Topic “rule of law”
Israel and the Rules of War: An Exchange
May 23, 2009 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 8:36am | 27 Comments
So the fact that I have a subscription to the New York Review of Books will only confirm to my already-suspecting readership that I am, in fact, a pinko-communist. But in all seriousness, I received the June 11th edition of the NYRB yesterday in the mail, and it is simply filled with good stuff that readers of this blog will enjoy.
Ahmed Rashid on Pakistan and Malley & Agha on the Middle East are both worth reading, and the paper edition is worth buying for the Max Hastings review of a new book on the Italian Front. (Speaking of, there is a stunning picture of Italian soldiers advancing out of a trench in the freaking Alps against the Austro-Hungarians. Happy Memorial Day indeed.)
But of particular interest to the readership will be this exchange between Asa Kasher, Major General Amos Yadlin, Avishai Margalit and Michael Walzer on Israel and the rules of war. It is sober and polite if pointed -- just like a good debate should be. Go back and read the original article by Margalit & Walzer that kicked it off.
NOTE: I am not highlighting this article to get into a fruitless argument in the comments about Israel. The debate between the three scholars and soldiers, rather, has direct relevance to the fights in which the United States and its allies find themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan.
By the way, I won something called the Blog of the Day Award yesterday. So let's get a little respect around here.
Ahmed Rashid on Pakistan and Malley & Agha on the Middle East are both worth reading, and the paper edition is worth buying for the Max Hastings review of a new book on the Italian Front. (Speaking of, there is a stunning picture of Italian soldiers advancing out of a trench in the freaking Alps against the Austro-Hungarians. Happy Memorial Day indeed.)
But of particular interest to the readership will be this exchange between Asa Kasher, Major General Amos Yadlin, Avishai Margalit and Michael Walzer on Israel and the rules of war. It is sober and polite if pointed -- just like a good debate should be. Go back and read the original article by Margalit & Walzer that kicked it off.
NOTE: I am not highlighting this article to get into a fruitless argument in the comments about Israel. The debate between the three scholars and soldiers, rather, has direct relevance to the fights in which the United States and its allies find themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan.
By the way, I won something called the Blog of the Day Award yesterday. So let's get a little respect around here.
Ben Fitzgerald (and some other dude) on Transitional Law Enforcement
March 5, 2009 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 6:06pm | 14 Comments
As much as we love him, Dave Kilcullen is only this blog's second most-favorite Australian. Our favorite we never get to write about because he never publishes anything. Today, though, in SWJ, Ben flaming galahed the following:
Recent operational experience has identified the need for the United States Government to make better use of law enforcement concepts, skills and organizations to improve outcomes in population centric operations. However, within this broad consensus, there is a lack of common understanding beyond ‘we need more police’. Deeper analysis of this problem space quickly identifies not just a lack of common understanding but three varying and overlapping perspectives on the role of law enforcement in this context.Read the rest here. (And lots o' links.)
(Re-) Capturing Mullah Naqibullah
April 1, 2008 | Posted by Kip - 10:15pm | 0 Comments
Reports are that Mullah Naqibullah has been captured in Helmand Province.
The senior Taliban leader has played the catch-and-release program well, using corruption within the National Directorate of Security to escape accountability for his actions and to make a mockery of the Afghan Government and Rule of Law. This will mark the third time he has been captured on the battlefield.
Another escape on his part would demonstrate how uncommitted the Afghan government has become to its own cause. The case of Mullah Naqibullah also highlights the urgent need for judicial sector reform and possibly for focused use of the now mostly theoretical National Security Courts architecture within the National Directorate of Security.
The senior Taliban leader has played the catch-and-release program well, using corruption within the National Directorate of Security to escape accountability for his actions and to make a mockery of the Afghan Government and Rule of Law. This will mark the third time he has been captured on the battlefield.
Another escape on his part would demonstrate how uncommitted the Afghan government has become to its own cause. The case of Mullah Naqibullah also highlights the urgent need for judicial sector reform and possibly for focused use of the now mostly theoretical National Security Courts architecture within the National Directorate of Security.
