Did military personnel deliberately kill civilians? Actually, they probably did; in Iraq, Serbia, et al. civilian installations were targeted. You can’t deny that the Allies (not just the U.S.) went after a lot of targets like power plants, TV stations, and the like that are militarily important but manned at least in part by civilians. Some of the bombsight camera clips MH links to are factories and civilian targets. We can assume civilians were killed in at least some of them when they blew up, and I’m sure the pilots dropping the bombs knew that. Nobody said being a fighter pilot was always a barrel of laughs.
Did the Allies, especially in Serbia, adopt a strategy they knew was absolutely certain to cause civilian casualities? Yes, they did. That cannot be denied.
Does this mean soldiers were out there for the purpose of kill civvies? No, it doesn’t. It was a byproduct of what they were ordered to do, and we know that Allied soldiers, sailors and airmen and their political masters make a conscious effort to minimize civilian deaths.
But the fact remains that the “coalition” in the case of Iraq and NATO in the case of Serbia consciously, with the contributions of military personnel, engaged in acts they knew would kill civilians. I realize nobody wants it, but let’s be quite clear here, and let’s be as honest as we can; when NATO deployed to Serbia and started bombing, those soldiers and airmen engaged in an enterprise they absolutely knew would kill innocent people. By going ahead with it they chose to participate in an enterprise that would kill innocent people. It’s ridiculously dishonest to say “nope, we have no intention of killing civilians” when you are embarking on an armed conflict that is 100% guaranteed to kill civilians. They intended to do something that would kill civilians - split whatever hairs you want, guys, but there it is. It’s absurd to deny that.
Unfortunately, that is part of war, and it is one of the many reasons being a soldier is such a hard job. It’s not pleasant work. It is, in fact, the most unpleasant work there is. Even a just war may involve killing civilians; it’s part of the grim balance of human conflict we have to take into account. That’s why the U.S. and NATO doesn’t go running off and blasting away every time something pisses them off; the possibility of killing the innocent always weights into the equation. Sometimes you have no choice but to engage in military acts that will kill civilians, even though you try to minimize them, and The Gulf War and the Kosovo bombings are examples of that.
In addition to saying “Me, too” to everything the pther service memebrs have said, I’d like to thorw this out there, too.
Could the reason that people are so up in arms about the likilhood of civilian casualties be that they know that the terrorist suround themselves with innocents during battle as a matter of course? That they have, in the past, used innocents to screen them when/while they carried out acts of terror (ie: sniping from a crowd.)
I sort of wonder if that, subliminaly, is a factor in peoples worries? Sadly, the fact is that the terrorists do this and when they do, when they put so little regard for the life of people that have no military/combat role, they are the ones that are targetting civilians. They are the ugly cretins that do harm unto innocents for no reason.
Take that into account: that these people are so willing to die themselves that they kill or place in extreme danger anyone that happens to be around when they “go into battle.”
Actually, RickJay, American military personnel do not target civilian personnel, ever. If they do, they’re prosecuted.
I think you’re confused about what we’re talking about. “Targeting” means they were what you were aiming at, NOT that they got mixed up with a legitimate aim-point, one that is permissable under the laws of war. A civilian power plant is a very valuable asset to the enemy, and is necessary to his war effort. If it had no military value, and its destruction led only to civilian hardship, striking it would be a war crime. Likewise dams, bridges, etc. That’s not splitting hairs, either, unless you believe the entire body of law governing armed forces in conflict is just a bunch of hooey.
Nah, Jess, I re-thought the costume thang. Now, I’m going as a GOOD guy! Still horny, but on the RIGHT side!
It’s not ‘splitting hairs’ to draw a distinction between targeting infrastructure used by enemy forces to deny them a force multiplier, and targeting purely civilian structures solely for the purpose of killing non-combatants.
Nor is it ‘ridiculously dishonest’ to deny that the intent of a mission is to kill civilians. Using a power plant as an example target: destroying the plant is the target, therefore the intent of the mission - but you’re implying that any civilians in that plant are the target, and that’s not the case.
Yes, I’m aware of that. It’s the law in Canada, too.
That said, you are making a silly distinction that ignores reality. Saying “we do not target civilian personnel, ever” and then saying “But we do attack civilian targets with substantive military value” is contradictory. The US armed forces consciously and deliberately targets civilian targets, knowing full well it’s going to result in civilian deaths. Of course they try to minimize civilian casualties and do so only when there is a substantial military reason for doing so - that’s what separates the United States from Iraq. I said all this in my first post.
Remember, folks: I’m not saying the US is doing anything wrong at all or did anything wrong in Iraq and Serbia. I believe the US and its allies acted in accordance with the laws of war.
But saying things like “we don’t target civilians, ever” is, in my honest opinion, dishonest and detracts from good discussion. You can’t say on one hand “we target civilian buildings and facilities, as long as there’s a military necessity, collateral damage is minimized and we have no other options” and THEN say “we don’t target civilians, ever.” You’ve contradicted yourself. You can’t separate “civilian structures” from “civilians” without engaging in fantasy. You’re attempting to separate those two by stating that killing civilians is not the mission objective, which I know is true - but cause and effect covers more than your mission objectives. A sane person taking action X must take responsibility for all direct results. If action A is dropping a bomb onto a civilian power plant, the direct results are more than just the mission ohjective, I am afraid.
Consider a comparison. My house becomes infested with ants and I decide to use a bug bomb to kill them all, which is good. However, the bug bomb will cover the house in poison, which is bad. The objective of my mission, so to speak, is to kill all the ants. Drenching my stuff in poison is clearly NOT my objective - it’s a side effect I’ll just have to put up with, as much as I dislike it. I can minimize the bad side effect by taking out some of my furniture and taking all the food out and whatnot, but it is inevitable that I will have a mess to clean up, yes?
Now, obviously, if I set the bug bomb off, I’m deliberately taking an action that will cover my countertops and walls with bug poison. The fact that it’s not my mission objective, and not something I really want to do, doesn’t change the fact that I’ve consciously decided to take an action that will do so, right? Wouldn’t it be sort of crazy to now say “I didn’t intend to get this bug bomb crap all over my stuff, although I knew damn well it was certain to happen.”?
Targeting civilian structures is a very unfortunate but sometimes necessary part of war. And that means you’re deliberately taking an action that will kill civilians - it’s silly to absolve yourself of that responsibility. I understand why you’d want to, because it’s a grave and heavy responsibility. It’s not that anyone (on our side, anyway) wants to kill civilians - you just don’t have any choice when war comes. Hell, if we had our druthers we wouldn’t want to kill SOLDIERS, either. War is something a civilized nation engages in only when all reasonable and legal peaceful options are exhausted.
I have no idea what gives you this idea. I’m sure we both have a fairly common understanding of the accepted laws of war and their value.
There IS a splitting of hairs here. I never suggested the US was breaking the law of war, so your point there is irrelevant. Killing civilians can be within the rules of war as long as it’s a product of legal military action.
Apeothesis:
NO, APEOTHESIS, I DID NOT IMPLY THAT! Read my words carefully, please:
I’m sorry, but it can’t be made any clearer. I didn’t say it was ridiculously dishonest to claim that killing civilians wasn’t the INTENT OF THE MISSION. You added the phrase “intent of the mission” somewhere I did not use it, and thereby compeltely changed the meaning of what I said. I understand that the MISSION of US/Allied forces in situations like this is not killing civilians. If that was the mission, they’d just nuke Kabul, or Baghdad; what better way to kill civilians?
However, I believe it is very important to ensure the discussion is precise about this. By bombing Belgrade or Baghdad or Kabul, you must understand that we are taking actions we know will kill civilians. It’s not a case where we can reasonably expect that we could avoid them. It’s absolutely guaranteed to happen in operations of that size and scope. We try to minimize them and we follow the rules of war to the letter because this is not a result of our actions that we desire. But is IS a result we know for certainly will happen, and unfortunately must happen in cases where we’re trying to destroy infrastructure.
I believe our cause - and believe me, I’m on your side - is best served by accepting what it is we’re trying to do and what the results will be. “We don’t target civilians, ever” is bullshit, and everyone knows it; you can’t drop a GBU-15 on a civilian-operated power plant and tell me with a straight face that you’re not targeting civilians. There’s a rather bizarre logical disconnect if you can say “I am dropping a bomb on a building with civilians in it, and I know this action will kill and maim those civilians, but I’m not targeting them.” Yes, you are.
Does that make the USAF immoral? No. War is the worst job on earth. I believe the armed forces of the United States does the best job it reasonably can keeping civvie casualties to a minimum. The general jist of what Manservant Hecubus said is perfectly correct - the US military isn’t in the business of slaughtering the innocent and it’s dishonest and insulting to claim they are.
But the sad, grim fact is that war kills people and it is the job of the armies of civilized nations not to avoid killing anyone at all, but to bring wars to swift and effective conclusions so that the damage and loss of life is minimized - now AND in the future. We have to accept that when we take military action, we’re doing so knowing our actions will kill civilians. Thank God we DO know that and don’t like it, or we’d be going to war every week.
Look, RickJay…I accept that you’re not one of those ‘soldiers are nothing but a bunch of baby-killers’ types, and I’ve long since accepted that civilian deaths are inevitable in combat. What we apparently have here is a simple semantic distinction, and I was trying (badly) to clarify my position.
Saying that the US deliberately attacks civilian assets or infrastructure is absolutely true. Saying that civilians die as a result of these attacks is also undeniably true. However, saying the US attacks civilians is false, because the latter implies that the civilians themselves are the targets.
Unless the mission orders read “blow up this power plant, and make sure you kill all those civvies in there while you’re at it”, then the civilians aren’t the target and killing them isn’t the intent - anymore than your intent was covering your kitchen with bug poison.
That said, I’ll humbly cop to being a nitpicky bastard who tends to react badly to such accusations, whether real or perceived.
