It’s become a common, albeit disgusting, practice for the military to allow JAG attorneys to second-guess actions in combat after the fact and from the relative comfort of safety. But what happens when we give them the right to raise objections even before the actions happen? The idea of lawyers reviewing attack strategies in war boggles the mind–but at the Combined Air and Space Operations Center in the Middle East, that’s just what’s happening.
…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.
No, that’s not war. That’s tiddlywinks. How Carranza can even call it war is baffling.
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.
The average Seattle-area liberal would read that paragraph and be thrilled that yet another human life was not uselessly extinguished in the sands of the Middle East. We’re that much closer to peace and harmony and living out the lyrics to John Lennon’s “Imagine.” What I read in that paragraph is that there is one more bad guy who is still free to plot against, wound, kill, or capture an American soldier or Marine–all because a lawyer, who has no business on the battlefield, decided that everyone’s life is equally important.
Wars are not won by the idea of “equal importance.”
