Lawyers Review Airstrike Plans
An extra check on actions when there is the risk of civilian casualties
COMBINED AIR AND SPACE OPERATIONS CENTER, MIDDLE EAST—Among the 50-plus troops analyzing intelligence on the floor of the combat operations center, there is a military lawyer on hand around-the-clock. If there is a question about the legality of a strike, particularly when it endangers civilians, the lawyer provides advice reflecting the Law of Armed Conflict—the international treaties that prohibit the intentional targeting of noncombatants and require militaries to minimize risks to civilians. "And yet it's war," says Air Force attorney Col. Bill Carranza, the chief JAG officer here.
In counterinsurgency wars, the line between civilians and insurgents gets blurry, since insurgents and noncombatants live side by side. As a result, says Lt. Col. Walt Manwill, chief of combat operations here, rules-of-engagement questions abound. Just having someone standing by to consult on legal issues, he adds, can give commanders a useful check on their options.
Abundant caution. Some U.S. Army officials complain, though, that the Air Force is too cautious and that measures to avoid civilian casualties may increase the danger to U.S. troops. The Combined Air Operations Center "is a bureaucracy really in charge of covering its ass," says one Army general. "To make sure there are no Air Force prints on anything."
Carranza is empathetic to the frustrations of soldiers on the front lines of an amorphous battlefield. "The guys on the ground are always concerned about somebody second-guessing them when they're getting shot at," he says. "My job is to give them options." He recalls an incident in which a helicopter was down, and U.S. personnel knew someone was nearby and that he was a threat. "The question was, do we blow the guy up?" Carranza says. "You really are talking about a human life. My recommendation was that you have enough intelligence to shoot, if you feel it's appropriate." In the end, the commander didn't order the strike.
Such uncertain scenarios are increasingly common, particularly in Afghanistan. That why the JAG officer on call sits through the shift next to the Afghanistan duty officer, where they can consult easily, says Manwill. Just as he points in their direction, the JAG lawyer across the room bows his head in frustration and begins to gently bat himself with an empty water bottle.
Reader Comments
Air Force Female Captain in Iraq, on Targeting and ROEs.
As I understand it, a female Air Force Captain was one of a number of lawyers who were assigned the jobs of interpreting the ROEs and selecting or approving targets. Can you please tell me who she is and how to contact her? Thanks
Lawyers Review Airstrike Plans
While the Army general's comments are overblown, the current Air Force JAG leadership, particularly the Deputy Judge Advocate General, need to take the blame for the Army's view.
As we speak, the top lawyers for the Air Force spend more time trying to "look good in the shower" than they do in trying to provide top-notch legal advice to the field. The Deputy JAG has made a career speaking to groups in his desert BDU/ABUs about what an outstanding lawyer he is while failing to recognize delivering appropriate air power to the Marines and soldiers on the ground are more important than whether the Air Force enjoys positive PR.
As evidence of this attitude, this article was sent to all AF lawyers as "a must read" from the Deputy Judge Advocate General despite the lack of real legal issues or education involved; it is great public relations, however. This senior AF lawyer and his boss, the current top AF lawyer have consistently failed to deliver difficult advice to the AF leadership on torture and water boarding, the new tanker lease initiative, the Thunderbirds contracts, to name but a few, and on any other issue which might negatively impact their image.
As a senior Air Force JAG with Air Operations Center experience, I guarantee that the rank and file JAGs deliver unmatched, accurate, timely advice to commanders to fulfill their assigned missions. Unfortunately, the lack of actual hands-on experience by the two top AF lawyers (out of over 63 years combined service, The Judge Advocate General and the Deputy Judge Advocate General have but 7 years time as the head lawyer at an installation or numbered air force but 24 combined years inside the Beltway) bodes ill for the forces in combat.
US Army -- Cognitive Dissonance at its finest
The comment from the Army general in this piece is, at best, disingenuous. Airmen put precision weapons where our troops want . Ms Mulrine should have gotten the scoop from the troops whov'e absolutely sworn by the support they get from the AF F-15s, A-10s, AC-130s, and UAVs dedicated to strike, flex, & CAS. Ground commanders are customers -- of many -- which the AF has bent over backwards to support in the COIN fight (e.g.'s: increasing and accelerating UAV CAPs to twice the Joint requirement over the past two years, taking thousands of soldiers and marines off of the roads -- and saving lives -- in Iraq by utilizing airlift "convoys," and filling Ground Component billets out of hide -- I could go on). Many, if not most engagements now end with a PGM through on a bad guy's head. All this "gentleman" can find time to do is complain about the AF trying to do things better in order to strengthen the Joint Force and America's position. He clearly has too much leisure time on his hands.
advertisement
