Collateral Damage.

[Coloradomtnman]

Here are some articles and websites regarding the deaths of innocent people, including women and children, caused by US airstrikes and bombings:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/world/asia/07afghan.html?ref=asia

Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan

The Wedding Crashers: U.S. Jets Have Bombed Five Ceremonies in Afghanistan | War on Iraq | AlterNet

These are just a few of these events. Not to mention innocent people shot like those at the massacre of al-Haditha.

My opinion is that collateral damage is absolutely unacceptable. Those responsible for issuing the order or, as in the case of the Marines in al-Haditha, those directly responsible should be punished publicly. For two reasons:

1. To attempt to prevent such wrongs from occurring again, and

2. To demonstrate that the US doesn't tolerate the killings of innocent people. This saps the will to fight of the enemy is they see that their enemy (us) is not so bad after all, and it reduces the enemy's ability to recruit when people realize that the US is not so bad after all.

The US government should also pay reparations to those affected by unwarranted or mistaken attacks. I know that its a lousy consolation, but what else can we do. I understand that these sort of things happen during war: its inevitable. Which is one reason why I think we should avoid war at almost any cost (except for wars like WWII). Just look at what this war on terror has cost the US, thousands of lives, billions of dollars, the good will of much of the developed world, and two quagmires: Afghanistan and the Taliban, and Iraq and the insurgents. And now this is spilling over into Pakistan and Iran. We seem to be creating more terrorists than killing.

What is your opinion:
Is collateral damage acceptable? Why?

Is a war on terror which causes terror a moral and righteous war? If so, why?

Should the US issue reparations to the families of the victims of such incidences? Why not?

 

[Epsilon Delta]

This is actually addressed in the new Counterinsurgency Field Manual published by the Marines and the Army:

[ame=http://www.amazon.ca/Marine-Corps-Counterinsurgency-Field-Manual/dp/0226841510]The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual: John A. Nagl: Amazon.ca: James F. Amos, Sarah Sewall, David H. Petraeus: Books[/ame]

I got to read some of it because a friend of mine was reading it, and it is actually really good. The focus is switched precisely to the defense and protection of civilians as the centerpoint of counterinsurgency operations for pretty much the reasons you listed: to choke the insurgency's recruitment potential. Civilians as "collateral damage" becomes unacceptable because it risks ruining the mission in various ways.

"Surely a manual that's on the bedside table of the president, vice president, secretary of defense, 21 of 25 members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and many others deserves a place at your bedside too." - Lt. General David H. Petraeus" Certainly recommendable, from what I read of it. If anyone here actually got to read the whole thing, maybe they can expand.

 

[DiamondDave]

You will never have a perfect war... you will not be able to completely ensure the safety of innocent civilians

Collateral damage is never something you want, but you cannot completely avoid it... You can only try to limit it without absolutely hindering the necessary military mission...

And it is harder in many cases now, even with more 'smart' weapons.. the way the coward terrorists like to hide behind civilians

So I think it is very unfair to have the choices you have... It's not yes, no, or sometimes... It is unfortunately a part of reality in warfare

 

[Newby]

You will never have a perfect war... you will not be able to completely ensure the safety of innocent civilians

Collateral damage is never something you want, but you cannot completely avoid it... You can only try to limit it without absolutely hindering the necessary military mission...

And it is harder in many cases now, even with more 'smart' weapons.. the way the coward terrorists like to hide behind civilians

So I think it is very unfair to have the choices you have... It's not yes, no, or sometimes... It is unfortunately a part of reality in warfare

What you are saying requires intellectual honesty and a modicum of common sense, neither of which is apparently not evident in the choices provided.

 

[Newby]

Here are some articles and websites regarding the deaths of innocent people, including women and children, caused by US airstrikes and bombings:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/world/asia/07afghan.html?ref=asia

Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan

The Wedding Crashers: U.S. Jets Have Bombed Five Ceremonies in Afghanistan | War on Iraq | AlterNet

These are just a few of these events. Not to mention innocent people shot like those at the massacre of al-Haditha.

My opinion is that collateral damage is absolutely unacceptable. Those responsible for issuing the order or, as in the case of the Marines in al-Haditha, those directly responsible should be punished publicly. For two reasons:

1. To attempt to prevent such wrongs from occurring again, and

2. To demonstrate that the US doesn't tolerate the killings of innocent people. This saps the will to fight of the enemy is they see that their enemy (us) is not so bad after all, and it reduces the enemy's ability to recruit when people realize that the US is not so bad after all.

The US government should also pay reparations to those affected by unwarranted or mistaken attacks. I know that its a lousy consolation, but what else can we do. I understand that these sort of things happen during war: its inevitable. Which is one reason why I think we should avoid war at almost any cost (except for wars like WWII). Just look at what this war on terror has cost the US, thousands of lives, billions of dollars, the good will of much of the developed world, and two quagmires: Afghanistan and the Taliban, and Iraq and the insurgents. And now this is spilling over into Pakistan and Iran. We seem to be creating more terrorists than killing.

What is your opinion:
Is collateral damage acceptable? Why?

Is a war on terror which causes terror a moral and righteous war? If so, why?

Should the US issue reparations to the families of the victims of such incidences? Why not?

Perhaps you should try your lecture on the terrorists?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

So I think it is very unfair to have the choices you have... It's not yes, no, or sometimes... It is unfortunately a part of reality in warfare

What about "Yes, unfortunately."?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You will never have a perfect war... you will not be able to completely ensure the safety of innocent civilians
Collateral damage is never something you want, but you cannot completely avoid it... You can only try to limit it without absolutely hindering the necessary military mission...
And it is harder in many cases now, even with more 'smart' weapons.. the way the coward terrorists like to hide behind civilians
So I think it is very unfair to have the choices you have... It's not yes, no, or sometimes... It is unfortunately a part of reality in warfare

What you are saying requires intellectual honesty and a modicum of common sense, neither of which is apparently not evident in the choices provided.

I think you just like to follow my posts around and criticize them, and if there isn't anything really there to criticize, you just make shit up. That or you didn't read what I wrote. What choices would you have come up with, Newby? Yes, no, sometimes, once in a while, only when the enemy hides behind innocent people?

 

[manu1959]

collateral damage is a part of war.....

 

[Newby]

You will never have a perfect war... you will not be able to completely ensure the safety of innocent civilians
Collateral damage is never something you want, but you cannot completely avoid it... You can only try to limit it without absolutely hindering the necessary military mission...
And it is harder in many cases now, even with more 'smart' weapons.. the way the coward terrorists like to hide behind civilians
So I think it is very unfair to have the choices you have... It's not yes, no, or sometimes... It is unfortunately a part of reality in warfare

What you are saying requires intellectual honesty and a modicum of common sense, neither of which is apparently not evident in the choices provided.

I think you just like to follow my posts around and criticize them, and if there isn't anything really there to criticize, you just make shit up. That or you didn't read what I wrote. What choices would you have come up with, Newby? Yes, no, sometimes, once in a while, only when the enemy hides behind innocent people?

Yeah, I have a secret crush on you, and I just can't help myself.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Perhaps you should try your lecture on the terrorists?

First off, it wasn't a lecture so much as it was an expression of my opinion.

And secondly, why, do you think it will work? If I tell the terrorists that the US shouldn't kill innocent people, you think it'd help? Maybe, but we'd actually have to stop killing innocent people.

Luckily, the DoD thinks that collateral damage is also unacceptable and for at least one of the reasons I do. It is also my opinion that we should somehow give the victims' families something out of regret for killing, maiming, injuring, and/or traumatizing them.

What do you think? "Oh well, too bad, you Muslims shouldn't live in Afghanistan or Pakistan, or where ever it is our bombs landed? I don't think that should be in the federal budget. I'm fiscally conservative, so I don't want a bunch of people to try to get bombed just so they can live off of the US nanny state."

What if it were you or your family accidentally killed by a bomb because of faulty intelligence or a misguided smartbomb or missile? Just envision that for a moment before you answer. What kind of stupid tragedy would that be for you or your family?

 

[Xenophon]

Airpower will always do this.

There is no safe way to fight wars, wars are about killing.

My opinion is we should remove all military from the middleast, it's their dirt and their problems, and prevent any of them from coming here until they clean up their own messes.

 

[Iriemon]

collateral damage is a part of war.....

Wars can cause a lot of collaterall damage, and not just to people, but to a nation, its reputation, its economy, and its safety.

Good reason not to get into them unless there is no other option.

 

[k2skier]

You will never have a perfect war... you will not be able to completely ensure the safety of innocent civilians

Collateral damage is never something you want, but you cannot completely avoid it... You can only try to limit it without absolutely hindering the necessary military mission...

And it is harder in many cases now, even with more 'smart' weapons.. the way the coward terrorists like to hide behind civilians

So I think it is very unfair to have the choices you have... It's not yes, no, or sometimes... It is unfortunately a part of reality in warfare

Doesn't this one, "No, but its an necessary evil to fight evil" come really close to what you said? It's the one I chose.

GWB, (or I should say Christianities fear of all things Muslim) creating terrorists faster than we can kill 'em.

 

[DiamondDave]

Colo

The DoD will say it, for it is politically correct to do so... unfortunately, that is the world we now live in...

But.. in terms of planning etc... it is not considered unacceptable... it is rather something to be greatly considered before an action... but an important action will not inherently stop because of the slightest chance of collateral damage

Will they try to avoid it as much as humanly possible, while still accomplishing the mission? Yes.. even to the point where sometimes soldiers are in even more of harms way... but as stated, even with our best weapons we will have, and always will have, collateral damage

So.. by definition it is 'acceptable'.. or I would rather say it is reality, and will not disappear, even though we wish that no innocent civilian is ever hurt by our actions



Now.. please note.. I am not arguing with you.. but giving insight as a veteran, and with logical reasoning behind it

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

Collateral damage is not only acceptable, it is often the true objective behind "military" strikes.

The object of war is not to destroy the enemies' military; it is to destroy either their capacity or their will to fight. Economic and infrastructure damage and civilian casualties are more effective toward this purpose than killing soldiers.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Collateral damage is certainly not acceptable.

 

[DiamondDave]

Collateral damage is not only acceptable, it is often the true objective behind "military" strikes.

The object of war is not to destroy the enemies' military; it is to destroy either their capacity or their will to fight. Economic and infrastructure damage and civilian casualties are more effective toward this purpose than killing soldiers.

In modern warfare, at least in the way we practice it, we may have targets such as nuke plants or weapons factories, etc, where civilians may be at... but that is part of the war machine...

But we do not find it acceptable to target strictly civvy targets or to not take civilian casualties into consideration

 

[Newby]

Perhaps you should try your lecture on the terrorists?

First off, it wasn't a lecture so much as it was an expression of my opinion.

And secondly, why, do you think it will work? If I tell the terrorists that the US shouldn't kill innocent people, you think it'd help? Maybe, but we'd actually have to stop killing innocent people.

Luckily, the DoD thinks that collateral damage is also unacceptable and for at least one of the reasons I do. It is also my opinion that we should somehow give the victims' families something out of regret for killing, maiming, injuring, and/or traumatizing them.

What do you think? "Oh well, too bad, you Muslims shouldn't live in Afghanistan or Pakistan, or where ever it is our bombs landed? I don't think that should be in the federal budget. I'm fiscally conservative, so I don't want a bunch of people to try to get bombed just so they can live off of the US nanny state."

What if it were you or your family accidentally killed by a bomb because of faulty intelligence or a misguided smartbomb or missile? Just envision that for a moment before you answer. What kind of stupid tragedy would that be for you or your family?

Were you being intentionally stupid, or does it just happen randomly?

 

[YWN666]

Airpower will always do this.

There is no safe way to fight wars, wars are about killing.

My opinion is we should remove all military from the middleast, it's their dirt and their problems, and prevent any of them from coming here until they clean up their own messes.

I remember during the first gulf war when the public found out that our bulldozers were burying Iraqi soldiers alive in their trenches. Some people were outraged but I don't think there is a nice way of killing people.

I also remember when France refused to allow us to fly over their airspace when we bombed Libya and somehow the French embassy suffered collateral damage. Woops!

 

[TofuDog]

What we should do to eliminate the terrorists is to send in our troops (I'm from a Nato country) and rescue as many women and children as we can from Afghanistan and western Pakistan.
Then, with the help of the russians and possibly the chinese, the brits and the french, NUKE THE WHOLE FUCKING PLACE 10 times over. We have a shitload of aging nukes we need to dispose of anyways. let's put them to good use.