The new Army doctrine intended as the by-the-book bridge between combat and stability operations is a bold step even making clear the Armys role in helping to establish a judiciary once the major shooting stops.
But theres one place that doctrine framers decided not to boldly go with that mission setting up a judiciary when the host nation is bent on having one rooted in religion.
When we looked at the judicial sector, at the end of an operation you want what we call rule of law where people are empowered, where the law serves the people and not necessarily the government, Lt. Col. Steve Leonard, the primary author of the 200-plus page Field Manual 3–07, Stability Operations, told Military.com during a bloggers roundtable held in Washington as part of the Association of the United States Army annual symposium. Though just released Oct. 6, the document has been in the making since late 2005. It points out that the U.S. military has a long history though not a consistent one of establishing or re-establishing civil authority once major fighting has ended.
The Stability Operations manual goes so far as to lay out the Armys obligation to restoring civil authority, including existing laws, courts and justice systems when they function. Of course, these may be suspended by the Army if the players cannot or are not performing them, or if they impede the Army from carrying out its own obligations under international law, including the Geneva Conventions, according to the manual.
But oftentimes what we see in these countries is rule by law, where the ruling authority maintains control over the civil populace by leveraging the laws to their benefit. You dont want that.
What the doctrine looks at is just two of three types of authority: civil authority, in which law is used to govern the population and provide for its essential needs, safety and security; and transitional military authority, which is what the doctrine calls for while the Army and its partners other U.S. agencies, allies, or non-governmental agencies help establish a working judiciary.
You hit the third leg of that [religious authority], Leonard told Military.com. We actually had this debate as we developed the doctrine. Did we want to address establishing a religious authority or a religious judiciary? Say a judiciary based on the rule of the Quran, for instance?
Not only does Leonard not believe the Army or any partners would have the expertise to do that, but the developers of the doctrine did not believe it was a place they wanted to go.
In this book [doctrine] there were not too many things we declared off limits, but that was one we just felt was too far down the road for us to [address], although it exists. But I dont think our national interests push in that area that we would be trying to establish religious authorities.
Good Morning Folks,
Two years ago I had a chance to sit down with some of the Majors and Lt. Colonels from Ft. Levenworth, it was at an 11th. Cav. reunion in Louisville and they were our invited guests, over a few beers and jaw bone this topic. I haven’t read the new manual yet persnaly but from reviews it appears that these young officers have comeup with the begaining of what warefare will look like the rest of the century.
Now the big problem will these up and comming young officers be snuffed out by the Generals and Admirals who have been corrupted and bough off by the industrial complex that makes $trillion weapon systems that will never be used. The odds are strinkly against these young officers who unlike their superiors have been in combat and know the enemy first hand, not through political talking points.
The half bakes opinions of the Neo-Con sales organization for the mega defense contractors like Cato, American Enterprise and Heritage etc. will be had nuts to crack. Will a President or Congress have the guts to back theideas in this manual, unliely but hope should never die.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Camp,
Someone once told me: “If you need a new idea, open an old book.”
TB,
That’s very very true. People stand, staring out over the precipice, while forgetting what’s under their own feet.
Having a military bureaucracy engage with a fractured society on a religious level is a hard nut to crack, at best. At worst, it’s a fool’s errand. Props to LTC Leonard and his cohorts for seeing that.
But there are varying degrees of engagement, including passive observation. According to quantum mechanics, observation is never passive; it is itself a form of engagement.
If you’re already engaged, even if you’re only observing, maybe you need to do so in an informed manner.
So, I can see Big Green wanting to avoid doing sharia law, or avoid picking sides in sharia disputes. But IMHO, it should still be studied. And, it’s not as if we don’t have the resources or means to interface with or observe religious law.
JAG cadre in-theater would pretty much have to study it, if only to understand how we’re perceived. And, comparative religion shouldn’t be too much of a stretch for chaplains.
Apart from that, knowledge of local religious law and legal actors should be part and parcel of the whole “human terrain system”, and whatnot. That shouldn’t just be a COIN tool; it probably plays a big role in SASO.
So kudos to these guys and gals for looking before they leap, but the journey of a 1000 miles starts with the next few steps.
This is one of the issues the International Network to Promote the Rule of Law (INPROL) was established to address. For more info: http://www.inprol.org
INPROL is a nacent association of legal, law enforcement, and academic professions with experience in transitional justice issues. If you are interested in these kinds of issues, you might want to consider engaging over there.