Bush and Blair's illegal war in Iraq has not made the world a safer
place - only respect for international law can do that

Philippe Sands
Thursday February 24, 2005
The Guardian

In its effort to remake the global rules America has not acted alone.
The legacy of Franklin D Roosevelt and Winston Churchill's visionary
Atlantic charter, which led to the establishment of the United Nations,
is now in the hands of the Atlantic cowboys, George Bush and Tony Blair.
When Roosevelt and Churchill sprang their charter on the world in the
summer of 1941, the threat to the two countries was of a wholly
different order. And yet, 60 years on, an American president can show
contempt for international obligations, in actions and in words: "I
don't care what the international lawyers say."

His British counterpart pays lip service to international law, and then
proceeds to override the views of those government advisers who know
something about the subject. He feels able to proclaim, as he did in his
speech in March 2004, the need for global rules as though the
achievements of the past 60 years count for nought. What is left of the
transatlantic commitment to international law?

The attacks of 9/11 brought Blair and Bush together to give rise to one
of the great enigmas of modern British political life: why did Blair
lend British support to the war on Iraq? His support for that war and
the "war on terror", as well as the implicit support for the regime put
in place at Guantánamo, provided oxygen and international legitimacy to
acts of dubious legality and effectiveness, which had virtually no
international support.

Why has Britain associated itself so closely with an administration that
has such scant regard for the international rule of law? That is a
difficult question that only Blair himself can answer. If an illegal war
in Iraq had made the world a safer place, then arguably it might be
justified. But there is little evidence that the world is a safer place,
and a great deal more evidence that the Iraq war has provided a major
distraction to the challenge posed by global terrorism and al-Qaida.
Neither can it be said that the Middle East is more stable or peaceful,
nor that the existence of the detention camp at Guantánamo and the
failure to apply human rights and humanitarian law are the best way to
win hearts and minds, or persuade the occupied of your humanitarian
intentions.

The only plausible answer is that the prime minister believed that
solidarity and self-interest required him to place Britain alongside the
US, more or less whatever it chose to do. History will tell whether that
was the right choice. In the meantime, Britain's stock as a law-abiding
global citizen has taken a beating. Its authority and leadership role
are degraded. Many British and American diplomats have expressed
disquiet, recognising that their job has been made that much more
difficult by the events of the past three years. It could be argued, I
suppose, that Britain is following the US because it has taken a
considered decision that the wholesale reconstruction of the
international legal order is justified. But so far I have seen no hint
that that is in fact the case, with the exception of a somewhat emotive
speech by the prime minister, which suggested he was out of his depth on
what the law required or permitted.

But the insurmountable difficulty with this argument is that it is based
on a false premise. The US cannot go it alone, much as its behaviour
might suggest it wishes it were otherwise. American unilateralism is not
isolationism: the US's exposure to the world is premised on economic
objectives, among others, not military objectives. The use of military
power is a means to an end, not the end itself. The business community
will be the first to say that commerce cannot be dictated by brute
force. You cannot intimidate consumers into buying US goods, or
supplying oil and other strategically significant products. Military and
economic considerations cannot be separated, any more than free trade
and environmental objectives can be disconnected. Once that is
recognised, and you accept that some of your foreign policy objectives
are premised on the application of global rules, the marginalisation of
international law becomes more difficult to justify. Moreover, if Iraq
and the war on terrorism have shown anything, it is that the US is
dependent on alliances and coalitions whose members require something in
return. Whichever way you look at it, the US needs international agreements.

The present effort by the US and Britain to remake the global rules will
not succeed. It does not mean that new circumstances - failed states,
terrorism and the emergence of non-state actors in particular - do not
require the existing rules to be continually assessed, and to be
modified where necessary. Nor does it mean that some of the global rules
are not in need of a thorough overhaul, to make them more efficient and
accountable to parliaments and to the people. But change is a process
which inevitably requires cooperation and a broad degree of support. It
cannot be imposed at gunpoint.

In this interdependent world it is hopeless to conceive of a return to
nature, to a pre-regulatory environment in which each state is free to
act as it wishes, unfettered by international obligations. Nor is it
realistic to give effect to any sort of à la carte multilateralism, in
which states are able to pick and choose those areas of international
law they like and those they don't. The lessons from the World Trade
Organisation and elsewhere make it clear that different social
objectives are interdependent.

Imperfect as some of the international rules may be, they reflect
minimum standards of acceptable behaviour and, to the extent they can be
ascertained, common values. They provide an independent standard for
judging the legitimacy of international actions. I do not think recent
events have changed these basic assumptions or created a new paradigm.

The rules of international law will turn out to be more robust than the
policies of the Bush administration. Tough guys are not enough in
international relations. In the 21st century you need rules, and proper
lawyers too.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 23:44:51 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

America’s Battalion strikes back at enemy forces 3/3 scores major success in
Khowst

Cpl. Rich Mattingly, CJTF76 Public Affairs OfficeKHOWST PROVINCE,
Afghanistan--Captain Ken Barr, Weapons Co., 3/3 company commander, meets with
the mullahs and elders of the village his Marines plan on searching for
suspected terrorists and weapons caches. Barr said he found the elders to be
responsive and willing to help the Marines complete their mission. America's
Battalion has focused on villagers having more accountability for the actions of
their village members.

KHOWST PROVINCE, Afghanistan – Under the light from a pale, yellow moon, the
Marines moved swiftly across the cold and barren wadi, hand and arm signals
mobilizing squads and fire teams silently into position around the village.
Shifting in and out of the shadow of trees and low rock walls in the surrounding
fields as they neared, America’s Battalion sealed a seamless cordon and prepared
to search for several men they suspected of perpetuating terrorist activity and
attacks on Afghan and Coalition forces in the area.

Only when the night’s reverie was split by the blaring sounds of psychological
operations’ surrender appeals and the roar of Cobra gunships appearing a few
hundred feet overhead, did the inhabitants realize they had been surrounded. By
the break of dawn, the Battalion was well underway to completing one of its most
successful operations to date in the region.

“We moved over 44 kilometers at night, dismounted a few (kilometers) away, and
surrounded the village where we believed the enemy to be hiding by moving in on
foot. Our enemies had never seen anything like this before, so they weren’t
ready for us and they had no chance to escape into the mountains,” explained
Capt. Ken Barr, Commanding Officer, Weapons Co., 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines,
whose company planned the operation over a month and a half, gathering key human
intelligence on anti-government militia forces operating in the Khowst province.
Over the course of two days, Weapons and Headquarters and Service Companies, who
combined forces for the operation, set up shop quite literally in the suspected
terrorists’ backyards. Both companies are organized as provisional rifle
companies in the Battalion’s expansive area of responsibility.

America’s Battalion was able to capture eight men they believed to be members of
anti-government militias and seize a significant amount of illegal weapons and
explosives. And they did it without a single shot being fired.

One of Weapons Co.’s platoon commanders explained the relationship that they
have tried to foster in the area over the course of the last few months that has
improved their successes and ability to go in hard and fast without disrupting
friendly ties.

“The local populace has begun to trust us more and more as we’ve built a
relationship with them through local patrols with Afghan police and the medical
and humanitarian relief efforts we’ve performed,” said 2nd Lt. Luke Lazzo,
second platoon commander, Weapons Co., 3/3. “We try to stress to them that it’s
their community and they have to take responsibility for the actions of those
they live with. We’re here to help them with that. That allows us to go into a
town the way we did and successfully find our enemies without too much
resistance from the locals.”

The Marines and Sailors of 3/3 are operating with a high level of cultural and
societal awareness and attention to detail in order to strike a certain balance
with the local populace during security and stability operations, said Barr,
something he believes is a reflection of his Marines’ professionalism as they
complete more complicated missions.

When Weapons Co. entered the village, the commander’s first action was to meet
with the village elders and give them a chance to give up the men who were
wanted in connection with the attacks.

“We went to the village elders and mullahs and asked them how they would like us
to handle searches of houses in their villages,” continued Barr. “We told them
that if they would give up the men responsible for attacking Marines and Afghan
forces in the area, then we wouldn’t be forced to cordon and search their
villages. The Marines and Sailors have upheld their end of things admirably,
which improves our chances of even more future successes.”

It was that approach that led to the operation’s success, said 3/3 Battalion
Commander Lt. Col. Norm Cooling.

“It’s easy to get on line and fight a clearly defined enemy,” said Cooling. “In
our situation, you can’t always locate, close with and destroy the enemy in a
straight forward manner. You have to establish human intelligence relationships
to locate the enemy and then devise creative ways to close with him. While doing
that here in Sabari, we sent a significant message to the villagers that by
helping us they can help make their town and their country a safer place.”

The Marines of 3/3 were very successful in their searches, which were done with
the supervision of the town’s elders. In the suspects’ homes they found
everything from grenades shoved into sacks of flour, to weapons buried in dung
heaps, and plastic explosives and blasting caps stuffed in an old car tire. One
squad even recovered a belt of illegal armor-piercing AK-47 rounds hidden under
an infant in a crib.

“I, for one, understand the mentality of a homeowner who doesn’t want some
stranger coming into their house,” said Sgt. Chris Bloom, squad leader with
Weapons Co., whose squad recovered several stockpiles of munitions from the
suspected insurgents. “This is their country and we always have to be aware of
that. What we did by waiting for the elders to go in with us and let them give
up the guys we were after was very important to maintaining the trust of the
people. We just want to take the guns and explosives away from the people who
shot at us and make sure they pay for their crimes.”

“It comes down to the golden rule,” said Barr. “You have to treat others here
the way you would want to be treated in their situation. This war is going to be
won by the use of well-aimed, non-kinetic rounds,” he said, referring to
successful information and psychological operations campaigns that win the
proverbial “hearts and minds” of the populace. “You may be able to kill a lot of
the bad guys with bullets, but you can also lose this war that way.”

Weapons Co. plans on following up their successful round-up of suspected
terrorists with medical assistance operations in the area. America’s Battalion
continues to operate throughout Eastern Afghanistan in support of Operation
Enduring Freedom.KHOWST PROVINCE, Afghanistan--A Marine with 3rd Batallion, 3rd
Marines uses a metal detector to search for hidden weapons and ammunition at a
location identified as housing possible terrorists. Weapons Co. of America's
Battalion conducted the operation with the support of local village elders.
(Photo by Cpl. Rich Mattingly, combat correspondent, 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine
Regiment)KHOWST PROVINCE, Afghanistan--Battalion Gunner Robert Sundstrom, 3rd
Battalion, 3rd Marines, examines the plastique, blasting caps and nitroglycerin
his Marines discovered while searching a suspected terrorist's house during
operations this week. Sundstrom said he believed seizing the explosives made the
roads in the surrounding area a lot less likely have emplaced improvised
explosive devices in the future. (Photo by Cpl. Rich Mattingly, combat
correspondent, 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment)

KHOWST PROVINCE, Afghanistan--Second Lt. Luke Lazzo, platoon commander with
Weapons Co., 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines, takes a knee and gets his bearings
before leading his Marines the final distance to where his platoon was
responsible for insuring no suspected terrorists slipped through the Marines'
cordon. (Photo by Cpl. Rich Mattingly, combat correspondent, 3rd Battalion, 3rd
Marine Regiment) KHOWST PROVINCE, Afghanistan--Lance Cpl. Kevin Neale, rifleman
with Weapons Co., 3/3, searches a basement room for weapons during cordon and
search operations this week in Afghanistan. (Photo by Cpl. Rich Mattingly,
combat correspondent, 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment)








To return to the U.S. Central Command home page, click here.

Sign up for the CENTCOM/Coalition Newsletters

John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."