Making War More Civilian-Friendly

Charli Carpenter identifies some "good news stories" relating to the use of military weapons in urban settings. First of all, as noted by the Danger Room, the US military is pulling its "less-than-lethal" Active Denial System out of Afghanistan after just deploying it there a short while ago. This is due more to policy and perception issues than technical issues. I, for one, am very supportive of the decision to return to the previous "population-centric COIN approach" of authorizing our troops to shoot up busses and cars with old-fashioned lead ammunition as the preferred way to stop potentially hostile vehicles (/snark off).

In other news, the Israeli military is revising its operations playbook to restrict the use of white phosphorus munitions in urban areas, following its brutally one-sided armed conflict with Gaza more than a year and a half ago. From the official report, I note this paragraph on page 24:

The use of smoke-screening munitions containing phosphorus during the Gaza Operation was also addressed in a special command investigation dedicated to the issue. This investigation determined that the policy of using such munitions was consistent with Israel’s obligations under the Law of Armed Conflict. Nonetheless, following that investigation, the Chief of the General Staff ordered the implementation of the lessons learned from the investigation, particularly with regard to the use of such munitions near populated areas and sensitive installations. As a consequence, the IDF is in the process of establishing permanent restrictions on the use of munitions containing white phosphorus in urban areas.

This might be a good thing for the US Army and Marine Corps to consider as well. I don't say this believing that armed forces ought to "prioritize humanitarian concerns over tactical considerations," as Dr. Carpenter suggests this trend indicates. I think these actions are being taken strictly out of concern that the US and Israeli militaries really don't want the bad press, not that they are overly concerned about civilian casualities while engaging enemy forces. But I'm a cynic. I agree with the sentiment, but don't believe it to be any admission that there's anything wrong with the use of the Active Denial System or white phosphorus munitions. War will always be hell.

Comments

[Ray]

J:
I don't (emphatically) agree that civilians are to be disregarded in warfare. What is the purpose if an Army is not a civilised one? Without discipline and principles of combat it becomes a mob. Also, the trend towards learning from restraint should be part of the evolution towards the desired goal- especially when that rather worn phrase "hearts and minds" is envisaged. If civilians had been a low priority in Cyprus (EOKA) when I was there, and the training had not taken over as an automatic reaction, I'd have shot and killed an eleven-year-old boy, selling newspapers from his pedal cycle, suddenly rushing into a soccer game in session on the pitch, and could have been about to toss grenades or something. Training was to kill the real terrorists, not the would-be bystander.

[Ray]

J; I've read what you said again-my difficulty is that I read it as being somewhat ambigious, and I may be off-beam here. Where do you stand regarding the civilian in the "target" areas?

[J.]

To be crystal clear, I believe civilian noncombatants should be protected from military weapons effects to the greatest extent possible. I think the US military has tried to obey the laws of war and that McCrystal's attempt to stress the importance of avoiding civilian deaths was a good one.

But (there's always a but) it certainly is made more difficult when the adversary is not uniformed. And the idea that civilians should be left out of the impact of war has become increasingly difficult since, oh, say 1915. My major point is that I do not favor this focus on excluding the use of unconventional and less-than-lethal weapons because of the possible impact on civilians when, on the other hand, so many of them are dieing from conventional weapons.

It seems hipocritical to me. If you're worried about civilian deaths, then you have to be less quick to pull the trigger on any weapon system, not just the ones that get bad press.

[Ray]

No, not hypocritical, I think, just circumspect- as I see it, anyway.
Depends on the situation presented, I guess, whether there's a reaction favourable (Pavlovian) to the scene, or time to think about it.

[George Smith]

Here's an analysis of some of the bad publicity and controversy that followed the pain ray around.

DoD's publicity campaign, which simply involved enlisting as many journalists as possible to stand in a field and get fired on, backfired catastrophically.