WarrenPeese

by Charles

As noted in my previous post, I’ve been critical of Donald Rumsfeld’s performance as Defense Secretary. But my opposition does not extend to cheap shots. An example is the hatchet job by Robert Burns of Associated Press, making stuff up about Rumsfeld’s Tuesday speech at the American Legion National Convention. Thankfully, McQ at QandO exposes the rank bias that Burns is guilty of, comparing Burns’ interpretation of Rumsfeld’s speech with Rumsfeld’s actual words.  [Update:  In typical fashion, AP changed its content without announcing any changes.  See the QandO update.]

The worst part of Burns’ misleading reportage was that it was unquestioningly spread to other news sources such as CNN, ABC, Fox and who knows how many other outlets. Mainstream media was already burned with fauxtography in the Israel-Hezbollah War, yet here we are again, witnessing a mainstream media reporter peddling faux news. Predictably, the Democratic Party took the Burns’ hit piece and ran with it, never mind the actual text of the speech. [Update: Allahpundit has found more interpretation problems concerning Rumsfeld’s speech.]

It’s hard enough fighting an information war against al Qaeda and its sympathizers. The challenge is all the greater when a sometimes hostile media twists and distorts the words of the very people who are directly engaged in fighting this War Against Militant Islamism.  Concerning the Information War, Rumsfeld is dead right:

Read more

by Charles

This may no longer be an issue in the present situation because so many civilians have fled southern Lebanon.  But if not there, the topic remains relevant because it is likely that one party or another will use human shields in future engagements.  In the Israel-Hezbollah War, Hezbollah has been clearly violating Article 28 of the Geneva Conventions for protecting civilians:

The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

If Hezbollah does not allow civilians to leave, they are committing a war crime because it is illegal to take hostages.  There also provisions under Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions, although Israel (and the United States) is not a signatory.  However, the U.S. and Israel have accepted many of its provisions under customary international law.  When Hezbollah launches rockets from an apartment building into Israeli territory, that building has become a base for military operations.  Same principles apply for mosques, hospitals, schools, etc.  Each time Hezbollah launches a rocket, they are committing a terrorist act because their target is a zip code, not a military target.  So far, over 3,000 terrorist rocket attacks have occurred.  It is a legitimate act of self-defense to take out those launchers and rockets before militant Islamists launch again.  If civilians die in those counterstrikes, the fault lies with Hezbollah for putting their own people in peril.  Former professor of human rights Yoram Dinstein:

Customary international law is certainly more rigorous than the [Geneva] Protocol on this point.  It has traditionally been perceived that, should civilian casualties ensue from an attempt to shield combatants or a military objective, the ultimate responsibility lies with the belligerent [party] placing innocent civilians at risk.  A belligerent…is not vested by the laws of international armed conflict with the power to block an otherwise legitimate attack against combatants (or military objectives) by deliberately placing civilians in harm’s way.

The above is cited from his 2004 book The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict.  Admittedly, Dinstein have may a bias toward Israel since he was a professor at Tel Aviv University.

Israel doesn’t have a spotless record in the matter of human shields either.  Just a month ago, the IDF used Palestinians as human shields for an incursion into Gaza:

After seizing control of the buildings, the soldiers held six residents, two of them minors, on the staircases of the two buildings, at the entrance to rooms in which the soldiers positioned themselves, for some twelve hours. During this time, there were intense exchanges of gunfire between the soldiers and armed Palestinians. The soldiers also demanded that one of the occupants walk in front of them during a search of all the apartments in one of the buildings, after which they released her.

IDF also illegally used Palestinian human shields in the Battle of Jenin.  According to Louis Rene Beres, professor of international law at Purdue University, human shields also fall under the category of perfidy, which is not permissible under international law (but ruses are okay).  So what is the proper response under international law when the enemy uses these perfidious acts?  In a September 2004 issue of Military Review, Daniel Schoenekase defines the different types of human shields–proximity, involuntary and voluntary–and raises questions about other groups such as civilian workers at a munitions factory.  Schoenekase puts forth "targeting principles" when the enemy uses human shields to prevent counterattacks:  military necessity, discrimination (distinction), humanity and proportionality.  Commanders must evaluate the following before giving the green light to striking a human-shielded target:

Read more

by Charles

I wrote in an earlier comment thread that Israel is doing the work that the Lebanese army should be doing but cannot.  The simple answer to ending the current violence between Israel and Hezbollah is to degrade Hezbollah to the point where Israel can hand the keys to the Lebanese army, giving the government full sovereignty over its country.  Another Charles agrees with me:

The road to a solution is therefore clear: Israel liberates south Lebanon and gives it back to the Lebanese.

It starts by preparing the ground with air power, just as the Persian Gulf War began with a 40-day air campaign. But if all that happens is the air campaign, the result will be failure. Hezbollah will remain in place, Israel will remain under the gun, Lebanon will remain divided and unfree. And this war will start again at a time of Hezbollah and Iran’s choosing.

[Update:  Add Josh Trevino to the ranks, too, who adds a little more detail on tactics.]  The interesting part to this is that, by going in and treating the Hezbollah cancer in southern Lebanon, Israel is helping Lebanese abide by UN Security Council Resolution 1559.  This is exactly why the "international community" should refrain from speaking about what Israel should do and focus its attention on Iran and Syria, sponsors of these terrorists, and urge Assad and the Iranian mullahs to tell their Hezbollah puppets to cease fire and return the hostages.  The only diplomacy necessary from Condi Rice is "keep up the good work" to Israel and "hang in there and you’ll get your country back" to Lebanon.  To Syria and Iran, the diplomacy will be more nuanced, but the general message should be, "get the f**k out."

More below the fold, including lots of updates!

Read more