Read on Twitter
I know I'm a few days late to this, but just read @Anand_Gopal_'s thought-provoking piece on America's views of the laws of war and, well, a few things... 1/ https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/12/21/americas-war-on-syrian-civilians
First, I have seen lots of criticism on twitterdotcom that Anand is excusing war crimes. That's nonsensical, as he notes well. https://twitter.com/Anand_Gopal_/status/1339583619707195392
His point, and it's a good one, is that the US deploys whole squadrons of lawyers to vet each airstrike, and the laws of war are mushy enough (and give enough deference to mil leaders), that they can find a legal justification for many attacks.
As he grimly notes: "After such deaths occur, no independent arbiter adjudicates the U.S.’s actions—only vanquished forces ever get dragged before an international tribunal. The Pentagon is left to judge itself, and, unsurprisingly, almost always finds in its own favor. "
But not every attack passes the test, and here I differ from Anand. Lawyers watch the airstrikes from the AOC but the artillery barrages on Raqqa were clearly far less controlled (the Marines bragged they burned out barrels, most arty since Vietnam, etc). https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/flashpoints/2017/11/02/marine-artillery-barrage-of-raqqa-was-so-intense-two-howitzers-burned-out/
Even under the expanded US def of proportionality and discrimination, they failed their own test on many salvos, and so they def committed war crimes. https://raqqa.amnesty.org/briefing.html
Second point: much of the piece is a review of @NC_Renic's new book on asymmetric warfare, which I haven't read yet, and so will not judge second hand. I do need to address one idea though, assuming Anand represents it correctly. This is the idea that there is a moral ...
...requirement for soldiers to place themselves in danger, or else the whole endeavor is murder. People have been arguing this since the bows at Agincourt (at least), and I still don't find it persuasive. War is not sport. It is not fair.
It is vile and bloody and even when it is legal, no act within it ever feels moral. That's a movie. The laws of war don't seek to make it fair, they seek to minimize the suffering. That some suffering will happen no matter is baked in to the ugly act.
To steal from Tim O'Brien: "A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things men have always done. If a story seems moral, do not believe it. If at the end of a..."
"...war story you feel uplifted, or if you feel that some small bit of rectitude has been salvaged from the larger waste, then you have been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie. There is no rectitude whatsoever. There is no virtue...."
"As a first rule of thumb, therefore, you can tell a true war story by its absolute and uncompromising allegiance to obscenity and evil."
The piece cites drone strikes in Pakistan and the battle of Raqqa as examples of US forces out of danger, and thus failing morally. A ref to Fallujah in '04 is only made to show how out-of-step that particular battle was; Raqqa is the "true face".
But this ignores the US occupations of Iraq/Afg, where far more US troops killed far more civilians. And the presence of soldiers on the ground (to return to Renic's point on being exposed to danger) did little to either add moral value or draw the fire away from civilians.
Third, Anand asks whether, in light of the broad legality of such destruction, we should rethink the whole endeavor. "Should [war] be fought, and, if so, fought differently?" He says human rights orgs aren't interested in this conversation. Well...
On the first half, he's right. Human rights org do not determine whether any particular war should be fought. That's as good thing. We don't have the power, nor should we. Watchdogs aren't executives.
But on the second part, there is a large movement of human rights orgs, humanitarian orgs, and states trying to change how war is fought, based on Raqqa (and others). The talks began in Austria in 2019 - @explosiveweapon is organizing the NGOs: http://www.inew.org/declaration-negotiations/
The point is to stop the use of explosive weapons (those with wide effects, like large aircraft bombs and salvos of inaccurate rockets) in areas with civilians. 70 states are currently working on the declaration: http://www.inew.org/more-than-70-states-engage-in-discussions-on-political-declaration/
Will it stop the next Raqqa? Probably not. But it is an international recognition of exactly the problem Anand cites, and norms like this can be adopted over time. Much of IHL is over 100 years old, but initiatives like this are ways to keep up with the times.
Last thing: I am a great admirer of Anand's work: "No Good Men Among the Living" is probably the best book I've ever read on the Afghanistan war. All of the above is shared in the interest of dialogue and goodwill. /end https://bookshop.org/books/no-good-men-among-the-living-america-the-taliban-and-the-war-through-afghan-eyes/9781250069269
