The Problem With ISIS

 How do you solve a problem like Maria?
How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?
How do you find a word that means Maria?
A flibbertijibbet! A will-o'-the wisp! A clown! 
--Sound of Music

 I would remind you that extremism  
in the defense of liberty is no vice!  
And let me remind you also that moderation  
in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! 
--Barry Goldwater
_______________________

This is not an "ISIS problem", but rather, a perception problem.

The media is reporting "major setbacks" in Iraq. Typical is The Week magazine's gloss which in the first two sentences called ISIS "militants," "an Islamic terror group" and "Sunni extremists". Maybe it is all of the above, but if you cannot accurately name or define a problem, you cannot solve it. The first lesson of good soldiering is learning to define the problem.

It is strange after more than a decade of war in the region, our press and government do not know how to label the players. They hedge their bets by a scatter-gun approach to naming, but precision is necessary for understanding and determining correct action.

Are extremists necessarily terrorists? One could say Presidential candidate Marco Rubio and most of the other Republican frontrunners are extremists and radicals, along with almost everyone working in the FOX newsroom. We in America are comfortable with extremism as long as it looks and sounds fairly white and Right.

Are ISIS members militants? If so, do they follow the Rules of War? Do we treat them as Geneva Convention Prisoners of War when captured? What do the Iraqi government forces do with captured ISIS fighters?

We are informed that Iraqi militia members are arresting captured ISIS members -- is this good news? When did militia groups get arrest powers?

Do we capture or arrest ISIS members taken on the field of battle? Are they criminals or POWs? Do the GC's identify them as legal combatants?

Does the United States care or believe that Iraqi forces are treating these prisoners in a humane manner? Why does the U.S. turn a blind eye to this travesty?

ISIS was born because the Shia Iraqi government imposed upon the country never was free, representative or non-sectarian. If I were a Sunni man, would I support the corrupt Shia government or a corrupt Sunni group?

At this point, is ISIS really a terror group? They use terror tactics, but so does the elected government of Iraq.

Further, what is the choice for the U.S. taxpayer? Do we shrug our shoulders and flip off the problem by throwing a few thousand soldiers / advisers, more or less, into the fray? Can we admit that there is no true, equitable or ethical position on either side of the equation?

Our participation on either side sullies the concept of democratic thought and action.

Why Is Fallujah Lost?

The sun shines
People forget
 Come and join the party
Dress to kill
Dress yourself to kill 
--Eminence Front, The Who

 'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear
And grace my fears relieved
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believed 
--Amazing Grace, John Newton 

'fore they get ya chainsmoking;
pistol loaded
'fore they get ya chainsmoking;
You can go with this
You can go with that 
--Weapon of Choice,
Fatboy Slim
_____________________

Why was Fallujah won, than lost? It is a fallacy of conceit. Let us see it through the lens of the Geneva Convention (GC), that noble effort to instill rules of conduct into the act of war.

The GC's are not a quaint relic of bygone days but rather the most evolved effort to separate man from beast in perhaps his most brute undertaking. If we ignore them out of spite or expeditiousness, we have taken a decided atavistic turn. If we fail to comport ourselves according to basic standards, then we must ask why we fight in the first place, and we must surely not hide behind a notion of "helping the people." When what we say differs from what we do, the people understand this.

In the first Gulf War, soldiers gave themselves up willingly to the U.S. hoping that they would be accorded the general civilities which the U.S. Army has generally been known to bestow. This perception changed absolutely in our recent Gulf War expeditions, and that law's detour figures into the current response in Iraq.

The GC's require certain basic humanities be recognized. For example, soldiers -- more specifically, the chain of command -- must mark and identify graves and individual enemy dead whenever possible. This is both military and civilized behavior. However, in recent wars from Korea on, the United States has buried enemy dead with bulldozers and little concern for the GC constrictions concerning the dead. Ditto in Fallujah.

Additionally, we barricaded civilian hospitals and denied medical facilities to the insurgents, also a violation of the GC's. The Red Cross has always maintained a space separate from that of the combatants. Hospitals are not to be militarized, targeted  or denied to any wounded person. Once a fighter is severely wounded that person becomes protected, the same as if he were a non-combatant.

By way of background, when Ranger and his fellows were training as SF officers deploying to combat in the Republic of Vietnam, they received a one-hour block of instruction on the GC's, and a GC card to carry on our person, which basically amounted to squat. No one I knew received anything but eyewash training on the subject.

Why is the government of Iraq destroying one of its own cities? Why is the U.S. providing the money and weapons of mass destruction to facilitate these operations?

How is the Iraqi government's suppression of their citizens different from the Syrian government's treatment of their rebels? Why does the U.S. aid the rebels in Syria, yet kill them in Iraq? They are indistinguishable in a police line up. It is a paradox, a bit like a Zen Koan.

--Jim and Lisa

Mufti

Angel Boligan (Mexico)

They seek him here, they seek him there,
His clothes are loud, but never square.
It will make or break him so hes got to buy the best,
cause hes a dedicated follower of fashion
--The Kinks, Dedicated Follower of Fashion
_______________

The Special Forces Museum at Ft. Bragg is actually now half of a Special Operations Museum, and it is what is contained in the newest wing that concerns me.

In the Iraq and Afghanistan room there are numerous photos of SF soldiers in Afghanistan festooned with all the implements of war, except they are not wearing uniforms -- they are in civilian clothes. What gives? Do we no longer comply with the Geneva Conventions [GC]?

In World War II, the Office of Strategic Services always wore uniforms when operational in Nazi-occupied Europe. The Studies and Operations Group (MACVSOG) always wore uniforms, even when operating deep into denied areas. Why have the current SF troops abandoned this protocol?

If captured out of uniform, these troops fail to meet the bar per the GC's of being deemed a Prisoner of War. If it applies to them, it applies to us. Why is the U.S. cutting corners?

Then again, uniforms are only 25% of the equation. The GC's require a military chain of command, uniforms, open carrying of weapons and the attack of military targets. Clearly the U.S. Special Forces have a military organization and carry their weapons openly, but what about the attacking only military targets part?

Oh well, two out of four ain't bad; close enough for government work.

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

Idealism

Keep looking below surface appearances. Don't shrink
from doing so because you might not like what you you find.
--Colin Powell

Men in general judge more from appearance than from reality.
All men have eyes, but few have the gift of penetration.
--Niccolo Machiavelli

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear
______________

In the last week Ranger has been called both an "idealist" and "bitter" by different readers. My psychotherapist says these two stances are not at odds, as idealists often become bitter after disappointments. Hopefully, my patrol base lies somewhere in between.

The idealist comment was aimed at my attitude concerning the Geneva Conventions (GC), so Ranger looked deeper into the connotations.

The expectation that the U.S. should comply with the GC does not make me an idealist, but rather, a realist. As a signatory to the Conventions and a supposedly civilized nation, the U.S. should adhere to the standards contained therein.

Of course another so-called civilized nation, Nazi Germany, recognized the GC's as they applied to the French, U.S. and British POW's -- unless they were Jewish, that is. In addition, the Nazis starved and physically destroyed Polish and Russian POW's in a systematic manner.

When a nation decides they will apply protections selectively, in contravention of their laws and treaties, their right to the title of civility or morality or legality is revoked. Either all are free and protected, or none are. That is the difference between a democratic and a fascist state. That the Nazis applied GC protections sometimes and brutalized at others made of them a bestial nation.

However, the problem for the U.S. extends beyond the application of the GC to the treatment of POW's. Even if the U.S. had honored its GC commitment, the phony wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would still be illegal ventures. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Both illegal invasions and subsequent occupations were only justified by the constructed Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©), an illusion created by the master prestidigitator George Bush.

Ranger misses the point when he argues for the application of the GC when the war itself is illegal. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor after a hastily-delivered, patched together declaration of war and they were bad guys. The U.S. invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq sans the niceties of a declaration of war, so what are we?

The bitter comment was targeted at my questioning the effectiveness of current U.S. military projects in the PWOT. Since the predicate of legal military maneuvers is mistaken all else that issues from that action is necessarily incorrect.

You can't make the endeavors silk purses regardless of how correctly the detainees may be treated.