‘Answer the question Admiral Cooper’: Jason Crow goes nuclear on CENTCOM Chief over laws of war

Key Concepts

• Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC): The body of international law that regulates the conduct of armed hostilities.
• No Quarter: A military practice of refusing to accept an adversary's surrender or killing those who have surrendered; it is strictly prohibited under international and U.S. military law.
• DOD Law of War Manual: The official Department of Defense publication providing guidance on the legal obligations of U.S. military personnel during armed conflict.
• Unprivileged Belligerents: Individuals who participate in hostilities without the legal status of a lawful combatant.
• Congressional Oversight: The authority of Congress to monitor and review the actions of the executive branch, including the Department of Defense.
• Unauthorized Disclosure: The illegal release of classified information, which poses a risk to national security.

---

1. Main Topics and Key Points

The transcript documents a contentious hearing of a Congressional committee involving senior military leadership, specifically Admiral Cooper. The discussion centers on two primary areas:

• Adherence to the Law of War: A committee member repeatedly pressed Admiral Cooper to confirm that the DOD Law of War Manual (specifically Section 5.4.7) prohibits declaring that "no quarter" will be given. The Admiral consistently responded that he and his command follow the Law of Armed Conflict "to the T," but refused to recite the specific provision as requested by the member.
• Congressional Conduct and Oversight: The latter portion of the hearing shifted to a critique of committee decorum. Representative Van Orden criticized colleagues for "berating" active-duty military personnel with political questions and raised concerns regarding the unauthorized disclosure of classified information by committee members.

2. Legal Framework: Section 5.4.7

The committee member cited Section 5.4.7 of the DOD Law of War Manual, titled "Prohibition against declaring that no quarter be given." The provision explicitly states:

• It is forbidden to declare that no quarter will be given.
• This prohibits ordering that legitimate offers of surrender be refused.
• It prohibits the summary execution of detainees or unprivileged belligerents.
• It prohibits conducting hostilities with the intent that there shall be no survivors.
• The rule is based on both humanitarian and military considerations and applies to both international and non-international armed conflicts.

3. Key Arguments and Perspectives

• The Interrogator’s Perspective: The member argued that as a senior commander, the Admiral has a duty to explicitly affirm the prohibitions within the Law of War Manual to demonstrate leadership and accountability. The refusal to read the provision was characterized as a failure of leadership.
• The Admiral’s Perspective: Admiral Cooper maintained that his commitment to following the law is absolute and that he does not need to recite specific manual sections to prove his adherence to the Law of Armed Conflict.
• The Chairman’s Ruling: The Chairman clarified that while members have the right to ask leading questions, they cannot compel a witness to answer in a specific way or use a specific script.
• Representative Van Orden’s Perspective: He argued that questioning active-duty military on political matters is "wholly inappropriate" and "inexcusable." He further argued that the committee’s credibility is compromised by members who leak classified information, suggesting that the Department of Justice should investigate such disclosures.

4. Notable Quotes

• Admiral Cooper: "I will agree consistent with my constitutional responsibility to follow the law of armed conflict to the T, and I expect everyone working for me to do that."
• Representative Van Orden: "I think it's wholly inappropriate to ask active duty members of the United States military to answer political questions because that's not what you're here to do."
• Representative Van Orden: "We are not capable of doing our constitutionally mandated congressional oversight if we cannot be exposed to classified information."

5. Synthesis and Conclusion

The hearing highlights a significant tension between legislative oversight and military protocol. The first segment illustrates a breakdown in communication where a legislator sought a specific verbal confirmation of legal standards, while the military witness prioritized a general commitment to the law over the requested recitation. The second segment reflects internal congressional friction, where members expressed deep concern over the politicization of military hearings and the security risks posed by the unauthorized disclosure of classified materials by committee members. The session concluded with a call for the committee to return to a non-partisan, professional standard of oversight.