@ionacraig & @Shuaibalmosawa's reporting on coalition airstrikes is extraordinary and infuriating: theintercept.com/2018/08/02/sau…
The USG mantra on coalition support--that US refueling & weapons transfers increase coalition accuracy--has been obvious bs for a while. And though NGOs can't prove coalition intent, this report speaks to gross negligence and incompetence.
And this is a strike ordered from the joint ops center! The place where the US & UK have some input! Doesn't even speak to the "dynamic" strikes, decisions made in the field by coalition pilots, which are subject to less oversight.
But then, as we've learned this morning, the rigorous vetting and oversight conducted at the joint ops center in Riyadh involves commanding officers being out to lunch.
Also worth pointing out that the very existence of this intelligence assessment calls into question testimony Gen. Votel made to SASC in March: c-span.org/video/?c471858…
Votel told @SenWarren that the US does not track missions it refuels, and that it does not follow up on unlawful airstrikes conducted with US support or with US munitions
The munition used by the coalition on May 14, 2018, was a US-manufactured PGM. We have an intelligence assessment of its use. Either @CENTCOM was lying to Congress, or Votel was speaking from a place of inexcusable ignorance.
5 days after @CENTCOM commander Votel apparently lied to Congress, @WSJMidEast published a piece of blatant access propaganda boasting about the coalition's magnanimous efforts to avoid civilian casualties. wsj.com/articles/in-a-…
But sometimes propaganda backfires: the article made clear CENTCOM has direct access to exactly the kind of information Votel denied having. Today @ionacraig proved what common sense has told us since March 2015: OF COURSE the US sees this stuff, and OF COURSE it's documented.
So why does any of this matter? Because international law imposes *positive* obligations on states. States are required not just to adhere to the law, but to help uphold it as well. In other words...
Under IHL it's not just illegal to bomb civilians, and to help someone else bomb civilians; it's also illegal to do nothing to prevent the bombing of civilians when one has the means to do so. States "must exert their influence, to the degree possible, to stop violations of IHL."
US says it is doing this by training coalition personnel in IHL compliance. Is that "to the degree possible"? Um, no. When the US provides the aircraft, munitions, training, fuel, & political cover for these attacks, "to the degree possible" means a lot more than LOAC lectures.
"To the degree possible" means cutting off all material and political support for the coalition and investigating all apparent violations of IHL. Until the US administration does that, the US will remain in violation of international law.
But of course the real answer to "why does this matter" is much shorter & simpler than all that. A lot of people are being killed who should not be killed, and the US government can do something about it. The American people have to *make* their government do something about it.
