U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps November/December 2018 40 Cyber Warfare for JAs 46 General Pershing and his JAG 54 Ops and Interoperability 58 Regionally-Focused Leaders Captain Heather Martin, a defense appellate attorney, casts a skeptical view on an opposing counsel’s argument during a recent moot court hearing at the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. (Credit: Chris Tyree) Table of Contents Editorial Board November/December 2018 Lieutenant Colonel Megan Wakefield Departments Book Review Strategic Initiatives Officer, OTJAG 37 African Kaiser Major Samuel Gabremariam Court is Assembled General Paul Von Lettow-Vorbeck Strategic Initiatives Officer, OTJAG 2 Readiness, Technology, and the Great War in Africa, 1914–1918, by Robert Gaudi Mr. Frederic L. Borch III and the Law Warfare’s Evolution During WWI Reviewed by Major J. Eagle Shutt Regimental Historian Provides a Roadmap for JAs Today Captain Meghan Mahaney By Brigadier General Joseph B. Berger Closing Argument Editor, The Army Lawyer News & Notes 67 Demolishing the Captain Nicole Ulrich Foundation of Five By Major Trenton Powell Editor, The Military Law Review 4 The Most Important Classroom Remarks by Lieutenant General Charles N. Pede Major Jess B. Roberts Director, Professional Communications Program, TJAGLCS 6 Thinking Hard, Recommitting, and Reconnecting Features Lieutenant Colonel Michael P. Harry By LTC Megan Wakefield, Strategic Vice Chair, ADA, TJAGLCS Initiatives Office 40 No. 1 Lieutenant Colonel Edward C. Linneweber Cyber Warfare for JAs Lore of the Corps Understanding the Legal Chair, ADA, TJAGLCS Operating Environment 10 Judge Advocates in Mr. Sean P. Lyons By Major Phillip Dickerson and the Great War Editor By Fred L. Borch Brigadier General Joseph B. Berger Mr. Marco Marchegiani 46 No. 2 Art Director, GPO 19 Aubrey Daniel Honored with Distinguished Member Status The Army Lawyer (ISSN 0364-1287, USPS 490-330) is General Pershing and his JAG By Fred L. Borch The Friendship that published six times a year by The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, Charlottesville, Virginia, for the Helped Win WWI official use of Army lawyers in the performance of their legal Up Close By Major Robert W. Runyans responsibilities. The opinions expressed by the authors in the articles do not 24 On Target 54 No. 3 necessarily reflect the view of the Department of Defense, Paralegal PV2 Emily C. Stith Has the Department of the Army, The Judge Advocate General’s the 2020 Olympics in Her Sights Corps (JAGC), The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and By Major Jack B. Cohen and Ops and Interoperability School, or any other governmental or non-governmental Back-to-Back Symposiums Examined agency. Masculine or feminine pronouns appearing in this Captain Nicole Ulrich Emerging Legal Issues in LOAC pamphlet refer to both genders unless the context indicates By Strategic Initiatives Staff another use. Practice Notes The Editorial Board evaluates all material submitted for pub- 58 No. 4 lication, the decisions of which are subject to final approval 26 View from the Bench by the Dean, The Judge Advocate General’s School, U.S. Army. Using Character and Outside Developing Regionally- Unless expressly noted in an article, all articles are works of Acts to Prove Your Case Focused Leaders the U.S. Government in which no copyright subsists. Where By Lieutenant Colonel Christopher E. Martin By Colonel George R. Smawley and copyright is indicated in an article, all further rights are reserved to the article’ s author. No compensation can be paid Colonel (Retired) Pamela M. Harms for articles. 30 Contracting in a Deployed The Army Lawyer may make necessary revisions or deletions Environment without prior permission of the author. An author is respon- Notes from the 408th sible for the accuracy of the author’s work, including citations and footnotes. Contracting Support Brigade By Major Nolan Koon The Army Lawyer articles are indexed in the Index to Legal Periodicals, the Current Law Index, the Legal Resources Index, and the Index to U.S. Government Periodicals. The Army Lawyer is also available in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps 32 Rear Provisional Commanders electronic reference library and can be accessed at https:// Can Have NJP Authority tjaglcspublic.army.mil/tjaglcs-publications By Major A. Jason Nef Articles may be cited as: [author’s name], [article title in italics], ARMY LAW., [date], at [first page of article], [pincite]. 33 Initial Client Meetings Creating the Roadmap for On the cover: General Enoch Herbert Crowder, who served at Successful Family Law Counsel The Judge Advocate General from 1911 until 1923. He was By Lieutenant Colonel Mike Harry General Pershing’s JAG during World War I. on adversaries, remains the same. To- day’s judge advocates face new intellectual challenges in addressing threats in a new domain—cyberspace. And they do so against the loud echo of the historical refrain to create new laws to address them. While new threats and the accompanying clamor for new rules for their use are timeless, unchanged are the enduring Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) principles that will guide us through these changes. Also unchanged is the reality that judge advocates must work closely with coalition partners to ensure a shared understanding of how es- tablished legal principles will apply to new weapons and to understand existing treaties in the context of issues never contemplated by their drafters. Before WWI, leaders were aware of the potential for the use of poisonous gases in combat, but those leaders naively believed that discussions held during the 1899 Hague Conference about prohibiting their employment would prevent their use (Credit: Marco M.) in future wars.3 Their misplaced reliance on the durability of the agreements reached during the Conference reflected a failure to grasp both the emergence of new technolo- Court is Assembled gies and the changing character4 of war. By June 1925, under the auspices of the League of Nations, the High Contracting Parties declared, “So far as they are not already Parties to Treaties prohibiting [the use in Readiness, Technology, and the Law war of asphyxiating, poisonous, or other Warfare’s Evolution During WWI Provides gases], [the High Contracting Parties] ac- cept this prohibition, [and] agree to extend a Roadmap for JAs Today this prohibition to the use of bacteriological methods of warfare . .”5 Thirty-eight By Brigadier General Joseph B. Berger countries signed on to the Protocol and it entered into force on 8 February 1928.6 But the Allies’ hard lesson learned in Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling, WWI was the failure to foresee the changes Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time…1 in technology and the failure to timely understand the impacts of those impending It feels like a ball of red-hot fire, changes. The Allies’ pre-WWI failure to Turned loose from hell’s own door, think about and develop doctrine and law There seems to be no relief for me, that captured the future of warfare7 was ini- It’s hurting more and more…2 tially disastrous. The cost for the failure to plan for future combat and the subsequent collective delays in learning was millions in Owen’s and McCollum’s dark, poetic found their way onto WWI’s battlefields uniform dead. Sadly, the arc of history tells memories of World War I (WWI) required new laws. On today’s battlefields, us it is usually only after significant failure 8 captured the horror of new weapons the continuous, relentless development of that armies adapt. that drove treaty law in the years that new technologies and weapons, and their Not every change in the character followed. But not all new technologies that employment to impose one’s political will of warfare requires changes to the law. 2 Army Lawyer • Court is Assembled • November/December 2018 Although much hyped at the time of its not?” Only with that perspective can we unchanged since the dawn of time. War’s character describes “the changing way that war as a phenomenon first appearance in combat as revolutionary, adequately analyze new changes and chal- manifests in the real world” as “influenced by airpower proved to simply be evolutionary; lenges and provide commanders accurate technology, law, ethics, culture, methods of so- it required no new body of law as applied in advice. An understanding of history alone, cial, political, and military organization, and other factors that change across time and place.” Christo- combat. While the 1899 Hague Conference however, is insufficient. We must also pher Mewett, Understanding War’s Enduring Nature prohibited the launching of explosives from understand the evolving technology that is Alongside its Changing Character, WAR ON THE ROCKS balloons “or other new methods of a similar being applied in warfare, as well as the tech- (JAN. 21, 2014), https://warontherocks.com/2014/01/ 9 understanding-wars-enduring-nature-along- nature” (e.g., airplanes), it was merely a nology that may be applied in the future. side-its-changing-character/. In short, the character of temporary prohibition driven by the en- We need not be engineers, code writers, war gets at how we fight, while the nature at why we during LOAC principle of discrimination. or technical experts, nor need we be early fight. See id. While no new body of law was required adopters of every new technology that 5. Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War to address the evolution of airpower in emerges. But refusal to actively contemplate of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, Jun. 17, 1925, combat, what was required were leaders— the technologies, challenges, and changes 26 U.S.T. 571, 94 L.N.T.S. 65.