In initial reporting on the January 29 counterterrorism raid in Yemen, Eric Schmitt at the New York Times said that options were being considered for pushing authority to conduct strikes to military commanders without White House approval, and for loosening restrictions protecting civilians.
Because Mr. Trump had been explicit about his intention to ask for the review to accelerate the fight against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, American military planners had begun drafting classified options to present to the new commander in chief. Some of those options, like pushing more authority to conduct strikes to commanders in the field or loosening restrictions designed to limit the risk to civilians, could also be applied to attacks against Qaeda fighters and Islamic State insurgents.
There were no immediate indications that the rules of engagement had been loosened for the mission in Yemen, military officials said.
U.S. Commando Killed in Yemen in Trump’s First Counterterrorism Operation
On Thursday, Helene Cooper and Schmitt at the Times reported that the Trump administration is considering granting military commanders more independent authority. White House press secretary Sean Spicer was quoted on the nature of those supposed proposals being considered.
The White House is considering giving the Pentagon more independent authority to conduct counterterrorism raids as part of an effort to accelerate the fight against the Islamic State and other militant organizations, administration officials said on Thursday.
Such a step would allow military commanders to move more swiftly against terrorism suspects, streamlining a decision-making process that often dragged on under the Obama administration, frustrating Pentagon officials.
The White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, called the proposal “a philosophy more than a change in policy.” He said that “the protocol is not changing in terms of what has to be signed off,” but added that Mr. Trump believed “these are the experts in the field.”
Trump May Give the Pentagon More Authority to Conduct Raids
Yesterday, quoting an on-the-record Pentagon spokesman, Jamie McIntyre at the Washington Examiner reported that the lower-level approval authority has already been given, and that this occurred at the time of the January 29 raid in Yemen. McIntyre’s lead uses the word “war”.
The U.S. military has opened a new front in the war against terrorists after President Trump granted new authorities for U.S. commanders to carry out air and ground attacks against al Qaeda's most dangerous affiliate in Yemen.
The U.S. has conducted two days of airstrikes aimed at Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP. The new, more aggressive posture comes after Trump gave U.S. Central Commander Gen. Joseph Votel expanded authority to order military action in Yemen, without prior approval from the White House.
Pentagon spokesman Navy Capt. Jeff Davis said the president granted the new authority at the same time he approved the Jan 29 special operations raid that resulted in the death of U.S. Navy SEAL Ryan Owens.
"This was an authority that was delegated by the president, through the secretary of defense to the Central Command commander to carry out," Davis said.
McIntyre reports that as a result of the new authority, the United States has carried out more than 30 airstrikes in Yemen in recent days.
International law makes an important distinction about whether a state of armed conflict exists. International human rights law (IHRL) permits lethal force only as a last resort, when necessary to protect human life. In non-international armed conflict, where “non-international” has a term-of-art meaning that reasonably includes much current U.S. military action in foreign nations, the less strict Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) applies where the armed violence is protracted and non-state groups are sufficiently organized.
There is an inherent right of collective self defense, with a traditional strict test requiring instant and overwhelming necessity, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation. The United States invokes self defense justifications, but under a far looser conception of imminence and necessity.
The distinction about armed conflict, or in U.S. language “areas of active hostilities,” is relevant here partly because this Trump administration action, giving military commanders authority to launch strikes, can be interpreted as going to war in Yemen.
This is from the Examiner article:
While battlefield commanders have the authority to approve airstrikes in active war zones such as Iraq and Syria, actions in countries without a large U.S. military presence, such as Yemen, had required approval from the president.
The counterterrorism raid in January has been claimed as an intelligence gathering mission. The home of tribal leaders had been attacked, basically, hoping to gather leads on the location of AQAP leaders like Qassim al-Rimi.
If the leader, Qassim al-Rimi, wasn't there, the US military believed it would find intelligence that would help lead to him, the official said, though the official cautioned that the mission was not greenlit based on whether it was thought Al-Rimi would be at the site.
US Central Command, which oversees forces in the region, and the Pentagon are strongly denying al-Rimi was an objective of the raid just over a week ago.
On Tuesday, Pentagon spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis said, "There was never any intention, hope, anticipation or plan that he would be part of this operation."
"It wasn't a high-value target mission," Col. John Thomas told CNN on Monday, referring to operations aimed at killing or capturing terrorist leaders.
Intelligence gathering raids of this sort cannot be justified even on loose claims of self defense. That an intelligence gathering purpose would be publicly proclaimed as sufficient, I think backs up the idea that the Trump administration has significantly changed the rules of engagement in Yemen.
An Obama administration Presidential Policy Guidance, governing the use of force outside areas of active hostilities, in word at least requires a near certainty of no civilian harm before approval of operations. This restriction is presumably a primary target of a clause in Trump’s memo on defeating the Islamic State:
(iii) The Plan shall include:
...
(B) recommended changes to any United States rules of engagement and other United States policy restrictions that exceed the requirements of international law regarding the use of force against ISIS;
Presidential Memorandum Plan to Defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
Under Barack Obama’s standard for use of force outside areas of active hostilities, a near certainty of no civilian harm is required, and yet civilian casualties have been common.
In Donald Trump’s first high publicity counterterrorism raid, some 30 civilians had been killed, though the military itself says the raid was not on a high value target.
Rules of engagement, their tightening and loosing, have very real effects on harm to civilians. Stepped up U.S. military action in Yemen, under loosened rules of engagement, is certain to bring additional killing of civilians.