As the international security environment grows more volatile and major militaries shift focus from counterinsurgency and counterterrorism to large-scale combat, critical lessons on reducing and addressing civilian harm from their own operations risk being shelved at the very moment they are needed most. That is a dangerous miscalculation. As evidenced across Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, and Sudan, high-intensity conflicts relying on explosive weapons increase both the likelihood and scale of civilian harm, particularly when they take place in populated areas, as they are likely to do in a large-scale modern war. The impetus in the face of such conflict should be for stronger, rather than weaker, civilian protection systems. It is a hard-earned lesson of the last two decades that effective mitigation – and a proactive response, when things go wrong – is not just a legal and moral obligation, but also essential to mission success. In conflicts such as Afghanistan and Iraq, efforts to minimize, track, and respond to civilian harm – collectively often referred to as Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response or CHMR – improved targeting, built legitimacy, and strengthened force protection. Civil society has a critical role to play in monitoring trends and regressions, and in shining a light on both civilian protection failures and solutions. The Civilian Protection Monitor (CPM) is a new tool, co-developed by our organizations, Airwars and PAX, to support this role. It offers independent tracking of national protection policies and practices, providing a roadmap for reform, and placing each state on a scale from “regressive” to “uncommitted,” “engaged,” “emerging leader,” and “leader.” Its findings show that, among the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands – three countries active in recent counterinsurgency wars and with extensive public focus on CHMR – none are ready for the civilian-protection challenges to come with large-scale conflict.
In Large-Scale Conflict, Civilian Protection Lessons Remain Crucial
