Thread by @DavidAFrench

Hannah Jones accuses me of lying when I say that jihadists who commit war crimes bear the primary responsibility for the civilian deaths we've tragically inflicted in the fights against ISIS, al Qaeda, and the Taliban, so I'll show my work. /1

https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1473866497365884948

It's a basic element of of the international law of armed conflict that combatants bear the responsibility of "distinction" or "discrimination." It's their responsibility both to discriminate between military and civilian targets and to distinguish themselves from civilians. /2

Yet jihadists consistently and intentionally violate these rules. They dress in civilian clothes, drive civilian vehicles that are indistinguishable from the vehicles in the general population, conceal weapons, and do all they can to blend in to the community. /3

They also consistently and intentionally occupy mosques and hospitals knowing their protected status. During my deployment, AQI ambushed our troopers from a mosque. AQI leaders met and planned attacks in mosques. Suicide bombers wore civilian clothes. /4

While we're of course obligated to attempt to distinguish between civilian and terrorist, the terrorists bear the primary responsibility for confusion when our good faith efforts go awry (but not when our targeting is negligent, reckless, or intentionally misaimed). /5

During my almost-yearlong deployment, there was not one single incident where we were reckless or even negligent. We tried our utmost to avoid killing civilians, even including on occasion holding fire when we had a clear legal right to engage. /6

This restraint has cost American lives. That's not a story you hear much, but it's very real and deserves a serious in-depth look. That restraint cost the life of a dear friend, a brother I served with in Iraq. The incident was dreadful, and it haunts and hurts me to this day. /7

One way that we attempt to distinguish between jihadist and civilian is through something called "TTP's" (tactics, techniques, and procedures). They're an imperfect attempt to identify military behavior, but they're necessary for protections of soldiers and innocent civilians. /8

Make no mistake, attempts to identify terrorist TTP's were necessary to protect civilians as well as soldiers. Jihadists targeted civilians constantly, and it would be a grievous wrong for us to wait until they attacked restaurants, schools, and hospitals before we engaged. /9

All of this is very difficult. We make both deliberate and snap judgments with lives on the line, against an enemy who is trying his best to look like everyone else. The enemy's use of civilian clothing or objects is NOT legally or morally excusable because we're powerful. /10

If you cannot fight the U.S. military lawfully, might I suggest not attacking NY and D.C. Might I suggest not committing genocide. Might I suggest not firing on American forces or plotting to assassinate an American president (to refer to a few examples). /11

I hope this brief thread helps folks understand that it is not a "lie" to say that the primary responsibility for civilian casualties rests with jihadists who attempt to blend in with civilians, not with the military that attempts in good faith to protect the innocent. /12

Members of the military should be held responsible when they fail in that obligation of good faith, but jihadists are responsible for their intentional lawless acts. This isn't a "lie," it's basic international law and fundamental moral decency. /end