Archive for the 'War & Warfare' Category

Andrew McCarthy at NRO:

During a few shining nanoseconds of post-9/11 clarity, the administration had declared that there was an enemy and it had to be wiped out. Now, though, what has been wiped out is the Bush Doctrine: the sober acknowledgement that we had to accept the unsolicited challenge of a long, difficult war; the warning to all comers that we would fight to win, and they could either line up with us or line up with the terrorists.

The Bush Doctrine understood that jihadists were the problem and could form no part of the solution. This is a hard truth, though. It has thus been nudged gradually aside by a more pleasant Wilsonian mirage: the Democracy Project. This ambitious reconstruction of the Islamic world holds that jihadists can be tamed — and the United States made safer — by a political process. 

Read the whole thing here.

From Haaretz:

A large number of Israel Defense Forces soldiers were wounded Wednesday in fierce gun battles with Hezbollah in the southern Lebanese town of Bint Jbail.The IDF was involved in efforts Wednesday to retrieve the casualties, even as the heavy clashes continued.

The troops became involved in close-quarter fighting with Hezbollah guerillas in the early hours of Wednesday, despite taking control of the town a day earlier. The fighting has been going on since.

On Tuesday, IDF infantry and armored corps soldiers surrounded the Hezbollah stronghold, but decided against seizing the entire town.Military officials said Golani Brigade infantry troops had surrounded the village Tuesday, imposed a closure and took some houses on the outskirts.

“There is fighting from every direction, including from the air. We are hitting terrorists, we have also taken several prisoners in this fighting. The enemy has more than a few casualties, and overall we are now stabilizing the situation to completely take over the village,” Lieutenant Colonel Itzik Ronen, a deputy brigade commander of a unit operating in the area, told Army Radio.

It looks as if the IDF is now involved in very difficult house to house, room to room clearing to take Bint Jbail.

So much for all those schools and hospitals that Hezbollah started.  The final aim of all training, infrastructure, assistance and help from Hezbollah is to enable people to die in house to house fighting.  The “religion of peace” at work.

Jerusalem Post is reporting:

For the first time since Operation Change of Direction began on July 12 following the abduction of two soldiers in a cross-border attack, the IDF confirmed on Tuesday that a high-ranking Hizbullah leader called Al-Jafar had been killed in an IAF air strike in Lebanon. The IDF would not reveal the official’s exact position but said that he was high up in the organization’s hierarchy and was one of the Hizbullah’s regional commanders.

In another story:

A senior Hizbullah official said Tuesday the guerrillas did not expect Israel to react so strongly to its capture of two IDF soldiers this month.

Mahmoud Komati, the deputy chief of the Hezbollah politburo, also said that his group would not lay down arms.

His comments were the first time that a leader from the Islamic militant group has suggested it miscalculated the consequences of the July 12 cross-border raid that seized the two.

Has there been a strategic miscalculation on the part of Hezbollah, their big brother Syria, and their parent, Iran?  Is Hezbollah back on its heels just a bit?

Iran rattling their saber:

Iranian threats against Israel continue: Iranian media outlets published sections of interviews given by Iranian Ambassador to Lebanon Mohammad-Reza Sheybani, who said that Hizbullah’s military capability has greatly increased in the last decade, and threatened that if Israel harmed Syria, the Iranians would respond with force. 

Brief reponse: I don’t believe this for a nanosecond.  Hmmm … wonder why they feel a need to rattle their saber?  Is their little boy bully taking some blows to the chin?  Are they losing a strategic presense in southern Lebanon?

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.

From Haaretz:

Earlier Tuesday, Israel Defense Forces infantry and armored soldiers surrounded the Hezbollah stronghold in the south Lebanese town on Bint Jbail.

Military officials said Golani Brigade infantry troops had surrounded the village, imposed a closure and seized some houses on the outskirts. But the army said fighting with guerrillas was ongoing.

And from Reuters:

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Israeli forces battled to take over a second Hizbollah stronghold in southern Lebanon on Tuesday in intensifying ground clashes with the guerrillas’ frontier garrison, sources on both sides said.

Calling Bint Jbeil “one of the major Hizbollah centers”, an Israeli military spokesman said tanks and troops had sealed off the town, killed or wounded dozens of guerrillas, and were engaged in sporadic firefights with the hold-outs.

“We are operating in the town. I can’t say we are in total control of the town yet,” the spokesman said.

It appears that the U.S. has given Israel between 10 and 14 days to finish dealing Hezbollah a strategic blow.  First, why a range?  So if Israel has completed its work in 9 days, this is not acceptable?  Giving a range of dates (with a lower bound) is nonsense.  Finally, I have a better idea for the upper bound.  Israel must stand down on hostilities upon completion of the destruction of Hezbollah.

“What a strange title for a post,” you might be thinking.  I am neither a lawyer nor a prophet, so I cannot speak with absolute or infallible authority on the subject of rules of evidence, especially when it comes to the legal requirements.  However, I have followed the Hamdania case with close interest given that (a) I have thought about the issues before during seminary training, and (b) my son will soon deploy to Iraq.

In my last post on this subject, “Premature to Investigate Evidence for Hamdania Marines,” I noted that the prosecution stated that there was no assurance that anyone from Iraq would testify at the trials of the seven Marines and one Navy Corpsman, since there was no protocol or procedure to cause this to occur.  At this point, seminary training kicked in and I began to think about the moral requirements for evidence; after all, these men are on trial for their lives.  As if anyone needed to be reminded, this is a death penalty case. They are on trial for murder.

To begin with I will quote R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law.  After citing Deut 17:6, Deut 19:15, Num. 35:30, Matt. 18:15-16, and 2 Cor. 13:1, Rushdoony says:

As noted previously, we are not under any moral obligation to tell the truth to an enemy seeking to harm or destroy us.  The duty to tell the truth is reserved for normal relationships which are within the framework of law, and to the proceedings of courts of law in church, state, and other institutions.

Even here, however, there are limitations on the power of the court or the demands of other persons.  The Biblical law of testimony does not permit torture or coerced confessions.  Voluntary confession is possible, but two or more witnesses are required for conviction.  More strictly, confession is never cited in the law; its place in a court was apparently only in connection with corroborating evidence.  Thus Achan’s confession required confirming evidence before he was sentenced and executed (Joshua 7:19-26).  The voluntary aspect of Achan’s confession must be noted.  Biblical law preserves the integrity of the individual against forced confession; the right of citizens to be protected from the power of the state to compel their self-incrimination does not appear outside of the Biblical legal tradition.  The Fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution of 1787 embodied this protection: no person can be placed in double jeopardy, “nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself.”

The UK has similar rules regarding confession and evidence, due in no small part to their Christian heritage and tradition.  Biblically, we see that compelling, consistent (two or more), and public witness to the charges against the accused is necessary for conviction.  Further, the penalty for those guilty of perjury is the same punishment as would have been inflicted on the defendant had he been found guilty, thus setting a high bar for testimony (Greg Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, page 556).  Morally speaking, the requirement to testify truthfully in situations of testimony is literally a matter of life and death.  People speaking, and speaking truthfully and consistently, is a requirement for finding the defendant guilty, and the punishment for bearing falsehood is severe.  However, we learn from the prosecutors of the case against the Hamdania Marines that there might be no one appearing on the witness stand to accuse the Marines of anything.

Just as troubling is what might happen if the “witnesses” did show up to testify.  In my “Iraq: Land of Lies and Deceipt,” I cited an article that quoted a U.S. contractor who said:

I’ve been in Iraq for about 18 months now performing construction management. It is simply not possible for me to exaggerate the massive amounts of lies we wade through every single day. There is no way – absolutely none – to determine facts from bulls*** ….

It is not even considered lying to them; it is more akin to being clever – like keeping your cards close to your chest. And they don’t just lie to westerners. They believe that appearances–saving face–are of paramount importance. They lie to each other all the time about anything in order to leverage others on a deal or manipulate an outcome of some sort or cover up some major or minor embarrassment. It’s just how they do things, period.

I’m not trying to disparage them here. I get along great with a lot of them. But even among those that I like, if something happens (on the job) I’ll get 50 wildly different stories, every time. There’s no comparison to it in any other part of the world where I’ve worked. The lying is ubiquitous and constant.

In addition to “saving face,” there are other possible reasons for dishonesty.  Blood money.  It is paid to compensate the families or tribes of people who have been killed, and more specifically, are the victims of collateral damage.  It is custom and standard practice in Iraq, limited to non-combatants by the U.S., and there is little doubt that refusal to pay this blood money to some of the victims of the Haditha incident created the existence of “witnesses” to the “atrocities” in Haditha.  It is possible that money figures into the Hamdania case as well.

As to the fact that this approach (i.e., this high bar for testimony and evidence in the western tradition) means that the job of investigators and prosecutors is more difficult, we have to answer that this is indeed the case, and it is the case by intention.  In fact, the moral rules of evidence that I am discussing contemplate unrewarding outcomes of the application these rules:

Believe it or not, the Bible itself teaches that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. This presumption of innocence is not an artifice of liberal twentieth century jurisprudence. It is biblical. According to biblical justice, if only one witness could testify to the guilt of the accused, the accused walked free. Biblical justice, then, contemplates the chance that a truly guilty criminal might go unpunished. Why? Better that one or more truly guilty men go unpunished than that one innocent man be punished for a crime he didn’t commit. To safeguard against punishing the innocent, the Bible instructs us that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

We live in an increasingly immoral society.  The answer to this immorality is not more severe application of iterrogation techniques or the violation of rights recognized in the U.S. Constitution.  The answer to social immorality is to be found in society’s life with God, not its life with the state.  The state cannot legitimately replace God.

Dan Riehl has outlined a number of troubling things about the alleged event.  A number of things don’t add up about the accounts to date.  Notwithstanding the troublesome accounts of the witnesses, and notwithstanding the moral requirements of two or more witnesses testifying to exactly the same thing, and notwithstanding the deceiptful tradition in which the Iraqis have been raised, and notwithstanding the questionable interrogation techniques used to obtain these “confessions,” the Camp Pendleton eight are still in the brig — and it is possible that no witnesses will show up at the trial, while “confessions” are used where no one was present except the interrogator.

Does anyone else out there find this puzzling and troubling?

Prior:

• Hamdania (Pendleton 8) Update
• Perplexing Lack of Official Cooperation in Hamdania Case
• Camp Pendleton 8 Update
• Jodka’s Lawyer Just Interviewed on O’Reilly
• The Camp Pendleton 8
• My Phone Discussion with Camp Pendleton and Marines in Shackles