WASHINGTON - Wars are inherently exercises
in unleashing and restraining chaos. The clash of
opposing sides unleashes primal passions, which
can only be controlled through enormous effort.
That is why militaries, among other things, devise
Rules of Engagement (ROE).
In military
operations the ROE determine when, where, and how
force shall be used. ROE essentially balance the
need to use force effectively to accomplish
mission objectives and the need to avoid
unnecessary force. They can be considered a form
of crisis management. If a ROE is too tight it can
constrain a commander from performing his mission
effectively. And if it is too loose a ROE can
facilitate the escalation of a conflict which
nullifies the
political objectives that the
use of force was meant to achieve.
Such
rules are both general and specific. While
sometimes the rules may be made public, as in a
martial law or curfew situation, they are
typically only fully known to the force that
intends to use them.
That makes the
release of the Consolidated Rules of Engagement
for Iraq (2005) unusual.
The 27-page
document, labeled SECRET, though much of it is
actually unclassified, was obtained and released
on February 4 by the Wikileaks website. Wikileaks
is an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for
untraceable mass document leaking and analysis.
The document has received attention in the
mainstream press because it it appears to
authorize raids into Syria and Iran. One of the
most interesting parts of the ROE is that it
indicates that US attacks likely to result in
civilian deaths required authorization at the top
of the Pentagon, by the secretary of defense.
Thus, as the ROE states repeatedly, "If the target
is in a HIGH CD [collateral damage] area, SECDEF
approval is required."
The ROE defines
High Collateral Damage as: "Those targets that, if
struck, have a ten percent probability of causing
collateral damage through blast debris and
fragmentation and are estimated to result in
significant collateral effects on noncombatant
persons and structures, including: (A)
Non-combatant casualties estimated at 30 or
greater; (B) Significant effects on Category I No
Strike protected sites in accordance with Ref D;
(C) In the case of dual-use facilities, effects
that significantly impact the non-combatant
population, including significant effects on the
environment/facilities/infrastructure not related
to an adversary's war making ability; or (D)
Targets in close proximity to known human
shields."
The good news, as William Arkin,
the Washington Post's military affairs blogger
points out, is that the essence of the ROE is
about the extreme measures that are required to
safeguard civilians in operations. One example is
that the ROE specify that although commanders on
the ground may return fire, or even call in
airstrikes, against a mosque that is being used by
enemy forces - US troops will not enter such
buildings, even during fighting, "without the
approval of the (senior regional commander) in
coordination with (the Iraqi ministries of defense
and interior)". If approval is granted, the rules
say, Iraqi security forces will enter the
building, "with cordon support from US forces".
Categories of targets, people and places,
are discussed in detail, and levels of damage are
designated, each demanding different
considerations and approval authorities. For
example, the ROE state: All personnel must
ensure that, prior to any engagement,
non-combatants and civilian structures are
distinguished from proper military targets.
Positive Identification (PID) of all targets
is required prior to engagement. PID is a
reasonable certainty that the individual or object
of attack is a legitimate military target in
accordance with these ROE. Military operations
will be conducted, in so far as possible, to
ensure that incidental injury to civilians and
collateral damage to civilian objects are
minimized.
Interestingly, as the Wikileaks
analysis points out, all attacks, except those in
self-defense or active pursuit, with a reasonable
possibility of harming 30 or more civilians needed
approval from then defense secretary Donald
Rumsfeld. Presumably such approval would need to
be in writing. That means there may be an
extensive documentary record of requests for
attacks with the potential for resulting in
significant civilian casualties.
In theory
Congress could demand access to these documents to
determine which attacks resulting in civilian
casualties were authorized. That could potentially
provide the basis for prosecuting possible war
crimes committed in the course of the occupation.
Although, it is likely that the ROE have
been revised since they were issued. Military
officials have said that the threshold for high
collateral damage actions is now lower than 30,
although they will not say by how much.
David Isenberg is an analyst in
national and international security affairs,
sento@earthlink.net. He is also a member of the
Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, an
adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute,
contributor to the Straus Military Reform Project,
a research fellow at the Independent Institute,
and a US Navy veteran. The views expressed are his
own.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online
Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about
sales, syndication and republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
