The annual joint military exercises between the United States and South Korea usually elicit ominous threats of retaliation from North Korea. But in an interview on Thursday with the Associated Press, Han Song Ryol, the North’s only diplomatic tether to the United States, effectively declared war, referencing sanctions targeting Kim Jong Un as crossing “the red line.”

In early July, after a United Nations Human Rights Commission report detailed a host of human rights abuses in the isolated nation, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Kim Jong Un and 22 other high-ranking government officials. It marked the first time sanctions targeted Un, though the West has routinely sanctioned the country as a whole.

“The Obama administration went so far to have the impudence to challenge the supreme dignity of the DPRK in order to get rid of its unfavorable position during the political and military showdown with the DPRK,” said Han, using acronym for his country’s official title–Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. In response to the sanctions, the North cut off its only line of communication with the U.S., known as the New York channel, which was essentially a diplomatic post in Manhattan. Han has held that post for nearly two decades, as the director-general of the U.S. Affairs Department for the North’s Foreign Ministry.

A senior Obama administration official told Politico a few weeks ago that the sanction against Kim Jong Un and others in his government was meant to send a message: “if you become involved in abuses like running concentration camps or hunting down defectors we will know who you are.”

Joint military exercises–the Ulchi Freedom Guardian–are conducted by the U.S. and South Korea every August, and Han warned that if this year’s display goes as planned, then the North has a “self-defensive right and justifiable action to respond in a very hard way.” The U.S., he added, “has already declared war against the DPRK.” Last year’s Ulchi, which included 50,000 South Korean soldiers and 30,000 U.S. soldiers, nearly resulted in clashes between the two Korean nations, with tensions higher than ever before.

North Korea’s nuclear program has been maligned by the rest of the world and historically, the main target of U.S. and U.N. sanctions. But Han insisted it is indeed the U.S. who is irresponsible with nuclear weapons and other advanced military tools, saying:

It is not us, it is the United States that first developed nuclear weapons, who first deployed them and who first used them against humankind. And on the issue of missiles and rockets, which are to deliver nuclear warheads and conventional weapons warheads, it is none other than the United States who first developed it and who first used it.

Whether or not the U.S. “red line” crossing will indeed lead to war with North Korea is foggy, but with its citizenry impoverished and its global reputation sinking, anything is possible.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did North Korea Just Declare War on the U.S.? appeared first on Law Street.

Taliban leader Mullah Mansour has been killed in a U.S. air strike; officials in Afghanistan confirmed the news on Sunday. The Taliban, which has a longstanding tradition of denying deaths of prominent leaders, has not yet commented on the event.

On Monday morning President Obama, who currently is in Vietnam, confirmed the death in a statement and called it an “important milestone” in the longstanding effort to bring peace to Afghanistan, saying:

With the death of Taliban leader Akhtar Mohammad Mansur, we have removed the leader of an organization that has continued to plot against and unleash attacks on American and Coalition forces, to wage war against the Afghan people, and align itself with extremist groups like al Qa’ida.

Mansour has been rejecting initiatives by the Afghan government to participate in peace talks, and this could be the time for the Taliban to seize an opportunity for reconciliation with the government, according to the statement from the White House.

Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour was killed in an airstrike Saturday https://t.co/y0glNYzZiL https://t.co/o6pQQLOAXL

— Carol Costello (@CarolCNN) May 23, 2016

The strike that killed Mullah Mansour was conducted on Saturday by the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, as multiple U.S. drones struck the car he was traveling in, killing both Mansour and another Taliban fighter.

Mansour’s death does not mean an automatic change in the U.S. strategy when it comes to fighting in Afghanistan–the mission is still to train the Afghan forces to help themselves, not to do it for them, said Obama at a press conference in Vietnam. About 3,000 troops are in Afghanistan helping to combat groups like the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and ISIS.

Mullah Mansour had only been the Taliban leader since July of last year, a position he earned when his predecessor Mullah Omar–the infamous one-eyed leader who banned dancing and TV–was confirmed dead. Mansour repeatedly turned down peace talks and negotiations by the government, and was the commander in the seizing of Kunduz in September of last year. It is unclear who will succeed Mansour.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Taliban Leader Mullah Mansour Killed: Obama Deems it “Milestone” appeared first on Law Street.

Responding to “immense security challenges,” the Kenyan government announced in an official statement on Friday that it will no longer be able to host the over half a million people living in the country’s two refugee camps and dispersed throughout its cities.

“The Government of Kenya has been forced by circumstances to reconsider the whole issue of hosting refugees and the process of repatriation… hosting of refugees has come to an end,” Kenya’s National Police Service issued in a Twitter post on Friday.

As of March 2015, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), Kenya’s two official camps–Dadaab in the east and Kakuma in the northwest–housed 584, 989 refugees. Fleeing civil war, political persecution, and drought in places like Somalia (where 72 percent of refugees hail from), South Sudan (16 percent) and Ethiopia (5 percent), some of the refugees have created a home for themselves in Kenya’s camps, especially the oldest and largest one in Dadaab, near the country’s arid eastern border with Somalia. Over a quarter million people have established lives in Dadaab, most of whom were displaced by war in Somalia when they were children and have since made a home in the “tent city.”

The Kenyan government has been pushing to close the camps for a few years. Last April, the government voiced intentions of shutting down the Dadaab camp, citing security concerns. And though the UNHCR, which runs the camp, agreed to assist Somalian refugees (which comprise the vast majority of Dadaab’s displaced peoples) who volunteered to return home, the organization opposed forced repatriation.

The sprawl of the displaced: One of Dadaab’s five camps. Over a quarter of a million refugees, namely Somalians, call this home. [Image courtesy of United Nations Photo]

Last spring’s announcement followed an attack at Garissa University, where a group of gunmen loyal to al-Shabaab, an al Qaeda linked, Somali-based terrorist group, shot and killed 147 students. Kenya has been mired in a conflict with the Islamic terrorist group for nearly a decade. Al-Shabaab has been committing acts of terror on Kenyan soil for years, killing soldiers and civilians alike, and it is the primary security threat the government referred to in its decision to close the refugee camps.

Following the Garissa attacks, the government alleged al-Shabaab had infiltrated Dadaab and used it to plot and launch attacks. In March, Kenyan newspaper The Star reported an al-Shabaab gun smuggler was caught at Dadaab, with not much more concrete evidence to support the government’s claims.

But the latest announcement seemingly came out of nowhere, following no mass casualty event or obvious security concern.

“I think it’s legitimate to believe that Kenya is issuing the threat as a means to leverage more resources from international donors,” said Mark Yarnell, Senior Advocate at Refugees International in an interview with Law Street Media.

Refugees from the nations that surround it seek a life free from war, drought and political persecution in Kenya. [Image courtesy of greenravine via Flickr]

Pointing out that Kenya’s security concerns certainly are real and legitimate, Yarnell, who has spent time in the field in East and Central Africa, predicted the latest threat by the Kenyan government is meant to extract more resources from the international community to deal with its conflict with al-Shabaab, more as a leverage tool than a step toward abolishing camps and rounding up refugees “at the barrel of a gun.”

“[The camps] are quite entrenched in the country, with their own market systems and infrastructure,” he said, likening the demolition of the two camps to essentially wiping out two cities. “You have people who were born in the camp and kids of people who were born in the camp and all they know is Dadaab or Kakuma.”

He pointed to a recent communiqué from the African Union on the Dadaab camp as the validation the Kenyan government needs to show the rest of the world it is in solidarity with a larger institution to do something in regards to the camps and maintaining Kenya’s security. In the communiqué, the AU Peace and Security Council acknowledged the “legitimate security concerns” facing Kenya, the threat of Dadaab to the security of Kenya, and the need to accelerate the process of repatriating Somali refugees who volunteer to do so.

It also called on international partners, “particularly the United Nations” to “extend necessary financial, logistical and technical support” to the Somalian government, and “to increase funding to Somalia, Kenya, UNHCR and other humanitarian agencies.”

If the Kenyan government follows through with its latest proclamation, hundreds of thousands of refugees will suffer, wandering, with nowhere to settle but the homes they were forced to abandon. Some left those homes decades ago.

That’s not to say Kenya’s refugee camps are perfect, permanent homes. Flooding, disease and malnutrition have wrecked havoc on Dadaab in the past, and according to UNHCR, there were eleven epidemics reported in 2012 alone.

Despite the imperfect conditions of Dadaab and Kakuma, UNHCR expressed “profound concern” over the latest announcement from the Kenyan government in an official statement released on Monday:

In today’s global context of some 60 million people forcibly displaced, it is more important than ever that international asylum obligations prevail and are properly supported. In light of this, and because of the potentially devastating consequences for hundreds of thousands of people that premature ending of refugee hosting would have, UNHCR is calling on the Government of Kenya to reconsider its decision and to avoid taking any action that might be at odds with its international obligations towards people needing sanctuary from danger and persecution. 

Under the leadership of President Uhuru Kenyatta, Kenya would be breaking international law if it went forward with these plans, for which there are various legal statutes assuring the protection of refugees by the host nation. The primary right afforded to refugees worldwide is a promise of non-refoulement, or return to a place where their life and freedoms would be threatened.

“It would be such an egregious violation of basic refugee rights and their own constitution,” Yarnell said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kenyan Government Signals Shutdown of Refugee Camps appeared first on Law Street.

ISIL and the Iran Nuclear Deal have dominated the news in the Middle East as of late. But this week brings another headline contender, the actions of the Afghan Taliban. On Monday, the Taliban gained serious headway by capturing the major Afghan provincial capital of Kunduz. This is a real setback for the U.S.-trained Afghan security forces. The attack also raises the question of whether the U.S. will pursue the same exit plan from Afghanistan as it had intended.

The Attack on Kunduz

By the end of this summer, the Taliban and Afghan government were at an essential stalemate after months of back and forth. There weren’t any real victories nor losses; however, that quickly changed on Monday. Taliban forces took the city of Kunduz within hours of attacking. Kunduz was last under the Taliban’s control in 2001, before the U.S. entered Afghanistan and the Taliban fell from power. The city was considered one of the regional “centers of the American troop surge” five years ago. It is also the first major city to fall to the Taliban in fourteen years.

Kunduz, Afghanistan’s fifth largest city, was estimated to contain 300,000 residents in 2013. However, with the recent exodus of refugees in the Middle East, the number is probably lower. The city sits in the far north of the country, and is considered a main trading center as it contains essential supply lines and smuggling routes. The city is located approximately forty miles from the Tajikistan border.

During the siege, the Taliban freed hundreds of prisoners held in Kunduz. Crowds following the lead of a Taliban fighter with a megaphone chanted “Death to America! Death to the slaves of America!” Of the 600 freed inmates, 144 are reportedly members of the Taliban.

As for casualties, a spokesman for the Public Health Ministry, Wahidullah Mayar, tweeted that 30 people had been killed and more than 200 injured. He also stated that 90 percent of them were civilians. The main trauma center, run by Doctors Without Borders, reported receiving 171 wounded people, including 46 children. A representative from the center also expressed extreme concern over limited supplies and a growing number of wounded civilians.

After the attack, the newly elected emir of the Taliban, Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour, issued a statement to the residents of Kunduz. The statement hit five focal points: the Taliban would safeguard the city and the people inside, it would refrain from “extrajudicial killings, looting or breaching,” residents should feel safe in returning to work as normal, the Taliban would not retaliate against security forces or the government, and lastly, the Afghan government should discontinue blaming “outside intelligence agencies” for its defeats. However, according to the New York Times, alleged reports and videos from inside the city counter these promises. According to one official, electricity and phone services are out in most of the city. Roads to enter and leave the city have also been blocked.

A Lack of Preventative Measures?

The fall of Kunduz has left some questioning the strength and pragmatism of the Afghan government led by President Ashraf Ghani.

First off, the success of the attack itself may have been able to be prevented. Over the course of the past year, local officials in Kunduz reported Taliban movement surrounding the city. Meanwhile, some members of the Afghan government, along with Western officials, didn’t appear to take these concerns seriously. They believed the Taliban’s gain to be minimal and isolated to rural areas. Mohammad Yousuf Ayoubi, the head of the Kunduz provincial council, stated that although 70 percent of the province surrounding the city remained under Taliban control, zero efforts were made by security forces to make an offensive move or reinforce the city. This lack of preparation is being partly blamed for the fall of Kunduz.

The Counter-Response

As of Wednesday, the counter-attack had yet to see much success. On Tuesday, Afghan security forces fought back, including at least two U.S. air strikes. But by Wednesday morning, the situation seemed worse. Afghan reinforcements were held in the Baghlan Province, completely stopped or delayed by Taliban ambushes. One report cited 1000 Afghan soldiers and police officers held in the northern part of Baghlan.

The Taliban further advanced Tuesday night, surrounding the local airport, where hundreds of Afghan forces and civilians retreated. During the course of the night, “at least 17 members of the Afghan National Civil Order Police were wounded and one was killed defending the area around the airport.” The situation mildly improved after the U.S. air strikes, but U.S. attempts to airdrop food and ammunition reportedly failed. By noon on Wednesday, 60 soldiers had surrendered or had been taken by the Taliban.

So, how does this recent development fit into the relationship between the United States and Afghanistan?

The U.S. and Afghanistan

The End of the War

On December 28, 2014, the U.S.-led coalition ended its combat mission in Afghanistan. The war began October 7, 2001, when the Taliban harbored and refused to give up Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks. U.S and NATO allies have remained ever since in order to train Afghan military forces and police officers to be self-sufficient, even after the fall of the Taliban.

“Over the course of a decade,” stated Army General John Campbell, chief of the International Security Assistance Force, “our Afghan partners and we have built a highly capable Afghan army and police force of over 350,000 personnel.” December 2014 marked the end of the longest war in American history and the transition to the NATO Resolute Support mission. The mission called to gradually reduce troops on the ground and “train, advise and assist” Afghan Security Institutions. Twenty-eight NATO Allies and 14 partner nations contributed to the mission.

The Removal of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan

Before the formal end of the war, President Obama laid out a removal plan of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in May 2014. He planned to remove all but 9,800 American troops by the end of 2014, cut that number in half by 2015, and eventually pull the remaining troops by 2016. By the end of his presidency, President Obama planned the U.S. presence in Afghanistan to be that of a normal embassy with a security assistance office in Kabul.

This past May the plan was modified. During a meeting at the White House, President Ghani asked for the withdrawal plan to be slowed down. The meeting clearly reflects a serious concern on behalf of Ghani that a Taliban resurgence could manifest once U.S. forces have departed. Obama agreed to keep the number of U.S. forces at 9,800 until the end of the year, but still vowed to uphold his decision to remove all forces by 2016. Obama’s approval of the additional 5,000 troops shows confidence in Ghani’s leadership. Relations between the Obama administration and Ghani’s predecessor, Hamid Karzai, had rapidly crumbled before Karzai’s term ended. Unlike Ghani, Karzai refused to sign a bilateral security agreement in exchange for a continued U.S. military presence. Obama called Ghani’s leadership “critical to the pursuit of peace.”

Criticism

The current removal plan from Afghanistan is very reminiscent of the removal of U.S forces from Iraq in 2011, which did lead to severe consequences. Although the Obama administration exudes confidence in the status of the Afghan security forces, some Republicans and other critics fear history will repeat itself. Violence erupted in Iraq after the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Critics claim the void of leadership allowed the growth of ISIL.

The fall of Kunduz promptly led to statements equating it to Iraq.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, stated “The fall of Kunduz to the Taliban is not unlike the fall of Iraqi provinces to ISIL…it is a reaffirmation that precipitous withdrawal leaves key allies and territory vulnerable to the very terrorists we’ve fought so long to defeat.”

In a similar tone, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), stated “It is time that President Obama abandon this dangerous and arbitrary course and adopt a plan for U.S. troop presence based on conditions on the ground.”

If anything, the current state of Kunduz doesn’t promote confidence in Afghanistan’s forces maintaining control.

Conclusion

The Taliban’s control of Kunduz may very well be short-lived. But it could also be a warning sign. The strength and leadership of the Afghan government’s security forces needs to be able to stand on its own. We may be looking at a conflict that draws the United States back in. As of this moment, peace talks between the Ghani government and Taliban have been all but abandoned, and the situation seems to be worsening–what happens next will depend on the many players wrapped up in the growing conflict.

Resources

Primary

NATO: Transition Ceremony Kicks off Resolute Support Mission

Additional

The Long War Journal: Taliban Emir Seeks to Reassure Residents of Kunduz

New York Times: Taliban Fighters apture Kunduz City as Afghan Forces Retreat

New York Times: Taliban and Afghan Government Dispute Status of Kunduz

New York Times: U.S. Strikes Taliban-Held Land Near Kunduz Airport as Afghan Crisis Deepens

Time: U.S. Ends Its War in Afghanistan

Reuters: Afghan Forces Fight to Retake Northern City from Taliban

Reuters: Obama Plans to End U.S. Troop Presence in Afghanistan by 2016

Reuters: Troops from U.S.-led mission fight Taliban near Afghan city

The Washington Post: Obama agrees to slow U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan

 I

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Taliban Captures Kunduz: Should the U.S. Still Leave Afghanistan as Planned? appeared first on Law Street.

Executive control over declaring war or starting military missions has long been a controversial topic. According to the U.S. Constitution, only the legislative branch can order military attacks. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, sometimes called the War Powers Clause, declares that Congress has the power “to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

Despite Congress having authorization authority, many presidents have used their executive powers to send soldiers into battle without an official declaration of war. This has been done in order to quickly activate military forces until Congress has time to pass funding and other approval measures. One might think that this violates the Constitution and has the president undermining Congress. So what powers does the president have in commanding military operations?

A Complicated History

Due to the process of checks and balances, Congress and the president both have roles in military actions. Congressional approval is needed to declare war, fund armed missions, and make laws that shape the execution of the mission. The president has the power to sign off on or veto the declaration of war, just like on other congressional bills. The president is also the Commander-in-Chief and oversees the mission once Congress has declared war. So in short, if the president vetoes a congressional declaration of war, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate, and still force the president to control military action he does not support.

For more than 200 years presidents have asked Congress for approval of war, but many presidents have wanted to bypass Congress to put their own military operations into place. It wasn’t until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 that Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1941, which gave the executive branch more power over military interventions and homeland protection, including ordering war participation from independent government agencies, and expurgating communications with foreign countries. These powers lasted until six months after the military operation. The Second War Powers Act was passed the following year, which gave the executive branch more authority overseeing War World II operations. It was this act that allowed the U.S. to relocate and incarcerate more than 100,000 Japanese Americans.

Presidents used the War Powers Act numerous times over the next 20 years. Neither the Korean or Vietnam Wars were technically wars, but were military interventions in intense foreign conflicts because neither of them were passed as a declaration of war. This angered legislators who believed the president had too much control of the military. In response, they passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which President Richard Nixon vetoed arguing that it undermined his role as Commander-in-Chief; however, his veto was overridden by Congress.

What does the Resolution do?

The resolution extends the president’s power by allowing him to conduct military operations without congressional approval, but there are limits. The War Powers Resolution allows the president to send armed forces without congressional approval only if there is an attack on American soil or its territories; otherwise the military intervention would require congressional approval. It also forces the president to notify Congress within the first 48 hours of the mission and forbids armed forces from intervening longer than 60 days, with an additional 30 days to withdraw.

Has the War Powers Resolution been violated?

Since the beginning of the resolution, numerous presidents have put military actions into play without congressional support, sometimes well past the 60-day window. In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton continued the assault on Kosovo past the deadline. In this case, Congress did not directly approve the missions, but approved funding for them.

After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress overwhelming passed a law permitting President George W. Bush to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” Support for the invasion of several Middle Eastern countries was high at first, but after years of fighting with no end in sight, approval for the “War on Terror” fell and so did public opinion of Bush’s handling of the war.

In 2011, President Barack Obama faced backlash from Congress and voters who claimed his use of executive powers as Commander-in-Chief were being stretched and that his actions overreached his authority. When the Libyan army started to kill its own citizens for protesting their government, Obama and leaders from several European countries decided to aid the Libyan civilian rebels by enforcing no-fly zones and providing aid for the cause. Because the president put into place a military action on his own, congressional Republicans called foul, saying he overstepped his boundaries by not first getting Congressional approval. The president defended his actions saying that U.S. military involvement did not meet the constitutional definition of a war and that it was not the U.S. that was leading the mission, but the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Despite his assertion, in a letter addressed to President Obama, Speaker John Boehner demanded that the president withdraw troops; ten lawmakers from both sides of the aisle filed a lawsuit against the President for not getting congressional approval for the intervention.

Fighting ended on October 31 and NATO ended its operations following the death of Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi. The suit, along with ideas for other potential legal actions, then ceased for the most part, due to dismissal precedent of similar cases.

How do voters feel about President Obama’s intervention?

At its beginning, most Americans were supportive of the president’s intervention in Libya. In March 2011, a Washington Post-ABC poll found that 56 percent of those polled were in favor of the U.S. implementing a no-fly zone across the region in order to protect Libyan rebels from government attacks. While the support for assistance was very high, Americans overwhelming believed that activating troops on the ground was too much, with polls showing disapproval around 90 percent.

Support for the military action was strong in the first weeks, with about 60 percent of Americans supporting the president’s initiatives, but as time marched on without any end in sight, support began to wane. By early June, only 26 percent of those surveyed believed the U.S. should continue the mission, according to a Rasmussen Report poll.

These polls seem to show that Americans don’t like unchecked military actions that go on too long. Does that mean the War Powers Act should be replaced with something that better balances executive actions and congressional approval?

Is repeal of the resolution on the horizon?

Congress has not officially declared war since June 1942 during World War II when it unanimously voted for war against the Axis countries of Bulgaria, Hungry, and Romania. Many lawmakers think that because the U.S. response to foreign conflicts has become quicker due to improvements in technology and intergovernmental military alliances–like NATO–that the War Powers Resolution is no longer needed.

Several members of Congress have suggested the repeal of the War Powers Resolution entirely, or replacing it with a measure that gives the president diminished power. In January 2014, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) revealed a piece of legislation, the War Powers Consultation Act of 2014, that would replace the resolution and restrict the president’s military power. It would require the president to consult with Congress before using military forces in foreign conflicts and require the president to consult Congress within three days of deployment. It also sought to create a Joint Congressional Consultation Committee that would enforce a dialog between the executive and legislative branches. The act would not apply to humanitarian or covert missions. After the Libyan conflict ended in a substantial NATO victory in October 2011, support for reform fell until military intervention in Syria in 2014.

Conclusion

The definition of war makes it difficult to effectively apply the War Powers Resolution. Does war mean boots on the ground, weaponry assistance, or no-fly zones? This question is hard to answer and is debated with almost every military intervention.

Americans tend to support giving an incumbent president more power over military decisions when citizens are attacked on U.S. soil, and during the early part of missions. Once the mission seems to be dragging on, support and morale fall, and so does congressional support. If a president wants to go rogue on his own, he has to get the job done fast or the missions might fail to maintain support. The War Powers Resolution has helped the U.S. respond to foreign conflicts quickly and without that power many missions may never have been started.

Resources

Primary

Library of Congress: The War Powers Act

Additional

Washington Post: Conditional Support For Libya No-Fly Zone

IBT: Majority of Americans Against Sending Ground Troops to Libya

Washington Post: White House Should be Moderately Worried on Libya

U.S. Senate: Official Declarations of War by Congress

Senator Tim Kaine: Kaine, McCain Introduce Bill to Reform War Powers Resolution

Mike Stankiewicz

Mike Stankiewicz came to Washington to follow his dream of becoming a journalist. The native New Yorker studied Broadcast Journalism and Law and Society at American University. In his leisure time he enjoys baseball, hiking, and classic American literature. Contact Mike at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post War Powers Act: Has it Outlasted Its Usefulness? appeared first on Law Street.

Starting in late April 2015, the Taliban launched its annual Spring offensive in Afghanistan. Since that time, the government has fought back and launched its own counteroffensive, which has continued throughout the month of May and into June. After more than a decade and major American military intervention, the Taliban remains active and strong within Afghanistan and neighboring regions. Read on to learn about the group’s origins, the impact of the American war, and the Taliban’s role in Afghanistan’s future.

The Origins of the Taliban

As the oft-told story goes, the Taliban emerged as one of the many competing groups among the Mujahideen fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the late 1970s through 1980s. The group and many others that would make up the Mujahideen were supplied, equipped, and financed in part by large contributions from the United States and Pakistan, which shares a close tribal relation to the Taliban.

The group came to prominence beginning in 1994, succeeding the ouster of Soviet forces. Following the scramble for control, the Taliban, a predominantly Pashtun group, began taking over large swaths of territory. The motivation behind the group centered on a strict interpretation of Sharia law and Sunni Islam. In 1995 they captured their first province, Herat, bordering Iran. By 1998 they had conquered 90 percent of the entire country and were effectively in charge.  The video below details the origins of the Taliban.

Help From Abroad

While the Taliban enjoyed a seemingly meteoric rise from obscure Mujahideen group to the rulers of an entire country, it was not without substantial help–inadvertent or overt–from outside sources. This assistance begins with the United States.

As touched on briefly, the U.S. initially started supporting the Taliban and similar groups in the 1980s in an effort to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. This assistance was far from benign, in fact several Mujahideen members actually visited the White House and met with then-President Ronald Reagan. The relationship continued openly until as late as 1997, when members of the Taliban came to Texas to discuss building an oil pipeline in Afghanistan with an American oil company. This even while the Taliban had been suspected of hiding Osama Bin Laden as early as 1996.

Even after the war in Afghanistan started and dragged on, the U.S. was still allegedly funding the Taliban inadvertently. Up to a billion dollars a year in funding ear-marked for the Afghan government, was believed to be funneled directly to the Taliban.

While the United States has directly and indirectly funded the Taliban, Saudi Arabia has been more direct. The Taliban themselves are widely suspected of emerging from holy seminaries paid for by the Saudis, which cultivated the ideals of strict Sunni Islam. However, their support has not stopped there.

Along with other gulf countries, including the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, Saudi Arabia remains the largest funder of terrorist groups, including the Taliban. These funds are not usually given out directly. Instead, they are channeled through a false corporation that may request support to build more schools, for example. The Taliban and other groups can also raise money from these countries through kidnappings and extortion.

However, the Taliban’s strongest supporter is likely Pakistan, which shares the closest kinship bonds with members of the Taliban. The Pashtun is a tribe whose members live in an area that straddles the northern borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Many of the early members were also educated in Pakistani schools known as Madrassas.

Pakistan’s relationship with the Taliban did not end there. Like the U.S., Pakistan funded the Taliban in their efforts against the Soviets in the 1980s; however, the Pakistanis’ efforts continued after the Americans left, as Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence agency (ISI) continued to train members of the Taliban throughout the 1990s up until the American invasion in 2001.

In 2007, after being driven out of Afghanistan, the Taliban set up an organization in Waziristan, Pakistan and proclaimed itself an Islamic state. From this base the Taliban, which is still being supported by aspects of Pakistan’s ISI, has launched numerous attacks, assassinations, and kidnappings into Afghanistan.

The U.S. War in Afghanistan

Despite the Taliban coming to power essentially as a result of fighting one superpower, this did not prevent the other from going after them either. Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, then-President George W. Bush gave the Taliban an ultimatum to either hand over Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden or be attacked. The Taliban refused and U.S. forces were in the country in less than a month. Less than two months after that, the Taliban was defeated and pushed out of Afghanistan. Despite this victory, both Bin Laden and the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, were able to escape to Pakistan.

Following the overthrow of the Taliban, the focus of the U.S. and its allies shifted to nationbuilding and keeping the remnants of the Taliban at bay. The Taliban however, would not be so quickly dismissed and began a resurgence starting in 2005. The Taliban traded in their old tactics of facing the U.S. in conventional battles for guerilla tactics–particularly suicide bombs–which had been effective in Iraq. The group also resorted to the opium trade for funding. Afghanistan would eventually reach a point where it was supplying 90 percent of the world’s opium.

The renewed and increased violence led to another major policy shift: the surge. The surge was a large additional deployment of U.S. troops to Afghanistan. Newly appointed general Stanley McChrystal requested the troop increase out of fear that at current levels the war may be lost outright. Following this in 2010, Afghan President Hamid Karzai began to publicly float the idea of meeting with Taliban leaders for the first time. While the U.S. initially condemned his actions, by the following year and in the aftermath of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, the Obama Administration announced it was open to talks.

Along with attempts at negotiating with the Taliban, the U.S. and its allies also began shifting greater responsibility and power to their Afghan counterparts. The U.S. and NATO also planned to pull out all troops by the end of 2014. However, following continued violence, uncertain safety situations, and attacks on NATO troops by allied Afghan soldiers, NATO agreed to keep as many as 13,000 soldiers in the country as part of a new bilateral security agreement signed by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. The war officially concluded in 2014, making it the longest war in American history.  The video below details the latest war in Afghanistan.

The Future of the Taliban in Afghanistan

So what is the Taliban’s position today? While as of 2014 they maintained direct control of only four of the 373 districts in the country, their reach is much greater. For example, in a 2013 assessment by Afghan security forces, 40 percent of the country was considered to be at a raised or high danger level. Furthermore, while Pakistan has paid lip service, the Taliban still have a strong base in the neighboring country. The group has also benefited from record poppy harvests and other illegal financing operations such as mining.

Partners in power?

Negotiations of varying degrees have been attempted beginning as early as 2010. President Ashraf Ghani seems especially eager to bring the Taliban to the table, as his first two official visits were to Pakistan where the Taliban is strong and China, who has sponsored such talks. The two sides finally met in May and while nothing was agreed upon, just meeting was a step in a positive direction. However, for more meaningful action to be taken it may require removing all foreign fighters from Afghanistan as the Taliban has articulated.  The video below presents a desire by the Afghan president to talk with the Taliban.

The question now is how likely the Taliban is to actually come to the negotiating table in a meaningful way? The Taliban currently have an entrenched position and are reaping the windfall from record opium sales. It is very possible that the group will simply wait out the withdrawal of all foreign combat troops and then reignite the conflict with a government that has been repeatedly unable to answer to the task.

Conclusion

You reap what you sow. This is an old saying that essentially means your actions will have consequences, whether good or bad. For the United States, it used the Mujahideen in its fight against the Soviets in the 1980s then left them to themselves for much of the next two decades; however, 9/11 revealed what can happen as a result of benign neglect.

While the attacks were not orchestrated by Afghanistan, they were planned by the insidious leader of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, who was allowed to live in Afghanistan by the Taliban and who helped them gain more territory in the country.

Since that fateful day the U.S., its allies, and many average Afghanis have fought with the consequences of earlier decisions. This process has now seemingly come full circle, as the U.S. and its regional partners are advocating for talks with the Taliban and suggesting a role for them in the government. The Taliban, for their part, seemed hesitant to commit and more likely to wait out the complete withdrawal of foreign forces before striking again at what is viewed as a weak government.

Resources

BBC: Who Are the Taliban?

Nazareth College: The History of the Taliban

Global Research: Grisly Peshawar Slaughter-Who Created the Taliban? Who Still Funds Them?

Guardian: WikiLeaks Cables Portray Saudi Arabia as a Cash Machine for Terrorists

Shave Magazine: Pakistan and Taliban: It’s Complicated

Council on Foreign Relations: U.S. War in Afghanistan

Brookings Institution: Blood and Hope in Afghanistan

Council on Foreign Relations: The Taliban in Afghanistan

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Resurgent Taliban Complicates Life in Afghanistan appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

According to UNICEF, there are 153 million children across the globe who are defined as orphans. These children, and others, are at risk for poverty, health concerns, neglect, and abuse. They are the world’s orphans. Read on to learn about how children can become orphans, what it means to be an orphan, and how underlying social problems lead to children being orphaned.

No Easy Definition

The definition of an orphan is not just a child who has lost both parents–instead, many international bodies recognize as orphans children who have lost one or both parents. Moreover, orphans aren’t necessarily children who are in need of homes. Many orphans live with grandparents, aunts or uncles, or other family members.

The expansive definition was created out of a desire to recognize that a child who does not have one or both parents may be vulnerable in some way, whether that is a lack of support, resources, or opportunity. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) explains the move to the broader definition of orphan as follows:

This definition contrasts with concepts of orphan in many industrialized countries, where a child must have lost both parents to qualify as an orphan. UNICEF and numerous international organizations adopted the broader definition of orphan in the mid-1990s as the AIDS pandemic began leading to the death of millions of parents worldwide, leaving an ever increasing number of children growing up without one or more parents. So the terminology of a ‘single orphan’ – the loss of one parent – and a ‘double orphan’ – the loss of both parents – was born to convey this growing crisis.

There are also many children whose parents may be alive, but live far away or are otherwise unable to care for their children. Overall, the global definition of orphan as followed by many aid and advocacy organizations focuses on aiding children who lack in support, protection, and/or caregiving.

How do children become orphaned?

There are countless ways that children can lose one or both parents, or be put in a position where they don’t have support. It’s almost impossible to make a full list, but some of the most pressing and prevalent include children in refugee camps from war and conflict, poverty or abandonment, family turmoil, or social isolation. Each of these problems comes with its own challenges and requires unique resources and approaches, and many orphans can face more than one of these challenges.

Refugee Camps, War, and Conflict

There are a few different ways that children can end up in refugee camps. The two most common are natural disasters and conflicts that force children and families from their homes. Often those disasters or conflicts kill one or both of a child’s parents, or leads to the child being separated from them. Internationally, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), approximately half of the world’s refugees in 2013 were under the age of 18. That proportion is borne out by statistics of people living in refugee camps, as children also amount to half of the overall refugee population in camp-type accommodations.

Children in refugee camps face unique challenges. Malnutrition is prevalent in refugee camps, particularly among very young children. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that in South Sudanese refugee camps in Ethiopia, malnutrition rates for children under the age of five ranged from approximately 25-30 percent.

Refugee camps are also fertile ground for preventable diseases, both because of the crowding that occurs at camps, as well as a lack of access to hygiene materials or proper sanitation. Take the camps set up in Syria in light of the recent civil conflict there, for example. Those Syrian camps are seeing cases of measles and even polio.

Refugee camps create an obviously unusual environment for a child to grow up in. Institutions that provide support and education for children, such as schools, are not necessarily found in refugee camps. For refugees who are constantly on the move, children may not have the ability to work with one school or one teacher consistently enough to build strong educational skills, and schools may be open only once a week for certain age groups.

Children who are refugees, whether in camps or in less structured situations, also have to become the breadwinners for themselves, and possibly for younger children in their families as well. This leads to an influx of child labor. In Syria, UNICEF estimates that one in ten of the refugee children there are engaging in labor in an attempt to support themselves.

While there are many difficulties that children, particularly those who have lost one or both parents, in refugee camps have to contend with, these are some of the most prevalent.

Poverty

Many children who are at risk and are considered “orphans” grow up under conditions of extreme poverty. Poverty is often cyclical–a child born into poverty may lose his parent to illness or a number of other causes. Then, he doesn’t have the resources to provide for himself and will likely fall victim to malnutrition and illness, and will not be able to pursue an education. Subsequent children are then born into poverty as well, and the cycle continues.

Poverty can also lead to “social orphans.” Those are children who haven’t necessarily lost one or both parents, but whose parents can’t take care of them. According to Worldwide Orphans CEO & President Dr. Jane Aronson, children in institutions such as orphanages in Bulgaria are mostly those who do have surviving parents; only two percent are “full orphans”–meaning both parents are deceased. It’s difficult to estimate how many children are social orphans, but in some nations the problem is clearly profound. For example, UNICEF estimates that 70 percent of Moldova’s children in residential care are social orphans.

HIV/AIDS Crisis

With the rise of the HIV/AIDs crisis, more and more children are orphaned every day. In addition, many children who become orphans because of HIV/AIDS are stigmatized in their communities because they may also suffer from the disease. According to UNICEF, 17.9 million children have become orphans because one or both parents died from AIDS. Most are located in Africa, although there are other nations worldwide that have been hit particularly hard by the AIDS crisis.

Children whose parents have HIV/AIDS may be affected well before their parent passes away, as the sickness may make it difficult to adequately carry out caregiving responsibilities. A situation like this can lead to children becoming the de facto head of their household, dropping out of school, and engaging in labor that could become risky–such as commercial agriculture or sex work.

Studies have shown that children whose parents die of HIV/AIDS suffer higher rates of psychological stress than children who are orphaned in other situations. A Swedish study from Lund University conducted in rural Uganda found that “12 percent of children orphaned by AIDS affirmed that they wished they were dead, compared to three percent of other children interviewed.”

Part of this stress may come from the fact that in many places, HIV/AIDS is still deeply feared and stigmatized. Children whose parents have died of HIV/AIDS may be turned away from schools or other public places out of fear that they also have the disease, and a fundamental misunderstanding of how HIV/AIDS is spread.

In addition, children who have HIV/AIDS are victims of discrimination and abandonment as well, leading to orphan status. Dr. Aronson explains the challenges that children with HIV/AIDS face in nations such as Ethiopia:

The task of reuniting orphans living with HIV with their family was daunting from so many angles. These children were abandoned because of their HIV status and to have their families take them back into their hearts is a gargantuan achievement. Learning a new way of thinking is one of the hardest challenges for all human beings… and this step is breathtaking. Just go back to the 1980s and 90s in the U.S. when Ryan White, an American boy with HIV, wasn’t allowed to go to school; when hospital staff donned spacesuits to serve meals to patients with HIV; and when people feared friends with HIV/AIDS. And finally all over the world, disclosure of HIV status takes years of hard work and rarely seems to occur.

What issues do orphans face?

When children are vulnerable, there are many concerning fates that can befall them. The most prevalent include conscription into forces as child soldiers, child trafficking, child prostitution, and early marriage. These challenges are not mutually exclusive, and in some cases more than one can be present in a vulnerable child’s life.

Child Soldiers

UNICEF estimates that 300,000 children are involved in armed conflict worldwide. These include children who are involved with both state and non-state actors. A child soldier is defined by the organization Plan as “anyone under the age of 18 who is part of any kind of regular or irregular armed force or armed group in any capacity.” Children don’t just act as combatants, but also provide support to armies or groups as messengers, through work in camps, or they are used for forced sexual services. There are a number of reasons why children may take on these roles; they may be forcibly recruited or join because of poverty or abuse. They may turn to the armed group as a way to provide an income or because of societal pressures. Children in vulnerable situations–including those who are without their families or homes–are more likely to become child combatants.

Child Trafficking and Child Prostitution 

Vulnerable children may fall victim to human trafficking. Human trafficking is defined by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) as “the recruitment, transport, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a person by such means as threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud or deception for the purpose of exploitation.” According to a 2014 UNODC report, children now make up one third of all trafficking victims worldwide. Those numbers do vary by region: in Africa and the Middle East children make up 62 percent of trafficking victims; in the Americas they account for 31 percent; in South Asia, East Asia, and the Pacific children are 36 percent of trafficking victims; and in Europe and Central Asia they are 18 percent of those trafficked. The most common reasons why children may be trafficked include sexual exploitation, forced labor, warfare, and organ removal.

Child prostitution can occur after a child is trafficked, or in a child’s home country, and it is defined by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) as “the use of a child in sexual activities for remuneration or any other form of consideration.” The exact number of children who have been sexually exploited is difficult to quantify, but UNICEF puts the number at approximately two million.

Child Marriage

Another concern for vulnerable children, particularly young girls, is the risk of early marriage, which can include when a child is forced to marry before the age of 18, or when she is cohabiting, but not necessarily married, before that age. According to UNICEF, one in four women between the ages of 20-24 was married before she was 18. The highest rates are in South Asia, where UNICEF reports that nearly 50 percent of all women were married before the age of 18, and more than 15 percent were married before 15. This issue doesn’t just affect girls, however. Certain nations see a high rate of child marriage for boys as well–in the Central African Republic 28 percent of men ages 20-24 were married before 18. Madagascar, Laos, Honduras, Nauru, the Marshall Islands, Nepal, and Comoros also all see rates of child marriage for young boys above ten percent.

Conclusion

The status of orphans across the world is caused by a daunting mix of many endemic issues–war, natural disasters, abandonment, poverty, disease, and social stigma, among many others. Given that even the definition of an “orphan” is difficult to pinpoint, it’s clear that no two orphaned children’s stories could ever be the same. That being said, one goal rings true for all those trying to help these vulnerable children–the ability to provide them with support, education, love, and protection.

Resources

Primary

WWO: Dr. Aronson’s Journals

WWO: Our Mission

UNICEF: Orphans

UNHCR: Statistical Yearbook 2013: Demographic and Location Data

UNHCR: Are Refugee Camps Good for Children? 

UNICEF: Factsheet: Child Soldiers

UNODC: Human Trafficking FAQs

UNODC: 2014 Global Report on Trafficking in Persons

UNICEF: Child Marriage

Additional

Huffington Post: Reunifying Ethiopian HIV Orphans with Extended Family

SOS Children’s Villages: Children’s Statistics

World Vision: War in Syria, Children, and the Refugee Crisis

Telegraph: Thousands of Syrian Children Left to Survive Alone, Says UN

RNW: Orphaned by Poverty, But Not Orphans

AVERT: Children Orphaned by HIV and AIDS

Worldwide Orphans

Worldwide Orphans is dedicated to transforming the lives of orphaned children to help them become healthy, independent, productive members of their communities and the world, by addressing their physical and mental health, education, and ability to achieve. WWO was founded in 1997 by Dr. Jane Aronson, who has dedicated her life to working with children. Worldwide Orphans is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

http://www.wwo.org

The post Defining Orphans: The World’s Most Vulnerable Children appeared first on Law Street.

Muammar Qaddafi, longtime leader of Libya, was the first leader to be killed in the Arab Spring–the wave of uprisings that swept the Middle East demanding the end of autocratic ruling. The United States and NATO military forces executed a military intervention in Libya to remove Qaddafi as leader. After its immediate action, the event became the primary example for what a successful intervention looks like. But now, four years have passed, and there’s an essential question often posed: did the intervention really make things better?

While it’s difficult to answer that question, Libya’s path post-intervention demonstrates that just because you give people the opportunity for change, does not mean they have the tools or infrastructure to do so. In many ways, the situation in Libya has gone from bad to worse, and continues to raise concerns about the efficacy of the intervention.

 Who was Muammar Qaddafi?

Just two days after the overthrow of President Ben Ali in Tunisia, Libyan demonstrators were throwing stones at a government building and set fire to its offices. The protesters were demanding “decent housing and dignified life.” Libyan opposition websites flourished, and social media was optimized to revolt against Qaddafi. But who exactly was the maligned leader?

Muammar Qaddafi governed Libya as its primary leader for 42 years, from 1969 to 2011. Through his tenure, he was known for supporting public works projects, such as the Great Man-Made River project, which brought water to the arid north of Libya. He was known to redistribute wealth, and provided loans at a zero percent interest rate.

He was also branded an abuser of human rights. He was accused of administering the murder of more than 1,000 prisoners–mainly political opponents–at the Abu Salim prison. Qaddafi was also linked to both the bombing of Pan-Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988 that resulted in the loss of 270 lives, and the murder of police officer Yvonne Fletcher in central London in 1984.

Qaddafi did fit the bill as an authoritarian ruler. As a result, the possibility of toppling the government, just as Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Tunisia’s Ali had been toppled, was too strong for the Libyan population to resist.

United Nations Involvement

Libya was in uproar during the Arab Spring. Opposition rebel forces were mobilizing quickly, and the Qaddafi regime fought back. Among the international community, the question was raised–should someone intervene?

Following the tragedies in Rwanda and the Balkans in the 1990s, the international community debated how to effectively react when a nation systemically violates its citizens’ human rights. Essentially, do states have unconditional sovereignty over their own affairs–no matter how inhumanely events may occur–or can the international community legally intervene for humanitarian purposes?

In 2001, the expression “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) was first presented in response to this debate over the ethics of international intervention. The R2P report outlines that the state is responsible first for the protection of its own citizens within its borders; if the state fails, either through lack of ability or a lack of willingness, the responsibility to protect will shift to the international community through humanitarian intervention or effort.

The United Nations Security Council, a group of 15 countries including five permanent members–the United Kingdom, United States, France, China, and Russia–demanded an immediate ceasefire in Libya. This included an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity.”

The Security Council authorized U.N. member states to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country.

NATO-U.S. Actions

Two days after the UN authorization under R2P, NATO-U.S. forces imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace, a no-fly zone. Sanctions were tightened on the Qaddafi regime, and the bombing on Qaddafi forces began. Seven months later, in October 2011, after an extended military campaign with sustained Western support, Libyan Opposition forces conquered the country.

Qaddafi was trying to flee the city in a convoy of cars when he came under attack from NATO jets. A mob captured him on the ground, led him through the streets and shot him twice. The French claimed responsibility for the airstrike.

Afterwards, the United States continued bombing Libyan tanks and personnel, allowing rebels to re-establish control in Benghazi.

Why did NATO-U.S. Forces Intervene?

There were three fundamental choices. The first was to do nothing and witness a possible humanitarian nightmare. The second was to intervene with a limited approach–essentially assist in the takedown of current government, but not the building of a new government. The third option was to intervene with a complete approach, including staying to help stabilize and build the new government.

The United Nations Security Council decided the U.S. should not allow a humanitarian nightmare to happen if it could be prevented with a relatively simple military intervention. Any presence on the ground to stabilize the conflict probably would not have been welcomed, and it may not have worked any better than it did it in places such as Iraq or Afghanistan. So, the second option was chosen–remove Qaddafi as leader in order to allow the Libyan people time to bring in a new authority.

Additionally, it was a multilateral effort. NATO forces actually led the attacks, not the United States. Additionally, Libyan rebel forces were well organized and located near port cities, which made communication and importing goods easier.

Why was it deemed successful?

There were three targets outlined as a part of the NATO-U.S. strategy: ensure there was an arms embargo enforced on Qaddafi; protect the people being attacked by Qaddafi’s forces; and buy some time and space for Libyan people to decide their own future. These goals were fulfilled in a timely manner, with no American lives lost. Automatically, NATO-U.S. forces declared success.

How is Libya Now?

Unfortunately, by many measures, Libya is now in worse shape. There’s activity from militias affiliated with terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS.

The U.S. may have mitigated the event of a mass killing, but now the region is destabilized–affecting education and literacy, employment, gender equality, and the possibility of institution building, among other things. The following video outlines the difficulties that the Libyan people are facing currently.

So why didn’t we stay in Libya?

Given the political environment in 2011, animosity toward American foreign forces were a concern. This fear led American and European leaders to set a limit the extent of intervention. In addition, the U.S. could have been accused of forcing Western and democratic ideals in a vulnerable country. Security and foreign policy decision makers are constantly riddled with what to do. There is a huge dilemma when it comes to legal and moral humanitarian intervention. In 20/20 hindsight, any decision can be found faulty.

Conclusion

Libya’s case is far from perfect, but not necessarily wrong. It’s very easy to criticize the actions taken, because, yes, Libya may very well be worse off. On a global level, there are steps that could be taken to prevail the challenges to humanitarian intervention. The Security Council permanent members are faced with a difficult conundrum. It becomes increasingly difficulty to determine how to intervene–in what capacity does the international community take over another nation? It’s a question that had to be considered in Libya’s case, and will continue to come up time and time again.

Resources

Primary

United Nations: Background on Responsibility to Protect

United Nations: Security Council Approves No-Fly Zone

Additional

Council on Foreign Relations: The Challenge Of Humanitarian Intervention Since Rwanda

Council on Foreign Relations: Libya and the Responsibility to Protect

Huffington Post: Was the 2011 Libya Intervention a Mistake?

First Look: Hailed as a Model For Successful Intervention, Libya Proves to Be the Exact Opposite

The New York Times: President Obama on Libya

Guardian: Muammar Gaddafi, the ‘King Of Kings,’ Dies in His Hometown

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Looking Back: Lessons From the Intervention in Libya appeared first on Law Street.

The media world is still reeling from Brian Williams’ lies–or severe misremembering, at best–about his helicopter being shot down by Iraqi forces 12 years ago. But round two with Bill O’Reilly has turned out a bit differently. It’s become clear that the Fox News host wasn’t in the thick of the war zone while covering the 1982 Falklands conflict as he’s boasted several times. In fact, he was over a thousand miles away from the heart of the action, sources told Mother Jones.

And O’Reilly, whose criticism of Williams lacked his usual bluster, hasn’t taken this sitting down.

After Mother Jones published its skepticism of O’Reilly’s representation as a “combat-hardened reporter,” O’Reilly immediately hit back, calling the reporters lying “left-wing” “guttersnipes.” When New York Times reporters questioned him soon after, he outright threatened them.

“I am coming after you with everything I have,” O’Reilly told The New York Times over the phone. “You can take it as a threat.”

For years, O’Reilly has backed up his reporting to viewers, readers, and other journalists with claims of reporting for CBS in active war zones in Argentina’s Falkland Islands, the Middle East, and Northern Ireland. He particularly emphasized surviving combat situations and rescuing his photographer during the U.K.’s war with Argentina.

“I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete,” O’Reilly said in 2013. “And the army was chasing us. I had to make a decision. And I dragged him off, you know, but at the same time, I’m looking around and trying to do my job, but I figure I had to get this guy out of there because that was more important.”

But reporters and producers from CBS News told Mother Jones that no American correspondent reached the Falklands. Instead, they said, O’Reilly was in Buenos Aires, over a thousand miles from combat. The riots in Buenos Aires were hardly the deadly affair O’Reilly depicted.

“It wasn’t a combat situation by any sense of the word that I know,” retired CBS correspondent told CNN. O’Reilly, he said, “is trying to build it up into a more frightening and deadly situation than it was.”

So far seven former colleagues from CBS have spoken out against O’Reilly’s exaggerated version of events and claims that “many people were killed” in the riots. Newspaper archives from Argentina at the time don’t report any fatalities in Buenos Aires either, according to the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple.

What’s more, former colleagues doubt his photographer was even injured. “Nobody remembers this happening. If somebody got hurt, we all would have known,” a CBS news cameraman who was in Buenos Aires then told CNN.

After investigations into Brian Williams’ work began, NBC suspended its celebrity anchor without pay for six months. But even as allegations of further fabrication arise–O’Reilly may have lied about hearing the suicide of someone involved in President Kennedy’s assassintion–Fox News has stood by its host and his version of events.

The kicker in all this? O’Reilly’s ratings have only risen, giving him his biggest audience since the Ferguson verdict came out.

Aysha Khan

Aysha Khan studies multi-platform journalism and Middle Eastern affairs at the University of Maryland. Contact Aysha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post As More Questionable Reports Emerge, Bill O’Reilly’s Ratings Increase appeared first on Law Street.

Much of the world reacted on Tuesday, horrified, as ISIS released a video of a Jordanian pilot burned alive. The pilot was named Lieutenant Moath al-Kasasbeh, a member of the Royal Jordanian Air Force, and only 27 years old. He went missing in December in a mission against ISIS, and was captured by the terrorist organization.

Do not share the monstrous pics of Moath Al-Kasasbeh’s death, let’s remember the pilot for his smile.. #IAmMoathpic.twitter.com/FqekJBfhdz

— Waleed Abu Nada (@waleedabunada) February 3, 2015

ISIS had threatened his death in a supposed sort-of ransom letter to Jordan: the country could either bring terrorist Sajida al-Rishawi to a given place by January 29, or al-Kasasbeh would be killed. Jordan didn’t give in to the demands, saying that it couldn’t release the terrorist unless it was sure that al-Kasasbeh was alive, although Jordanian officials talked openly about releasing al-Rishawi under the right conditions. There was a lot of back and forth, and for a time it looked like Jordan’s negotiations might be effective. Unfortunately, the terms were never met, and the video of al-Kasasbeh’s death was released Tuesday night.

Just a few days before al-Kasasbeh was killed, ISIS killed Japanese journalist Kenji Goto. Like al-Kasasbeh, news of Goto’s kiling was released online in video form; however, unlike al-Kasasbeh, Goto was beheaded.

In response to al-Kasasbeh’s killing, Jordan killed two prisoners that it held. One was al-Rishawi, the woman whose release ISIS had demanded. She was a would-be suicide bomber who was involved in an attack on a wedding on November 9, 2005. The group she was with killed 58 people, but her vest failed to detonate. The other prisoner was Ziad Karbouli, who used to be an aide to the top al-Qaeda leader in Iraq.

My heart goes out to the families of al-Kasasbeh and Goto–they were sad, horrific casualties of a bloody and terrifying war. But my brain is left with an overwhelming question: what’s next? Jordan’s attempt at negotiations with ISIS didn’t work out, but what does that mean for other nations?

I was relatively young when 9/11 happened–at least young enough that most of my formal education as it relates to international affairs and politics occurred in a post-9/11 world. Since the War on Terrorism began, one of the most fundamental principles has been that we absolutely, under no circumstances, negotiate with terrorists. In the wake of the horrific killings of al-Kasasbeh and Goto, as well as the killing of Americans such as James Foley and Steven Sotloff, the question of what nations should do when their people are taken hostage by ISIS, or organizations like ISIS, is cloudier than it has ever been.

It’s by no means simple. First of all, the idea of negotiating with belligerents–not terrorists, necessarily, but state actors, isn’t similarly reviled. Wars can end in a few ways, one of which is by reaching an agreement or peace treaty. That seems straightforward enough–we may negotiate with recognized foreign governments, but not with terrorist groups. But remember the fact that until about 100 years ago, nations and their borders weren’t as concrete as they are now, and it becomes more complicated–the difference between the leader of a nation and of a group aren’t very black and white. Take, for example, the Taliban. When it ruled Afghanistan, was it a terror group, or a government? Or a little bit of both?

The truth is, we’ve been negotiating with, or at least attempting to negotiate with, terrorist groups for years–remember all the intricacies of the Iran-Contra affair? So, why are we so adamant about the fact that we don’t negotiate with terrorists? The Bowe Bergdahl scandal this summer, and the willingness of both sides to slam President Obama over his trade, showed that much of America still staunchly believes in that principle.

I want to be clear here, I’m not saying we should negotiate with terrorists. But I think that the question of how to deal with ISIS is more nuanced than a political buzz-phrase. The negotiations between Jordan and ISIS show just how complicated it really is, and how while the “war on terror” is not necessarily over, a look at our tactics may be in order.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jordan’s Negotiations With ISIS Fail: What Does it Mean for the U.S.? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome back to work! OK, so if you’re like me you’ve been back to work for a week now, but it still feels like the first Monday after vacation doesn’t it? In case you weren’t into your normal routine of obsessively scrolling through the news last week, you can catch up on Law Street’s top three articles. Number one was brought to you by Marisa Mostek in her series about the dumbest laws in the United States–this time it was Utah and Nevada. The number two story was from Hannah R. Winsten who had five actionable ideas for making this your most feminist New Year yet. And the third most popular story of the week was an issue brief on hacking as a tool of war by Mike Sliwinski. ICYMI, here is the Best of the Week from Law Street.

#1 The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Utah and Nevada

Nevada is home to legal prostitution and Sin City. Yet, it is surprisingly not home to many stupid laws. However, its neighbor Utah makes up for that with a whole long list of weird laws on the books. Let’s start with Nevada. In Reno, sex toys are outlawed, and it is illegal to lie down on the sidewalk, no matter how drunk and tired you are. Read the full article here.

#2 Five Resolutions for a More Feminist New Year

Folks, the New Year is upon us. Time to break out your most bedazzled dress, pop the champagne, and party your way into 2015, am I right? Fuck yeah I am. But, while New Year’s Eve is a night of epic intoxication, huge crowds, and glittery debauchery (if you’re at the right party), it’s also notorious for being the pre-game to a little thing we all do every New Year’s Day. Resolution making. Read the full article here.

#3 Hacking: The New Kind of Warfare

Following the recent fiasco at Sony, hacking has been catapulted squarely into the spotlight. But hackers are doing more than just delaying movie premieres–they are causing serious damage and have the capability to cause much more. Before we get too scared of these anonymous boogeymen, however, it is important to understand what hacking is and who the hackers are. Read the full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

For the majority of my life, war has been the norm in the United States. We entered Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. War is the new normal–and between 2004-2011 war was, as expected, mostly the leading cause of death for troops in the U.S. military. But for the last two years, that trend did not hold true. Suicide has surpassed war as the number one killer of American troops.

Suicide is also incredibly prevalent among veterans. According to a report released by the Department of Veterans Affairs, 22 veterans take their own lives every day. Given the way the VA collects that information it’s speculated that that number could be even higher. To put this in context, roughly 20 percent of suicides in the United States are committed by veterans, even though they make up just 10 percent of the population. That’s a startling and terrifying figure; as News21 put it:

Suicide rates within the veteran population often were double and sometimes triple the civilian suicide rate in several states. Arizona’s 2011 veteran suicide rate was 43.9 per 100,000 people, nearly tripling the civilian suicide rate of 14.4, according to the latest numbers from the state health department.

Now, the civilian suicide rate has also been rising. According to the New Yorker:

In the United States, suicide rates have risen, particularly among middle-aged people: between 1999 and 2010, the number of Americans between the ages of thirty-five and sixty-four who took their own lives rose by almost thirty percent.

Suicide is a gigantic issue among both our troops and our veterans. The ways in which we understand Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and the effects of war continue to evolve, but clearly we haven’t done enough. See the infographic below for just some of the ways in which veterans’ and active service peoples’ duties can affect them.

Courtesy of Blackwater Law.

PTSD is tricky because it can show up suddenly or gradually, sometimes a long time after the traumatic event. In addition, medical care for veterans hasn’t always been as top notch as it could be–we all remember the VA hospital scandals earlier this year. PTSD can fuel depression, alcoholism, and various other problems. There are other reasons that veterans and service members are at particular risk. For some, reacclimating to civilian life can be very difficult. While there’s no dispositive list of risk factors, it’s clear from statistics alone that this is a significant problem.

The argument that the suicide rate will go down once we’re fully out of Afghanistan and Iraq seems like it should make sense, but it’s not that simple. Even while those wars have been slowly de-escalated, suicide rates have remained pretty constant. That ties back to the fact that PTSD can develop over time along with those struggles that veterans face when they return. A troubling portion of our nation’s veterans become homeless, which makes getting them access to health care and help even more difficult. After all, since 2010, there has been a thirty-three percent increase in homeless veterans.

The fact is that anyone who is a member of our military forces–or former member–deserves the utmost respect, help, and care. But that simply isn’t happening–and until I started looking up these statistics today I didn’t quite realize how much we are failing them. Something has to change–and it starts with awareness.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With 22 Veteran Suicides Each Day, Where Are Our Priorities? appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, have you been watching the news lately?

I’m guessing yes, because you’re all socially conscious, politically engaged legal mavericks, right?

Awesome! So you’ve heard about ISIS, then, I’m sure.

In case you haven’t been watching the news lately — because sunshine and summer weather — ISIS is an extremist Muslim terrorist group that currently controls a significant chunk of northern Iraq and parts of rebel Syria. Not coincidentally, their territory overlaps a TON with important oil sources. Once a part of al-Qaeda, ISIS split off as its own separate entity earlier this year.

Why?

Because their ideology was too extreme even for bin Laden’s cronies. That says a lot.

ISIS — which stands for The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – made news this week after the Washington Post translated its “Contract of the City,” a document that was distributed to citizens of the Iraqi province of Nineveh. Folks, it’s pretty cray.

The contract essentially reads like a list of rules, a dos and don’ts guideline, if you will, for the people of Nineveh. It lists limb amputation as a suitable punishment for stealing, allows for the crucifixion of criminals, and essentially bans women from leaving their homes.

This is really not cool. But! Before you get all hawk-eyed and demand American intervention in Iraq to save all the poor, downtrodden Iraqi victims, let’s all take a moment and listen to Jon Stewart.

I fucking love this man.

Folks, here’s the deal: Groups like al Qaeda, and its increasingly violent offshoot, ISIS, are awful and dangerous and need to be stopped. They totally need to stop existing. We are all in agreement there.

Not only do they pose a threat to the Iraqi people as a whole — who are at risk of getting their limbs chopped off willy nilly if they break a rule on their way to work — but they also pose a threat to the larger global community. Their ideology is depressingly common, and the more power groups like theirs seize, the more hostile the world becomes to people who don’t fit into their agenda.

Namely women, queer people, trans people, disabled people, and people of different races, ethnicities, and religious backgrounds.

This is a group that sees women as inherently less than. They’re required to wear “modest dress,” which essentially means they’ll be punished for wearing anything other than a full burqa. They can’t leave their homes. They are bought and sold like property from fathers to husbands. And wife beating? Totally cool.

ISIS doesn’t see women — or anyone else who isn’t a straight, masculine-presenting, Muslim man — as people. They’re not human beings. It’s a really, really bad situation.

And because of that, along with obvious national security concerns, many Americans want to rush our military right back into Iraq. John McCain, as the always entertaining Jon Stewart reminds us, is one of those folks. But there’s a huge hole in that plan.

Groups like ISIS exist because of Western intervention in the Middle East. They are a direct result of Western imperialism. Al Qaeda formed in the late 1980s as a reaction to Russia’s occupation of Afghanistan — a move that subjected the Afghan people to extreme violence and poverty. It formed as a resistance movement, an answer to the injustices Afghanistan faced at the hands of European, imperialist oppressors.

And they only gained traction as the West continued to insert itself into a corner of the world where it ultimately didn’t belong. Violence and living conditions worsened for civilians. Coups were staged, leaders were deposed, and corrupt figureheads were set up in their place. (Remember Saddam Hussein? The U.S. and Great Britain put him there).

The political problems that plague the Middle East are largely our fault. But instead of taking responsibility for the consequences of misguided power-grabbing and oil pursuit, the U.S. likes to paint a different picture. A pretty racist one, in fact, where Iraqi is a confused, childlike nation, unable to govern itself without making a huge mess. And Americans? We’re painted as the concerned father figure, stepping in to calm the commotion.

But folks, it’s not true. This story is a lie.

The U.S. isn’t a soothing father figure. It’s more like an instigator. And the sexist, xenophobic ideology of groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda isn’t the product of an unsophisticated, backward, childlike nation. The ideology of our conservative leaders is chillingly similar, if more palatably phrased and with Jesus, not Allah, at its helm.

The white savior narrative that war hawks like John McCain are spewing was created by an elite group of politicians and corporate powerhouses who crave money, power, and oil. They don’t care what it costs.

But I hope that you do.

Let’s come up with a more innovative solution to warmongering in Iraq. A solution that doesn’t rely on lies, racism, and increased violence. A solution that creates real, positive change for the people living under ISIS’ tyranny.

Show the comments what you’ve got.

Featured image courtesy of [United States Forces Iraq via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post PLEASE STOP: How Warhawks Are Perpetuating Violence and Racism appeared first on Law Street.

More than 20 percent of women in the armed forces have experienced sexual misconduct in the military. Due to fear of backlash, this statistic is significantly under reported. In the last year, however, reported sexual assaults in the military increased an unprecedented 46%.

Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have truly made bi-partisan efforts to shed light on this national travesty. Sen. Gillibrand recently predicted that the current Military Sexual Assault Bill, which would remove sexual assault cases from the chain of command, will receive the necessary votes to pass.

The efforts of Sen. Gillibrand and others fighting for reform, particularly to take military oversight of sexual assault cases out of military hands, is increasingly gaining attention and steam. The Invisible War, a groundbreaking documentary directed by Kirby Dick, helped make waves on the road to reform, expanding awareness of the critical issue. Two of the women featured in the film, attorney Susan L. Burke and former Airman First Class Jessica Nicole Hinves, joined the Forum on Law, Culture and Society at Fordham Law School for the Forum Film Festival to discuss the issues raised by the film and the steps needed for reform and to pass the Military Sexual Assault Bill. Moderator Thane Rosenbaum, film executive producer Maria Cuomo-Cole, and Rear Admiral Susan J. Blumenthal rounded out the panel.

(All statistics in the film are from U.S. Government Studies)

The Invisible War addresses the rampant under-reporting of sexual harassment in the military. Female soldiers are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than be killed in action. In addition, women who have been raped in the military have a higher rate of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than men who have been in combat.

In fact, about 80% of sexually assaulted men and women do not report. Yes, I said men and women, as male victims comprise approximately one percent, or 20 thousand cases, of all military sexual trauma.

A study by the United States Navy included in the film asserts that 18 percent of incoming recruits have attempted or committed rape before entering the military. An alarming statistic considering that we hold our military to such high standards and expect a certain degree of oversight. Twenty-five percent of women do not report rape because their commanding officers are the rapists. Due to the chain of command disciplinary system, prosecution of these attacks is entirely at the discretion of the military and the commanding officers are in charge. Although Congress has the power to exercise congressional oversight over these military sexual misconduct situations, few members have chosen to become involved until recently.

Susan Burke suggested that the military justice system is flawed and must be modernized. “Put the adjudicatory power in the hands of the prosecutors – not the commanders,” she stated.

The problems with sexual misconduct in the military is not new. As the film points out, in 1991, the Navy dealt with sexual misconduct issues with regard to the Tailhook Convention in which approximately 200 Navy and Marine airmen participated in “The Gauntlet”. This involved men roaming the halls in search of women to assault. “The Gauntlet” ending with the sexual assaults of hundreds of women.

The embarrassing events that took place at the Tailhook Convention in 1991 are absolutely unacceptable; however, such conduct did not end there. In 1996, the Army dealt with sexual misconduct at the Aberdeen Proving Ground involving the rape and sexual harassment of 30 women. In 2003, the Air Force dealt with sexual misconduct within their Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Most recently, there was a scandal involving the rape of a Marine stationed at the Marine Barracks in D.C., a very reputable place to be stationed due to its proximity to the U.S. Capitol building.

Many of the resulting lawsuits and prosecutions in these sexual misconduct cases often end in a form of insignificant justice. In Jessica Nicole Hinves’ case, the man who was under investigation actually received a promotion. Many of these lawsuits end poorly, partially due to the Feres Doctrine which states that the U.S. government is not liable for injuries sustained during service (including rape, apparently).

Additionally, a December 2011 lawsuit was dismissed because the court claimed that sexual harassment is “an occupational hazard of military service.” This seems outlandish, outrageous and absolutely upside-down. Since when is rape and sexual misconduct part of the job description when enlisting in the military to serve our nation and protect our freedom? What’s next, barcodes on every American citizen’s neck as a residential hazard of living in the United States?

Even with bills such as the STOP Act aimed at rectifying the many injustices our service people endure when it comes to sexual assault, many still wonder if it will be enough. According to, Jessica Nicole Hinves, this type of moral erosion is a national security issue, as military feminism is looked down upon by higher ranking commanders.

Holding servicemen accountable for the sexual misconduct they perpetrate is essential in order to maintain the respectable and cohesive nature of our military. Resistance to oversight legislation aimed at removing military sexual assault cases from the chain of command is at odds with the military’s insistence that in order to maintain good order and discipline, commanders need to maintain leadership, control and power.

The panel suggested that military justice can and must be effected through civilian control, encouraging audience members to tell their Congressional representatives that commanders must be held accountable and that higher ranks do not put people in a position to make legal determinations about sexual assault. Countries such as England, Australia and Israel have taken the oversight out of military hands. Therefore, perhaps it is time the United States follows suit.

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [U.S. Army IMCOM via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Forum Film Festival Series: Part 2 – The Invisible War appeared first on Law Street.

So, this Monday was Veterans Day. For those of you who don’t really know what that means—other than a day off from school or work—Veterans Day is a day set aside to honor all of the brave men and women who served in the United States Armed Forces.

So, that grandfather you have who served in World War II? Your uncle who fought in Vietnam? Give them a hug today.

But you know who else deserves some extra appreciation today? Your aunt who did two tours in Afghanistan.

These days, the face of Veterans Day is seriously changing—and for the better. With the ban on women in combat positions lifted last January, more and more women are getting the recognition they deserve for their military service.

Because guess what, lovelies? Women were serving in combat positions long before the ban was lifted almost a year ago.

Captain Vernice Armour is a perfect example. In August of 2004, she was flying an AH-1W Super Cobra attack helicopter for the 11^th Marine Expeditionary Unit in Iraq. One of the missiles she fired saved an entire squad of Marines, one of whom she met by coincidence later. He thanked her for saving his life.

The first black woman to serve as a combat pilot. Such a bad ass! Courtesy of GS Kansas Heartland via Flickr.

Captain Armour is just one of thousands of women who have served in military combat positions. But while their participation was technically banned, they didn’t have access to the same honors and benefits as their male counterparts.

The approximately 200,000 positions officially deemed as “combat” offer higher pay and more opportunities for promotion. With women categorically shut out of those roles, the chances of rising up through the ranks of power—or the pay grade—were slim to none. But since that ban has been lifted, more opportunities are opening up for women soldiers.

And that’s fantastic for a whole bunch of reasons! Let’s get into those, shall we?

Alright! First of all, giving women official access to combat positions means that they’ll receive credit for the dangerous work they’re doing. Under the ban, while women were shut out of these jobs on paper, there were still plenty of them doing the work in real life.

But, since it was technically illegal, many of them were doing it without recognition. That’s just not OK, am I right? If you’re running the same risk of getting blown up as the guy next to you, you deserve to be honored on the same level when you get home.

But credit is just the beginning. Letting women into combat has the potential to change military culture as we know it, and that’s a huge deal.

Currently, the rate of sexual assault in the military is outrageous. The documentary The Invisible War points out that women soldiers are more likely to be raped by one of their comrades than they are to be killed by enemy fire.

So, women in the military are statistically safer with the enemy than they are with their own fellow soldiers. That is totally unacceptable. And we haven’t even looked at incidents of male-on-male rape within the military.

Sadly, male soldiers—of all nationalities—are often encouraged to engage in sexual warfare, creating an oppressive rape culture. It’s a strategy that doesn’t stop at killing the enemy. It goes on to violate it, emasculate it, and destroy its very soul. It’s a depressingly effective way to win wars, when used in conjunction with the technology of combat.

Don’t believe me? Read Grace Cho’s Haunting the Korean Diaspora: Shame, Secrecy, and the Forgotten War. In it, she tells the story of the mass rapes that occurred in Korea at the hands of multiple invading armies, the U.S. being just one of them. These massacres gave rise to the booming prostitution economy that surrounds any foreign military base—where war ravaged women turn to support themselves and their children. Cho’s mother was one of those women. Her father was, likely, a kindly client.

But why is this rape culture so prevalent among military men? With women largely excluded for many generations, the armed forces have had the room to grow into a hypermasculine, old boys’ club.

The military has made itself into a place where men can gather to be their most savagely masculine—to revel in the knowledge that they have the brawn, they have the power, and they will stop at nothing to prove their superiority.

Allowing women to enter this space has the potential to change all that.

YAY!

As more women gain access to the pathways that lead to military promotion, the more women will ultimately occupy high-ranking leadership roles. With women increasingly ruling the roost, the gendered power dynamics of the whole organization can start to transform.

Perhaps more GI rape victims will report their attacks, feeling more comfortable confiding in a female superior. Maybe those superiors will be less inclined to sweep sexual assaults between soldiers under the rug. And maybe with the threat of real consequences, rates of sexual assault will ultimately decline.

Maybe female generals will discourage soldiers from engaging in sexual warfare. Maybe they won’t be as keen to turn a blind eye when it does occur.

But most importantly, maybe having some women in charge will change this sexist idea that men have the power. That men are the protectors. That men call the shots.

Because, as more male soldiers report to female commanders, their views about women will have to start changing.

The old boys mentality that women are frail, hysterical baby-makers, whose uteruses must be protected at all cost, will start to crack. The presence of female military officials will force male soldiers to view women in a new light—less as passive, walking wombs, and more as intelligent, powerful individuals, with skills and smarts capable of outpacing their own.

So this Veterans Day—the first one we’ll celebrate without the ban on women in combat—give some extra love to all the women soldiers out there. They’re an underappreciated lot.

—

Featured image courtesy of [US Air Force via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Veterans Day Reminder: Women Are Fighters, Not Fetus Factories appeared first on Law Street.

The DOJ has brought new charges against four former Blackwater Security contractors by the names of Dustin Heard, Evan Liberty, Nick Slatten, and Paul Slough. All four men were previously in various branches of the US military before joining Blackwater, a private military and security company founded in 1997.

These four former Blackwater employees are now being charged with multiple counts of voluntary manslaughter and attempt to commit manslaughter because of their involvement in the 2007 Nissor Square Massacre. On September 16, 2007, these four men shot at Iraqi civilians in Nissor square, leading to the 17 deaths and 20 injuries. The Blackwater contractors were in the Square to clear a way for American officials coming in a convoy. Exactly what happened that day is still somewhat unknown: Blackwater argues they were provoked, Iraqi police say they were not. A further FBI investigation determined that at least 14 of the deaths were unprovoked and classified the incident as an “unprovoked illegal attack on civilians.”

A year after the incident, the US charged the contractors who were present with various counts of manslaughter and weapons violations, but the charges were dismissed by a US Judge. The explanation given for the dismissal was that the testimony the case was based on was inadmissible. In 2011, three years later, an appeals court disagreed. Last week, four contractors were re-indicted —of the six involved in the incident, one has already pleaded guilty and another had charges against him dropped.

Last time the charges were brought, Heard, Liberty, Slatten, and Slough all pleaded not guilty and alleged that their actions in Nissor Square in 2007 were exclusively acts of self-defense. As of yet, there is no indication what they plan to plead for these new charges or when the case will actually begin. The indictment says that the four men, “unlawfully and intentionally, upon a sudden quarrel and heat of passion, did commit voluntary manslaughter.” The contractors on trial will need to prove that they did in fact act in self defense.

This opportunity to discuss Blackwater comes at a time when Americans are becoming increasingly frustrated with their government, partly because of a lack of transparency. The history of Blackwater, which has now changed its name to Academi, sheds an interesting light on US military policies. Blackwater was originally founded in 1997, and was intended to supplement already existing military force. One of the founders, Erik Prince, stated , “We are trying to do for the national security apparatus what FedEx did for the Postal Service.”

Blackwater mainly began by helping with training and providing protection services. It was one of a few different private firms hired in the Afghanistan and Iraq war. It is estimated that in 2006, there were 100,000 private contractors working for the Department of Defense. This is a huge departure from previous wars—estimates only place about 10,000 contractors in the Persian Gulf War. This farming-out of war to private militaries has the potential to grow even further in future conflicts. The DOJ is taking an admirable step in forcing accountability for these groups by the indictment of the four contractors involved in Nissor Square Massacre.

[Washington Post]

—

Featured image courtesy of [jamesdale10 via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Charges For Former Blackwater Contractors appeared first on Law Street.

Drones: depending on whom you ask, drones are either the military instruments of the future, or the machines that will incite humanity’s destruction. But no matter how you feel about drones, unmanned aerial vehicles in various forms have been used in combat for years.

The United States may have to answer for their use of drones in the weeks to come. Two United Nations experts by the names of Christof Heyns and Ben Emmerson, have released large UN reports on the overall use of drones. The crux of these reports is a demand for greater transparency from countries who use drones—and for the United States to release more robust data on their use of drones.

According to the United Nations, 33 different drone strikes have been detected that have resulted in the death of civilians. According to the government of Pakistan, since 2004 there have been about 330 drone strikes in the northwest territory of Pakistan. These strikes have supposedly resulted in the deaths of 2200 people, 400 of which have been civilians. Emmerson has stated that in Yemen, up to 58 civilians may have been killed by drones.

In the United States, the CIA is inextricably linked to the use of drones. As a result, much of the information about US drone use is classified.  In his report, Emmerson slams this, stating that it creates, “an almost insurmountable obstacle to transparency.” Emmerson claims that the United States does not accurately self report the civilian casualties caused by drone strikes.

There are serious international law issues tied in with the killing of civilians. International law is a somewhat vague and grey field; although the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, and various tribunals exist, international law still remains a very abstract idea.

At the risk of over-simplifying a very complicated topic, a brief discussion of international law on the topic of civilian killings can be had. This topic falls under the category of International Humanitarian Law, sometimes referred to by its Latin name jus in bello, used to regulate actions during war. The Geneva Convention amendment Protocol I specifically deals with protections afforded to countries involved in international armed conflicts. The Geneva Convention amendment Protocol I does contain protections for civilians, but the United States has not ratified it.

The United Nation’s implications that US actions may violate international law unfortunately fall on mostly deaf ears. The United States is not going to be brought before a tribunal or a court, at best the United Nations can condemn US drone actions, but there really isn’t any action they can take that will show any sort of teeth. The question of the future of drones and their applicability to conflict, will not be answered with these United Nations reports.

[The Guardian]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Don McCullough via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The United Nations and Drones appeared first on Law Street.