On Combat

Exceeding the limits on allowable violence appears to be a continuing element of the human dimension in battle. These excerpts from the NYT this month indicate violations of LOAC by professional soldiers who should have known better.

The role of their chain of command is uncertain from current reporting, but here is some speculation: At worst, their brigade commander instructed them to take no prisoners. At best, his hazy instructions led to wrong impressions, and thence to illegal killings:

Questions arise on where were the battalion, company, and platoon commanders? If illicit action was implied, did these intermediate commanders:
1) Perceive an implicit command to take no prisoners and (illegally) support the commander’s instructions, or
2) Perceive an implicit command to take no prisoners but fail to intervene (ask for orders in writing, for example?), or did they
3) See the commander’s pre-mission talk as hype, but not intervene or interpret bravado for implicit instructions?

Lessons seem to be:

1) Exceeding limits on allowed violence can be a problem with even the most professional troops
2) Commander’s responsibilities to calibrate violence are never-ending
3) Clarity of intent/ instructions are crucial

Some Excerpts:

G.I. Gets 18-Year Prison Term For Killing 2 Captive Iraqis New York Times January 26, 2007 Pg. 6

FORT CAMPBELL, Ky., Jan. 25 “ An Army infantryman received an 18-year prison sentence on Thursday after pleading guilty to killing two unarmed Iraqis during an assault northwest of Baghdad last May…Sergeant Girouard, 24, the squad leader, is charged with creating a plan to free the three Iraqi men from their plastic handcuffs, have Private Clagett and another soldier shoot them as they fled and then cover up the crime…

“I cut the zip-ties loose, pulled the blindfold up on one of them, down on the other,’ he said, referring to two of the three Iraqi men. ‘Hunsaker told them to run. I told them to ‘yallah,’ meaning to run faster.’ He said he and Specialist Hunsaker had sprayed the men with rifle fire, killing two and gravely wounding the third.”

Army Says Improper Orders By Colonel Led To 4 Deaths — New York Times, January 21, 2007, Pg. 10

“The colonel improperly led his soldiers to believe that distinguishing combatants from noncombatants ” a main tenet of the military’s standing rules of engagement “was not necessary during the May 9 mission, according to a classified report in June by Brig. Gen. Thomas Maffey”".”miscommunication” of the rules contributed to the deaths of four unarmed Iraqis, General Maffey wrote, formal charges were not warranted “in light of his honest belief of the correctness of the mission R.O.E.”

“Several soldiers have said in sworn statements that Colonel Steele told them to kill all military-age males.”
“Colonel Steele said he did not use “specific language” to order his soldiers to kill all military-age males, and that “we don’t shoot people with their hands up.””

“In his June 3 testimony, Colonel Steele said he told his men that Army intelligence had shown that the island held dozens of fighters for Al Qaeda. ‘Guys, you are going to get shot coming off the helicopter,” Colonel Steele said he told them before the raid. “If you don”t get shot, you ought to be surprised.””

“As it turned out, the assault occurred without encountering any hostile fire, and the soldiers found only unarmed men, women and children. Only excess caution by Colonel Steele”s troops spared the Iraqi civilians from being shot, General Maffey wrote in his report.”