speaking of would substantially decrease). However, as in Vietnam, and again in the Second Iraq War, how can one tell who the rebels are when they don't wear uniforms? I rather suspect this distinction would not have been made anyway in the case of the Republican Guard, but the question is still there. It is within the law for a state's military to fight rebels with military force. When the rebels come from a local population, however, and do not distinguish themselves from that population, how can the state's army avoid committing war crimes?

A specific instance of the soldiers obeying a norm that is not codified in international law was protecting civilian IDPs to get them to the Iranian border. IHL is ambigious when it comes to IDPs, and so there was no legal obligation for the Americans to protect them. This is especially significant in regards to the fact that in escorting the IDPs to the border, the Americans were directly violating international law by violating a treaty signed between the United States and Iraq.

An article off of AOL news

2008-01-21T09:20:00.000-08:00

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/gen-butt-naked-confesses-to-killings/20080121080609990002?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Some of the information in this article goes beyond regular horrifying to just plainly bizarre. I am disturbed that people who are not only ill-educated but also obviously crazy can play such a significant role in history.

The Ehren Watada case

2008-01-15T14:28:00.001-08:00

I honestly have mixed feelings about this particular case.

To start with, I am annoyed with the article itself, which is extremely biased, and so it is hard to discern the actual facts. The fact that people were tortured and otherwise mistreated at Abu Ghraib has very little bearing on the legitimacy of the declaration of war, and therefore on the Watada case. While I realize that this is an opinion post, and that the author is always free to say what they think, I am usually bothered by bias when it appears in the media.

Of course, that is neither here nor there. This blog is supposed to be about the case itself. On that topic, it seems that if one voluntarily joins the military, that person takes on the responsibility of being involved in conflicts he or she may not necessarily agree with. Watada was not conscripted, he enlisted voluntarily. Military discipline enshrines the principle that a soldier does what he or she is told, regardless of their feelings or opinions. A lack of discipline during war could have dire effects.

On the other hand, as the author of the article points out, the Nuremberg Principles established that officers have a duty to refuse unlawful orders. However, no one has, to my satisfaction, been able to prove either the legality or illegality of the Iraq War. Furthermore, I would argue that the Nuremberg Principles form part of jus in bello, rather than jus ad bellum. Soldiers are bound by the Nuremberg Principles to refuse to follow orders that are illegal during war, not to refuse to join war. People who refused the draft during the Vietnam War were imprisoned, however they may have felt about the legality of the war, because they did not have the ability to refuse to fight the war itself. Similarly, while Watada would have had an obligation to not only not participate, but to stop, the events that occurred at Abu Ghraib, he did not have the right to refuse to go to war.

So legally, it seems the United States military is behaving in an appropriate fashion in response to insubordination by an officer. However, it seems a tad petty that the military would not just reassign Watada to Afghanistan, where there are certainly not enough boots on the ground. I suppose one could make the argument that quite a lot of the soldiers in Iraq do not agree with the legality or morality of the war, and so allowing Watada to choose to go to Afghanistan could set an inconvenient precedent that would result in the war effort in Iraq being seriously hampered. However, none of those soldiers seemed to have been as resistant to the idea of the Iraq War. Perhaps a restriction of privileges in response to insubordination, followed by transfer to Afghanistan, would be more appropriate than a court martial in the Watada case.

Finally, it seems pretty obvious to me that a court martial would not permit anyone to use the illegal war defense. The President of the United States sent combat troops to another country. Therefore, the military, which is subordinate to the President, has to consider the war legal. If Watada were to win the case using the argument that the Iraq War is illegal, the results could be very serious, not least in terms of cases being brought against the United States for illegal aggression. What happens if the U.S. military refuses to obey the civilian government? That sounds an awful lot like the start of a coup. Additionally, courts martial do not operate according to the standard legal proceedings of the United States judicial system. Defendants in courts martial do not have the same rights as defendants in a normal criminal case. It seems rather unfair, but there it is. It is naive, at the very least, for the author to expect that standard rules of freedom of speech and basic criminal law apply in a court martial.

The Weinberger Doctrine

2008-01-10T15:25:00.001-08:00

While reading James Turner Johnson's Morality and Contemporary Warfare for class, I came across a mention of the Weinberger Doctrine, on page 22. Because I didn't know what it was, I did some research. In case anybody else was similarly ignorant, or just needs a refresher, I've included the doctrine below. I took it from PBS, and here's the link where I found it: http://pbs.gen.in/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/military/force/index.html#weinbergerdoctrine

The Weinberger Doctrine limiting the committment of American combat forces:
1. Either the United States' or its close allies' vital national interests had to be at risk;
2. The war had to be fought "wholeheartedly, with the clear intention of winning";
3. We should employ decisive force in the pursuit of clearly defined political and military objectives;
4. We must constantly reassess whether the use of force is necessary and appropriate;
5. There must be a "reasonable assurance" of Congressional and public support;
6. Force should be used only as a last resort.

Additionally, in case you were curious as to the source of this doctrine, it comes from a speech Weinberger made in 1984 to the National Press Club. PBS also has a transcript of the speech, the link to which I've included below.
http://pbs.gen.in/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/military/force/weinberger.html

Test

2008-01-09T11:54:00.000-08:00

I'm just testing to see if this works, so disregard this post.