Rules of Engagement?: A Social Anatomy of an American War Crime-- Operation Iron Triangle, Iraq (Google eBook)
At first, the US Army pronounced Operation Iron Triangle "mission accomplished." About fifteen days later, questions were raised about the rules of engagement, which were to kill every military aged male on sight.The following month, three soldiers were charged with murder. Three sets of sworn statements were given by the defendants in the case, during three different time periods, and intended as the basis for testimony at their trial. But the statements present three distinct versions of what happened.The Prosecution avoided going to trial by accepting the defendants' plea bargains. The officers who issued the unlawful ROE were never prosecuted and neither was anyone further up the chain of command.This book stands alone in analyzing a war crime from Iraq that involved the murder of noncombatants, questionable rules of engagement, and the doctrine of command responsibility.Although it amounts to a murder mystery the focus is on the Rules of Engagement, which is a topic that until now has been completely ignored in books about the war in Iraq. What were the soldiers' orders; were they related to other, similar ROE in Iraq and similar killings; and why was there so much ambivalence on the part of the prosecutors and investigators in deciding exactly what was lawful versus unlawful in this case?At The Hague, the former President of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, as well as many other high-ranking commanders, were put on trial for war crimes under the doctrine of command responsibility. In the United States, the contrast in perceptions of responsibility for war crimes could not be more pronounced. Low-ranking soldiers were court-martialed under the principle enshrined in the UCMJ that obedience to unlawful orders is not a defense.Both attitudes are inspired by the Nuremberg trials, albeit in starkly divergent ways. The ICTY seems to reject the excuse for World War II atrocities, namely, "We didn't know," and insists that the commander should have known what his or her subordinates did unlawfully. The US military system seems to reject the excuse for World War II atrocities, namely, "We were just following orders," and insists that low-ranking soldiers are responsible for obeying unlawful orders. Which approach is more just?Far from being a cut and dry legal case, this story can be read as a mystery that will never fully resolved.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Chapter 2 Laying Out the Conceptual Tools for the Social Anatomy that Follows
The First Version of Events Mission Accomplished
The Medias Spin on the Events and Their Echoes in the Past
Playing It By Ear
Abu Ghraib abuse at Abu ADHD al Qaeda American band of brothers Bashir Battle of Mogadishu Bergrin Bivins Black Hawk brigade commander chain of command command responsibility court-martial CPT Hart cuffs doctrine of command enemy fact fake sincerity fire Geneva Conventions Geressy Guantanamo guys gyroscopic hostile incident insurgents investigators Iraq Iraqi soldiers Iron Triangle killings island issue Javal Davis jury of one’s kill all military-age kill every military-age lawyers low-ranking soldiers LT Wehrheim Mason military-age males mission Mogadishu moral murder objective Murray Operation Iron Triangle other-directed type PFC Clagett platoon leader plea bargains postemotional prosecution Qaeda question regard Riesman rules of engagement Samarra seems SGT Lemus shooting shot social society sociology Somalia SPC Hunsaker SSG Girouard Steele sworn affidavits sworn statements terrorists three prisoners tion told traditional ROE trial UCMJ United unlawful order unlawful ROE versus war crimes window women zip-ties