5cjxburmr

Attacks on military objectives in the enemy rear or diversionary attacks away from thecurrent theaters or zones of active military operations are lawful. 88 The law of war does notrequire that attacks on enemy military personnel or objectives be conducted near ongoingfighting, in a theater of active military operations, or in a theater of active armed conflict. 89There are many examples of lawful attacks taking place far from where the fighting waspreviously taking place. 90For policy or operational reasons, military orders, such as applicable rules ofengagement, may limit the locations where attacks on otherwise lawful military objectives maybe conducted.5.5.6 Force That May Be Applied Against Military Objectives. In the absence ofexpected harm to civilians and civilian objects or of wanton destruction that is not justified bymilitary necessity, the law of war imposes no limit on the degree of force that may be directedagainst enemy military objectives, including enemy military personnel (but not including enemypersonnel who are placed hors de combat). 91 For example, the principle of military necessitydoes not require that only the minimum force that is actually necessary in a specific situation88 Refer to § 5.7.7.3 (Definite Military Advantage).89 John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, Speech at the WilsonCenter: The Ethics and Efficacy of the President’s Counterterrorism Strategy, Apr. 30, 2012, 2012 DIGEST OFUNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 584, 585 (“There is nothing in international law … that prohibitsus from using lethal force against our enemies outside of an active battlefield, at least when the country involvedconsents or is unable or unwilling to take action against the threat.”).90 For example, John D. Negroponte, Letter dated 7 October 2001 from the Permanent Representative of the UnitedStates of America to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. No.S/2001/946 (Oct. 7, 2001) (informing the U.N. Security Council that “the United States of America, together withother States, has initiated actions in the exercise of its inherent right of individual and collective self-defencefollowing the armed attacks that were carried out against the United States on 11 September 2001” including U.S.military operations against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan); LOUIS MORTON, UNITED STATES ARMY INWORLD WAR II, THE WAR IN THE PACIFIC, STRATEGY AND COMMAND: THE FIRST TWO YEARS, 269-74 (1962)(describing U.S. bombing raid led by Lt. Col. James H. Doolittle on April 18, 1942, against military objectives inTokyo).91 See Refresher Course for Battalion and Brigade Commanders, 11, Appendix B in DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYSUBJECT SCHEDULE 27-1, The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Hague Convention No. IV of 1907, 16 (Aug. 29,1975) (“Nowhere in the law of war will you find a prohibition on shooting—and shooting to kill—the enemy in afirefight. On the battlefield the regrettable but necessary reality is kill or be killed. Once the enemy hassurrendered, however, or otherwise fallen into your hands, there is no need to kill him.”); J. Fred Buzhardt, DoDGeneral Counsel, Letter to Senator Edward Kennedy, Sept. 22, 1972, reprinted in 67 AJIL 122, 124 (1973) (“Iwould like to reiterate that it is recognized by all states that they may not lawfully use their weapons against civilianpopulation or civilians as such, but there is no rule of international law that restrains them from using weaponsagainst enemy armed forces or military targets. The correct rule of international law which has applied in the pastand continued to apply to the conduct of our military operations in Southeast Asia is that ‘the loss of life and damageto property must not be out of proportion to the military advantage to be gained.’”); ICRC AP COMMENTARY 620(1953) (“The armed forces and their installations are objectives that may be attacked wherever they are, exceptwhen the attack could incidentally result in loss of human life among the civilian population, injuries to civilians,and damage to civilian objects which would be excessive in relation to the expected direct and specific militaryadvantage.”).199