The U.S. military must also learn from the war with Iran, which is already one of the most consequential conflicts in decades.  Lloyd Austin

The keyword, one easily skimmed over in Lloyd Austin’s New York Times opinion piece of 7 April, is consequential. Austin served as commander of the United States Central Command, and as the secretary of defense. His is a unique perspective of war and its ramifications. There are lessons we, and other nations, will learn from both the Iranian and Ukrainian wars. The proliferation of inexpensive drones for, in his words, “surveillance and targeting, huge use of munitions and the expansion of the battlefield well beyond traditional military targets,” has changed warfare.

What has not, nor will change, is the motive for warfare. Donald Trump has laid bare his motive for attacking Iran. At the annual Easter egg hunt held at the White House, Trump stated, “If it were up to me, I’d take the oil, I’d keep the oil, it would bring plenty of money.” Additionally, he has also said, ““To the victor belong the spoils.” In his opinion, the United States should control the Strait of Hormuz. “We have a concept where we’ll charge tolls,” he said.

To achieve his end, he wrote on Truth Social:  

Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the F**kin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP

On 7 April, Trump posted that, ““A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” while expressing his hope that “maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen” to avoid destroying Iran’s infrastructure. Trump’s words, in and of themselves, constitute a war crime. They are no different than what Vladimir Putin has expressed and done to Ukraine.

The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 bind the United States to a baseline protection of civilians and civilian objects. (1) Furthermore, U.S. law on the armed conflict doctrine makes clear that attacks may be directed only at military objectives. (2) Bridges and other infrastructure, used by civilians, can be lawful targets only by default when used for military logistics or troop movements.  The keywords are “functional use” and not category, according to the Defense Department.

The Forward in Department of Defense Law of War Manual (updated in July 2023) contains the following:

The law of war is part of who we are. George Washington, as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army, agreed with his British adversary that the Revolutionary War would be “carried on agreeable to the rules which humanity formed” and “to prevent or punish every breach of the rules of war within the sphere of our respective commands.” During the Civil War, President Lincoln approved a set of “Instructions for the Government of the Armies of the United States in the Field,” which inspired other countries to adopt similar codes for their armed forces, and which served as a template for international codifications of the law of war.

It continues:

The law of war is a part of our military heritage, and obeying it is the right thing to do. But we also know that the law of war poses no obstacle to fighting well and prevailing. Nations have developed the law of war to be fundamentally consistent with the military doctrines that are the basis for effective combat operations. For example, the self-control needed to refrain from violations of the law of war under the stresses of combat is the same good order and discipline necessary to operate cohesively and victoriously in battle. Similarly, the law of war’s prohibitions on torture and unnecessary destruction are consistent with the practical insight that such actions ultimately frustrate rather than accomplish the mission. This manual reflects many years of labor and expertise, on the part of civilian and military lawyers from every Military Service. It reflects the experience of this Department in applying the law of war in actual military operations, and it will help us remember the hardlearned lessons from the past. Understanding our duties imposed by the law of war and our rights under it is essential to our service in the nation’s defense. (3)

There is a vast difference between military necessity, accomplishing “a legitimate military purpose,” and political expediency, or, in other words, to achieve “political compliance.” In the case of the attacks on Iran, the “greater” objective is to achieve economic dominance/gain. The doctrine of war requires that targets be evaluated within their specific context. Trump’s infrastructure designation is proportionally out of line with this understanding. As Haley Fuller, a former Marine Corps captain, writes in Military.com:

The emphasis on systemic destruction reinforces the conclusion that the objective is coercive pressure rather than function-based targeting. Under the law of armed conflict as understood by the United States, that framing does not itself make any particular strike unlawful, but it does heighten the risk of illegality because it departs from the required analysis of how specific objects contribute to military operations and instead centers broad strategic pressure as the operative goal.”

Austin is correct when he writes that the Iranian war expands “the battlefield well beyond traditional military targets.” However, he misses the consequences of this expansion on the Iranian civilian population. Moreover, there are potential consequences for every officer and the enlisted personnel who carry out Trump’s orders. As the national security law expert and former active duty judge advocate, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham, who teaches at Southwestern Law School has counseled:   

Follow your oath to the Constitution and to the law. Follow, trust your training. Ensure that there’s discrete analysis done on every single power plant that’s on a targeting list, on every single bridge to ensure that, not only it’s a lawful military objective, but that proportionality, that the harm to civilians… is not excessive compared to the direct and concrete military advantage to be gained.

And that means that most of these indeed will not pass that test. And that’s what our military professionals are trained on. And I really hope they go back to that training and that they’re taking these threats of war crimes given by the commander in chief and filtering them through their own training and their own conscience and their own legal obligation to follow the law of war.

Because these are war crimes that they don’t follow those steps. And those war crimes do not have a statute of limitations… and it has universal jurisdiction. And so many of our allies could — if you want to travel to Europe, ensure you don’t get engaged in a war crime. (4)

Considering both Trump’s behavior since the lead-up to this war, we need to weigh his own definition of what constitutes a war crime: “You know what’s a war crime? Having a nuclear weapon. Allowing a sick country, with demented leadership, [to] have a nuclear weapon — that’s a war crime.”

The question for the U.S. Congress and the citizens it represents is: when will they decide to take their Constitutional authority seriously?

Links:

1: Geneva Conventions:  https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949

2: U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section2441&num=0&edition=prelim

3: DOD Law Manual: https://ogc.osd.mil/Portals/99/Law%20of%20War%202023/DOD-LAW-OF-WAR-MANUAL-JUNE-2015-UPDATED-JULY%202023.pdf?ver=Qbxamfouw4znu1I7DVMcsw%3D%3D

4: PBS News Hour: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-international-law-says-about-trumps-threats-to-bomb-irans-bridges-and-power-plants

Image: The Horrors of War: Against the Common Good

Creator: Francisco de Goya (Spanish, 1746–1828)

Source: The Cleveland Museum of Art, Collection: PR – Etching, Department: Prints

Dudley P. Allen Fund

https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.24580519

Artstor