Points of View

---

U.S. War Plans Demand Civic Responsibility

By LISA HAJJAR

The American citizenry is divided over the political rationales and legality of going to war in Iraq. However, if war is launched, a new set of legal issues will come into play that even proponents of war cannot ignore, at least not if they want to make credible use of terms like "civilization," "justice," and "law."

The laws of war, also known as humanitarian laws, govern how wars can and cannot be fought. They are not suggestions; they are laws, and violations are crimes.

Americans of all political stripes should be alarmed that the Pentagon is poised to implement in Iraq a "Shock and Awe Rapid Dominance" battle plan. The concept of this plan, developed in 1996 at the National Defense University, aims not only to destroy all conceivable military and strategic targets, but to render the targeted country's society "impotent and entirely vulnerable to our actions" (see <www.dodccrp.org/shockch2.html>). Implementing this plan in Iraq would blaze an unimpeded path to regime change without having to deal with the messy and complicated interests of the Iraqi people–that is, those who survive saturation bombing of an unprecedented intensity.

In a CBS News interview, one of the plan's authors, Harlan Ullman, drew a direct parallel between the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the planned campaign in Iraq. Indeed, the plan regards the use, or threat to use, nuclear weapons as crucial to achieving shock and awe.

In December, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld sent President George W. Bush a memorandum requesting authorization to use nuclear weapons. In January, Bush approved this proposal. Responding to questions about the possibility of a nuclear scenario in Iraq, Bush chief of staff Andrew Card said, "The United States reserves the right to defend itself and its allies by whatever means necessary."

These developments were responses not only to the horrors of Auschwitz but to the horrors of Hiroshima as well. Even operations that cause incidental, systematic and large-scale civilian casualties, coarsely termed "collateral damage," fall beyond the pale of the legally permissible.

International humanitarian laws are customary, which means that they apply to armed conflicts everywhere and always. There is no "U.S. exception," no theater of operation, no enemy, no interest that trumps their universal applicability. Moreover, since violations are crimes, violators are punishable.

On January 25, a group of more than 100 American law professors wrote to President Bush warning that senior officials could face prosecutions for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide if the war unfolds as reportedly planned. Their letter was an act of civic responsibility–trying to prevent and deter the commission of crimes.

International humanitarian laws were created to protect humanity, and respecting them is the lowest common denominator of civilization. If we wish to think of ourselves as a civilized nation, we all have a civic responsibility to demand that our government adhere to these laws. That responsibility should bring together even those divided over the issue of Iraq.