Technological advances have shown in the first Iraqi war, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and the current Iraqi war that you can now have wars with very little civillian damage. Does this mean that war will now become a far more common event?
I think recent history has shown that US precision bombing can limit–but never eliminate–civilian casualties. It’s not clear that wars generally have gotten any easier on civilian populations.
As US forces approach Baghdad, and the ‘siege’ might be beginning, I am not going to say anything about the lack of civilian damage in war I might regret seriously in a few hours.
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but I was under the impression that the conflicts you named also involved not quite so much of actual extended “serious shooting back and forth with intent to kill” ground war, as seems to be developing in Iraq. In Afghanistan it seemed like the Good Guys (us) spent most of their time traipsing around the hills looking for OBL. Operation Desert Storm it seems like went really fast. Kosovo just barely made the news here. “Kosovo? Wherethehell’s that?” etc.
Operation Iraqi Freedom, though, looks like it’s shaping up to be a Serious War, and if the Republican Guard declines to throw in the towel and quit, during the fight for Baghdad the Coalition may not be able to keep up the carefully orchestrated “humane” war, in the interests of needing to make a really serious effort to kill quite a lot of Iraqis. Inevitably civilians are gonna get hurt.
This fixation on “humane wars” is already being turned against us through the Iraqi use of human shields. I suspect a large element of the Iraqi strategy is to make the US seem as inhumane as possible; not something difficult to believe if you already accept some the other accusations being leveled at the US government. Whoever best controls the world’s sense of outrage will have the upper hand in the PR campaign. I hope we can keep our wars as “humane” as reasonably possible, but in the case of a war that many did not feel was warranted this may be a largely thankless task.
Personally I feel that once Saddam’s oppressive regime is overthrown the truth will come out, unfortunately it will be a truth championed by a source that many are already set on dismissing.
As others a whole lot smarter than I am have pointed out, war is cruelty and it cannot be refined. War is government sanctioned murder, arson, mayhem, kidnaping and malicious destruction. That is its nature. Humane war is a public relations ploy. Humane war is New! Improved! War with miracle working stain removers that will make you attractive to the opposite sex and secret ingredients. Its barbarity can be restrained but in the end it is an obscenity and contrary to every civilized impulse no matter whether the motive is noble or larcenous. Maybe we need one every generation or so, just so we do not think that it is a computer game.
This may be true but I can’t help but point out that we have come a looooong way from the indiscriminate bombing campaigns we know from history. We have a professional army that is going to great lengths to protect the civilians caught in the middle. Likewise we can also expect not to see rape, looting or torture of civilians. We are not a conquering or colonizing force, our intention to dismantle an oppressive and unpredictable regime is clearly stated. That is just about the most we can ask. (although world support certainly might help… ah well)
Well, the smart bombs ain’t cheap, and neither is the training required to use them, so while they might somehow become more attractive to use because we can control them, the fact that they are so expensive is going to put a damper on anyone who wants to go to war just because they can.
Meanwhile, the bad guys will continue to blow up anything and everything they can, by whatever means they can.
Meanwhile, from today’s New York Times
It seems we can’t believe anything we hear, from either side. This statement is a perfect example. If this is true then we can’t believe reports of allied bombs causing civilian casualties. If it is not true, then this indicates willingness on the part of our forces to fabricate circumstances where casualities we DID inflict on civilian populations are blamed on Iraqi forces.
The truth, as always, will lie somewhere in the middle. Determining what it actually IS will not be easy in the least.
Enjoy,
Steven
So far this war has shown that there are more colors here than black and white (what a surprise).
Apart from the question of human shields, there are the allegations that many of the soldiers are fighting because the Fedayeen have their families held hostage and will kill them otherwise. So are these people “Military” and worthy of being targeted, or hapless civilians?
As is repression, genocide, democide, police state, torture, etc. The question is under which situation more innocents are going to die, through war or through inaction.
Sua
It is perhaps not the methods of war that have presaged an epidemic of war but the precedents that have recently been set. Assassination and regime change are now apparently fair play, and since international law can be broken without ending up in an international court, let multitudinous battles commence.
It may mean that nations with humane cultures and leaders, like the US and UK, will be more inclined to get involved in wars. Inhumane leaders, like Saddam or Pol Pot or Robert Mugabe, wouldn’t care about minimizing civilian deaths.
In the long run, it may be a good thing for the world if the “good guys” get more involved in wars. E.g., the genocide in Cambodia and in the former Yugoslavia are horrible examples of what can happen when the good guys stand aside.