• 
  

2014 Conflict in Gaza 3-9-15 From C-SPAN

A task force of retired U.S. generals presented the findings of a report on the 2014 Gaza conflict. The generals travelled to Israel to assess the conduct of the Israeli military and Hamas during the summer 2014 Gaza conflict, and their report offers lessons learned for future U.S. military operations. 

http://www.c-span.org/video/?324735-1/discussion-2014-conflict-gaza

The transcript for this program was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

•  Speakers
• Geoffrey Corn
• Richard Devereaux
• Michael D. Jones
• Michael Makovsky
• Richard Natonski
• Charles Wald
• 
  

00:01:05	Michael Makovsky CONVERSATIONS] >> IF I COULD HAVE EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION. I WANTED TO CONTINUE EATING AND PLEASE DON'T LET MY SPEAKING INTERFERE WITH YOUR HAVING LUNCH LUNCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING TODAY. MY NAME IS MIKE PETOSKEY. WE ARE HERE TO HAVE A VERY SPECIAL EVENT AND WE ARE GLAD TO HAVE EVERYONE HERE AS WELL AS MEMBERS OF THE PRESS. WE THOUGHT DURING THE LAST SUMMER DURING THE GAZA WERE BETWEEN ISRAEL AND HAMAS THAT WAS GOING ON THERE IN THAT CONFLICT WAS A LESSON FOR THE UNITED STATES. THAT WAS THEIR VIEW AND CONSULTATION WITH FORMER U.S. MILITARY FOLKS AS MANY OF YOU KNOW IF YOU HAVET BEEN TO AN EVENT OF HOURS JUST SO WAS FOUNDED IN 1976. IT'S A PRO-U.S. DEFENSE ORGANIZATION. WE HAVE BEEN MEMBERS OF U.S. MILITARY INCLUDING A LOT OF RETIRED GENERALS AND ADMIRALS FOR MANY YEARS. WE THOUGHT IN OUR CONSULTATION WITH SOME OF THE GENERALS IT WOULD BE VERY USEFUL FOR FORMER SENILKS OR DO A STUDY OF THE GAZA CONFLICT LAST SUMMER AND ONE OFTHE LESSONS THAT WE COULD LEARN FOR THE UNITED STATES. WE HAVE FIVE VERY DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE AND WE HAVE TWO VERY DISTINGUISHED ADVISERS AND I ADVISERS AND I'LL I WILL INTRODUCE THEM QUICKLY. WE HAVE FIVE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE TODAY. CHAIRING THE TASK FORCE'S GENERAL CHUCK WALZ WHO IS ON MY RIGHT. CHUCK WAS FORMER DEPUTY COMMANDER OF UNITED EUROPEAN COMMAND AND ALSO HAD OF THE AIR COMMAND, THEY AIR ATTACK AT THE BEGINNING OF THE AFGHANISTAN WAR. ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL CALDWELL WAS FORMER COMMANDER OF U.S. ARMY NORTH. HE ALSO FOR 13 MONTHS WITH OUR SPOKESPERSON, WAS A U.S. MILITARY SPOKESPERSON IN IRAQ. LIEUTENANT GENERAL RICHARD NATONSKI FORMER COMMANDER OF U.S. MARINE CORPS FORCES COMMAND THAT ALSO WAS AN IMPORTANT COMMANDER IN FALLUJAH. MAJOR GENERAL RICK DEVEREAUX FORMER DIRECTOR OFPERA OONAL PLANNING POLICY AND STTEGY FOR THE AIR FORCE. MAJOR GENERAL MIKE JONES FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF OF U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND ALSO WAS AN IMPORTANT COMMANDER IN IRAQ. OUR TWO ADVISERS PROFESSOR ELLIOTT COHN PROFESSOR OF STRATEGIC STUDIES HERE AT SLICE AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL JEFFREY KORN WHO IS ON OUR PANEL TODAY, PRESIDENTIAL RESEARCH PROFESSOR OF LAW'S SOUTH TEXAS COLLEGE OF LAW IN HOUSTON. WITHOUT FURTHER ADO I'M GOING TO TURN OVER TO GENERAL WALL. EACH OF THEM ARE GOING TO SPEAK FOR A FEW MINUTES AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO ASK EVERYONE COME IN THEIR INDEX CARDS ON ALL THE TABLES. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WE GET TO THE Q&A WHICH I WILL MODERATE PLEASE WRITE DOWN THE
00:04:37	Charles Wald QUESTIONS. PEOPLE WILL PICK THEM UP AND WE WILL ASK A SELECT GROUP OF QUESTIONS TO THE GENERALS. AGAIN THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND I THINK WE WILL HAVE ONE MORE THING BEFORE YOU GET TO THE DISCUSSION. MANY OF YOU HAVE INITIAL DRAFTS OF THE REPORT. YOU CAN ALSO FIND IT ON OUR WEB SITE AT JINSA.ORG. GENERAL WALL. >> I HOPE HE CANNOT HEAR ME BUT FIRST OF ALL I WOULD LIKE TO COMPLEMENT MIKE MAKOVSKY IS THAT THE JUNTA FOR THE GREAT JOB THEY DID SETTING UP A TRIP, COORDINATING THE INDIVIDUALS WHO SAW WORKING TO GET THIS REPORT PUT TOGETHER SO GREAT JOB THERE. I LIKE TO TELL YOU ALL THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TODAY. A COUPLE OF GOOD FRIENDS, DAVE THANKS FOR BEING HERE. I'M SURE THERE ARE OTHERS OUT THERE BUT IT'S GOOD TO HAVE FORMER COLLEAGUES HERE. OUR INTENT IS MIKE MENTIONED WAS TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE 50 DAY CONFLICT AND BY THE WAY MANY OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS. IN ISRAELI TERMS 50 DAYS IS A LONG MORE. EVERYTHING IS COMPRESSED AND A LOT DIFFERENT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF DISTANCES, THE STRATEGIC DEPTH, THE TIME, THE TOLERANCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY WHICH WAS A BIG PART OF THIS SUMMIT WILL TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT. THE 50 DAY WAR TO THEM IS A LONG TIME. THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS WE COULD TALK ABOUT TODAY BUT THE MAJOR TAKEAWAYS WE THOUGHT FROM THIS PARTICULAR CONFLICT THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR ALL OF US BUT PRIMARILY U.S. MILITARY WERE AND WE HAVE HEARD MUCH ABOUT THIS BEFORE BUT IT'S BECOMING MORE AND MORE COMMON KNOWLEDGE IS THAT THIS CONFLICT WITH HAMAS AND THE GAZA IN MORE OF AN URBAN TERRAIN IS GOING TO BE PROBABLY THE MORE COMMON TYPE OF WARFARE WE WILL SEE IN THE FUTURE, HYBRID TYPE WARFARE. WE HAVE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THAT BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHAT IT IS. HYBRID WARFARE IS WHAT WE FEEL WILL BE PROMINENT IN THE FUTURE. NONSTATE ACTORS, IN THIS CASE EVEN THOUGH HAMAS IS TECHNICALLY THE GOVERNMENT THEY ARE, THE FACT THAT SO MANY OF THE -- SOPHISTICATED HAMAS CAN. [INAUDIBLE] ENEMIES ARE GOING TO BE CREATIVE AND USE ANYTHING THEY CAN AND AS AN ASIDE WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE LOT TO WORRY ABOUT YOU CAN DO A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE PRETTY CREATIVE. THIRD THE ISRAELI DEFENSE FORCE THEIR EFFORTS TO AVOID CIVILIAN CASUALTIES WERE IRONICALLY BEYOND THE CALL OF REASONABLE ANYWAY. THEY WERE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES NOWHERE AND FOR MILITARY PEOPLE OF MY TYPE THAT HAVE BEEN IN COMBAT A LOT WE I THINK OUR RESPECTIVE OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF CONFLICT AND THE FACT HE WOULD GO SO FAR OVERBOARD THAT YOU ALMOST PUT YOUR OWN SOLDIERS IN JEOPARDY IS AN ISSUE THAT WE CAN ALL CONTEND WITH. THE IAO CAMPAIGN THE INFORMATION CAMPAIGN WE TALK ABOUT THAT IN NINE STATES. UNITED THE UNITED STATES MILITARY HAS HAD DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF THE IAO CAMPAIGN FOR A LONG TIME. BUT OUR FEELING WAS HAMAS REALLY GRAB THE NARRATIVE IN THIS CONFLICT FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. ONE IS AGAIN AND YOU CAN ARGUE THE POINT OF WHETHER IT'S MORAL OR NOT BUT YOU CAN MAKE UP YOUR OWN STORY IN FIGHTER PILOT LINGO LINGO. THEY TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE DEEPLY DEBRIS. THEY DEVELOP THE NARRATIVE AND HAD NO COMPULSION ABOUT MAKING UP THE FACTS WHICH SHOULDN'T SURPRISE ANYBODY. I KNOW IT DOESN'T HEAR THAT BUT THE FACT IS THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY STARTED BELIEVING THIS NARRATIVE IF YOU WILL. OUR FEELING WAS THE ISRAELI DEFENSE FORCE DIDN'T DO WELL AT COUNTERING THAT AND OUR FEELING IS IN THE NEXT COMPLEX WHENEVER THAT IS YOU HAVE TO DEVELOP YOUR NARRATIVE AND YOU HAVE TO BE QUICK AND NIMBLE AND YOU HAVE TO BE CREDIBLE BECAUSE THERE IS QUESTIONING AND YOU HAVE TO DEVELOP A STRONG CAMPAIGN AND WE WILL TALK MORE ABOUT THAT. LASTLY WE NEED TO DEVELOP SOME OF OUR OWN NEW TECHNOLOGIES. HAMAS BUILDS AS YOU MAY KNOW OR IF YOU DON'T KNOW 34 SOPHISTICATED, WAS FROM THE GAZA INTO ISRAEL. THE ISSUE WAS THEY WERE GOING TO USE THESE TUNNELS TO GET INSIDE THE FARMING AREAS OF THE ISRAELI CITIZENS KIDNAPPED THEM AND THE KIDNAPPING ISSUE IS A BIG DEAL. THESE TUNNELS ARE VERY SOPHISTICATED. IT ISN'T LIKE A TUNNEL THAT YOU IMAGINE. THEY START FROM INSIDE THE GAZA AND A CIVILIAN BUILDING SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE IT STARTS. THEY TAKE DOWN ALMOST 40 OR SO METERS UNDER THE GROUND. THEY ARE CEMENT AND VERY SOPHISTICATED TUNNELING. IT'S LIVING HAS SECURITY. THEY ARE UP TO TWO MILES LONG AND THEY CAN BUILD THESE THINGS FAIRLY RAPIDLY. THEY HAVE DIFFERENT BRANCHES THAT GO OUT SO IT'S VERY SOPHISTICATED THAT YOU CAN CAN'T FIND THESE THINGS ZIPPIER
00:10:14	Richard Devereaux FOR EXAMPLE. THEIR OTHER TECHNOLOGIES WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT WE HAVE OF THAT THAT -- BUT A BETTER HANDLE ON. I THOUGHT WHAT WE DO IS START OUT WITH KIND OF AN OVERVIEW OF THE WAR ITSELF WHAT THE CONTEXT WAS AND WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. IF WE COULD START WITH RICK DEMIREL. >> I WANTED TO ELABORATE ON WHAT GENERAL WALL COVERED IN OUR FIRST AREA FINDINGS AND THAT IS THIS NOTION OF HYBRID WARFARE. WHICH IS IN OUR VIEW BASED ON WHAT WE OBSERVED LOOKING AT THE HAMAS IDF CAMPAIGN AND THE NEW FACE OF MODERN WARFARE. IT'S A TYPE OF WARFARE FOUGHT BY NONSTATE ACTORS. SOMETIMES USING ADVANCED WEAPONS LIKE HAMAS HAD AVAILABLE TO IT, ROCKETS, MISSILES, UAVs, SPECIAL OPS FORCES FOUGHT IN DENSELY POPULATED URBAN AREAS. JUST AS A REFRESHER GAZA IS ABOUT 1.8 MILLION INHABITANTS IN THIS AREA ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SO VERY CLOSE QUARTERS AND IT WAS A CONFLICT LIKE IN ANY HYBRID WAR WHERE CIVILIANS BECOME THE FOCUS OF THE INFORMATION CAMPAIGN. THOSE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES, CIVILIANS AS TARGETS, CIVILIANS AS SHIELDS ALSO PART OF THIS HYBRID WARFARE. SO THE INFORMATION CAMPAIGN BECOMES A VERY IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF THE CONFLICT AND AS WE WILL TALK FURTHER ABOUT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT AND HOW AN ADVERSARY CAN USE THOSE AGAINST AN OPPONENT. ALL THOSE FACTORS WERE SORTED IN PLAY AND WE BELIEVE WILL CONTINUE TO BE IN PLAY FOR OUR U.S. MILITARY AS WE FACE THESE NONSTATE ACTORS IN THE FUTURE. ISIS FOR INSTANCE FITS SOME OF THE PARAMETERS OF THIS HYBRID WARFARE IN MORE AND MORE THAT WE WILL BE EMBARKING ON AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS WHERE THE GAZA CAMPAIGN, ISRAELI FORCES BY VIRTUALLY ANY MEASURE DEFEATED HAMAS ON THE GROUND, UNEQUIVOCALLY GET THE NARRATIVE IN SOME RESPECTS WAS A DIFFERENT ONE. KIND OF REMINDING US THAT THE STRATEGIC OUTCOME OF THE CAMPAIGN IN HYBRID WARFARE WILL NOT NECESSARILY BE DIRECTLY TIED TO THE RESULTS ON THE BATTLEFIELD. GOOD LESSONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MILITARY. CERTAINLY THE U.S. HAS FACED THESE CHARACTERISTICS BEFORE IN VARIOUS COMPLEX GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO VIETNAM BUT I THINK AGAIN THE GAZA CAMPAIGN BRINGS THEM ALL TOGETHER IN A WAY THAT MAY INTEGRATE THESE FACTORS IN A WAY THAT WE ARE GOING TO SEE MORE FREQUENTLY IN THE FUTURE. THE TREND LINES ARE POINTING IN THAT DIRECTION. THINK ABOUT THE URBAN POPULATIONS. BY 2050, 75% OF POPULATION ON THE PLANET IS PROJECTED TO BE AN URBAN AREAS. ACCESS TO ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, TECHNOLOGIES LIKE DRONES, CERTAINLY ROCKETS AND THE TUNNELS AND SORT OF THE LOW TYPE TYPE -- LOW-TECH AND THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT ARE MORE AVAILABLE TO ADVERSARIES YET TO FENCING AGAINST THESE CAPABILITIES BECOMES INCREASINGLY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN MORE COMPLICATED. CERTAINLY THE INFORMATION SPHERE. YOU HAVE TO BE HIDING UNDER A ROCK TO NOT
00:14:03	Charles Wald UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF TWITTER, FACEBOOK, SOCIAL MEDIA
00:14:08	Michael D. Jones AND OTHER DEVICES THAT IN MANY CASES OUR ADVERSARIES ARE USING VERY EFFECTIVELY. AS WE STEP BACK FROM THE CONFLICT WE REALLY SAW THIS NOTION OF HYBRID UNRESTRICTED WARFARE REALLY PLAYING OUT IN THE GAZA CAMPAIGN IN WAYS WE THINK WILL HAVE GREAT IMPLICATIONS IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR MILITARY. >> THANK YOU RICK. NEXT OF THE PROFESSOR
00:14:32	Geoffrey Corn TALKED ABOUT THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT WHICH IN THIS CASE FROM A FORMER MILITARY PERSON WHAT WE LEARNED GROWING UP IN THE MILITARY IS THAT THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT THE LAW IS THE LAW. MORALITY IS AN ISSUE. THAT IS HOW THE WESTERN WORLD THINKS OF CONFLICT. IN THIS CASE IT WAS DISTORTED. >> THANK YOU SIR AND THANKS TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP. FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THE FACT THAT WHEN I WAS FIRST ASKED TO PARTICIPATE AS A ROLE OF LEGAL ADVISER I WAS REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE A REPORT WRITTEN BY WARFIGHTING COMMANDERS ON THE CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH FIGHTING THESE TYPES OF HYBRID ENEMIES. ONE OF THOSE CHALLENGES IS THE FUNCTION AND THE ROLE OF THE LAW IN THIS FIGHT. I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT TO START OUT WITH. ULTIMATELY THIS IS THE DOMAIN OF COMMANDERS NOT NECESSARILY LAWYERS. LAWYERS CONTRIBUTE BY GUIDING COMMANDERS WITH COMPLEX LEGAL QUESTIONS THAT ULTIMATELY WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS THE ABDICATION OF NATIONAL COMBAT POWER TO ACHIEVE A STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE AND THAT IS WAR WAR AND AT WORST THE BUSINESS OF WARFIGHTERS. THIS REPORTER THINK IS REMARKABLE JOB OF HIGHLIGHTING WHEN YOU CONFRONT AN ENEMY WHO VIEWS YOUR COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW OR FOR YOUR COMMITMENT TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW AS A TACTICAL AND STRATEGIC ENABLER FOR ITS OWN OBJECTIVES IT CREATES AN IMMENSE CHALLENGE IN COMPLIANCE. A COUPLE OF POINTS I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT ARE REFLECTED IN THE REPORT AND I THINK ARE GOING TO BE REFLECTED IN MANY OF THE COMMENTS, THE FIRST IS THIS DOMAIN OF IMAGES RELATED TO CONFLICT HAS IN MANY WAYS DISTORTED THE PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW. THERE'S A PERCEPTION THAT THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT IS STORED BODY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW THAT REGULATES THE CONDUCT OF HOSTILITIES AT WORK. SOMEHOW OPPOSES MILITARY COMMANDERS IN A PETITION TO PREVENT CIVILIAN CASUALTIES. IN FACT WHAT IT IMPOSES ON COMMANDERS IS AN OBLIGATION TO MITIGATE RISKS TO FEASIBLE MEASURES DESIGNED FOR THAT PURPOSE AND IN THAT REGARD I THINK ONE OF THE POINTS THE REPORT HIGHLIGHTS WHICH HAS BEEN UNFORTUNATELY LOST IN A WIDER DISCOURSE IS THAT PROCESS MATTERS. THE PROCESS OF MAKING AN EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW IS AN INDICATION OF THE GOOD-FAITH COMMITMENT TO THE LAW BY THE PARTIES TO THE CONFLICT. ON THAT SCORE THE OUTCOME SEEMS RELATIVELY CLEAR. THERE IS EVIDENCE REFLECTED IN A REPORT OF TWO SIDES TO THE CONFLICT. ONE SIDE MAKING SIGNIFICANT EFFORTS SOMETIMES BEYOND WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE LAW TO MITIGATE THE RISK TO THE CIVILIAN POPULATIONS AND THE OTHER SIDE ACTUALLY TRYING TO INCREASE THE RISKS OF THE CIVILIAN POPULATION IN ORDER TO GAIN A STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE IN THE INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC DOMAIN AND A TACTICAL ADVANTAGE BY MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THEIR ENEMY TO DEPLOY THEIR POWER TO BRING ABOUT THE OBJECTIVE THEY SEEK. SO I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT LEGAL ASPECT OF THE REPORT IS THAT THE LAW HAS TO BE PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, PROPERLY ANALYZED AND PROPERLY EXPLAINED -- EXPLAINED ALSO WILL HAVE A DISTORTING EFFECT ON THE FUNCTION OF MILITARY FORCE WHICH IS TO BRING ABOUT THE PROMPTS OF THE ENEMY. WAR IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A FAIR FIGHT. NATIONS UNLEASH THEIR MILITARY POWER IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE OBJECTIVES EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY WITHIN A FRAMEWORK. NOW THE REPORT ALSO INDICATES THE VERY SIGNIFICANT EFFORTS THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION WERE ABLE TO OBSERVE AND ASSESS ON THE PART OF THE IDF TO IMPLEMENT THE LONG GOOD-FAITH BEGINNING WITH TRAINING, GOING THROUGH THE DELIBERATE TARGETING PROCESS AND IN A TIME-SENSITIVE ATTACK MAKING EFFORTS TO MITIGATE THE RISK TO THE CIVILIAN POPULATION. THAT LEADS TO ANOTHER IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THIS DISCOURSE. THE QUESTION SHOULD BE ASKED WHEN THERE ARE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES IN WAR IS NOT WHAT CAUSED THEM. WHAT CAUSES CIVILIAN CASUALTIES IN WAR IS COMBAT AND COMBAT IN PROXIMITY TO CIVILIANS AS GENERAL DEVEREAUX INDICATED THE REALITY IS THAT THAT'S THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO THAT U.S. MILITARY FORCES AND MANY OTHER MILITARY FORCES CONFRONT IN THE COMING DECADES IS HAVING TO ENGAGE IN COMBAT WITH ENEMY'S IN DENSELY POPULATED AREAS. THE ROW QUESTION IS NOT CAUSATION, IT'S RESPONSIBILITY. IF THERE ARE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES AND CIVILIAN SUFFERING IN GENERAL, IF IT WAS UNNECESSARY WHO BEARS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT UNNECESSARY SUFFERING? THAT IS GOING TO BE DICTATED BY LOOKING AT COMPLIANCE OR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW. ON ONE SIDE WE HAVE EFFORTS TO WARN, TO EVACUATE, TO SELECT THE TIMING OF ATTACK AND WEAPONS FOR THE USE OF ATTACK THAT MITIGATE THE RISKS TO THE CIVILIAN POPULATION AND YOU WERE TRYING TO DO THIS IN AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE THE ENEMY IS THE LIBERAL HE LOCATED HIS MOST VITAL ASSETS AT THE MOST PROTECTED CIVILIAN SITES IT REVEALS TO YOU WHERE RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD BE ALLOCATED FOR THE CONSEQUENCE OF THOSE ATTACKS. AND FOCUSING ON RESPONSIBILITY INSTEAD OF JUST GENERAL CAUSATION WILL HAVE A POSITIVE EFFECT ON THE ASSESSING COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW BECAUSE COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW PARTICULARLY IN THE CONDUCT OF HOSTILITIES HAS TO BE ASSESSED BASED ON WHAT DECISION-MAKERS KNEW AT THE TIME THEY MADE THEIR DECISION. IT CANNOT BE EFFECTS OF BASE CONDEMNATION BUT IF YOU THINK OF THE MEDIA REPORTING LARGELY RELATED TO THE CONFLICT IN GAZA AND OTHER COMPLEX RECENTLY THAT TENDS TO BE THE END STATE. LOOK AT THE EFFECTS OF COMBAT AND AUTOMATICALLY EXTRAPOLATE THAT IF THERE WERE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES THE CONDUCT MOST OF THEM UNLAWFUL. THAT'S A DISTORTION. IF IT'S AN UNREALISTIC STANDARD TO DEMAND MILITARY COMMANDERS. MILITARY COMMANDER SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO DO THEIR BEST UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO FEASIBLY MITIGATE RISK THAT THEY CAN'T PREVENT IT. SO IF WE FOCUS ON WHAT THE LAW REALLY DEMANDS WHICH IS GOOD-FAITH EFFORTS TO MITIGATE RISK AND MAY LOOK TO THE PROCESSES THAT ARMED FORCES AND COMMANDERS USED TO ACHIEVE THAT OBJECTIVE, GIVES US A BETTER TOUCHSTONE OF COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY HAS ESTABLISHED IS THE STANDARD OF LEGITIMACY AND LEGALITY OF WAR. AND ONE FINAL POINT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT IS REFLECTED IN THE REPORT IS THE DANGER ASSOCIATED WITH BEING IMPRECISE IN UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGAL OBLIGATIONS AND POLICY CONSTRAINTS. ARMED FORCES WILL ROUTINELY IMPOSE POLICY CONSTRAINTS ON THE USE OF FORCE THAT EXCEED THOSE REQUIRED BY THE LAW AND THE ISRAELIS DID THIS ON MANY OCCASIONS AS MANY OF THESE COMMANDERS HAVE GONE ON VACATION. BUT JUST BECAUSE IT'S A POLICY CONSTRAINTS DOESN'T MEAN IT'S LAW. IF WE CONFUSE THOSE TWO WHAT HAPPENS IS WE CREATED PERCEPTION
00:22:16	Charles Wald THAT IF YOU EVER DEVIATE FROM THAT POLICY RESTRICTION YOU ARE SOMEHOW ACTING ILLEGITIMATELY OR ILLEGALLY. CLEARLY IDENTIFYING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RULES OF ENGAGEMENT WHICH ARE POLICY-BASED LIMITATIONS ON OTHERWISE LAWFUL AUTHORITY AND THE LAW ITSELF IS A VERY IMPORTANT STEP GOING FORWARD TO MAKE SURE THAT ARMED FORCES PRESERVE THE FULL SCOPE OF THEIR AUTHORITY. THANK YOU. >> JUST A QUICK COMMENT AND I GUESS YOU ALL DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ THE POOR. I HOPE YOU FIND TIME TO DO THAT. THINK YOU'LL FIND IT INTERESTING THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THE ISRAELIS DID WHEN THEY WERE TARGETING BUILDINGS IN THE GAZA AND I GUESS EVERYBODY THIS TABLE HAS HEARD THIS BEFORE, I WAS IN THE MILITARY FOR 35 YEARS AND DID A LOT OF COMBAT, LED A LOT OF IT AND I HAD NEVER HEARD OF THIS BEFORE. THERE WAS A TECHNIQUE THAT THE ISRAELIS USED. SOME OF THE COMMAND-AND-CONTROL WERE IN THE BUILDINGS OBVIOUSLY IN GAZA WHERE THEY WERE FIGHTING FROM. YOUR INTELLIGENCE MEETINGS THE ISRAELIS WOULD FIND OUT WHERE THAT WAS. IF IT'S IN THE CIVILIAN TYPE BUILDING THE CONCERN WAS THEY HAD DEBATES OVER THIS HOW BAD DO WE GO AFTER THEM? IT WASN'T GOING TO BE IN THE CARDS AT THAT TIME. THEY CAME UP WITH A TECHNIQUE WHERE THEY WOULD USE A SMALL CHARGE THAT WAS NOT VERY DESTRUCTIVE AT ALL AND WAKE EVERYBODY UP SO TO SPEAK EUPHEMISTICALLY, CALL THEM ON THE PHONE AND TELL THEM YOU HAVE 20 MINUTES TO GET OUT YOU HAD BETTER LEAVE AND ALSO DROP LEAFLETS. MY CONCERN ABOUT THAT IS PROBABLY THE COMMAND-AND-CONTROL PEOPLE LEFT TOO BUT THAT'S ALMOST TO THE EXTREME OF WATCHING THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT. JUST A REMINDER I SAW SOME OF YOU HAVE FAR TO USE THESE. YOU HAVE A PENCIL AND PAPER AT YOUR TABLE. PUT YOUR QUESTIONS DOWN AND WE WILL COLLECT THEM AT THE END AND GO AROUND THOSE BUT THANKS JEFF. INFORMATION CAMPAIGN. TO ALL OF US HERE EXCEPT FOR SOME, SEE SOME OF OUR COLLEAGUES MAY HAVE BEEN IN ISRAEL AT THE TIME THAT MOST OF US WERE BACK HERE IN THE STATES READING IN THE PAPER
00:24:29	Michael D. Jones AND LISTING TO IT ON TV GETTING OUR OWN IMPRESSIONS MADE AND THAT'S PART OF THE CONFLICT AS SOMEBODY MENTIONED EARLIER IN THE NARRATIVE. HAMAS THINKS THEY WON THIS THING AND A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE WORLD THINK ISRAEL LOST THIS THING AND A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE WORLD THINK THE ISRAELIS WERE THE AGGRESSORS AND HAMAS WAS A GRASS UPON. AND THEY HAVE BEEN THEY HAVE THE NARRATIVE SO MIKE JONES IS GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW WE SOLVE THAT PART OF IT. C THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE. IS PROFESSOR KORN SAID WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FACTS IT WAS CLEAR TO US THAT THE IDF HAD THE RIGHT KINDS OF PROCESSES AND SYSTEMS IN PLACE TO CONDUCT OPERATIONS IN ACCORDANCE TO THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT. WE DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE HAMAS MILITARY LEADERSHIP AND HAVE THE DISCUSSION WITH THEM BUT BY LOOKING AT THEIR ACTIONS IT WAS VERY CLEAR TO US THAT HAMAS HABITUALLY VIOLATED THE LAWS OF ARMED CONFLICT IN SEVERAL WAYS. ONE IS IN TERMS OF THEIR TARGETING WHERE CLEARLY THERE WERE ROCKETS BEING FIRED AND MORTARS BEING FIRED AT TARGETS THEY CLEARLY HAD NO MILITARY NECESSITY AND WERE CLEARLY AIMED AT CIVILIAN POPULATION CENTERS AND SO FORTH. IN THE SECOND BY VIRTUE OF THEIR POSITIONING EVERYTHING FROM THEIR FIRING POSITIONS TO THEIR STORES AND COMMAND AND CONTROL LOCATIONS AND SO FORTH IN PLACES THAT WERE ALSO NOT REQUIRED BY MILITARY NECESSITY AND THEREFORE A VIOLATION OF THE 401. IT WAS IRONIC THAT WHILE SUCCESSFUL TACTICALLY AND ACCOMPLISHING THEIR OBJECTIVES AND THAT WAS FOR THE ISRAELIS GETTING A CEASE-FIRE WHERE YOU HAD A REDUCTION IN ROCKET FIRE BACK TO THE NORMAL STATE OF AFFAIRS I GUESS AND INSTRUCTION OF THE TAMILS THAT WERE BEING USED TO INFILTRATE INTO ISRAEL THAT THEY ACHIEVED THEIR TACTICAL OBJECTIVES BUT IN THE STRATEGIC INFORMATION AGREEMENT THEY SEEMED PRETTY CLEAR TO US THAT ISRAEL WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL IN COUNTERING THE HAMAS NARRATIVE. SO THAT IS SEEN IRONICALLY IN THE CORE OF INTERNATIONAL OPINION THAT HAMAS CAME OUT ON TOP. SO HOW WAS THAT POSSIBLE? I THINK THERE WERE SEVERAL BASIC FUNDAMENTAL REASONS. THE FIRST IS WHAT I WOULD CALL PERMISSIONS TO RESOURCES MISMATCH AND THAT IS THE IDF HAS A PRETTY GOOD INFORMATION CAMPAIGN APPARATUS BUT AS WE TALK TO THE IDF THEIR TARGET AUDIENCES ARE THERE INTERNAL MILITARY COMPILATION AND THE DOMESTIC AUDIENCE OF ISRAEL. .. IN ORDER TO TRY TO ACHIEVE THEIR AIMS, AND IT WAS INTERESTING TO ME THAT IT WAS ALMOST AS IF THE IDF WAS FIGHTING A COMBAT CAMPAIGN WITH A SUPPORT INFORMATION EFFORT, WHEREAS FOR HAMAS, THEY WERE FIGHTING AN INFORMATION CAMPAIGN THAT WAS ENABLED BY MILITARY OPERATIONS. SO THEY BOTH LOOKED AT IT VERY, VERY DIFFERENTLY. SO, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN TERMS OF IMPORTANCE TO THE UNITED STATES? I THINK, FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE ALSO A SIMILAR ISSUE IN TERMS OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE VERSUS THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT AND WHO HAS THE CAPABILITY. AND WE REALLY, I BELIEVE, NEED TO GET THE RESPONSIBILITIES LINED UP WITH THE RESOURCES AND THE CAPABILITY TO BE ABLE TO DO THE MISSIONS. BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO FACE THIS SAME KIND OF INFORMATION CAMPAIGN BEING WORKED AGAINST US. THE SECOND THING IS I BELIEVE WE HAVE TO SOLVE THE TENSION THAT RIGHTFULLY EXISTS, BUT IT'S A TENSION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN ORDER TO GET OUT THE TRUTH TO THE KEY AUDIENCES WHO NEED TO KNOW. SO, OUR TRUTHFUL INFORMATION, WE HAVE TO LEARN HOW TO USE THIS DOMAIN AND LEARN HOW TO BE VERY ADEPT AT SOCIAL MEDIA TO COMBAT THE MISINFORMATION THAT I'M SURE THAT OUR ENEMIES WILL CONTINUE TO USE. AND THEN THE LAST THING IS TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT
00:29:49	Charles Wald THE FUTURE. WE ARE IN CONFLICT WITH ENEMIES NOW. THE INFORMATION CAMPAIGN IS BEING WAGED. SO WE TOO NOT HAVE LOTS OF TIME TO KIND OF THINK ABOUT THIS PROBLEM. WE NEED TO GET ON WITH SOLUTIONS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. >> GOOD JOB, MIKE. THAT LAST POINT ABOUT, DON'T WAIT UNTIL THE CONFLICT, IT'S AN ONGOING ISSUE FROM THE STANDPOINT OF, I GUESS, INFLUENCING THE BATTLEFIELD, IF YOU WILL, AND ALL OF US COULD DO BETTER AT THAT. LASTLY,' COMMISSIONER RETIRED THREE STAR MARINE GENERAL FOUGHT IN FALLUJAH, LED THE BATTLE THERE, IS GOING TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT PROBABLY ARE
00:30:31	Richard Natonski MORE TRADITION WALL MILITARY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF TECHNOLOGICAL ISSUES WE NEED TO ADDRESS AND SOME OF THE LESSONS WE LEARNED FROM VIEWING THIS 50-DAY WAR. RICH? >> AS GENERAL WALL MENTIONED, TUNNELS WERE PRETTY EXTENSIVE IN THE GAZA STRIP. WE'VE TALKED FOR YEARS BAT A LAND, SEA, AND AN AIR DOMAIN, AND RECENTLY WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE CYBER DOMAIN. WE SAW IN THE GAZA CONFLICT A SUBTERRAINAN DOMAIN, WHERE HAMAS WAS ACTUALLY OPERATING UNDERGROUND, DOING COMMAND AND CONTROL, RESUPPLY, CONDUCTING OFFENSIVE OPERATIONS, ALL FROM UNDERGROUND, AND AN EXTENSIVE AND SOPHISTICATED SYSTEM. THIS HELPED DEFEAT THE ISRAELI OVERHEAD SURVEILLANCE, WHICH ESSENTIALLY NEGATED IT. THIS IS A CHALLENGE WE FACE ON OUR SOUTHERN BORDER IN THE UNITED STATES. ONE OF OUR FINDINGS WAS, WE REALLY WILL SEE THIS IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE IT'S A POOR MAN'S WAY TO DEFEAT THE TECHNOLOGIES OF A SOPHISTICATED MILITARY, SO WE NEED SYSTEMS THAT, ONE, CAN DETECT TUNNELS, THAT CAN BE AS DEEP AS 90 OR MORE FEET, AND ALSO DESTROY TUNNELS. IT'S NOT AS EASY TO DESTROY A TUNNEL THAT IS REINFORCED THAT IT MAY SEEM. THIS WAS ONE OF OUR FINDINGS. ANOTHER ONE WAS UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES, OR DRONES. WE HAVE SEEN A LOT IN THE NEWS ABOUT THE PROLIFERATION OF DRONES IN THE UNITED STATES. ONE OF THE GREATEST FEARS DURING THE SUPER BOWL WAS FOR SOMEONE TO USE A DRONE TO ATTACK THE PEOPLE WATCHING THE GAME. AMAZON TALKS ABOUT DELIVERING PACKAGES WITH DRONES. CAN YOU IMAGINE PUTTING A BOMB ON A DRONE AND DELIVERING THAT WELL, HAMAS ACTUALLY DID THAT. THEY LAUNCHED A UAV INTO ISRAEL THAT WAS SHOT DOWN, BUT IT WAS SHOT DOWN WITH A PATRIOT MISSILE. NOW, FROM A COST EFFECTIVE STANDPOINT, NOT A REAL GOOD TRADEOFF. I WAS INVOLVED IN JANUARY WITH A MARINE CORPS EXERCISE, A LARGE-SCALE EXERCISE, AND DURING THE EXERCISE, THE OPPOSING FORCE USED UA Vs, AND IT WAS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE MARINE FORCE TO ENGAGE THOSE UAVs. SO, ANOTHER FINDING OF THE GROUP WAS HOW CAN WE DEVELOP TECHNOLOGY, INEXPENSIVE TECHNOLOGY TO ENGAGE UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES OR DRONES. ONE THING WE SAW THE NAVY HAS A -- ABOARD THE USS -- IN THE PERSIAN GULF, A LASER. THAT LASER FOR 1.50 CAN SHOOT. MAYBE THAT'S A SYSTEM WE IN THE UNITED STATES NEED START THINKING ABOUT. THE IRON DOME, AND I THINK YOU HAVE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE IRON DOME IN ISRAEL. VERY SUCCESSFUL SYSTEM. WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY DID IS PROVIDE PROTECTION OVER ISRAELI POPULATION CENTERS FROM ROCKETS THAT WERE FIRED FROM THE GAZA STRIP. APPROXIMATELY 6,000 ROCKETS WERE FIRED. NOW, THE IRON DOME ACTUALLY ENGAGED I THINK SOMEWHERE IN NEIGHBORHOOD OF OVER 500. THESE WERE ROCKETS THAT, BASED ON DETECTION METHODS, WERE GOING TO LAND IN POPULATION CENTERS. THEY DID NOT EXPEND PATRIOT MISSILES IF THE ROCKET WAS GOING TO LAN IN THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA OR IN A FIELD OR IN THE ACTUAL GAZA STRIP. OF THOSE ROCKETS THE PATRIOT MISSILES THAT WERE EXPENDED TO TAKE DOWN THOSE ROCKETS, THEY WERE OVER 90% SUCCESSFUL IN KNOCKING IT DOWN. THAT IRON DOME AND THOSE PATRIOT MISSILES, COUPLED WITH THE CIVIL DEFENSE SYSTEM, REALLY PROTECTED THE ISRAELI POPULATION. TO THE POINT THAT THERE WERE SIX CIVILIAN CASUALTIES DURING THAT CONFLICT. HOWEVER, ONE OF THE FINDINGS THAT WE CAME UP AS A GROUP WAS THE FACT THAT THE PATRIOT SYSTEM COULD BE OVERWHELMED. HEZBOLLAH HAS CERTAINLY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF OVER 100,000 ROCKETS, AND IF YOU LAUNCH IN THAT TYPE OF NUMBER, YOU CAN OVERWHELM THE PATRIOT SYSTEM IN PLACE, AND OF COURSE THE UNITED STATES USES PATRIOTS AS WELL. SO, MANAGING EXPECTATIONS, AS WELL AS DEVELOPING A SYSTEM THAT CAN ADDRESS AN OVERWHELMING ATTACK BY ROCKETS, WAS ANOTHER FINDING. AND FINALLY, MORTARS. MORTARS HAVE BEEN AROUND FOREVER. THEY APPROVE QUITE EFFECTIVE. HAMAS WOULD FIRE FROM UNDERGROUND AND THEN RAPIDLY COVER UP. BASED ON THE WARNING SYSTEM -- AND THERE IS COUNTER-BATTERY, COUNTER-MORTAR RADAR THAT WILL DETECT THE LAUNCH, BUT IT GIVES YOU 15 SECONDS WARNING TO TAKE SHELTER. IF YOU HAVE A MORTAR ROUND INBOUND YOU HAVE 15 SECOND, IF YOU'RE LUCKY TO FIND SHELTER. WE THINK, ALONG WITH THE ABILITY TO DETECT THE MORTARS IS THERE A TECHNOLOGY DOING IT MAY BE STAR WARS TECHNOLOGY BUT TO KNOCK A MORTAR ROUND OUT WHILE IT'S IN ITS TIME OF NIGHT, WHICH
00:36:14	Charles Wald IS VERY SHORT. THAT IS ANOTHER TECHNOLOGY WE IN AMERICA HAVE TO ADDRESS AS WE TAKE OUR LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE GAZA CONFLICT. THAT CONCLUDES MY REMARKS. >> THANK YOU, RICH. JUST A REAL QUICK SYNOPSIS. FOUR MAJOR AREAS. HYBRID WAR HAS BEEN USED A LOT AND YOU SEE IT IN THE NEWSPAPER, BUT THERE IS A TRUTH TO THE FACT THAT WE'RE IN THE 21st CENTURY FACING A DIFFERENT KIND OF -- BOTH THREAT AND ENEMY AND TYPE OF WARFARE, AND PEOPLE WILL ADJUST. THE ENEMIES ADJUST TO THE ASYMMETRIES. TWO IS THE WHOLE ISSUE OF THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT, AND IT'S INTERESTING TO ME, AGAIN, ALL OF US WEARING DIFFERENT THINGS WE GO PLACES, WE GREW UP THE UNITED STATES MILITARY WITH A LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT, RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. MORALITY AND WARFARE BEING POUNDED INTO OUR HEAD. THE ISRAELIS HAVEN'T LIVED WITH THAT, TOO. THEY WERE ACTUALLY DISADVANTAGED BY AN ORGANIZATION TAKING ADVANTAGE OF IT, OR AVOIDING LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT AND GETTING AWAY WITH IT IN THE INTERNATIONAL DOUBTER OR OR OPINION, NOT COURT. SORRY D JUDGE. WE HAVE KNOWN THIS FOR A LONG TIME AND TALKED ABOUT IT IN OUR MILITARY CAREER. AGAIN, UNBELIEVABLY HUGE ISSUE IN THIS CASE, AND LIKE MIKE JONES SAID, HAMAS WON THE INFORMATION WAR IN THIS CASE. IN OUR ESTIMATION THEY DIDN'T WIN THE WAR BUT WON THE INTERNATIONAL OPINION. THEN LASTLY, AS RICH MENTIONED, THIS TECHNOLOGICAL ISSUE WHERE ANY ADVERSARY IS GOING TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT ASYMMETRY IS. AND THEY'RE MOVING RAPIDLY TO COUNTER WHAT IS OBVIOUSLY A WESTERN TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANTAGE IN ALMOST EAVE YEAR, AND WE HAVE TO BE NIMBLE ENOUGH TO ADDRESS
00:38:02	Michael Makovsky THOSE. MIKE? >> THANK YOU, GENERAL. JUST TWO POINTS BEFORE I START ASKING QUESTIONS BECAUSE I FORGOT TO MENTION IN MY INTRODUCTION, FORTH GOOD AT TO EXPLAIN THE LOGISTICS, WHICH BROUGHT THE TEAM TO ISRAEL, WHERE THEY MET ISRAELI CIVILIAN AND MILITARY OFFICIALS. THEY ALSO MET U.N. AND PALESTINIAN OFFICIALS. THEIR REPORT IS BASED ON THOSE CONVERSATIONS AS WELL AS ANALYSIS OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY RESEARCH. SO, I WANT TO JUST SAY I FORGOT TO ADD ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, WE THOUGHT HAVING -- PUTTING TOGETHER VERY SENIOR MILITARY OFFICERS WHO HAVE BEEN IN BATTLE, PREPARED FOR BATTLE, WOULD BE THE BEST JUDGE OF KIND OF THESE ISSUES, AND THEY'VE SERVED OUR COUNTRY HONORABLY FOR MANY DECADES, AND IT WAS AN AUTHORIZE WORK WITH THEM IN MY SMALL CAPACITY. SO I WANT TO THANK THEM VERY MUCH FOR ALL THEIR SERVICE. SO, THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] >>> WE GOT A LOT OF QUESTIONS. PLEASE PARDON ME IF WE DON'T GET TO ALL OF THEM BUT WE'LL TRY TO GET THROUGH A FEW KEY DIFFERENT QUESTIONS THAT HIGHLIGHT DIFFERENT POINTS. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS HAD TO DO WITH IDF AND THE WAY THEY OPERATE, WORKED WITH US, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE U.S. QUESTION IS THEY WERE ABLE TO ACHIEVE UNPRECEDENTED DEGREE OF COOPERATION SYNERGY BETWEEN AIR, GROUND,
00:39:43	Charles Wald AND SEA COMPONENTS, AND THEY WANTED TO KNOW, INCLUDING REAL-TIME TARGETING, AND WE -- THE QUESTION IS: WHAT IS THE SUCCESS IMPLY FOR U.S. JOINT COMBAT OPERATIONS? >> I'M GOING TO JUST TAKE A QUICK ANSWER THERE AND DAVE AND I WERE TOGETHER IN THE BEGINNING OF AFGHANISTAN, IN OCTOBER 7th OCTOBER 7th WE STARTED BOMBING THE TALIBAN, AND I WAS THE SUPPORTING COMMANDER OF THAT. AT THAT TIME I HAD A THREE-STAR NAVY ADMIRAL IN BEAU RAIN, THE HEAD OF THE NAVAL FORCES IN THE AREA, HAD TWO CARRIERS. HAD THE MARINE COMPONENT WAS BACK IN TAMPA BUT PART OF A TEAM. THE JSK COMMERCIAL WAS DEL DALEY, SPECIAL ONS, AND THE ARMY COMMANDER WHAT P.T. MIKELCHECK. THE NIGHT BEFORE WE STARTED BOMBING THEY CALLED ME AND SAID, I.S. JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT EVERY FORCE I HAVE IS YOURS. DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO WITH THEM. THAT DOESN'T OFTEN HAPPEN. AND THE REASON I BRING THAT UP IS BECAUSE OF EXPEDIENCE SI. EVERYBODY THERE KNEW THAT WE HAD THE SAME OBJECTIVE. WE HAD BEEN ATTACKED A COUPLE WEEKS EARLIER, 9/11. THE UNITED STATES WAS TOTALLY TOGETHER ON THIS THING. PROBABLY THE LAST TIME OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN IN AGREEMENT OVER ONE ISSUE SINCE BEFORE THAT AND AFTER THAT I CAN THINK OF. AND I THINK THE ISRAELIS, MY IMPRESSION, IS THEY -- JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER SERVICE, THERE'S CONFLICTS BUT WHEN WOW GET DOWN TO COMBAT YOU'RE GOING TO WORK TOGETHER IN A COMBININGED FORCES. I I'M NOT SURPRISED THE ISRAELIS WOULD BE COOPERATIVE AND WORK TOGETHER AND UNDERSTAND THE FACT THAT EVERY ELEMENT HAS A PART TO PLAY. SO IF SOMEBODY END WANTS TO COMMENT ON
00:41:37	Geoffrey Corn THAT. >> ANOTHER QUESTION WAS, PROFESSOR COULD ADDRESS BEST BUT COULD YOU DISCUSS THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE ISRAELI EQUIVALENT OF JAG IN THE GAZA OPERATION. >> WELL, FOR FULL DISCLOSURE I WAS NOT PART OF THE SITE VISIT WITH THE GENERALS, ALTHOUGHED DID JUST RECENTLY RETURN FROM A TRIP TO ISRAEL WHERE I PARTICIPATED IN THE FIRST EVER CONFERENCE HOSTED BY THE EIF MILITARY ADVOCATE GENERAL DEPARTMENT. THE MAG IS THE IDF VERSION OF THE JAG. I STUDIED WITH IDF MAG OFFICERS AND VERY CLOSE FRIENDS WITH A NUMBER OF. THE THE IDF IN SIMILAR FASHION TO THE UNITED STATES MILITARY, HAS MADE A VERY SIGNIFICANT COMMITMENT TO ENSURING THAT QUALIFIED MILITARY LEGAL ADVISERS ARE INTEGRATED INTO BOTH THE TRAINING PROCESS AND WHAT WE WOULD CALL THE DELIBERATE TARGETING PROCESS. SO IN BATTLE, NOT ALL OF YOUR TARGETING DECISIONS CAN GO THROUGH A DELIBERATION PROCESS, PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU'RE ENGAGED IN CLOSE COMBAT WITH AN ENEMY. BUT YOU CAN PREPARE YOUR SOLDIERS, YOUR WARRIORS FOR THOSE VERY DIFFICULT JUDGMENTS THROUGH THE TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. YOU CAN EMPHASIZE YOUR COMMITMENT TO THE LAW THROUGH INVESTIGATIONS AND WHERE APPROPRIATE DISCIPLINARY MEASURES AGAINST SUB BORED NANTZS WHO DEVELOPMENT FOLLOW THE RULES AND IN HA A DELIBERATE TARGETING PROCESS YOU CAN MAKE SURE THE TARGET DECISIONS ARE VETTED THROUGH A COMMAND PROCESS THAT INCLUDES LEGAL ADVICE AND IN MY ESTIMATION, THE IDF IS -- THEIR EFFORTS TO DO THIS MIRROR THOSE OF ANY WHAT I WOULD CALL ADVANCED MILITARY IN THE WORLD, UNITED STATES, UNITED KINGDOM, THE DUTCH, THE FRENCH, THE GERMANS, ET CETERA. THIS IS A COMMON TREND, AND IT'S AN IMPORTANT TREND, BUT IT'S ALSO VERY IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THEY ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT ULTIMATELY COMMANDERS HAVE TO MAKE VERY DIFFICULT DECISIONS, AND THEY HAVE A CERTAIN MARGIN OF APPRECIATION. THAT'S NOT REMARKABLE. THAT'S WHAT THE LAW PROVIDES, BECAUSE THE STANDARD THAT THOSE ISRAELI LAWYERS ARE DEMANDING OF THEIR COMMANDERS IS REASONABLE JUDGMENTS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND I THINK THEY'VE DONE A VERY FINE JOB IN INTEGRATING LEGAL ADVICE AND LAW INTO THE TARGET DECISIONMAKING PROCESS. >> GENERAL JONES, YOU WANTED TO -- >> WELL, I THINK WE TALKED TO BOTH A NUMBER OF THEIR JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOLKS AS WELL AS TALKING TO A LOT OF COMMANDERS WHO WERE ENGAGED IN THE FIGHT. I IT WAS CLEAR THAT IN THE DELIBERATE TARGETING
00:44:19	Michael D. Jones PROCESS, THOSE LAWYERS WERE OFFERING VERY SOLID AND SOMETIMES HARD LEGAL ADVICE, AND FROM EVERYTHING THAT I COULD TELL, THE SENIOR COMMANDERS LISTENED TO THEM VERY CLOSELY, AND AS YOU EXPECT, GENERALLY, WERE VERY SENSITIVE TO MAKING SURE THAT THEY WERE ALWAYS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE LAW AND TAKING THAT ADVICE. BUT THE OTHER THING THAT WAS APPARENT TO ME WAS THE TACTICAL COMMANDERS. AS YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE TUNNEL ISSUES AND THE INABILITY TO BE ABLE TO DESTROY THOSE AND FIND ENEMY FROM THE AIR, THEY HAD TO DO A GROUND INCURSION, AND IN THOSE KIND OF OPERATIONS THERE'S NO CONSULTATIVE PROCESS WHEN SOMEBODY IS SHOOT OUGHT YOU AND GROUND COMMANDERS HAVE TO MAKE SPLIT SECOND DECISIONS. BUT IT WAS CLEAR TO ME IN THE DISCUSSIONS WE HAD THAT THEY WERE VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE OF THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT, AND THAT WAS IN THEIR CALCULUS AS THEY WERE MAKING THESE COMBAT DECISIONS. AND SO IT SEEMED TO ME VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE TRIED TO DO, OTHER MODERN ARMIES TRY TO DO, AND
00:45:32	Richard Natonski THAT IS EVEN WHEN YOU'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU CAN'T HAVE THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS, THAT THEY HAD THE PRIOR PREPARATION TO MAKE SURE THEIR COMMANDERS WERE WELL-ARMED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE LAWFUL DECISIONS. >> I MIGHT JUST ADD THAT WHEN WE STARTED THE INVASION OF IRAQ, AT THE TIME THERE WAS ONE LAWYER PER REGIMEN. AS THE WAR WENT THROUGH THE YEARS THERE, WAS A LAWYER IN EVERY BATTALION, AND HE BECAME THE BATTALION COMMANDER'S RIGHT-HAND MAN. VERY COGNIZANT OF THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT IN THE UNITED STATES. MAKE ONE CORRECTION. I
00:46:10	Charles Wald MIXED UP MY EXERCISE WITH THE STUDY. BUT I MENTIONED PATRIOTS. IT WAS ARROW MISSILES FOR THE IRON DOME. SO I WANTED TO CORRECT THAT. >> JUST MAKE A COMMENT ON BOTH THOSE. FIRST OF ALL, AN OBSERVATION. I HAD NOT BEEN IN COMBAT WITH ANY OF THESE GUYS BEFORE, AND NOT SURE IF WE EVER SERVED TOGETHER BUT NONE OF US KNEW EACH OTHER VERY WAY TWO AIR FORCE TWO ARMY, ONE MARINES AND HE WOULD PROBABLE LIVE SAY IT'S A FAIR FIGHT. I WILL TELL YOU WE HAD GOOD DELIBERATION. GOOD COLLEGIALITY. EVERYONES IS AN OFFICER. I IT
00:46:52	Michael Makovsky WAS AMAZING HOW MUCH IN AGREEMENT WE WERE BECAUSE AT THE WERE TRAINED THE SAME WAY. ARMY GUYS FIND A DIFFERENT FIGHT THAN THE AIR FORCE MARINES BUT TOTAL AGREEMENT ON THE BIG ISSUES, WHICH IS WHAT YOU OUGHT TO HAVE. IT'S GOOD STUFF. >> I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN A LOT OF TASK FORCES. NEVER BEEN INVOLVED IN A GROUP THAT WAS MORE ENGAGED THAN THIS ONE. I WOULD SAY THAT ALSO. LET ME COMBINE THREE QUESTIONS. ONE US, HOW COULD ISRAEL HAVE BEEN UNPREPARED OR UNABLE TO WIN THE INFORMATION WAR, GIVEN THEIR HISTORY AND HAVING TO DEAL WITH THE HISTORY OF MANY CONFLICTS. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE FACT
00:47:36	Charles Wald THAT WE NEVER SEE COLLATERAL DAMAGE FROM THE U.S. BOMBING OF ISIS BUT ISRAEL CONSTANTLY HAS TO DEFEND ITS COLLATERAL DAMAGE, AND IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE UNITED STATES TO USE TRUTH AS A WEAPON IN ITS CONFLICTS? >> I'LL JUST REAL QUICKLY -- THIS IS A BIG OPINION FOR EVERYBODY ON THIS ONE. I THINK IF ISIS COULD DO WHAT YOU JUST ASKED ABOUT, JUST LIKE HAMAS DID, THEY'RE IN A CONCENTRATED AREA, SMALL AREA COMPARED TO WHERE ISIS IS. THEY TRIED EARLY ON, AS YOU -- -- WE HAVE ALL READ THE U.S. WAS KILLING CIVILIANS. THAT DIDN'T WORK. AND FROM STANDPOINT
00:48:17	Michael D. Jones OF TRUTH, THERE ARE SUBTLE PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT TRY TO DO TRICKY THINGS, AND IT ISN'T THE MILITARY. THE MILITARY, IF YOU'RE STRAIGHT UP AND TELL THE TRUTH, YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO BE WELL-SERVED. MIKE? >> LET ME ANSWER THOSE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE IN REVERSE ORDER. TRUTH, I BELIEVE, IS A VERY POWERFUL WEAPON. THE MOST POWERFUL. BUT THE KEY ENABLER FOR TRUTH IS TRUST. YOU HAVE TO TRUST THE SOURCE OF THE TRUTH, OTHERWISE IT'S NOT TRUE. AND THAT'S WHY IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT WHETHER IN COMBAT, PRIOR TO COMBAT, WHENEVER, OUR GOVERNMENT, OUR MILITARY, HAS TO BE TRUTHFUL AND TO THE APPROPRIATE DEGREE TRANSPARENT, IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THAT TRUST, NOT ONLY WITH OUR OWN POPULATION BUT WITHIN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. IN TERMS OF WHY DON'T YOU SEE COLLATERAL DAMAGE WITH ISIS. FIRST OF ALL YOU HAVE TO BE THERE TO SEE IT, AND THE HISTORY OF WESTERN JOURNALIST WITH ISIS IS NOT GOOD. SO, I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR. SECOND OF ALL I DON'T THINK ISIS HAS -- IS PART OF THEIR INFORMATION CAMPAIGN, WHICH I DO BELIEVE THEY HAVE ONE, AND IT HAS A SOPHISTICATION TO IT -- THEIR PURPOSE IS NOT TO INFLUENCE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY OR TO USE THE INTERNATIONAL NORMS AND MECHANISMS IN ORDER TO BRING ABOUT ANY STRATEGIC CHANGE. THEIR INFORMATION CAMPAIGN IS ACTUALLY DESIGNED TO RECRUIT NEW FOLKS INTO THEIR CAUSE, AND SO, THEREFORE, IT'S NOT IN THEIR INTERESTS TO SHOW THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE AND ALL THE FIGHTING THAT HAS GONE ON. THEY WANT TO SHOW A DIFFERENT NARRATIVE. IN TERMS OF HOW DO THE IDF NOT WIN THE INFORMATION WAR. WELL, THEY'RE TRULY VERY CAPABLE FOLKS, VERY CAPABLE MILITARY, BUT THEY, LIKES I SAID, THEY HAVE THIS MISMATCH OF MISSION VERSE RESOURCES, AND ANOTHER THING I DETECTED, FRANKLY, IS THAT IN MANY OF THE MILITARY LEADERS, AT LEAST, THERE WAS -- IT WAS ALMOST AS IF THEY HAD GIVEN UP ON THE INFORMATION DOMAIN, FEELING, HAVING BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY FOR SO LONG, IT WAS ALMOST AN ATTITUDE OF WHY BOTHER KNOW. PEOPLE HAVE WRITTEN THIS STORY BEFORE THEY GOT THE FACTS AND THAT KIND OF THING. THAT HAS A -- THERE MAY BE A REASON FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE THAT ATTITUDE, BUT MY CONCLUSION WAS, THAT'S NOT A GOOD ATTITUDE TO HAVE. YOU STILL HAVE TO FIGHT IN THAT DOMAIN, SOME MANAGE
00:51:00	Charles Wald TO OVERCOME AND JUST BE SMARTER SOME WAY TO WORK AROUND THE ADVANTAGES OUR ENEMIES HAVE IN THAT DOMAIN. OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE TO BE TRUTHFUL, WHO DON'T HAVE TO ABIDE BY LAWS AND SO FORTH, HAVE ADVANTAGES IN THAT DOMAIN, BUT WE STILL HAVE TO OVERCOME IT. >> THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF ISSUES. ONE LAST POINT AND THAT IS, FOR THE WESTERN FIGHT AGAINST ISIS, THERE ISN'T ANY END GAME TIME FRAME. WE MENTIONED EASTERLIERY, 50 DAYS IS A LONG TIME FOR A CONFLICT WITH ISRAEL. I DIDN'T GET A SENSE UNTIL WE TALKED TO THEM ABOUT IT. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CRITICISM ABOUT THE WEST FOR NOT HAVING MORE BOMBING SORTIES. WHY DON'T YOU FLY MORE IN JUST GET IT OVER WITH. AND WITHOUT GIVING AWAY INFORMATION, THE TARGETS THAT THE WEST IS GOING AFTER AND AGAINST ISIS ARE REALLY, REALLY NOT GOING TO HAVE COLLATERAL DAMAGE. THEY'RE SO CAREFUL RIGHT NOW IT'S ALMOST -- PART OF IT MAY BE THE FACT OF WHAT HAPPENED IN GAZA. THE PART IS I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY TIMETABLE TO GET THIS OVER WITH. MY FEELING WE'LL BE DOING ISIS TYPE THINGS FOR THE REST OF OUR LIVES. BUT THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE. YOU DON'T HAVE PEOPLE RIGHT ACROSS -- WHEN WE ARE IN ISRAEL
00:52:18	Michael Makovsky YOU CAN LOO INTO THE GAZA AND THEY HAVE PEOPLE WHO CAN FIRE ROCKETS AT YOU. THAT NOT THE WAY IN THE WEST THERE ISN'T ANY POLITICAL PRESSURE TO GET THIS THING DONE. >> FOLLOWING UP ON
00:52:35	Richard Devereaux THAT, CHUCK, ANYONE FEEL ISRAELI RESTRAINT WAS CONSTRUCTIVE OR COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, AND DOES THE U.S. WANT TO BE HELD TO HE SAME STANDARD THAT THE ISRAELIS SET FOR THEMES? >> RICH, EITHER ONE HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING. I THINK WE WOULD ALL AGREE. >> THAT WAS A GREAT QUESTION, WHOEVER ASKED IT. WE LOOK CLOSELY AT THAT POINT BECAUSE WE ALL AGREED THAT THE IDF USED EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES TO AVOID CIVILIAN CASUALTIES, AND THE QUESTION WE KEPT ASKING OVER AND OVER, DID THEY GO TOO FAR? ULTIMATELY IF YOU BECOME OVERCONSUMED WITH THE PREVENTION OF CIVILIAN CASUALTIES TO THE DETRIMENT OF YOUR CAMPAIGN, NOT ONLY WILL YOU POTENTIALLY EXTEND THE CONFLICT, WHICH COULD INDUCE MORE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES IN THE LONG RUN, BUT THINK ABOUT FUTURE CONFLICTS, AND THINK ABOUT FUELING A STRATEGY THAT YOUR ADVERSARY WILL USE AGAINST YOU AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AS YOU INCREASINGLY TIE YOUR HANDS TO THESE SORT OF NOT LEGAL RESTRAINTS BUT POLICY RESTRAINTS THAT YOU IMPOSE ON YOURSELF. WE THINK HAMAS PLAYED THAT CARD VERY SKILLFULLY, AND THAT PERHAPS THE IDF WENT A BIT TOO FAR IN ITS RESTRAINTS. WELL-MEANING, AND PERHAPS MINDFUL OF THIS INFORMATION CAMPAIGN THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT THEY ALSO HAD TO BE SUCCESSFUL AT. SO THERE'S A CERTAIN TENSION. THIS IS DIFFICULT STUFF. IT'S A CHALLENGE THAT OUR MILITARY WILL INCREASINGLY FACE, ESPECIALLY AS WE
00:54:22	Richard Natonski FIGHT WITH CAPABILITIES LIKE UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES, THAT WILL PUT OUR CIVILIANS AND TROOPS LESS IN HARM'S WAY, WILL INFLICT MORE CASUALTIES SO THIS MISMATCH CAN BE USED AGAINST US. >> RICH? >> I THINK THE REAL DANGER YOU SEIVE IS THAT IN THE FUTURE, HUMAN SHIELDS MAY BE A WAY TO PREVENT THE ENEMY -- COULD BE US -- FROM TARGETING CERTAIN TARGETS. HAMAS USED EVERY PROTECTED STRUCTURE IMAGINABLE, WHETHER IT WAS MOSQUE, HOSPITAL, A U.N. SCHOOL. I THINK ONE OF OUR -- GO BACK TO FINDINGS -- WE REALLY NEED TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC AND THE MEDIA ON THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT. YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE. AND THERE ARE TIMES WHEN YOU ARE GOING TO TARGET STRUCTURES AND THERE ARE GOING TO BE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES, BUT IF YOU DON'T TARGET STRUCTURES BECAUSE OF HUMAN SHIELDS, AND THE FACT THAT THE ENEMY IS ACTUALLY USING THE CIVILIAN POPULACE TO DETER -- PREVENT YOU FROM TARGETING THING, IT'S GOING TO CAUSE YOU A MUCH GREATER CHALLENGE IN THE FUTURE. THAT'S WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT WE DO LET PEOPLE -- AND PROFESSOR TALKED TO THIS BETTER THAN I CAN, BUT UNDERSTANDING THE LAW OF ARMED
00:55:46	Geoffrey Corn CONFLICT AND HOW IN EFFECT YOU CAN ATTACK MILITARY TARGETS WHERE THERE MAY BE SOME COLLATERAL DAMAGE, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT EXCESSIVE. PROFESSOR, I MIGHT ASK YOU TO CHIME IN A LITTLE THERE. >> THANKS. THAT LAST POINT IS SO ESSENTIAL. THE TERM THE GENERAL USED WAS EXCESSIVE. NOT DISPROPORTIONATE. WE TALK BAT PRORE PORTIONALLITY RULE GENERALLY, AND THERE'S CERTAINLY THIS GENERAL KNOWNS OF PROPORTIONALITY IN WAR, BUT THE LEGAL TEST IS WHETHER OR NOT THE ANTICIPATED CIVILIAN HARM WILL BE EXCESSIVE IN COMPARISON WITH THE LEGITIMATE MILITARY ADVANTAGE THE COMMANDER WILL GAIN FROM CONDUCTING THAT TEST. THAT'S A DELIBERATELY HIGH STANDARD TO REACH BEFORE AN ATTACK IS PROHIBITED. AND I THINK THAT A LOT OF THE COMMENTARY YOU HEAR IS IN FACT A 'CONSEQUENCE OF FAILING TO DISTINGUISH CAUSE FROM RESPONSIBILITY. CIVILIAN CASUALTIES ARE ALMOST AN INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE OF WAR, PARTICULARLY IN DENSELY POPULATED URBAN ENVIRONMENT. SO THE CONFLICT CAUSES CIVILIAN CASUALTY US BUT THE LAW DOESN'T PROHIBIT CAUSING CIVILIAN CASUALTIES. THE LAW ACTUALLY ACKNOWLEDGES AND TOLERATES THE UNFORTUNATE NECESSITY OF CIVILIAN CASUALTIES TO BRING ABOUT THE SUBMISSION
00:57:10	Charles Wald OF YOUR OPPONENT. THE REAL QUESTION, THE REAL QUESTION THAT HAS TO BE ASKED, IS RESPONSIBILITY, AND THE LAW WILL GET US TO THE RIGHT ANSWER ON THAT QUESTION ALMOST EVERY TIME. >> THERE'S ANOTHER KIND OF ISSUE FOR US, TOO, AND SOME OF YOU HAVE LIVED IN ISRAEL. I HAVEN'T. BUT I'VE BEN BEEN THERE AND I CAN HAVE A SENSE OF SMALL DISTANCES. IT'S ALMOST UNTHINKABLE FOR A MILITARY TO NOT ATTACK PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THE SENSITIVITY ABOUT WHAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT
00:57:44	Michael Makovsky HERE, THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO KILL YOUR OWN CIVILIANS. THINK ABOUT IT. DOES ANYBODY IN HERE THINK THE UNITED STATES OF
00:57:51	End AMERICA CIVILIANS WOULD SAY, YEAH, DON'T KILL THEM, BUT LET THEM KILL US, AND IT'S ALMOST DIABOLICAL, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT HAMAS WENT DOWN THIS PATH A LITTLE BIT OF. >> WE HAVE ACTUALLY RUN OUT OF TIME. I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR BEING HERE. I WANT TO AGAIN THANK OUR DISTINGUISHED TASK FORCE MEMBERS. [APPLAUSE] INCLUDING GENERAL WALL, WHO CHAIRED IT, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU AT FUTURE JINSA EVENTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>