|
Did Rumsfeld Authorize War Crimes?
The Secret Rules of Engagement in Iraq
By Stephen Soldz
05/02/08 --- - Wikileaks has obtained the long kept secret
Rules of Engagement (ROE) for U.S. troops in Iraq. This document
sets out the rules guiding authorized U.S. troop actions in that
occupation. While the Wikileaks document dates from 2005, as
these ROEs generally change slowly the rules for today are
likely similar, though we can't be sure, of course, to what
extent more recent ROE's differ.
Among
several interesting nuggets in the ROE, it provides indications
that U.S. attacks likely to result in civilian deaths required
authorization at the top of the Pentagon, by the SECDEF
(Secretary of Defense). Thus, the ROE states repeatedly; "If the
target is in a HIGH CD [collateral damage] area, SECDEF approval
is required." And what is the definition of a High Collateral
Damage area? The ROE contains a set of explicit definitions of
its terms. There we find High Collateral Damage Targets defined
as:
"Those targets that, if struck, have a ten percent probability
of causing collateral damage through blast debris and
fragmentation and are estimated to result in significant
collateral effects on noncombatant persons and structures,
including:
(A) Non-combatant casualties estimated at 30 or greater;
(B) Significant effects on Category I No Strike protected sites
in accordance with Ref D; (
C) In the case of dual-use facilities, effects that
significantly impact the non-combatant population, including
significant effects on the environment/facilities/infrastructure
not related to an adversary's war making ability; or
(D) Targets in close proximity to known human shields."
Thus, all attacks, except those in self-defense or active
pursuit, with a reasonable possibility of harming 30 or more
civilians needed approval from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.
Presumably such approval would need to be in writing. The ROE
thus suggest that there may exist an extensive documentary
record of requests, and possibly Rumsfeld's approval or
rejection, for attacks with the potential for resulting in
significant civilian casualties. Congress should demand access
to these documents to determine the extent to which attacks
resulting in civilian casualties were authorized, potentially
providing insight into who was responsible for possible war
crimes committed in the course of the occupation.
While much of the rest of the ROE appears rather unsurprising,
there are a couple of other interesting aspects to the document.
One is that the main "hostile forces," from the U.S. perspective
are the Baath remnants, such as the Special Republican Guard and
the Baath Party Militia. There is no mention of Iraqi al-Qaida
or its predecessors. These predecessors, led by al-Zarqawi, had
identified with and pledged allegiance to al-Qaida as early as
October, 2004, yet they receive no mention in the ROE. The ROE
rather refers to Baath forces that "have transitioned from overt
conventional resistance to insurgent methods of resistance."
While the Sunni al-Qaida predecessors do not make the list of
hostile forces, the Shia-based Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr
does make the list of "Declared Hostile Forces," However, as of
the ROE's writing, this status was "suspended and such
individuals will not be engaged except in self-defense."
Another interesting feature of the ROE is a complete ignoring of
the language barriers separating U.S. troops from the Iraqi
populace. Thus, in a section on graduated force, the first stage
is "shout verbal warnings to halt." There is not even a mention
of the fact that most Iraqis cannot understand warnings shouted
in English. In general, the ROE is notable for lacking any
recognition that, in an "insurgency," there are at best blurry
boundaries between combatants and noncombatants. Thus, there is
no emphasis of the need to take extraordinary measures to
protect the civilian population. Rather, it provides a rationale
for virtually any attacks:
"US Forces may always use force, up to and including deadly
force, to neutralize and/or detain individuals who commit
hostile acts or exhibit hostile intent against US Forces or
Coalition Forces."
As we have seen repeatedly, from the numerous roadblock killings
of civilians to the Haditha massacre, this ROE authorization to
use force can be used to provide cover for virtually any
civilian killings. The ROE suggests that preventing such deaths
was low on the priority list of those officials writing the
rules of engagement for the occupation. Even so, a military
study found that less than half of US occupation soldiers would
report a unit member for violating an ROE.
Thus, even the limited protections provided civilians in the ROE
were often not present on the ground.
Stephen Soldz is psychoanalyst, psychologist, public health
researcher, and faculty member at the Boston Graduate School of
Psychoanalysis. He maintains the
Psychoanalysts for
Peace and Justice web site and the
Psyche,
Science, and Society blog
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse
and meaningful commentary. Do not include
personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling
outside our guidelines – those including
personal attacks and profanity – are not
permitted.
See our complete
Comment Policy
and
use this link to notify us if you have concerns
about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and remove any
inappropriate postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
