The Post also notes our efforts to get ourselves immunity from unfair war crimes accusations. The French and the rest of Old Europe are deeply invested in the ICC, which, like the Belgian War Crimes Law, smacks of arrogance beyond its borders. Our response thus far has been to use carrots to obtain bilateral treaties with states, preventing them from turning in our soldiers for alleged war crimes. The article details some of the pressures that the new NATO members are under, including economic pressure by the French, to cave in to the ICC. (Some countries have waivers, meaning that they don't need to sign the bilateral treaties to keep getting military aid - among them existing NATO countries, the Anglosphere, Israel, and - Egypt??)

We have a very good record of dealing with these issues ourselves, and if we're going to be asked to do all the heavy lifting, it only seems fair that we be allowed to do it without having our soldiers become sitting ducks. It's vitally important that this effort succeed. The ICC will be around, and our country's advance hasn't occurred in a straight line. There may be times when a future administration feels pressured to allow the ICC a role in policing the US military, and the closer we can come to killing this thing in its crib, the better off we'll be. Otherwise, these treaties are just a rearguard action. Some major diplomatic confrontation with the EU is in the future, and if things go the wrong way, this could certainly be one of their crowbars.