Would the president telling the military to attack “cultural sites” be a lawful order?

MSgt Michael Bischoff — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 06:10:22 -0500

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-iran-cultural-sites-soleimani-war-crimes-a9271566.html

Trump doubles down on threat to attack Iran's cultural sites because 'they kill our people'

Mr Trump advocates for the move - which some experts say would constitute a war crime - for the second time in as many days

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Jan 7 at 2020 6:11 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 06:11:54 -0500

IMHO, no it would not be.

Response by PO3 Phyllis Maynard made Jan 7 at 2020 6:24 AM

PO3 Phyllis Maynard — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 06:24:31 -0500

MSgt Michael Bischoff this video made my blood run cold. I fly my American and POW/MIA flags in my front yard. To see this mass gathering of people shouting death to America and burning the flag is unsettling. We can talk patriotic and badass here on RP, but US lives are going to be lost. Sometimes, I think posters forget many of us are veterans, we are not facing death head on. GOD save the world.

Response by CPT Lawrence Cable made Jan 7 at 2020 6:42 AM

CPT Lawrence Cable — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 06:42:44 -0500

IMO, yes. If one reads either the Hague Convention, which covers Cultural sites, or the Geneva Convention, one of the things that people want ignore is that to be bound by either Convention requires that the other side reciprocate in kind. In this case, this article, "Art. 11. 1. If one of the High Contracting Parties commits, in respect of any item of cultural property under special protection, a violation of the obligations under Article 9 [ Link ] , the opposing Party shall, so long as this violation persists, be released from the obligation to ensure the immunity of the property concerned. Nevertheless, whenever possible, the latter Party shall first request the cessation of such violation within a reasonable time." Have the Iranians or parties supported by the Iranians targeted other "Cultural sites"? I think we all would agree that the answer to that one is yes, even within their own country.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2020 6:51 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 06:51:00 -0500

I think the answer that most people here would give depends largely on who the president is *eyeroll*

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Jan 7 at 2020 7:48 AM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 07:48:55 -0500

What Pres Trump does and what he says are usually different. Talk is intended for certain audiences. Actions are intended for selected physical results; also sends a message. I’m okay with not attacking holy sites or museums. Unfortunately weapons research and development may be going on at scientific sites or universities. I can see them being targets. Terrorists know our rules and exploit them by hiding military activities under schools or hospitals.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2020 7:58 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 07:58:36 -0500

It would depend, do they as some have said actually have military assets around those sites hoping to use them as shields. Not sure why you would hit cultural sites if they do not have a military purpose, hell go after the leadership.

Response by Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin made Jan 7 at 2020 8:43 AM

Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 08:43:45 -0500

Only, he never said he would hit Iranian cultural sites.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2020 9:03 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 09:03:12 -0500

Short answer, it is not a lawful order. The military already put out a statement saying we would not target cultural sites.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2020 9:08 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 09:08:55 -0500

The answer to this is nuanced.
Protocol 1, Article 52 of the Geneva Conventions provides for the general protection of civilian objects, hindering attacks to military objectives. Article 52 states, "In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage."

Any attack must be justified by military necessity: An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated".
Some targets are clearly legitimate. These include all military personnel who are not Hors de combat. It also includes anyone who takes a direct part in military hostilities. It also include military equipment and bases and any buildings used as fortifications whether designed as such or used by the military ad hoc.

Civilian infrastructure such as, rail, road, ports, airports and telecommunications used for the transportation of military assets, or used by the military for electronic communications are all considered to be legitimate military targets.
Where it starts to get more nuanced is if the harm to civilians or civilian property is "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated". During the Second World War there was a song called a thing-ummy-bob which contain the lines "And it's the girl that makes the thing that holds the oil, that oils the ring that works the thing-ummy-bob, that's going to win the war". Whether such a girl is a legitimate target is an area that probably has to be decided on a case by case basis. However Protocol I suggests that if it is not clear, then the parties to the conflict should err on the side of caution as Article 52 states "In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house, or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used".

In Civil Affairs, we produce what is called a "protected (or restricted) target list". It generally consists of things like hospitals (usually marked by protected symbols like the Red Crescent anyway), museums, schools, and key infrastructure. These are not things that we can not destroy, however. They are things that require additional approvals to target. The ROE, not the Law of Land Warfare, usually take precedence when engaging such targets.

In my opinion, "cultural" targets such as statues celebrating the Islamic Revolution or regime palaces may well be targeted in such a strike, as the objective would be to punish the regime, niot bring general misery to the people like strikes on power plants and communications infrastructure would.

I would encourage all of the armchair quarterbacks out there that are such learned experts on such things due to their prowess with google take the time to read the relevant information before rendering judgment.

Response by SGT Cort Landry made Jan 7 at 2020 9:21 AM

SGT Cort Landry — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 09:21:42 -0500

You have to remember who we are dealing with here. These radicals would behead each and everyone of us if given the chance. They only know how to be brutal and unrelenting. Why should hamstring our military by trying to play by a different set of rules than them?

Response by MSG Stan Hutchison made Jan 7 at 2020 9:37 AM

MSG Stan Hutchison — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 09:37:37 -0500

I see a lot of answers here following the idea that because "they" do it, it is alright for us to do it. I think that was Lt. Calley's opinion.
We are NOT them. We are the United States of America! Either we represent something good, a better way, or we stop being who we are. We have, and should continue to, set the example.
Put the white hat back on. Lead by example. Return to being that bright shinning city on the hill!

Response by CSM Richard StCyr made Jan 7 at 2020 10:52 AM

CSM Richard StCyr — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 10:52:09 -0500

It could be a lawful order if they are used to screen, mask or house military material or conduct military operations. Here are some doctrinal references that cover valid or non-valid targeting of persons or places. I was unable to find one from the Navy- They are pretty uniform in the examples used and the scenarios they discuss.

-UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS THE BASIC SCHOOL MARINE CORPS TRAINING COMMAND CAMP BARRETT, VIRGINIA 22134-5019 LAW OF WAR/ INTRODUCTION TO RULES OF ENGAGEMENT B130936 STUDENT HANDOUT

- FIELD MANUAL *FM 27-2 NO 27-2 HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WASHINGTON, DC, 23 November 1984

- LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT (LOAC) prepared by PETERSON AFB LEGAL OFFICE

- RULES OF ENGAGEMENT REFERENCE 1. CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTR. 3121.01B, STANDING RULES OF ENGAGEMENT (SROE)/STANDING RULES FOR THE USE OF FORCE (SRUF) FOR U.S. FORCES (13 June 2005). -------NOTE: This is an unclassified document describing the considerations for commanders in ROE development and is not an actual ROE. Do not post actual ROEs if you saved one from a previous deployment as they are classified documents, and should be destroyed or turned in...………..

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Jan 7 at 2020 10:57 AM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 10:57:57 -0500

No. I say this remembering what happened to a crew who accidently dropped bombs on the beacon that was located in a temple during Vietnam War.

Response by CPL Gary Pifer made Jan 7 at 2020 12:12 PM

CPL Gary Pifer — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 12:12:53 -0500

Fake new from the left....

Response by SGT Robert Wager made Jan 7 at 2020 2:05 PM

SGT Robert Wager — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 14:05:45 -0500

Context is key. If you knowingly follow an order to target and attack what you know to be a protected cultural site with zero military purpose then I would believe you would be guilty of war crimes.

Now let’s talk how low that knowledge might be expected to be knowable. Would a fire team member (E-1 to E-4) be expected to know that target X is a protected site? Doubtful. Team leader? Probably not. Squad leader? A better chance of actually knowing but again probably not fully culpable. Plt Sergeant/Plt Leader? You could begin to make an argument that they could have known. Company Commander or above? The argument becomes that they have a duty to know what are legal targets and what are not.
My opinion

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made Jan 7 at 2020 2:55 PM

SPC Erich Guenther — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 14:55:29 -0500

I don't think we should target cultural sites. The current Iranian government should be viewed as temporary and the cultural sites as permanent. Additionally, the Iranian cultural sites benefit people far beyond those living in Iran.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 7 at 2020 3:31 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 15:31:46 -0500

IMO we should have not had gone down that rabbit hole.

Response by SSG Brian G. made Jan 7 at 2020 3:35 PM

SSG Brian G. — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 15:35:28 -0500

If POTUS or V-POTUS or any military official orders a direct attack on a cultural site whose only designation IS a cultural site that is violation of the Geneva Conventions and a war crime, thus an unlawful order. If the site has a dual purpose that is both cultural and what is considered a valid military target then no.

Response by SPC Michael Mullins made Jan 7 at 2020 4:12 PM

SPC Michael Mullins — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 16:12:41 -0500

In my experience the only lawful reason to fire on a protected site is in response to fire coming from a protected site. And even that is a big bag of worms that is best to be avoided.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2020 10:46 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Jan 2020 22:46:46 -0500

Here is where the lawyers and what not get involved. For example, churches and hospitals are off limits to target. However, if enemy combatants use churches and hospitals as a base of operations and actively shoot from said locations...is that location still off limits?