On Combat

Sunday 10 Feb, Army Sgt van Vela was sentenced to 10 years in the killing of an Iraqi his patrol had detained. This is an affirmation that the US places a heavy emphasis on the distinction between lawful conduct of war, and the unlawful use of violence against non-combatants.

Just Conduct in War (jus in belo) Reinforced: The rules of engagement used by US troops are the distillation of the laws of armed combat and the just war tradition. Lawful conduct in war (jus in belo) is guided by two moral imperatives: proportionality and discrimination. Discrimination refers to a prohibition on the intentional killing of non-combatants. The distinction between combatants and non-combatants may be a narrow one in a counterinsurgency situation where it is exceedingly difficult to discern an insurgent hiding within the people, but the distinction is a vast moral one. Vela’s patrol violated the principle of discrimination when Vela shot and killed the unarmed Genei Nesir Khudair Al-Janabil in their custody on May 11, 2007.

Sleep Not an Excuse: the shooting took place three days into a patrol, with the snipers getting as few as 3 hours of sleep in 72. Lack of sleep is a constant in a combat zone, the sleep deprivation on this patrol seems extreme, but does not change the fact that a non-combatant in American hands was shot dead. If the patrol made the wrong decision in a clear-cut case (in custody, unarmed), how could they be expected to make the right call in more difficult situations springing from their long-range sniper mission? The team leader must share some of the blame, and was already punished for his part in a cover-up (demotion, 120-day confinement).

Heavy Sentence. Vela’s 10-year sentence is a heavy one, indicating the seriousness of this offense. It tracks with the last two years of US military efforts to stop the deaths of Iraqi civilians. Military justice is appropriately following this emphasis. For the wider trend, see former Marine JAG Gary Solis’ article in the LA Times: Is Military Justice Broken? After Several Bad Cases In Iraq, The System Is Showing Signs That It Works Well.

US Political Fallout is inevitable based on one’s political ideology. Anti-war activists may use the trial to argue that insurgencies are “atrocity-producing” situations; and argue against all war. (see Chris Hedges, A Culture of Atrocity) Hawks are likely to “support the troops” backing whatever measures they need to take to protect themselves as they perform a difficult mission on our behalf; and because of that they deserve our unconditional support.

As difficult as counterinsurgencies are, the practical benefits of discrimination and not harming civilians are substantial in building confidence and winning hearts and minds. The moral benefits are even more important in the long run, because they define us and define the greater good we are fighting to create: freedom, democracy.

Supporting the troops is a great principle, but this support has its limits when a line so clear is crossed; part of our support of the troops has to include sanctions against those who step outside the allowable boundaries. These boundaries have to be vigorously protected, because they will occasionally be crossed. Swift action is then mandated to correct transgressions. Without boundaries, war spirals into gangster violence.