5cjxburmr

objective (that has been developed to assess whether objects may be made the object of attack)may be applied outside the context of attacks to assess whether an object’s seizure or destructionis justified by imperative military necessity. 418 After all, if sufficient military necessity exists tojustify attacking an object as reflected by that object meeting the definition of military objective,then imperative military necessity would also exist to justify seizing or destroying that object bymeasures short of attack.On the other hand, if imperative military necessity justifies the seizure or destruction ofan object, that object does not necessarily satisfy the definition of a military objective. Rather,the object must be assessed as to whether it meets the definition of military objective and may bemade the object of attack.5.17.2.2 Seizure or Destruction of Enemy Property to Support MilitaryOperations. It may be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war to seize or destroyenemy property in order to support military operations. These examples are illustrative and notexhaustive:• using enemy land for the construction of military bases, air fields, and other facilities tosupport military operations; 419• using enemy buildings to billet military personnel and others supporting them, to housethe wounded and sick, for observation and reconnaissance, for concealment and cover,and for defensive purposes; 420• demolishing, cutting down, or removing enemy walls, forests, and buildings to clear afield of fire or to provide construction material; 421 or• seizing means of transportation for use in military operations. 422418 Refer to § 5.7.5 (Definition of Military Objective for Objects: A Two-Part Test).419 1956 FM 27-10 (Change No. 1 1976) 56 (“[R]eal estate may be used for marches, camp sites, construction offield fortifications, etc.”).420 1956 FM 27-10 (Change No. 1 1976) 56 (“Buildings may be destroyed for sanitary purposes or used for shelterfor troops, the wounded and sick and vehicles and for reconnaissance, cover, and defense.”); LAUTERPACHT, IIOPPENHEIM’S INTERNATIONAL LAW 398 (§136) (“So far as the necessities of war demand, a belligerent may makeuse of public enemy buildings for all kinds of purposes. Troops must be housed, horses stabled, the sick andwounded looked after. Public buildings may in the first instance, therefore, be made use of for such purposes,although they may thereby be considerably damaged.”); LAUTERPACHT, II OPPENHEIM’S INTERNATIONAL LAW 403(§140) (“What has been said above with regard to utilisation of public buildings applies equally to privatebuildings.”).421 1956 FM 27-10 (Change No. 1 1976) 56 (“Fences, woods, crops, buildings, etc., may be demolished, cut down,and removed to clear a field of fire, to clear the ground for landing fields, or to furnish building materials or fuel ifimperatively needed for the army.”).422 For example, Interview by Robert K. Wright, Jr., Department of the Army, with Col. Barry S. Baer, Commander,18th Finance Group, in Fort Bragg, N.C. (Mar. 15, 1990), available athttp://www.history.army.mil/documents/panama/JCIT/JCIT31.htm (recounting how U.S. forces commandeeredrental cars in Panama to increase tactical mobility in Operation JUST CAUSE).263