Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response: A New DoD Policy

The Department of Defense (DoD) recently released a bold new policy, a DoD Instruction titled “Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response,” that aims to reduce civilian harm on “battlefield next.”

The Department of Defense (DoD) recently released a bold new policy, a DoD Instruction titled “Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response,” that aims to reduce civilian harm on “battlefield next.” This “scalable” policy, issued in December 2023, codifies best practices within the U.S. armed forces and standardizes them across the military services. While the United States has the most lethal and ethical fighting force in history, the policy acknowledges past battlefield failures. In doing so, it seeks to give renewed vigor to the wholesome adage—and one of my favorite sentiments—that “you don’t have to be sick to get better.” It also builds on international efforts to reach agreement on reducing harm to civilians.

Great Promise

The first rule on the battlefield is to kill only lawful targets. As readers of Articles of War know, the laws of war prohibit making civilians and civilian structures the object of attack. When attacking military targets, that same law requires commanders to weigh the potential civilian harm (typically referred to as “collateral damage”). The United States’ legal and moral obligation is to minimize civilian harm if possible while at the same time defeating a lethal foe.

The law of armed conflict establishes a proportionality test that prohibits anticipated civilian harm that would be excessive to the expected military advantage of destroying the target. It is a subjective test based on the facts as the commander knows them at the time of the decision. The clearest expression of this customary law is contained in Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions.

The DoD’s new policy will—if carefully implemented—advance the United States’ efforts to make these decisions with greater fidelity to the spirit of the law and the facts on the ground. But the policy is not without risks. In particular, three cautions weigh heavy.

First, all stakeholders must recognize and persistently remind the world that the policy does not—by its own language—create new law. It is policy only. It does not in any way alter current legal obligations on the battlefield. Neither does it create binding customary international law.

Second, leaders must assiduously avoid the very real risk that the policy will produce or perpetuate timidity, hesitancy, and worst of all for the soldier or commander, a culture of restraint and second-guessing on the battlefield. I have written about this “gap” and beat this drum in public remarks for a number of years because I have witnessed the impact of this self-imposed culture on warfighting.

Third, the oft-repeated phrase “those bastards at division” looms large over implementation. Whether it’s a staff officer at the brigade level looking up at higher headquarters or a senior leader at the corps level looking down at subordinate headquarters, there is tension. Humans tend to think they’re correct, especially when they believe they are “closer” to the problem, have better information, and yes, are “smarter” than others around them. No matter the “common cause” or the professionalism of the players, these natural sentiments exist at all echelons. I’ve seen it. New players on the staff—like civilian harm mitigation (CHM) teams—will now be part of this tension between echelons, especially if connected to higher echelons by separate reporting chains.

The most effective way to avoid these dangerous, culture-driven dangers is to recognize they can happen and train against them.

I served as a practicing Army judge advocate for 34 years, including four combat deployments where I advised commanders at all echelons on the use of armed force. These included peacekeeping operations, armed conflict, and nation-building, the latter often mired in insurgency and pervasive terrorism. During these operations, the protection of civilians was always foremost in the minds of commanders.

And, of course, U.S. armed forces have been the most engaged over the last 35 years around the world, beginning with Desert Shield/Desert Storm. The current plan is, therefore, well informed by American tactical and strategic experiences, from best practices in mitigation before a strike to best practices in response to strikes with civilian casualties.

The policy is particularly well informed by the U.S. military’s experiences when things have gone horribly wrong. It is axiomatic that one seems to learn more—sadly, to be sure—from mistakes than from successes. This is no less true on the battlefield.

Indulge me in a war story.

Mogadishu, Somalia. 1993. Somali militants ambushed and overwhelmed an engineer convoy. Concerned the battle captain was not providing fire support, the exceptional brigade commander circling overhead in his Blackhawk landed at our operations center, entering with the wind at his back. As he walked in, the radio crackled with “Grenade!” The convoy commander’s voice pierced the air. Everyone froze. No sound followed. A dud. The brigade commander immediately ordered the circling Blackhawks to fire, but before the staff could relay the