Noncombatants in the Long War: The End of Innocence?

Even before the tragic events of September 11, 2001 thrust the United States into the Long War, legal analysts, political commentators, and members of the Armed Forces recognized the need to re-examine the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) and its impact on military operations. Most popular interpretations of this body of law seem to place undue restrictions on the use of military force in modern warfare, particularly in an environment where America's enemies are increasingly difficult to identify. This paper argues that international law's current definitions of combatants and noncombatants are obsolete. The analysis begins with a brief look at the origins of international law as it relates to combatants and noncombatants. It then examines the nature of war in the 21st century, focusing on the increasing role of "lawfare" and the rising incidence of "concealment warfare" and their effect on the legal distinction between civilians and terrorists. The paper concludes by offering a new, more modern and practical interpretation of the distinction between combatant and noncombatant to help operational planners better employ military force against enemies who routinely work to blur the line between them.