Letters to the Editor
-
I'm with NATO on this one
NATO is surely right in their view that American forces are too heavy-handed in Afghanistan.
The situation there could go either way, but winning hearts and minds is vital at this stage. The occupying forces need to prove that they can make daily life better for ordinary Afghans by making infrastructure improvements and the like, as well helping provide better security. But any good work done by NATO or US troops is promptly undone by a misdirected US air strike or by US troops firing indiscriminately on civilians after they themselves have been attacked.
I'm sure that US forces do make strenuous efforts, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, to strike the right balance between taking the necessary military action and minimizing civilian casualties. But what they think is the 'right' balance is not what most other people think is acceptable.
If up to 30 civilians are thought likely to die in an air strike (that's the anticipated number mind you, not the number of 'accidental' deaths after the event), then this can go ahead without top-level approval. Most Iraqis and Afghans would say that's 30 too many.
-
Not so smart after all
Well, I kinda wish they hadnt wasted time and money on developing smart bombs and other precision weapons. It looks like we should scrap them all and just to back to the old fashion way of waging war. The days were 100,000 to 500,000 are killed in a single day (boy, swords and spears can be effective) and whole cities and towns were wiped out. Then you really would have something to complain about. The mistake we made was trying to civilize warfare.
-
It does seem like an odd policy
But then again we could set the number somewhere between zero and don't give a crap with more or less the same results too.
-
Thomas Theobald is a racist
Minimize civilian casualties, eh?
I'd like to see your reaction when one stray bomb accidentally leveled your mother's house....
would you applaud?
no imagine if one bomb accidentally destroyed not only your home but 5 of your neighbor's as well
would you appreciate the effort to minimize casualties or curse the idiot ruined your life and that of your friends?
fighting insurgents from the air is always bad and unless you negotiate with them there will be perpetual warfare
ever heard of FARC? they don't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon.
-
trying to make war, "more civilized" -- compared to what, when and where? and for whom?
I think there's an underlying contradiction of terms here ... perhaps fallacy ... but it's still largely "how many angels can dance on the head of pin" territory ... and like the freedom fighter versus terrorist conundrum, it depends who wrote the dictionary/rule book.
-
Theobald the racist.
Minimize civilian casualties, eh?
I'd like to see your reaction when one stray bomb accidentally levels your mother's house....
would you applaud?
imagine if one bomb accidentally destroyed not only your home but 5 of your neighbor's as well, or half of your family during a thanksgiving celebration
would you appreciate the effort to minimize casualties or curse the idiot that ruined your life and that of your friends?
fighting insurgents from the air is always abortive strategically and unless you negotiate with them there will be perpetual warfare
you talk so casually about civilian deaths as if the 100,000+ Iraqis that have perished is something to lauded not ridiculed.
-
msbau764...?
I'm curious how you arrived at a prognosis of racism based on what I posted. That seems...presumptuous.
Further, it appears that you have not read my post with much attention - I believe that I was very clear that I consider civilian casualties tragic and abhorrent, though not unexpected. There is a significant difference in those terms - the first two are moral, and the third is simply empirical.
Fighting an insurgency in any circumstance is difficult bordering on the impossible. If you would examine past conflicts, I think you will find that fighting them on the ground generates considerable collateral damage as well as from the air - but it was not my intent to justify the use of particular methods.
I merely consider it laudable that our military is making the effort to reduce casualties - and that should we choose to criticize them, we should be careful to point our criticisms at the techniques, not the purpose.
T
-
For my right honorable friend Theo
"In the first six and a half months of 2007, according to a Human Rights Watch database, the U.S. Air Force dropped 527,860 pounds of bombs in Afghanistan -- nearly equal to the 575,500 pounds during all of 2006, according to that database. In Iraq, the tonnage is lower, but the increase is more dramatic. In the first half of this year, 222,000 pounds of bombs fell in Iraq, compared to 61,500 during 2006."
the best way to minimize civilian casualties is leave Iraq, not drop more bombs. Very simple.
-
A Hard Choice
Imagine for a moment that you are a Soldier, Marine, or Airman on the ground in Iraq. Your convoy just got hit by and IED and then was ambushed by a group of insurgents and you are pinned down. Close air support could be called in helping to stop the attack but there is a chance for civilian casualties, perhaps saving the life of yourself and the others you are with. Or you can try to keep fighting it out with small arms and support weapons as you try to get out of there in hopes that you won't become a casualty yourself.
On the one hand you are deployed there to help the people of Iraq. You don't want to see any civilians become a casualty. On the other hand you are fighting for your survival. Having the Air Force come in and drop a bomb may be the difference between you living or dying.
I'm in the military and preparing to deploy to Iraq in the next few months. I worry about having to be in a situation just like this. There has been enough suffering in this war already. Every civilian death is a horrible tragedy. But if it comes down to my life or the possibility of civilian deaths as a result of an air strike, I chose my life.
-
bigdork is an apt name
"On the one hand you are deployed there to help the people of Iraq."
No you are not. You are there to find Weapons of Mass Destruction. There aren't any so it's time to leave. Go at your own risk. Remember killing will haunt you for the rest of your life.