Letters to the Editor

This letter is associated with the following article:
Read other letters about this article
When is an accidental civilian death not an accident?
When the Air Force asks permission first. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military has rules for killing civilians. But do the rules actually save lives?
By Mark Benjamin [2007-07-30]

  • Interesting. Ommissions highlight a problem in this war

    This was an interesting article, particularly in describing the amount of planning that goes into how to hit a target not just whether a target should be hit.

    I try to pay attention to what is left out sometimes. The big thing left out here is that the people that the US is targeting are generally people who view civilians not as collateral but as the actual target. Example: the airstrike that killed Zarqawi (sp?) stopped a leader whose strategy was to kill civilians.

    So, the US has a problem. It is being rightly held to a standard of minimizing civilian causalties but is fighting an enemy who is intending to kill civilians. While launching the airstrike may kill civilians, not launching also probably leads to the deaths of civilians.

    I think opponents of the war also have a problem. The clear best outcome for both the US and the Iraqis is that the US and the elected government win the war. Choosing to withdraw and concede defeat, while it may feel good for a bit, is not likely to save civilian lives. More civilians probably die if the US doesn't fight hard.

    -- McGarrett50
    [Read McGarrett50's other letters]
    Sunday, July 29, 2007 08:08 PM
Read other letters about this article

Letters Help