The concept of Israel using only "proportional" force in response to the Hamas terror raid, that killed perhaps 1,400 people, is one that escapes everyone who discusses the issue, whether pro-Israel or anti-Israel. Let's take a look, shall we?
The issue of "proportionate" use of force is in the news again. The idea that a more powerful military must restrain its use of force to match a smaller enemy's ability to kill is astounding. As is the body count level of analysis that tries to claim you must stop operations when the number of enemy casualties reaches the level of casualties your enemy inflicted on you in their initial attack. Nobody has a clue.
Note that I was taught about this concept of "proportionality" when I was a new soldier:
Let me quote the relevant part of my Soldier's Manual of Common Tasks (Skill Level 1):
Attack only combat targets. Use the firepower necessary to accomplish your mission but avoid needless destruction.This is skill level 1, people. Not the Jedi Knights' School of Advanced Military Studies curriculum.
On a related issue, Hamas didn't even reach the minimal starting assumption of attacking only combat targets before calculating how much force to use. Hamas struck civilian targets to deliberately murder, rape, and kidnap (for delayed rape and eventual murder) innocents.
We were also taught not to use human shields in Basic Training.
That's
what entry-level American soldiers were (are?) taught. Yet it escapes so many of
the highly educated class lecturing us on what war should be. As I always say, check the Definitions Section rather than rely on common definitions and conclusions drawn from that.
Here is an old post of mine where I quoted a good description of the basics of the rules of war:
The fundamental aim of LOAC [NOTE: Laws of Armed Conflict] is to prevent unnecessary casualties and destruction within the context of military conflict. In pursuit of that goal, three principles govern: necessity, distinction, and proportionality. In general, “necessity” requires that combatants only attack targets necessary to accomplish military objectives. “Distinction” requires that combatants not only distinguish between civilians and combatants, but they also distinguish themselves from civilians (through the wearing of uniforms, use of clearly identified military vehicles, etc.). Finally, “proportionality” requires a combatant to use only that force necessary to accomplish the military objective. It does not require you to use the same force as your enemy (you can bring a JDAM to a gun fight).I added a clarification of the last "proportionality"point to address one quibble to account for a possible misinterpretation:
I'd want a better description of the "proportional" principle. After all, Eisenhower noted “Never send a battalion to take a hill if a regiment is available.” Was Eisenhower advocating a war crime? Obviously not.
One other thing has not changed in the decade since I wrote that post:
Too many people who write about American or Israeli "violations" of the laws of war are simply attempting to make us less effective in fighting our enemies. All is not fair in war, to be sure. But all is fair in love of our enemies, it seems.
America used a friggin' MOAB against jihadis in a lawful fashion. I'll trust the Israelis to order a fight within the rules of war.
Fighting by the rules of war won't prevent civilian casualties. That's inevitable on a populated battlefield. Holding our forces--or the forces of our allies--to a casualty-free standard for civilians is unrealistic. As long as civilian deaths aren't deliberate but a consequence of pursuing military objectives, the conduct is legal.
But that doesn't mean the rules are pointless:
If we let our troops loose to kill as they see fit to terrorize the population into submission, they become judge, jury, and executioner. Even if they make all the right decision in a fight with enemies in civilian clothes, our troops will always wonder if they were right in the decisions they make.
Rules of engagement take much of the judging and responsibility out of their hands and put the responsibility on the leaders where it belongs. As long as soldiers know they followed the lawful rules of engagement they can come home with their heads held high, having fought as soldiers. As long as they allow us to fight and win, this is just fine.
I'm glad we've finally settled this misconception. Well, we haven't. Which is why I compiled this new post. Stupid dies hard. So I'm sure I'll link to it in the future.
Sorry if I sound bitter. It really isn't a matter of a technical issue widely misunderstood. One can make mistakes and overlook what others with more knowledge know is an obvious error. Or rely on someone you think knows the issue. People make mistakes. I've made embarrassing mistakes. I'm sure I've made many I don't know about.
The proportionality error is used so much to hamstring America and Israel in a fight against monsters that it goes beyond mere error. So it eludes my powers of explanation to understand why we hate us. Even in the face of grotesque Hamas hate masquerading as "resistance" rampaging through Israel--amply advertised in living color by the terrorists themselves!--Westerners can fling their panties at the jihadis and preemptively berate the good guys.
UPDATE: Well look what enemy of America is trying to hamstring Israel?
"Israel's actions have gone beyond self-defense," Mr. Wang claimed, urging the Israeli government to stop what he called “collective punishment of civilians in Gaza,” according to the readout from China's foreign ministry.
The authors of the 1989 Tienanmen Square massacre have no right to accuse Israel of over-reaction and going beyond self defense.
The authors of the ongoing subliminal genocide of its Uighur people have no right to protest Israel on the basis of collective punishment--which is wrong in any case applied to an invasion to defeat an aggressor.
UPDATE: And keep in mind that our jihadi enemies (and sadly too many of their supporters in the West) have "solved" the problem of protecting your soldiers from the guilt of killing civilians in war by simply declaring civilians to be targets that the killers will be celebrated for killing. And the more gruesome manner, the better. Babies not excepted. We in the West must not want that solution.
UPDATE: And let me add some perspective on the false compassion of overly restrictive rules of engagement.
UPDATE: Don't buy the notion that Israel is inflicting "collective punishment" on Gazans as it fights Hamas.
Some say it is just like Russia's "collective punishment" of Ukraine by bombing Ukrainian electricity infrastructure over the last winter. I don't believe the rules of war provide for that. Russia's attacks weren't a violation of the rules of war because they were collective punishment. They were violations because they were deliberate attacks on civilians to freeze them and compel them to demand their government accept defeat in the war.
And Israel's attacks aren't collective punishment. It is insane to think that Israel can't wage war against the proto-state that Hamas controls--as long as Israel distinguishes between civilian and military targets, with damage to civilian targets (and civilian deaths) proportional to achieving the military objective.
Nor is Israeli refusal to act as the line of supply for Hamas collective punishment of Gazans. Egypt is free to supply Gazan civilians--as if Hamas won't take what it needs-- through its separate crossing. Why isn't Egypt getting the "bad Israel" treatment?
My understanding of the rules of war is that collective punishment is designed to prevent an occupying army from rounding up and murdering innocent civilians to punish a village for an enemy sniper killing an occupying soldier inside that village.
I really wish the Pentagon with hold a press briefing on the rules of war for the reporters who cover conflict. Heck, I could use it.
UPDATE: If you wonder why I want a Pentagon briefing, this 461-page JAG PDF is a good reason.
UPDATE: I listened to Geoffrey Corn from Texas Tech University explain the laws of war. He was preaching to the TDR choir. First of all, he said they apply to all parties in war--even actors like Hamas.
He said the two biggest misconceptions about the laws of war are misunderstanding "proportionality"--both on comparative weaponry used (you can use much more to end the threat) and wrongly measuring that by comparative casualties; and who is responsible for civilian casualties--inflicting civilian casualties isn't actually illegal. What is illegal is deliberately killing civilians or failing to mitigate casualties as much as you can while carrying out your mission.
Unaddressed was what I think is the role of laws of war in protecting your own troops from psychological damage in a business that is basically killing other humans.
I'd also like a discussion of the concept of "collective punishment"
that I believe critics of Israel are getting wrong, too. In some ways,
the issue of "proportionality" and "responsibility for civilian
casualties" cover it. But it is a bit different, I think.
This was great. As I continue to watch the massive misconception of the laws of war by all sides in the debate, I start to wonder if I'm nuts. At least on this issue, I am not.
If I can find a stand-alone version of what I watched on the Fox News live coverage I will add it.
UPDATE: Here it is:
NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.
