It seems some of these prosecutions may be aimed at winning hearts and minds of Iraqis and Afghanis. With so much publicity from these cases, the focus seems to be transitioning to Lawfare versus Warfare. The military leaders who bring these charges versus handling them within the ranks stand the chance of losing the hearts and minds of the American people, and even more importantly, of those who serve. That is not a plan for victory, IMO.
As brityank has pointed out, the independent operability of the American soldier has been the major reason for American military success. The American soldier, up to this point, has been encouraged to think and act independently with minimal supervision if necessary.
That way, if the officer gets killed, then the NCO with the mission in mind, can then set about doing it his own creative way given the resources remaining to him. If the mission is take Hill 1723, and then an entire plan is laid out on how that’s to be accomplished, well, that plan bit the dust with the lieutenant’s demise.
How’re we gonna do it now? Any way we can figure it out is what it boils down to. And Americans have done it that way since Paul Revere.
What this Lawfare does is force the independent soldier to stay attached to the umbilical all the way to the pentagon.
We won’t budge one step, because who knows if they’ll charge us with something unlawful. Better just go back to Fobbitland and have a beer. Much safer.