The Washington Post today features a fawning profile of HRW activist Marc Garlasco, The Man on Both Sides of Air War Debate
Garlasco is uniquely suited to understand both sides of the air war debate: He knows what the bombs can do, and he knows the price of errant attacks. In the five years since he moved from targeter to human rights advocate, he has lobbied for greater deliberation in the military’s use of air power. He has made it his mission to prevent the use of cluster munitions and has argued for smaller bombs that have less impact on surrounding areas — like the bombs that the Air Force now uses in Iraq.
and
“The objective is not to end war, it’s to change the way militaries wage war,” Malinowski said. “In order to do that, we need people who can speak with credibility to military leaders. Marc is effective because he speaks the language of the community he seeks to influence, he comes from that culture. . . . They tend to see him as a constructive critic rather than the enemy.”
Hard to argue with that.
Or maybe not so hard.
The problem with this approach is that it ignores article 28 of the Geneva conventions.
The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.
(h/t Seraphic Secret) What Garlasco is doing is pushing for democracies and respecters of human rights to reduce the lethality of their military attacks in order to absolve terrorists and rogue states from their responsibilities according to international law. The pressure HRW brings to bear is only on the side of those who respect human rights. Their efforts will have no effect on the rogue elements of the world who don’t give two hoots.Going to Page 2 of the profile we learn:
Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap Jr., the service’s deputy judge advocate general and an advocate of air power, said Garlasco’s background has helped him build relationships in the military.”I think that Marc is the prototype of what many nongovernmental organizations are seeking — that is people with real expertise,” Dunlap said. “I have not always agreed with Marc, but I have never found him to be driven by an ideological agenda.”
And here is where I disagree completely. I didn’t just find this article at random. I saw the name Garlasco and I remembered something about him. Nearly two years ago a Palestinian family at the beach on Gaza was hit by an explosion killing 8. Garlasco immediately blamed Israel for the blast using his credential as a military expert for HRW. The problem is that his expertise was in targeting, not damage assessment. But that military credential shielded him from questions that ought to have been asked.
Worse, a timeline established by NGO Monitor show how Garlasco reversed himself, seemingly to remain true to HRW’s (anti-Israel) agenda rather than acting independently. HonestReporting also scores Garlasco for contributing to a report faulting Israel for destroying houses that hid smuggling tunnels. (Israelly Cool! points out that smuggling tunnels are still a big problem and aren’t always so easy to spot.)
I’d probably have questioned Garlasco’s sincerity regardless. However knowing of his past I’m not just guessing. Given the article’s failure to mention Garlasco’s fiasco from Gaza, it really is a fluff piece more suited for the Style section than the A section.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
