The Crossed Pond

The significant change occurs not in its section relating to interrogations (although, to be fair, that is not unclear as-is), but in a massive revision to include nation building as a fundamental component of our military’s job.

The Guardian reports it as such:

Today, the US army releases its new Operations Field Manual [PDF], its first revision since before September 11, 2001. The document historically has described how the army operates to achieve dominance over its enemies. However dryly worded, this edition reflects the army’s experience of more than seven years under the Bush administration and the lessons learned from its experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq. As its foreword states, it is “a revolutionary departure from past doctrine”. Within it lays a stern rebuke of the Bush administration’s de-emphasis of land power to wage war, the administration’s inability to plan to win the peace by providing adequate security and reconstruction assistance to civilian populations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and its treatment of US soldiers and their families during these war-torn times…

Central now to army operations are stability operations, essentially soldiers engaging in that most nefarious of words to the current administration’s ear: nation-building. Here are just some of the phases the document uses to describe stability operations: “provide essential government services, emergency infrastructure reconstruction and humanitarian relief”; “support the well-being of the local populace”; and “provide for social reconciliation”. Reconstruction, a word not even mentioned in the 2001 document, appears 17 times in the new edition. The army, undoubtedly to the chagrin of conservatives, has gone all weepy NGO after suffering through two conflicts they were woefully unprepared to fight and win due to their civilian overseers’ misguided notions of waging war on the cheap.

Another departure from the 2001 document is the army’s overt concern for its soldiers and their families. The document states that campaign capability, or “the ability to sustain operations as long as necessary”, includes “taking care not only of soldiers but also of families throughout the complete cycle of deployment, employment and redeployment”. Moreover: “Soldiers understand that no matter how long they are deployed, the army will take care of them and their families.” When a commonly understood ethical principle such as this has to be confidently and explicitly stated, you can be sure it’s been violated.

Probably more fair to say is, for better or worse, that political reconstruction has become a significant component of what America demands of its military, so it’s in their interest to lay that out.

The whole article is interesting, if wearing its bias on its sleeve.

A final pointed “update”:

Things have even gotten so bad under Bush that the document feels the need to remind soldiers that they must adhere to the law of war and the rules of engagement for moral and pragmatic reasons. It even states: “Soldiers do not kill or torture enemy prisoners of war.” The word torture never appears in the document’s 2001 predecessor…