The United States military and the law of war: inculcating an ethos - International Justice, War Crimes, and Terrorism: The U.S. Record

Social Research, Winter, 2002 by W. Hays Parks

The Army also maintains four permanent Combat Training Centers (CTCs). The CTCs--at Ft. Irwin, California; Ft. Polk, Louisiana; Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas; and Hohenfels, Germany--offer a variety of combat and peace operations training for Army units. Three of the CTCs are staffed with a full-time opposing force (the OPFOR), which "engages" the training unit, as well as an observer-controller (OC) contingent. The OCs observe the mission, mentor the training unit's commanders and soldiers, and direct some of the activity that occurs during the training exercise. The Army Judge Advocate General's Corps has assigned Army judge advocates to serve as OCs at each of the CTCs. As part of their duties, these judge advocate OCs script events involving civilians, who, in turn, interact with the personnel of the unit being trained. These civilians, or role-players, serve critical training functions. For example, they may play the part of ICRC personnel who visit a training unit for the purpose of inspecting the unit's EPW holding facilities. They may also live in full-scale "villages" on the battlefield, playing the role of civilians who find themselves caught up in the context of an ongoing conflict. The judge advocate observer-controllers monitor the training unit's interaction with these civilians, ensuring that commanders, staff, and individual soldiers understand and meet their law of war obligations. These "villages" also include such structures as churches and historic sites. Thus, the unit also is "tested" on law of war compliance as it relates to targeting and weaponeering considerations. Experience has shown this type of hands-on, realistic law of war training to be exceptionally effective.

Another part of the current state of affairs in the United States military is the pro-active approach to providing total legal service to the commander. If a judge advocate shows up annually, quarterly, or even monthly just to teach a law of war class, there is a limited to no working relationship with the commander. Our judge advocates operate with the philosophy that total legal support requires a twenty-four-hours a day, 7 days a week commitment. Twenty-five years ago many commanders regarded judge advocates as a nuisance--at best. Today they are regarded as indispensable, and usually are part of the first echelon when a unit deploys. This has contributed immensely to the ethos to which I referred earlier.

My assessment of law of war training in the United States military is that it is as good as it is in any military. At the same time, law of war training is a topic that competes with other mandatory training subjects in units that are very busy returning from a deployment, getting ready to go on a deployment, or are on a deployment, such as a peace operation in the Balkans or operations in Afghanistan. There is considerable competition for training time. The United States armed forces have done as good a job as possible, but it is likely that some see the training as "checking the block." I do not say this to disparage them. As a colleague wrote me in response to my request for information for this presentation, our uniformed men and women inherently are going to do the right thing. As he said, "The law of war fits right into the way most were brought up and is interwoven into the fabric of our society and country." (21)