United States Military Law of War Doctrine: Making the International Criminal Court Irrelevant to the Ground Combat Forces of the United States in the Early Twenty-First Century

In response to questions regarding the policies of the United States government and its relation to the International Criminal Court (ICC), and specifically the topic “Accountability in the Current War on Terrorism,” a discussion will be offered to magnify issues that are not readily available to the general public and are often overlooked by those within the debate itself. A differentiation between external and internal factors affecting military policies will be made, with a focus on the effectiveness of the internal policies. In pursuit of this goal, a synopsis of the present political and social climate will be shared, followed by a hypothetical proposal to allow the reader to engage the imagination to focus on the main arguments offered. Once the reader has been “strategically” deployed into this “hypothetical alternative world,” it should be possible to set aside any pre-conceived ideas regarding the “Global War on Terror,” the United States Government, its enemies, and its allies. The goal is to enable the reader to “step into the boots” of a ground soldier in combat and realize the environment in which a member of the United States armed forces operates while deployed to a conflict. The requirements placed upon the lawful combatant and their impact on the ability of the United States military to prosecute a war within Law of Warfare (LOW) guidelines, as well as the possible consequences for criminal deviance facing a non-compliant soldier, will be considered. Finally, the potential institutional and national implications of criminal behavior and punishment inside the military will be reviewed. The arena of discourse on political, legal, and moral challenges facing the United States and its allies in the current conflict does not suffer from a lack of commentators working to achieve success in influencing the actions of the U.S. government. This is as it should be in an open society, and it is even more important during a period of war. In the commentary surrounding the current “War on Terror,” one of the common complaints about the Bush administration concerns its unwillingness to submit to “international review” of its conduct. Since approximately 3,000 people were