IT is very interesting that, over the years, the US has developed extensive target selection processes to handle combat challenges responsibly during the conflicts it has engaged in — whether under Chapter 7 of UN Charter or through regional arrangements like Nato, or unilaterally. The legal debate on the justification provided for wars started by US have been ongoing. Washington has not escaped criticism for its means and methods employed in these conflicts. However, the recent attacks on Iran shocked everyone for unhesitatingly choosing to target protected persons, civilian infrastructure, political leadership, a girls’ school, a naval ship with no belligerent intentions, factories, nuclear facilities, civilian apartment buildings, oil terminals, boats, the military and political leadership, scientists, engineers, and worse, negotiating officials themselves.

One recalls meeting members of the US JAG (law of war branch) and international humanitarian law experts numerous times at international conferences over the years. The interactions provided valuable insight into the institutional mechanisms of the State Department, Pentagon and the US attorney general’s office. All command levels in the US military must ensure that every strike, every use of ammunition, every target is legally cleared and a distinction made between civilian and combatant; the processes qualify the test of proportionality and make it absolutely necessary to achieve a particular military purpose.

The processes are based on the law of war as painstakingly laid down by experts in The Hague and Geneva in the earlier part of the 20th century. American lawyers supported the........

© Dawn