Danielle Steitz
Role at the time: Director of national security policy, Progressive Policy Institute
Statement summary
Danielle Steitz says commanders must avoid unnecessary risks and calls for an Army assessment of the warnings and protection failures described by Port Shuaiba survivors.
“Commanders owe a fundamental duty of care to their soldiers when it comes to force protection; while soldiers understand that they may be ordered into harm’s way to achieve a mission objective, it is incumbent upon commanders to avoid exposing them to unnecessary risk. The Army owes these soldiers and their families a clear-eyed assessment of what went wrong, why force protection warnings and intelligence assessments were disregarded, and why soldiers whose critical work reportedly required them to be within range of Iranian attacks were not adequately prepared or protected.”
Why we used this label
The case asks whether the military failed the troops wounded in the March 1 drone strike at Port Shuaiba, in protecting them and in caring for them afterward. Steitz writes that commanders must avoid "exposing them to unnecessary risk" and that the Army owes soldiers and families an account of "why force protection warnings and intelligence assessments were disregarded" and why the troops were not adequately prepared or protected. That criticizes how the military protected the troops, so we labeled it Condemned. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, since she asks for the Army's assessment instead of stating its findings; it loses because she already describes the warnings as disregarded and the soldiers as not adequately protected.