Guess His Name

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
--Sympathy for the Devil,
Rolling Stones
_________________

From Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals: United Nations War Crimes Commission,

"In July 1941 Hitler said, ". . .this partisan war again has some advantages for us; it enables us to eradicate everyone who opposes us."

Fast-forward 67 years. From the 2006 Petraeus & Amos FM 3-24 Counterinsurgency Manual,

"Long-term success in COIN depends on the people taking charge of their own affairs and consenting to the government's rule. Achieving this condition requires the government to eliminate as many causes of the insurgency as feasible. This can include eliminating those extremists whose beliefs prevent them from ever reconciling with the government."
(p. 1-1): [1-4]

Everything old is new again.

FM 17-76

"Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together,
or most assuredly we shall all hang separately
--Benjamin Franklin

I'm glad it's your birthday
Happy birthday to you
--Happy Birthday, The Beatles
_____________

Continuing FM 3-24 week, we will look at the tenets of that COIN Bible vis-a-vis our own revolution, which founded this Union 232 years ago today. Essentially, the FM is a refutation of the American revolution. With the benefit of hindsight, we could subtitle it, "Expeditiousness."

The Declaration of Independence placed the colonies in a state of rebellion against the lawful authority of Great Britain (pre-Coalition needs, mind.) 13 colonies in open insurrection, bearing arms against their government, utilizing militias integrated into the Continental Army for the purpose of evicting British forces from our Baby Homeland.

One of the most notable features of the Declaration is the principle of the people's right to denounce and overthrow their leaders should they fail to respect the people's laws and traditions. If true for Americans, why not true for Afghans and Iraqis?

Those peoples are not trying to overthrow their leaders, but rather to evict U.S. combat presence and the flunkies we have installed from their borders. This is the basis of sovereignty and democratic principle. Democracy is not imposed by foreign armies of occupation and Vichy - Quisling governments.

From FM 3-24 (p. D 4): [D 15] -- "Insurgents may be prosecuted legally as criminals for bearing arms against the government." Also, (p. 1-1): [1-4] -- "Long-term success in COIN depends on the people taking charge of their own affairs and consenting to the government's rule. Achieving this condition requires the government to eliminate as many causes of the insurgency as feasible. This can include eliminating those extremists whose beliefs prevent them from ever reconciling with the government." Hit man, anyone?

Basis of COIN operations in Iraq and Afghanistan: kill anyone opposing U.S. interests. Contrast this with the American Revolution, which was not a war of annihilation; Tories were allowed to leave or integrate into society. The new COIN FM is espousing a fascistic approach, one not in line with enlightened democratic thinking.

If this COIN manual were written in 1776, British Commanders would be authorized to kill rebels with impunity.

This was a revolutionary war utilizing unconventional tactics and guerrilla-type warfare. The colonists were guerrillas before guerrillas were cool. Luckily for us, our founding fathers today are revered as heroes and shining beacons of freedom and liberty.

When the USA was a little dog we were rebels; now that we are big dogs we spend a great deal of our national budget to kill rebels, and these rebels are not even in revolt against the U.S. Fighting rebels in our Civil War was one matter, but fighting other country's rebels seems ill-conceived.

In the past our sympathy lay with the rebels. In 1898, U.S. policy led us to war with Spain brought on by its support of Cuban rebels. In 1903 Columbian rebels were recruited and actually stole Panama from Columbia. The U.S. supported those insurgents because they benefited our policies.

In WWI, the U.S. supported the Arab insurgency versus the Ottoman empire. While it was a declared war, the Arabs were not a nation, and fought an unconventional, guerrilla war.

FM 3-24 espouses reactionary, fascist behavior, invalidating our national experience by de facto defining our Founders as insurgent criminals and betraying our roots.

In 2008 we are now the British Army, and FM 3-24 indicts our founders as "illegal combatants," or one may even say, "illegal enemy combatants" (sacrebleu!) Ask any non-lapdog Brit today.

Double Standards

The nation that draws a clear line of demarcation
between its thinking men and its fighting men
will soon have its thinking done by cowards
and its fighting done by fools
--General Sir William Francis Butler

I wish I may, I wish I might,
have the wish, I wish tonight
--Star Light, Star Bright,
Mother Goose Nursery Rhyme
______________

[D-15] . . .Insurgents have no special status under international law. They are not, when captured, prisoners of war. Insurgents may be prosecuted legally as criminals for bearing arms against the government and for other offenses. . . . insurgents are, as a legal matter, criminal suspects within the legal system of the host nation (HN).

[D-16] . . . In the absence of [a Status of Forces Agreement] or some other arrangement with the host nation, DoD personnel in foreign countries may be subject to its laws.

--From "Application of Criminal Laws of the Host Nation," (FM 3-24, Sec. D-4)

_______________

Despite the COIN manual's assertion, in practice, there is no reciprocity. Insurgents are detained as criminal suspects within our jurisdiction, while it is highly unlikely that DoD personnel would be subject to host nation laws.

As there is no Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq or Afghanistan, the legality of the Iraq occupation hinges on a U.N. declaration that the U.S. is a legitimate occupying power; no such legal niceties exist in Afghanistan.

No rational person believes that "DoD personnel in foreign countries may be subject to its laws." If this fantasy statement conferring illusional autonomy is true, why hasn't even one GI been tried or convicted in an Afghani or Iraqi court of law for any legal violations?

Ranger reckons weasel word "may" is a great big rubber yardstick when it comes to the sovereign nature of the HN laws. In fact, the phrase "some other arrangement" could be interpreted as, "We have our boots on your neck."

Far as FM 3-24's contention that "insurgents have no special status under international law," there is the small matter of a legal conflict: D-15 contradicts the Geneva Conventions. Commentary to the GC IV states:

"Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view."

Protocol I, Article 44 to GC III extends P.O.W. status to "insurgents and guerrillas even if they don't distinguish themselves from the civilian population."

Protocol I further gives all combatants, lawful under Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention or not, an equivalent status to 'prisoner of war' with the same rights and protections, when captured, regardless of their adherence to the laws of war. Whilst prisoner of war status under the Third Geneva Convention is contingent upon adherence to the laws of war, under Protocol I no breach of the laws of war can place an enemy combatant outside the scope of any rights or protections afforded to captured lawful enemy combatants.

Protocol I, ratified by 167 countries, was signed by the U.S. in 1977 but has yet to be ratified.

The United Nations and the Geneva Conventions recognize the legitimate nature of insurgency. Not all insurgents are evil or criminal; remember George Washington?

Tomorrow is the 4th of July: What is your Army doing that violates the spirit of the day?

--Jim and Lisa

Jail House Rock -- The Sequel

No performer should attempt to bite off red-hot
iron unless he has a good set of teeth
--Harry Houdini

Ill send an s.o.s. to the world
I hope that someone gets my
Message in a bottle
--Message in a Bottle, The Police

Thank you for getting me out
--The Great Escape (1963)
______________

Ranger will look at the recent Afghanistan prison break at the Sarposa Prison through the lens of the second most popular book of the current federal government (after the Bible) -- FM 3-24, Petraeus and Amos's COIN Field Manual, as the last time we checked into the net the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) was being billed as a counter-insurgency.

The manual was good enough to earn Petraeus his 4th star, but it failed to discuss the use of cell phones. Rule #1 for maintaining prison populations: don't give your prisoners no cell phones.

"Human Rights Vetting" [D-8] says Congress will limit funding for foreign security forces if Department of State (DoS) provides credible information that they have "committed a gross violation of human rights." The conditions in the Sarposa Prison violated those human rights. It would seem that the Rules of Land Warfare would require such action, but the rules are different in the PWOT. It seems inhumane facilities are the rule versus the exception.

After six years in Afghanistan it is reasonable to expect that imprisoned persons be treated with minimum legal and humanistic protections. From an extract of the "Detainee Treatment Act of 2005" published in FM 3-24 [D5]:

"Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of Persons Under Custody or Control of the U.S. Government" [Table D-1]

(a) No individual in the custody of . . . the U.S. Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

(d) . . . "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" means [that] prohibited by the 5th, 8th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the U.S., as defined in the U.S. Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984)."

These standards apply to host nation (HN) as well as U.S.-run facilities. But why is the U.S. running prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq anyway? This should be exclusively a HN function as it is their country and they are trying to establish new societies. Order is not ideally externally imposed upon a developing nation, not six years in.

If being used in violation of standards of human rights, Congress has the moral and legal responsibility to cut off funds. If the military Department of Defense and the civilian DoS fail to report such violations, it is incumbent upon Congress to monitor reliable new sources which indicate inhumane prisoner treatment by our erstwhile client states.

Training and Equipping Foreign Forces [D-32] says Congress should authorize expenditures to train and equip foreign forces, provided DoS verifies the HN "is not in violation of human rights." Establishing the Rule of Law [D-38] states this is a "goal" and "end state" of COIN characterized by:

• A government [which] derives its power from the governed . . .
  
• Sustainable security institutions . . . [Penal institutions] should be perceived by the local populace as fair, just and transparent.
• Fundamental human rights . . . Respect for the full panoply of human rights should be the goal of the HN.

Perceptions trump reality, even in the FM. And who determines when the full panoply will devolve to the indigenous population? Maybe they'll only get a half-panoply. What if they do not want the panoply? (What kind of a word is panoply anyway for an Army FM?)

For sure, the panoply is not trickling down to the poor suckers in the detention facilities (which is another word for "shit-hole.")

If the right of government derives from the people per the COIN manual, one presumes that "people" does not include the foreign invading and occupying army. The imperious nature of U.S. policies and actions are clear. COIN is a fairy tale written to appease Congress into funding wars of aggression with gee-whiz "emergency funding." But words, however pretty, cannot ameliorate U.S. illegitimacy in the region.

[D-39] "In periods of extreme unrest and emergency, HN legal structures . . . may cease to exist . . . Under these conditions, counterinsurgents may need to undertake a significant role in the reconstruction of the HN judicial system in order to establish legal procedures and systems to deal with captured insurgents and common criminals. . . . This support continues as long as insurgents continue to disrupt activities that support the legitimate rule of law."

The term captured insurgents in D-39 is confusing. Are they POW's, since one captures POW's, and arrests criminals? FM 3-24 is rife with such obfuscation of terms, which leads to obfuscation of purpose, which may in fact be the purpose.

What is "legitimate rule of law"? Is this law externally-imposed and mandated, as interpreted by NATO and the U.S.? Or does it mean as seen and interpreted by the indigenous populations?

What is "extreme unrest," and why is extreme unrest in a foreign nation my taxpaid dollar's concern? One must question the legitimacy of the initial U.S. control of the HN. Does NATO/U.S. have the right to impose standards on a non-member state?

The actuality of the PWOT clashes with the phantasy PWOT (P²WOT). The actuality is that prisoners are kept in crude, uncivilized substandard conditions. This jailbreak was mandated by illegitimate government treatment of prisoners and overall government corruption.

Charging prisoners $100/month to keep cell phones is corrupt and self-defeating. The fighting and instability in Iraq and Afghanistan will never reach a sustainable endpoint because legitimacy is lacking. Legitimacy is a fancy word in a fancy COIN manual which is absent from current U.S. policies and actions. Legitimacy does not flow from preemptive and aggressive invasions.

Like the manual says, a government derives its power from the consent of the governed.