The End of Proportionality

IMRA
Monday, July 13, 2009

(Not a simple read but addresses a recurring issue used to bash any IDF response)

Accusations of "disproportion," like those against the IDF, will almost certainly be applied to American forces when domestic and international opposition to US actions can find no other complaint. Yet it is apparent that proportionality is not a useful yardstick for determining appropriate levels of force. The principle of proportionality is so vague and difficult to apply with any consistency, and so widely misunderstood, that the US military should discard it. Instead, American authorities should simply take the position that US doctrine proscribes use of force that is indiscriminate, wasteful, excessive, or not necessary to achieving military objectives. America's armed forces should openly acknowledge that they do not abide by the principle of proportionality because it is so problematic.



The End of Proportionality
JONATHAN F. KEILER
US Army War College Journal, Parameters Spring 2009
www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/09spring/keiler.pdf.

The 2006 Israel-Lebanon war generated the first large-scale and systemic references to a heretofore mostly ignored law of war concept, the doctrine of proportionality. Occasional references to proportionality are found in accounts of the Iraq War and in histories or scholarly works of the last century. In general, prior to Israel's 2006 campaign the proportionality doctrine received little scholarly interest and even less attention among the governing classes and international media.1 In all likelihood, critics of American action in Iraq or Afghanistan would have more thoroughly employed this doctrine in their efforts to end or limit US military involvement had they simply thought of it. But by 2006, when the doctrine was widely known, the major battles in Iraq and Afghanistan were finished.

Israel's December 2008 to January 2009 campaign in Gaza renewed drumbeat accusations in the media and from much of the international community that the Israel Defense Force (IDF) used disproportionate force against Palestinian terrorists and guerrillas. The George W. Bush Administration expressed concern for innocent civilians caught in the crossfire but resisted labeling Israeli actions as disproportionate. President Bush generally defended Israeli actions and declined to join the European Union and even close allies such as the United Kingdom in labeling Israel's tactics as disproportionate. A year before the Gaza offensive, in February
2008, then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declined a reporter's invitation to label Israeli retaliatory action as "disproportionate."

This is a sound policy that the Obama Administration would be well advised to follow. Though American military action in Afghanistan or Iraq has not yet received comparable condemnation (at least on grounds of "disproportion"), it is only a matter of time before this occurs, as soon as a fight is significant enough to warrant it. There is little difference in the opera tional practices used by the Israeli and American militaries, which not only share many weapon systems but also elements of tactics and training.

(For full article click here)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.
.