Let me start with an acknowledgement: the following is lifted from a blog, Daily Kos, with references to sources available at the site. I trust the site thus far, having never seen it proved false or misleading, but scrupulous attention to standards demands an acknowledgement.
As follows:
[emphasis added in sorrow, horror, and dismay…]
If you can prove they’re lying, do so. If you can’t, then explain to me why this makes the least goddam! bit of sense!
I wasn’t there, I don’t know. I’m going to bet some buildings only had insurgents in them. I’m going to bet some buildings only had civilians in them. And I’m going to bet some had a mix of civilians and insurgents.
I’ll further bet that civilians had their homes down and will further speculate that civilians were killed. I do know we’ve had evidence showing there was collateral damage in Fallujah, so I was never suggesting that there was not.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Firing into a building to take out targets is not a war crime just because some civilians my die incidentally. It is generally held you need to intentionally be targetting civilians to be tried and convicted of a war crime in the United States.
In warfare where we fight enemies who deliberately blur the line between civilian and combatant, we either have to roll over and die or fight back, and sometimes the innocent will die. But that has always been the case. Civilians have died in warfare since time immemorial. And I don’t mean that as a defense. All wars are tragedy, and in a way all wars are crimes. But when a war is being fought, even here in the modern era, we’ve come to accept we cannot completely tie our own hands simply to avoid the possibility that some civilians will die.
When the insurgency broke out in Fallujah we were the legal governing forces in Iraq.
I won’t say they’re lying, I have no idea. I’d say it doesn’t sound unreasonable. Or beyond what I would expect.
Some cities in Europe during WWII were reduced to rubble in the battles between the Allied forces and the Nazis. Civilians were killed quite often. How did this happen? Probably the same way it did in Fallujah. Combatants were spread throughout the city, in thousands of buildings. They were launching attacks from various positions, it’s difficult to tell precisely who is firing on you and from where. Because of our opponent’s actions we are forced to use less than perfectly precise weapons to neutralize targets. We’ve gotten more precise than we did in WWII, when we could only make very general attempts to avoid killing civilians. But still, we’re talking about using artillery, explosives, et cetera. This stuff will happen, buildings will collapse, etc.
36 houses destroyed per insurgent killed seems a tad high to me. We might have gotten a better ratio if we had gone with the “large air strikes” brought up as a strawman by Macgiver.
There’s one part of the story I’m still holding out on: that part about “military age” males being turned back when they tried to evacuate. I don’t believe it because I can’t, we’re the Americans, we don’t do shit like that. Evil people do shit like that, but not us. I refuse to believe it until someone sticks the cite to my head with thumb tacks. People tried to leave, and we wouldn’t let them!!!?
No way. We’re the Americans, we don’t do things like that. And if it turns out to be true, I won’t have anything funny to say about it. Unless you think someone screaming till his throat is raw is funny.
“I tremble for my nation when I reflect that God is just.” - Thomas Jefferson
I’d hope that was true. What purpose is served by letting thousands of insurgents escape Fallujah just so they can tear up other parts of the country?
Hit reply too early…
Anyways Elucidator you really seem to not understand that you can’t fight any war, even a “just war” that everyone agrees must be fought without being brutal to some degree. “War is hell”
What separates us from our enemies is we don’t make it a goal to kill civilians, or to use civilians as human shields. But I can assure you that even the most discrete military operation, when done in a civilian urban area, will result in dead civilians.
I’m aware you don’t support this war. But surely you can imagine a situation where the United States has to fight a war, because I can assure you that such a situation will present itself sometime in the future, be it in 15 years or 100 years. And when such a war happens do you seriously think we should allow our enemies to move or operate unmolested because we refuse to risk even 1 civilian casualty?
You know 3.5 million German soldiers were killed in WWII, which is exactly equivalent to the number of German civilians that were killed (and no, that doesn’t count German jews killed in the holocaust.) Of course in WWII we took deliberate military actions against German civilians in order to destroy German will to fight and to destroy their industrial base.
So you think all Iraqi males are insurgents and should be killed ?
Then why did we send them back to die ? Why have we tortured and killed innocent civilians and raped children ?
Which to my knowledge didn’t work any more than the Blitz destroyed the British will to fight.
Aren’t these two statements contradictory? How can you claim we don’t make it a goal to kill civilians and then say that we undertook military action with the goal of deliberately killing civilians?
You are hopefully aware that the US also deliberately targetted North Vietnamese civilians only 30 years ago. With the same stated aim of destroying the will to fight.
It seems to me that we do indeed deliberately target civilians whenever that is considered to be militarily or politically useful.
…you are aware that since Operation Phantom Fury the Iraqi casualty rate from the insurgency has gone up, right? From an average of 240 casualties/week pre-fury to 420 casualties/week a year post-fury. So yeah, I think it would be safe to say that the objectives of Phantom Fury were not reached, hundreds of insurgents probably escaped during the blundered Operation Vigilent Resolve, Fallujah was made uninhabitable for at least 100,000 people, and Iraq is less safe than it has ever been.
So yeah, as a result of the policy to keep “fighting aged” males in Fallujah during hostilities, insurgents are now tearing up other parts of the country. Is that what you expected to happen?
What we require is a bit of calibration, here. Some guidelines as to the correct Hyde Ratio of combatants to civilians/prospective combatants.
We may fairly assume that the Hyde Administration would have no problem with the ratio achieved in Fallujah, that is, roughly 3 insurgents to 2 “civilians” (we use the quotes advisedly, since such civilians as may exist will not be so categorized for very long, they will either be categorized as “insurgents” as the “Hate our guts” factor rises, or categorized as the more benign, less dangerous “corpses”.)
It is quite true that such a ratio alarms those of us lilly-livered, wussy pants liberals who are unfortunately deluded by whimsical notions of morality and humanity, and have yet to acheive the bracing, stern cynicism and amoral savagery so eloquently endorsed herein.
At what point does this ratio become counter-productive or even “not-nice”? Even ratios, one to one? Would a 3 to 2 ratio in the opposite be acceptable, that is, three non-combatants neutralized for every 2 insurgents pacified? How about 2 to 1? 6? 10? Or the ever popular “Kill 'em all and let God sort them out”?
Give us some guidelines, Martin. At what point, if any, does a shrewdly effective policy become brutal and senseless slaughter?
Considering that he classified all males in Fallujah as insurgents, I think that the “Hyde Administration” would pick this one.
Ok, I have a question here. I thought that it wasn’t just the specific targeting of civilians that would “count” as a war crime, but also not making reasonable attempts to not injure civilians? I mean, by your logic, why don’t we just carpet bomb the entire city to get rid of terrorists? Sure, you’ll kill vast amounts of the innocent population, but that’s just incedental.
I understand that in some cases it’s necessary, in the capture/killing of insurgents, to place innocents at some risk. Where do we draw the line, though, between “Let’s bomb the building!” and “We must wait outside the building until the insurgents come out, so that no civilians are harmed”. What level of “risk” can we bring on innocents before it becomes a war crime?
You are falling prey to the same fallacy as Pjen.
The standard for establishing the validity of assertions, particularly controversial ones, is to prove that they are true, not to make a charge and insist that it is valid unless others prove you wrong.
One could claim that large stocks of WMDs were buried somewhere in Iraq by Saddam, justifying the U.S. invasion - and that unless one could specifically prove they weren’t there the claim stands as valid. Of course, it is invalid unless it can be shown to be true. For that matter, I could assert that there are planets in other galaxies made of feta cheese and orbited by giant Italian olives. You might say this is nonsense, but I could retort that you have not proved me wrong, and that the potential exists for one monster Greek salad.
Damn straight.
Nonsense. I was merely acknowledging, as a matter of propriety, that my direct source was a lefty blog. I further pointed out that selfsame blog offers the links to more direct sourcing, should it be required. My testimony as to their reliability is just that, my testimony. It could all be lies and bullshit, whopped up by the dastardly Washington Post, but frankly I doubt it. If you have reason to believe otherwise, you are, as always, invited to bring it.
Please note as well that your diversionary lecture on the nature of proof has no bearing or relevence to the matter at hand. Do you contest or dispute any of the assertions offered as facts? Would be rather more salient, don’t you think, than a lecture on phenomenology?
Sorry to have missed the fun in this thread…been traveling quite a bit lately and am still on the road with a crappy dialup connection.
Since no one has brought this up yet: Chemical Weapons, afaik, are considered WMD…right? If WP is a Chemical Weapon, then wouldn’t it be considered a WMD as well? And weren’t huge stores of WP (in the form of artillary shells and other munitions) found throughout Iraq post invasion? Q.E.D. thanks to the OP we have now proved that Iraq in fact DID have WMD!
(Just kidding. Carry on)
-XT
On the contrary.
“Diversionary” would more aptly describe this shift of the debate into the question of whether civilian casualties occurring in conjunction with U.S. military operations in Fallujah are justifiable. It’s certainly a legitimate topic in its own right, but not the topic introduced in the OP, i.e. 1) whether white phosphorous rounds are a chemical weapon prohibited by international law, 2) how to punish the U.S. for this possible violation, and 3) the woe pursuant to the dread loss of Moral High Ground™ by the United States.
If you feel the sources you indirectly cited show targeting of civilians by illegal weaponry, please indicate where they do so.
Offer affirmative evidence so that it may be questioned, debated and its veracity established or refuted.
On this subject, you might want to consider one thing when it comes to counting casualties in Falloujah: there’s a very serious chance that casualties may be double-counted, especially since some numbers the Pentagon put out are being combined with numbers put out by humanitarian groups.
For example, let’s say the Pentagon every militia-aged male as an insurgent in their body count of 1,200. Perhaps the Red Cross counted unarmed militia-aged males as being a civilian in their count of 800. It does not necessarily follow that the total killed in Falloujah was 2,000, or that either count is accurate.
I have no clue whatsoever what the true body count of insurgents and civilians was, of course. The point that we really ought to consider the likely civilian casualty toll before going off an levelling cities is a point well taken, but there’s no way, in my mind, to put a specific number to what is an appropriate ratio. It’s just not a mathematical question. Was it worth 25,000 (or whatever) American lives to take a tiny island like Iwo Jima? What is an appropriate level of losses for our own troops? Just like the question you pose, I don’t think there’s a firm answer to that question, either.
However, wrapping this back around to the WP issue, once the battle began, I’m betting that the use of WP to drive insurgents out of dug-in positions could well have saved civilian lives. If it’s a question between aerial bombardment (even with PGMs) or using WP to drive bad guys out into the open, even though I’m not a military expert, I’d say the WP is preferable.
I guess you’re going to imply in your response that my views make me a baby killer, or something like that, but I do probably agree with you on the larger point: I think we ought to stop pissing off Iraqis and start pulling our troops out.
Why you felt it was necessary to make this pre-emptive ad hominem escapes me. Your points are well made, and are well taken, despite the entirely gratuitous insult. Perhaps it would be best to leave an answer to someone who has your respect, as I clearly do not.
You exhibit a very selective sense of propriety. I certainly did not hijack this conversation all by myself, yet I am the only one you feel compelled to rebuke. The OP, the much belabored pjen, doesn’t seem to care much. You’re not moved to scold anyone else. Why is that, one wonders?
A less generous man than myself might suspect that your ire is more about how well I argue than what I argue about.