DOCSLIB.ORG

JP 3-24, Counterinsurgency

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
JP 3-24, Counterinsurgency Joint Publication 3-24 Counterinsurgency 22 November 2013 PREFACE 1. Scope This publication provides joint doctrine for the planning, execution, and assessment of counterinsurgency operations. 2. Purpose This publication has been prepared under the direction of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS). It sets forth joint doctrine to govern the activities and performance of the Armed Forces of the United States in joint operations and provides the doctrinal basis for interagency coordination and for US military involvement in multinational operations. It provides military guidance for the exercise of authority by combatant commanders and other joint force commanders (JFCs) and prescribes joint doctrine for operations, education, and training. It provides military guidance for use by the Armed Forces in preparing their appropriate plans. It is not the intent of this publication to restrict the authority of the JFC from organizing the force and executing the mission in a manner the JFC deems most appropriate to ensure unity of effort in the accomplishment of the overall objective. 3. Application a. Joint doctrine established in this publication applies to the Joint Staff, commanders of combatant commands, subunified commands, joint task forces, subordinate components of these commands, the Services, and combat support agencies. b. The guidance in this publication is authoritative; as such, this doctrine will be followed except when, in the judgment of the commander, exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise. If conflicts arise between the contents of this publication and the contents of Service publications, this publication will take precedence unless the CJCS, normally in coordination with the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has provided more current and specific guidance. Commanders of forces operating as part of a multinational (alliance or coalition) military command should follow multinational doctrine and procedures ratified by the United States. For doctrine and procedures not ratified by the United States, commanders should evaluate and follow the multinational command’s doctrine and procedures, where applicable and consistent with US law, regulations, and doctrine. For the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: DAVID L. GOLDFEIN, Lt Gen, USAF Director, Joint Staff i Preface Intentionally Blank ii JP 3-24 SUMMARY OF CHANGES REVISION OF JOINT PUBLICATION 3-24 DATED 05 OCTOBER 2009 • Refines the definition of “counterinsurgency” as comprehensive civilian and military efforts designed to simultaneously defeat and contain insurgency and address its root causes. • Introduces tenets and precepts of counterinsurgency. • Adds Chapter VI, “Assessing Counterinsurgency Operations.” • Emphasizes that understanding grievances is key to addressing root causes of insurgency and creating durable stability. • Renames “dominate narrative” to “counterinsurgency narrative” and updates the discussion on narrative development and dissemination. • Articulates that US counterinsurgency efforts should provide incentives to the host-nation government to undertake reforms that address the root causes of the insurgency. • Reduces redundancies and improves continuity between Joint Publication (JP) 1, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States, and JP 3-0, Joint Operations. • Removes appendices on provincial reconstruction team, insurgent approach indicators, and insurgency and crime. The provincial reconstruction team appendix was incorporated into JP 3-08, Interorganizational Coordination During Joint Operations. • Adds appendices on civil military operations, authorities in counterinsurgency operations, example counterinsurgency qualification standards outline, and precepts for counterinsurgency. iii Summary of Changes Intentionally Blank iv JP 3-24 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... ix CHAPTER I OVERVIEW Introduction ................................................................................................................. I-1 Approach to Counterinsurgency ................................................................................. I-2 Governance and Legitimacy ....................................................................................... I-5 Insurgent Narrative versus Counterinsurgency Narrative ........................................... I-7 CHAPTER II INSURGENCY Overview ....................................................................................................................II-1 Nature of Insurgency ..................................................................................................II-1 Prerequisites for Insurgency ......................................................................................II-2 Insurgent Objectives ..................................................................................................II-9 Insurgent Narrative, Strategy, and Organization .....................................................II-10 Stages and Outcomes of Insurgency ........................................................................II-18 CHAPTER III FUNDAMENTALS OF COUNTERINSURGENCY Overview .................................................................................................................. III-1 Counterinsurgency Mindset ..................................................................................... III-4 Tenets of Counterinsurgency ................................................................................... III-7 United States Government Involvement in Counterinsurgency ............................ III-16 Operational Approaches ......................................................................................... III-22 Employment Considerations .................................................................................. III-26 CHAPTER IV THE OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT Introduction .............................................................................................................. IV-1 Operational Environment in Counterinsurgency ..................................................... IV-2 Tools and Methods for Understanding the Operational Environment ..................... IV-3 Establish an Evolving Common Operational Picture .............................................. IV-8 Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment Process Considerations for Counterinsurgency ..................................................... IV-10 Step 1: Define the Operational Environment ......................................................... IV-11 Step 2: Describe the Impact of the Operational Environment on Adversary and Friendly Capabilities ............................................................................................. IV-12 Step 3: Evaluate the Adversary(ies) and Other Relevant Actors ........................... IV-15 Step 4: Determine Potential Courses of Action of the Adversary(ies) and Other Relevant Actors ...................................................................................................... IV-26 v Table of Contents CHAPTER V PLANNING General ...................................................................................................................... V-1 Elements of Operational Design ............................................................................... V-2 Military Operational Considerations for Counterinsurgency ................................... V-8 Additional Operational Options for Counterinsurgency ......................................... V-12 Termination (End State), Transnational Military Authorities, Reconciliation, Reintegration, and Political Reform ....................................................................... V-17 Assessment .............................................................................................................. V-18 CHAPTER VI ASSESSING COUNTERINSURGENCY OPERATIONS General ..................................................................................................................... VI-1 The Assessment Process and Assessment Plan ....................................................... VI-6 Operation Assessment Methods ............................................................................. VI-15 Organizing for Operation Assessments ................................................................. VI-16 CHAPTER VII SUPPORTING OPERATIONS FOR COUNTERINSURGENCY Integrating Operations to Support the Strategic Narrative ..................................... VII-1 Cyberspace Considerations in Support of Counterinsurgency Operations ............. VII-1 Considerations for Air Operations in Counterinsurgency ...................................... VII-2 Space Capabilities ................................................................................................... VII-5 Maritime Considerations in Support of Counterinsurgency Operations ................. VII-6 Conventional Ground Force Considerations in Support of Counterinsurgency Operations................................................................................ VII-7 Special Operations Considerations in Support of Counterinsurgency Operations................................................................................ VII-8 Detainee Operation Considerations in Support of Counterinsurgency Operations.............................................................................. VII-10 Counter-Improvised Explosive
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Legal Advisers in Armed Forces
    ADVISORY SERVICE ON INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW ____________________________________ Legal advisers in armed forces By ratifying the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977, a State commits itself to respecting and ensuring respect for these international legal instruments in all circumstances. Knowledge of the law is an essential precondition for its proper application. The aim of requiring legal advisers in the armed forces, as stipulated in Article. 82 of Additional Protocol I, is to improve knowledge of – and hence compliance with – international humanitarian law. As the conduct of hostilities was becoming increasingly complex, both legally and technically, the States considered it appropriate when negotiating Additional Protocol I to provide military commanders with legal advisers to help them apply and teach international humanitarian law. An obligation for States and for provisions of international humanitarian law if they are to parties to conflict humanitarian law as widely as advise military commanders possible, in particular by including effectively. “The High Contracting Parties at all the study of this branch of law in times, and the Parties to the conflict their military training programmes. This obligation is analogous to that in time of armed conflict, shall contained in Article 6 of the same ensure that legal advisers are protocol (Qualified persons), under available, when necessary, to The role of the legal adviser which the States Parties must advise military commanders at the endeavour to train qualified appropriate level on the application Article 82 gives a flexible definition personnel to facilitate the application of the Conventions and this Protocol of the legal adviser’s role, while still of the Conventions and of Additional and on the appropriate instruction to laying down certain rules.
    [Show full text]
  • The Deserter and the Enemy Party
    chapter 3 The Deserter and the Enemy Party There are many circumstances under which deserters could find themselves in the power of the enemy during an international armed conflict. They might be captured by enemy troops while abandoning their own military unit, or get caught while in hiding days, weeks or even months after the desertion. In other cases, deserters might place themselves voluntarily into the hands of an adverse party, either because they hope for better conditions on the enemy side and safety from punishment by their home country, or because they wish to defect, i.e. join the enemy in fighting against their own state. Whether deserters will actively try to reach the enemy will largely depend on the treatment that they can expect in a given conflict, both from their home country and from the other belligerent. Would they face the death penalty at home? Would they be enslaved, or treated humanely in captivity by the enemy? Would they be accepted into the army of the enemy, or would they risk being handed over for ransom?1 The answers to these questions depend on the politi- cal and legal regimes in the respective belligerent countries and the extent to which these countries respect the rule of law during the conduct of hostilities. But they also depend on the nature of the armed conflict itself, i.e. whether the lines of battle are mostly drawn along the lines of ethnicity, geo-political inter- ests, or fundamental ideological beliefs. Desertions Welcome, but not Deserters Belligerents have long recognised the tactical and psychological benefits that individual and mass desertion from the enemy forces can bring to their own war effort.2 As such, propaganda appealing to the ideological convictions of the soldiers, or promising good treatment or rewards in order to encourage 1 See also Afflerbach and Strachan, who point out the the overlap between the question of surrender to the enemy and the treatment of prisoners of war, in: Holger Afflerbach and Hew Strachan, A ‘True Chameleon’, Some Concluding Remarks on the History of Surrender, p.
    [Show full text]
  • The Civilianization of Military Law
    THE CIVILIANIZATION OF MILITARY LAW Edward F. Sherman* PART I I. INTRODUCTION Military law in the United States has always functioned as a system of jurisprudence independent of the civilian judiciary. It has its own body of substantive laws and procedures which has a different historical deri- vation than the civilian criminal law. The first American Articles of War, enacted by the Continental Congress in 1775,1 copied the British Arti- cles, a body of law which had evolved from the 17th century rules adopted by Gustavus Adolphus for the discipline of his army, rather than from the English common law.2 Despite subsequent alterations by Con- gress, the American military justice code still retains certain substantive and procedural aspects of the 18th century British code. Dissimilarity between military and civilian criminal law has been further encouraged by the isolation of the court-martial system. The federal courts have always been reluctant to interfere with the court-martial system, as ex- plained by the Supreme Court in 1953 in Burns v. Wilson:3 "Military law, like state law, is a jurisprudence which exists separate and apart from the law which governs in our federal judicial establishment. This Court has played no role in its development; we have exerted no super- visory power over the courts which enforce it .... As a result, the court-martial system still differs from the civilian court system in such aspects as terminology and structure, as well as procedural and sub- stantive law. The military has jealously guarded the distinctive aspects of its system of justice.
    [Show full text]
  • Hazardous Duty in Short Desertion: the Formulation of Military Law Concepts
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 4 (1963) Issue 2 Article 5 April 1963 Hazardous Duty in Short Desertion: The Formulation of Military Law Concepts Alfred Avins Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Military, War, and Peace Commons Repository Citation Alfred Avins, Hazardous Duty in Short Desertion: The Formulation of Military Law Concepts, 4 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 129 (1963), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol4/iss2/5 Copyright c 1963 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr 1963] HAzARDous DuTY HAZARDOUS DUTY IN SHORT DESERTION: THE FORMULATION OF MILITARY LAW CONCEPTS ALFRED AvINs* A. Lybrand's Case, Current Military Law Formation, and HazardousDuty in Short Desertion. The traditional casenote is written a few months after the decision is published. A year after the case is reported, it is already like the autumn leaves, losing its vitality and ready to drop to the earth, there to mix with the mass of the law ts new cases press it out of focus. When two years have elapsed, the opinion typically has grown as stale as last year's snow. To discuss a case seventeen years old must seem like a display of extraordinary procrastination. Nevertheless, one can sometimes gain a new focus with old glasses. This author has been a repeated critic of current substantive military law formation, as being haphazard, unsci- entific, and just plain out of touch with those considerations which should be considered relevant.
    [Show full text]
  • Civilians in Cyberwarfare: Conscripts
    Civilians in Cyberwarfare: Conscripts Susan W. Brenner* with Leo L. Clarke** ABSTRACT Civilian-owned and -operated entities will almost certainly be a target in cyberwarfare because cyberattackers are likely to be more focused on undermining the viability of the targeted state than on invading its territory. Cyberattackers will probably target military computer systems, at least to some extent, but in a departure from traditional warfare, they will also target companies that operate aspects of the victim nation’s infrastructure. Cyberwarfare, in other words, will penetrate the territorial borders of the attacked state and target high-value civilian businesses. Nation-states will therefore need to integrate the civilian employees of these (and perhaps other) companies into their cyberwarfare response structures if a state is to be able to respond effectively to cyberattacks. While many companies may voluntarily elect to participate in such an effort, others may decline to do so, which creates a need, in effect, to conscript companies for this purpose. This Article explores how the U.S. government can go about compelling civilian cooperation in cyberwarfare without violating constitutional guarantees and limitations on the power of the Legislature and the Executive. * NCR Distinguished Professor of Law and Technology, University of Dayton School of Law. ** Associate, Drew, Cooper & Anding, P.C., Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1011 1012 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law [Vol. 43:1011 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Imposition of Martial Law in the United States
    THE IMPOSITION OF MARTIAL LAW IN THE UNITED STATES MAJOR KIRK L. DAVIES WTC QUALTPy m^CT^^ A 20000112 078 Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reDOrtino burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, a^^r^6<^mim\ngxh^a^BäJ, and completing and reviewing the collection of information Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any^othe aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Inforrnatior.Ope.rations and Reporte, 1215 Jefferson Davfei wShwa? Suit? 1:204 Arlington: VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Pro]ect (0704-01881, Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED 3Jan.OO MAJOR REPORT 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS THE IMPOSITION OF MARTIAL LAW IN UNITED STATES 6. AUTHOR(S) MAJ DAVIES KIRK L 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER JA GENERAL SCHOOL ARMY 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AFIT/CIA, BLDG 125 FY99-603 2950 P STREET WPAFB OH 45433 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12a. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Unlimited distribution In Accordance With AFI 35-205/AFIT Sup 1 13. ABSTRACT tMaximum 200 words) DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A Approved for Public Release Distribution Unlimited 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES 61 16.
    [Show full text]
  • Act 328 of 1931 CHAPTER XXVII DESERTION
    THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT) Act 328 of 1931 CHAPTER XXVII DESERTION AND NON-SUPPORT 750.161 Desertion, abandonment, or refusal or neglect to provide shelter, food, care, and clothing; felony; penalty; bond; probation; failure to comply with conditions in bond; forfeiture of bond; disposition of sums received; continuing offense; proof. Sec. 161. (1) A person who deserts and abandons his or her spouse or deserts and abandons his or her children under 17 years of age, without providing necessary and proper shelter, food, care, and clothing for them, and a person who being of sufficient ability fails, neglects, or refuses to provide necessary and proper shelter, food, care, and clothing for his or her spouse or his or her children under 17 years of age, is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not less than 1 year and not more than 3 years, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 3 months and not more than 1 year. (2) If at any time before sentence the defendant enters into bond to the people of the state of Michigan in such penal sum for such term and with such surety or sureties as may be fixed by the court, conditioned that he or she will furnish his or her spouse and children with necessary and proper shelter, food, care, and clothing, or will pay to the clerk of the court, or other designated person, such sums of money at such times as the court shall order to be used to provide food, shelter, and clothing for his or her spouse and children, or either of them, then the court may make an order placing the defendant in charge of a probation officer.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber War, Netwar, and the Future of Cyberdefense
    Cyber War, Netwar, and the Future of Cyberdefense Robert Brose Office of the Director of National Intelligence1 Washington D.C., United States of America Abstract: Over twenty years ago, Arquilla and Ronfeldt warned that both "Netwar" and "Cyberwar" were coming, and could impact the 21st Century security landscape as significantly as combined arms maneuver warfare had impacted the security landscape of the 20th. Since that time, the concept of “Cyberwar” has received great attention, while the parallel concept of “Netwar” has languished, even as its salience to global security has continued to grow. This paper suggests that just as Cyber defense organizations have been required to confront Cyberwar, Netwar organizations, or Netwar-savvy Cyberdefense organizations, are increasingly needed to counter Netwar. Revisiting the Netwar concepts of the 1990s, it offers a 21st century Netwar definition; examines Netwar from a non-western perspective, exploring intersections between Netwar and Russian concepts of ‘Information- Psychological,’ Chinese United Front Theory, and Chinese Legal Warfare, and concludes with thoughts on unique roles that today’s Cyber defence organizations may play in future Netwar conflict. Keywords: Cyberwar, Netwar, Information-Psychological, United Front Theory 1 The author of this paper is the Lead for Futures and Capability Development at the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). The author prepared this work as a conceptual thought piece as part of his official U.S. Government duties. However, this paper should not be interpreted as an official policy, policy statement, or endorsement, either expressed or implied, of ODNI or the U.S. Government. This paper is a U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Continuing Civilianization of the Military Criminal Legal System Fredric I
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 2017 From Rome to the Military Justice Acts of 2016 and beyond: Continuing Civilianization of the Military Criminal Legal System Fredric I. Lederer William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Lederer, Fredric I., "From Rome to the Military Justice Acts of 2016 and beyond: Continuing Civilianization of the Military Criminal Legal System" (2017). Faculty Publications. 1943. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/1943 Copyright c 2017 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs 512 MILITARY LAw REVIEW [Vol. 225 FROM ROME TO THE MILITARY JUSTICE ACTS OF 2016 AND BEYOND: CONTINUING CIVILIANIZATION OF THE MILITARY CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM FREDRIC I. LEDERER* I. Introduction The recent, but unenacted, proposed Military Justice Act of 2016,' the very different and less ambitious, but enacted, Military Justice Act of 2016,2 and congressional actions and proposals to sharply modify the military criminal legal system to combat sexual assault and harassment3 provide both opportunity and necessity to reevaluate the fundamental need for and nature of the military criminal legal system. With the exception of the 1962 amendment to Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to enhance the commander's punishment authority,' the modem history of military criminal law largely is defined by its increasing civilianization. My thesis is that we are close to the point at which that process will no longer meet the disciplinary needs of the modem armed forces, if, indeed, it does today.
    [Show full text]
  • Egypt: Military Service
    Country Policy and Information Note Egypt: Military service Version 2.0 November 2019 Preface Purpose This note provides country of origin information (COI) and analysis of COI for use by Home Office decision makers handling particular types of protection and human rights claims (as set out in the basis of claim section). It is not intended to be an exhaustive survey of a particular subject or theme. It is split into two main sections: (1) analysis and assessment of COI and other evidence; and (2) COI. These are explained in more detail below. Assessment This section analyses the evidence relevant to this note – i.e. the COI section; refugee/human rights laws and policies; and applicable caselaw – by describing this and its inter-relationships, and provides an assessment on whether, in general: x A person is reasonably likely to face a real risk of persecution or serious harm x A person is able to obtain protection from the state (or quasi state bodies) x A person is reasonably able to relocate within a country or territory x Claims are likely to justify granting asylum, humanitarian protection or other form of leave, and x If a claim is refused, it is likely or unlikely to be certifiable as ‘clearly unfounded’ under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Decision makers must, however, still consider all claims on an individual basis, taking into account each case’s specific facts. Country of origin information The country information in this note has been carefully selected in accordance with the general principles of COI research as set out in the Common EU [European Union] Guidelines for Processing Country of Origin Information (COI), dated April 2008, and the Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation’s (ACCORD), Researching Country Origin Information – Training Manual, 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • The Domestic Implementation of International Humanitarian Law a Manual
    THE DOMESTIC IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW A MANUAL ICRC national implementation database http://www.icrc.org/ihl-nat Treaty database and States Party http://www.icrc.org/ihl THE DOMESTIC IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW A MANUAL Geneva, Mont Blanc bridge. Flags on the occasion of the 30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. © Jorge Perez/Federation CONTENTS Contents FOREWORD .............................................................................................................. 5 AIM OF THIS MANUAL .................................................................................................... 7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................... 9 1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION – THE BASICS OF IHL 11 2 CHAPTER TWO: IHL TREATIES AND NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION 17 3 CHAPTER THREE: IHL AND DOMESTIC CRIMINAL LAW 27 4 CHAPTER FOUR: THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND THEIR ADDITIONAL PROTOCOLS 43 5 CHAPTER FIVE: TREATIES CONCERNING PEOPLE AND PROPERTY IN ARMED CONFLICT 63 6 CHAPTER SIX: WEAPONS TREATIES 79 7 CHAPTER SEVEN: THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT 119 8 CHAPTER EIGHT: SUPPORT FOR IHL IMPLEMENTATION 129 ANNEXES RELEVANT SITES BIBLIOGRAPHY 3 FOREWORD Foreword The people most severely affected by armed conflict are This Manual on the Implementation of International increasingly those who are not or who are no longer taking Humanitarian Law, prepared by the ICRC’s Advisory Service, part in the fighting. International humanitarian
    [Show full text]
  • THE SCOPE of MILITARY JUSTICE Delmar Karlen and Louis H
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 43 | Issue 3 Article 1 1952 The copS e of Military Justice Delmar Karlen Louis H. Pepper Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Delmar Karlen, Louis H. Pepper, The cS ope of Military Justice, 43 J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci. 285 (1952-1953) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW, CRIMINOLOGY, AND POLICE SCIENCE September-October, 1952 Vol. 43, No. 3 THE SCOPE OF MILITARY JUSTICE Delmar Karlen and Louis H. Pepper Delmar Karlen is Professor of Law in the University of Wisconsin School of Law and Lt. Col., J.A.G.C., U.S. Army Reserve. He is a member of the bars of New York and Wisconsin. He is now on leave, serving as visiting Professor of Law at New York University. Louis H. Pepper received the LL.B. in the University of Wisconsin in 1951. He is a member of the Wisconsin Bar.-EDITOR. Symptomatic of prevailing attitudes toward military justice is the recent remark of a law school professor upon hearing a proposal to offer a course in the subject at his school: "Humph I We might as well teach canon law." No pun was intended.
    [Show full text]