Archive for the 'War & Warfare' Category

This from Arutz Sheva:

Brig.-Gen. Noam Feig, head of naval shipyards, said the Naval Commando 13’s operation in Tyre targeted senior Hizbullah operatives responsible for the launch of long-range rockets, similar to those fired at Hadera on Friday. “The goal of the operation was a commando raid against [those] senior Hizbullah operatives,” he said. “Among other things, they were involved in launching rockets at Hadera Friday. The operation brought closure to all other operations.”

Feig stressed that the heroic operation was deemed necessary to combat the threat of long-term rocket launches into Israel, while minimizing the possibility of Lebanese civilian casualties. “The force, under the command of a Commando 13 commander, was made up of three separate forces. Hizbullah’s pattern of operations, hiding in apartments, endangers the lives of Lebanese civilians and necessitates selective and accurate capabilities,” Feig stated.

[ … ]

“The two soldiers were treated in the field by a medical unit under the command of the unit’s doctor,” explained Feig, “and an operation was performed in the field. The force evacuated under fire to the coast, where a helicopter waited, as planned, to transport them back to Israel at 5 a.m. All in all – fighting and presence in the field – one hour and 45 minutes.”

Remember the Zarqawi bombing run and how U.S. forces found him?  Video here.  The U.S. used a standoff weapon (JDAM).  The U.S. used standoff weapons in order to protect the lives of U.S. troops.  Remember also that a child died in the attack on Zarqawi.

I want to make a several brief observations and then follow up with a view towards rethinking just war theory.

1. The U.S. did not repudiate the actions involved in killing Zarqawi because an innocent was killed.
2. The U.S. military leadership chose by their tactics to side with the protection of U.S. troops rather than the protection of possible innocents.
3. The Israeli military leadership chose to side with the protection of possible innocents in the vicnity of the enemy.
4. Yet Israel is challenged every day in the media for the killing of innocents in the vicinity of the enemy.

I prefer to think within the paradigm of “good wars” rather than “just war.”  We need to relinquish this quaint but highly outdated notion of wars as soldiers lining up opposed to each other on a field of battle where innocents are either looking on or completely absent from the vicinity.  Certainly this idea prevailed — for good reason — throughout the First and Second Worlds Wars, the Korean War and even to some degree the war in Vietnam (as well as the first Gulf War).  Today there is such an absence of moral underpinnings in war that the innocent is scattered amongst the warrior.  The warrior puts himself in the vicinity of non-combatants by choice in order to cause collateral damage, thus playing to political sensibilities as we see in the media the continual drumbeat of this country or that country “intentionally targeting civilians.”

When “warriors” do this, they are no longer protecting anyone, and are thus not worthy to be called or considered warriors.  They are terrorists.  The scene now becomes a hazy chaos of terrorists rather than warriors, combatants mixed with non-combatants, murky situations where non-combatants are actively aiding the combatants, and impossible stipulations such as the prevention of all civilian deaths — juxtaposed with the moral duty of a country to protect the safety of its citizens.  Stated simply, the paradigm of soldiers lining up in a field of battle (where a just war may be ascertained based on simple questions like “who is the aggressor?” or “what fixed boundary was violated by some outsider?”) is a paradigm whose time has come and gone.

In the case of the U.S. leadership choosing to use a JDAM to take out Zarqawi rather than bring additional risk to the lives of U.S. troops, I would not have had it any other way.  If keeping a child among the enemy stops your armies from fighting because they might kill the child, it is the enemy who is at fault rather than your armies, and it is a tactic that will cause you to lose the war.  To fail to war against aggressors because of potential collateral damage would be to fail your own people and thus to bring them additional risk and perhaps worse.

It is a matter of keeping in front of you the reason we are at war and who warrants the protection of U.S. troops.  What is most important?  The protection of U.S. citizens or the protection of potential non-combatants?  Remember that this is a salient question for our troops at war right now.  It goes to every part of their existence, from targeting munitions to “room-clearing” and “stacks.”  If a fire team has to delineate between friend or foe upon entering a room, the fire team will likely die due to the time delay and opportunity for the enemy to engage our troops.  This is no theoretical matter to our troops.  Those who want to protect against the possibility of the deaths of any non-combatants must take this into consideration.  Not only would such a policy mean many more U.S. deaths, it would probably mean the end of combat capability and the loss of the war.  No army can fight a war under these conditions.

In the case of Israel, it seems to me that they went above and beyond the call of duty to protect innocents.  It is further than the U.S. went when we killed Zarqawi, and it is further than I would have gone had I been in charge.

As it is, a battlefield operation had to be performed on an Israeli soldier because Israel was concerned collateral damage.  Tell that to the mother of the IDF soldier who had the operation and ask her about priorities.

I published a fairly bleak commentary late last night entitled “The Future of the War: It Needs to be Decided Immediately,” and another fairly bleak picture of Ramadi a day or two ago, entitled “Ramadi, Iraq: A Mess.”  The one on the future of the war is so bleak, in fact, that I had been pondering whether I should have published it.  After all, we get enough bad news and spinned commentaries as it is.  Not any more.  Just at my lowest (deciding whether to remove the post — I know, a no-no in the web log world), this comes to my attention from the testimony of the brass before the Senate:

The top U.S. military commander in the Middle East told Congress on Thursday that “Iraq could move toward civil war” if the raging sectarian violence in Baghdad is not stopped. “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it,” Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said the top priority in the Iraq war is to secure the capital, where factional violence has surged in recent weeks despite efforts by the new Iraqi government to stop the fighting.[ … ]

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, echoed Abizaid’s observation when he told the panel, “We do have the possibility of that devolving into civil war.” He added that this need not happen and stressed that ultimately it depends on the Iraqis more than on the U.S. military.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, echoed Abizaid’s observation when he told the panel, “We do have the possibility of that devolving into civil war.” He added that this need not happen and stressed that ultimately it depends on the Iraqis more than on the U.S. military.”Shiite and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other,” Pace said, before the tensions can be overcome. “The weight of that must be on the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government.” 

However bleak my post was, it is nice to be confirmed by the generals.  I don’t disagree with the thrust of what I read here, but permit me one nuanced modification.  The focus should indeed be on the Iraqis, but as I said in my post noted above, the situation seems to me to be spiraling out of control very quickly.  More is needed in the way of stabilization by the U.S. troops.  We have taken defensive positions in Ramadi, and the death toll in Baghdad is higher than in Lebanon and Israel combined.  The sectarian violence must be stopped in Baghdad, and the fight must be taken to the Sunni insurgents in Ramadi.

What is needed is a large, coordinated offensive by both U.S. and Iraqi troops.  It must be fast, furious and unrelenting.  The results will be similar to what they were after the killing of al Zarqawi and the capture of the intelligence on Al Qaida in Iraq.  The terrorists were running for cover.  When they are running for their lives, they don’t have the time or wherewithal to go on the offense.

The basic problem here as I see it is that while we have been on the offense for much of the time over the last several years, leading to gains and stabilization in all areas (whether power grid reliability, decrease in the death toll, utilities reliability, political advances), we are now on the defensive.

Bad move.  Let’s take counsel from General George Patton.

“In war the only sure defense is offense, and the efficiency of the offense depends on the warlike souls of those conducting it.”

We have the best, most well-trained and well-equipped fighting force in the history of the world.  Let’s quit hand-wringing over “rules of engagement” and unleash them.  In the end, this strategy will not only be victorious, it will save U.S. lives.  Time is of the essence.

Faster … please?

The AP was reporting earlier in the day that:

WASHINGTON – Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.

Agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service have completed their initial work on the incident last November, but may be asked to probe further as Marine Corps and Navy prosecutors review the evidence and determine whether to recommend criminal charges, according to two Pentagon officials who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.

My readers know that I have been closely following the Haditha and Hamdania stories.  Note this little remark in the text of the article:

“… according to two Pentagon officials who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.”

I have said it in prior posts and will repeat it here.  “By the mouths of two or more witnesses” is the criteria, and these must be credible, reliable and consistent witnesses.  See my Hamdania Marines and the Biblical Rules of Evidence (a very well-read commentary across the Globe based on Google Analytics).  Things are not to be done in secret.  Things are discussed openly, confessions are not coerced, and a finding of guilt must rely on sure and certain evidence from two or more witnesses.  Anything else is girlish gossip.  I was very disappointed to see that the Marine Corps Times picked this up and ran with it.

Here it is again: ” … on condition of anonymity.”

So who were these “Pentagon officials?”  Let me be the first out of the gate to call them pusillanimous, cowardly weasels.  They prejudiced the case without there having been a trial where witnesses and evidence could be heard and cross-examined.

Cowards.  Who were these “officials?”  These weasels can come do battle with me here at the Captain’s Journal at any time.  Here at TCJ, I am not anonymous.  You see my real name associated with this post.  I am not a weasel.  These “officials” are.

The North County Times has this update on a case that I have discussed before:

TIKRIT, Iraq — The U.S. Army opened a hearing Tuesday to determine whether four American soldiers must stand trial for allegedly murdering three Iraqis during a raid where they claimed they were under orders to “kill all military-age males.”

Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard, Spc. William B. Hunsaker, Pfc. Corey R. Clagett, and Spc. Juston R. Graber are accused of murder and other offenses in the May 9 shooting deaths near Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad.

Girouard, Hunsaker and Clagett are also accused of obstruction of justice for allegedly threatening to kill another soldier if he told authorities what happened.

All four are members of the 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division and have been jailed in Kuwait since they were arrested in June. They were moved to Tikrit, the division headquarters, for the Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a grand jury proceeding.

The hearing, which is expected to last several days, opened with testimony from two investigators who questioned the soldiers when the allegations surfaced last month. 

Later on down the article there is this little nugget of gold:

The investigator acknowledged that he and his colleagues sometimes resort to “lies, trickery or deceit” to extract confessions.

I have commented before in Hamdania Marines and the Biblical Rules for Evidence concerning how evidence is obtained and what constitutes admissible evidence, so I won’t rehearse what was said in that post.  However, I will point out that lies, trickery and deceipt is still lies, trickery and deceipt, no matter what the reason or supposed justification.  Here is how it works.  “Son, we have signed confessions from two others at the scene who told us exactly what you did, and this being a death penalty case, you will be executed unless you cooperate with us.  If you confess to this crime, we think we can get you life in prison, parolled at 30 years, rather than the death penalty.”  To which the individual agrees to the confession under counsel from his lawyer.

The only thing is that the statement that they had two other confessions was a lie.  There are people in prisons who are guilty, and who were placed in prison by tactics like this, and who in fact deserve to be in prison.  Then there are people who are in prison, and who confessed to a crime, and who are in fact not guilty — and they were placed in prison using tactics like this.  This is true in civilian cases and military cases.

The practice is immoral.  Period.  It might be legal and ethical.  But there is a difference between something being allowed in the sight of the law and something being good and righteous.

This practice is not good and righteous.  Testimony should be given in front of everyone, without compulsion, and always corroborated by two or more witnesses.  Again, repeating the point in my earlier post on the Hamdania Marines, the value of confessions in the western Judeo-Christian tradition was never to convict.  It was always merely to corroborate.  To use lies, trickery and deceipt to obtain alleged “confessions” is the prosecution playing God.  It is the government deciding that the individual is guilty and then using whatever tactics effect the desired outcome (i.e., conviction).  In the U.S., we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.  Coerced confessions accomplish nothing towards proving anything.

There is an interesting piece over at the Asia Times, entitled “Nasrallah’s other fight.”  Not only is there a close connection between Nasrallah and Iraqi clerics, but Hezbollah fighters have been in Iraq (and in fact, some 18 have been captured).

Indeed, Iraq in 2006 looks a lot like the Lebanon of 1983. For example, the Iranian man in charge of this whole operation is Hassan Qommi, who had the exact same job … in Beirut in 1982. Qommi helped Hezbollah instructors get to Iraq to train Muqtada’s Mehdi Army, which has staged several high-profile confrontations with US forces, notably at Fallujah.

Starting in 2003, Hezbollah began building up organizational and military apparatuses in Iraq. For instance, that April, Hezbollah opened two offices in the Iraqi cities of Basra and Safwan. The campaign, targeting moderate Iraqi Shi’ite clerics willing to work with the US, was most likely orchestrated by Muqtada and Hezbollah.

Keep in mind that even though Nasrallah greatly respects Sistani, he is totally at odds with him when it comes to fighting the US presence.

Also in 2003-04, Imad Mughniah, the top Hezbollah operative wanted by most Western secret services for his role in most of the attacks perpetrated by Hezbollah, including the bombings of the US Embassy and the US and French barracks in Beirut in 1983, was sighted in Iraq. Syria had most probably facilitated his entry on to Iraqi soil.

Hezbollah also had a specialty in Lebanon in the 1980s, which was kidnapping foreign citizens. Is it a coincidence that it was happening on a daily basis in 2004 in Iraq? 

Given that Nasrallah has sent terror weapons into Israel, and given that he is responsible now for the deaths of innocents in Iraq and is making it more difficult for democracy to get a foothold, and given that his future existence may very well cause the deaths of more U.S. troops, I would like to be the first out of the gate to call for a targeted assassination of Nasrallah.  This would be the action that mose closely comports with the protection of American lives, and is therefore the moral thing to do.

I don’t care how it happens: bomb the Iranian embassy, target him with a .50 caliber rifle round a few weeks from now, or send in Israeli assassins.  It doesn’t much matter to me.  He needs to go.

Courtesy of Michelle Malkin (Kill, Don’t Capture), CENTOM (linked on this web site) gives the following brief:

    BAGHDAD, Iraq – Coalition forces killed one terrorist, wounded another and detained one associate during a raid north of Balad on the morning of June 24. 

    Reliable intelligence indicates that the targeted terrorists were associated with numerous senior al-Qaida in Iraq members including two local Emirs.  The group is also reported to be tied to another recently captured individual who had previously led the overall network and has since admitted to countless attacks on Iraqi civilians.

    While the troops were moving to the target area they encountered two armed terrorists who attempted to engage the ground force.  The ground force immediately engaged the terrorists killing one and wounding the other.  The wounded terrorist was provided immediate first aid on site.

    Multiple men fled the immediate target area upon arrival of the assault force.  The ground force then quickly contained and secured the target area.

    The troops pursued and ultimately detained another suspect.

Michelle observes that it is better to accomplish a kill in the field.

The history of the M16A2 (and the whole Stoner system of weapons) is interesting.  What you don’t usually see in writing anywhere is that the U.S. adopted the small caliber (.22 caliber, or 5.56 mm) round due in part to its being a more humane weapon, tending to wound rather than kill, as opposed to the 7.62 mm NATO round, which tended to main or kill just about no matter where it hit.

However, the upshot is that they teach Marines to place the round in the right location to accomplish a kill.  Moreover, the light weight of the M16A2 allows it to be brought to bear on a target more quickly than the heavier M14.  Also, the smaller round (a) gives much less recoil than the 7.62 mm round, and (b) gives it a high muzzle velocity that allows good body armor penetrating capability.

Finally, the United States Marines, unlike every other branch of the military here or abroad, requires every Marine to qualify on his M16A2 at 500 yards.  Today, a variant of the M16A2 is used — the M4, with a shorter stock and barrel.  It is capable of single shot or three-round bursts.  The SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon, one per fire team of four Marines) is also a 5.56 mm round, capable of fully automatic firing.

Sometimes we get the sweet satisfaction that even when the left tries to harm us (more “humane weapon”), the law of unintended consequences gives us a nice gift.  The M16A2.

In “Haditha Hoax and Future Knee-Jerk Reactions,” I mentioned two Gaurdsmen who were being considered for charges of manslaughter.  They have been cleared — sort of.  Reuters is reporting:

BAGHDAD – The U.S. military has cleared a soldier of unlawfully killing an Iraqi civilian after investigators concluded Specialist Nathan Lynn had reason to believe the man was carrying a gun when he opened fire. 

But there is still something outstanding on this whole issue.

The military spokesman said commanders had yet to decide whether to refer Ortiz to court martial on the conspiracy charge. Ortiz is also charged with a separate offence on March 8 of threatening an Iraqi with a weapon. 

According to the story, Ortiz had reason to believe that an Iraqi individual had intelligence regarding a credible threat to the safety of our troops.  He then took an unloaded weapon and held it to the head of the individual in an attempt to obtain that information.

At the time I said that if U.S. troops believe that an individual has intelligence regarding a credible threat to our troops, and threatens that individual in an attempt to obtain that intelligence, I support it.  Of course I would.

I still do.  Of course I do.  This is war.  What do people think happens in war?  Someone (i.e., the Iraqi individual) was under emotional duress.  So what?  What I want to know is this: did we get the information we wanted?

The NYT is reporting:

WASHINGTON, July 21 — The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, American officials said Friday.

The decision to quickly ship the weapons to Israel was made with relatively little debate within the Bush administration, the officials said. Its disclosure threatens to anger Arab governments and others because of the appearance that the United States is actively aiding the Israeli bombing campaign in a way that could be compared to Iran’s efforts to arm and resupply Hezbollah.

What simpletons.  Think about it.  The U.S. = Iran, and Israel = Hezbollah.  This is the equation in their thinking — and in the thinking of much of the U.S. left.

It’s too bizarre to need rebuttal.  It is prima facie absurd.

The North County Times has a new article out on the Camp Pendleton 8 (i.e., Hamdania incident).

Attorneys for accused troops say Marine Corps hampering defenses

By: MARK WALKER – Staff Writer

CAMP PENDLETON —- Attorneys for two of seven Marines charged with premeditated murder in the shooting of an Iraqi civilian in April accused the military Thursday of refusing to provide basic information necessary to prepare their defenses.

They also complained that the Marine Corps has denied a request that they be allowed to hire an independent investigator to travel to the scene of the incident.

“The government had no problem sending my client over there three times in defense of our country’s freedoms and liberties,” said attorney Joseph Low, who represents Cpl. Marshall Magincalda. “Therefore, they should have no objection to sending an investigator over there once in defense of those rights that he risked his life for.”

Lt. Col. Sean Gibson at Camp Pendleton said it would be premature to send an investigator to Iraq before hearings are held later this summer to determine whether the charges against the seven Marines and one Navy corpsman stand.

This is outrageous.  Lt Col. Gibson seems to lay this assertion out there as if it is an objectively verifiable truth.  In reality, the statement could have read: “The United States Marine Corps wants to give full opportunity for discovery and evidence-gathering throughout the duration of the process, and so we have approved several visits for defense counsel.”  It would have made more sense.  The statement taken by itself is nonsensical.  It lacks any backdrop, explanation or substantiation.  It certainly does not appear to be legally required, and if it is not, then for what reason would the request of defense counsel be “premature?”

But as outrageous as this is, there is this stunning little nugget of gold couched in the article:

Attorney Jane Siegel, who represents Pfc. John Jodka III of Encinitas, also said the Marine Corps has told her it does not intend to produce any Iraqi witnesses at the hearings.

This obviously refers to the Article 32 hearing.  But continuing:

Gibson said there is no assurance that any of Awad’s relatives or any other witnesses interviewed in Iraq would come to the U.S. for the hearings or any subsequent trials.  “There is no mechanism in place to compel them to testify,” Gibson said.

If there are no witnesses who can give reliable, substantial, compelling and consistent testimony, then the whole ordeal is over and the Marines (and Corpman) should be set free immediately.

I am no lawyer, and so I cannot speak to the legal rules of evidence.  But I did spend some time studying in seminary, and have done some thinking about the Biblical requirements for evidence.  Yes, the Bible does have quite a lot to say about this.  I will post on this in the near future.  The post will focus on the moral requirements for evidence rather than the legal requirements.  In other words, I will focus on God’s expectations for evidence rather than the expectations of the UCMJ or military protocol (this is after all my web site and I can do what I want).  Stay tuned.  Oh, by the way.  Just as a teaser for this future post, the use of confessions in a trial is a throwback to ancient middle eastern protocol.  In western civilization (i.e., Europe and the U.S.) we have historically disallowed confessions in trials due to the Christian influence on our system of law, and this is unique in the world (although this is changing as we give more weight to confessions).  And the reason?  Confessions can be forced or coerced.

I know this sits hard with many of you; especially police.  But I had to deal with this in seminary when I studied it (in Biblical Ethics), and I intend to post what I believe to be the truth on this subject.

Tighten your belts and stay tuned.

Michael Fumento sent me a note linking to an update of his “Band of Brothers” article (The Weekly Standard).  Go on over to his web site and take a look at both his blog and two newsletters directly from Ramadi.  Oh, by the way.  Michael intends to go back to Ramadi in September.

Band of Brothers Update