Probably not, but no affected civilian population caught in this situation would.
Thing is, even if these killings were indiscriminate, it does not necessarily invalidate the overall effort. No Gun Ri was an event that should never have happened, yet the sheer fact that it did in no way invalidates our efforts during the Korean War.
Careful enough…compared to what, exactly? Compared to how the Soviet’s conducted their little adventure there? Oh, I’d have to say that short of carpet bombing every town, city or village we would rate ‘careful enough’ in THAT context. How about compared to how they handled their own little civil war adventures? Yeah…I’d have to go with ‘careful enough’ in that context as well, considering how they slaughtered each other (and any unfortunately civilian in the way, or who happened to be on the other side) in job lots. How about in the context of how they treated each other and their various civilian counterparts during THIS war…well, I seem to recall that at the beginning of the war we turned over Taliban prisoners to Northern Alliance forces, who promptly dealt with them by posing them for machine gun fire. And of course, there are all those glowing reports of the humane way the Taliban has treated civilians on a side other than their own (note, I didn’t say ‘the other side’, since there are, um, several ‘sides’ in this fucked up conflict).
I don’t think anyone is saying the US is perfect, that our military never fucks up, or that mistakes aren’t made…or even that sometimes civilians are killed deliberately. But, as with all things, context is important…and perspective. We (and the other NATO forces) at least TRY to keep the slaughter of civilians to a minimum…something that is a pretty novel concept to the Afghan people after years of internal civil war (and rule by a bunch of crazy, fundamentalist zealots), occupation by the Soviets, more on again off again internecine warfare, and memorable tangles with the Brits, going back even further.
-XT
Compared to what it takes to convince them that we’re acting in their own best interests, of course.
You do obviously have your own strong views on the matter, but they frankly don’t matter any more than any other non-Afghan’s do.
Hm…well, we AREN’T acting in their own (collective) best interests. We didn’t invade Afghanistan, nor fight there for close to a decade because it was in their best interests…we did it because it was in OUR best interests to take out the AQ bases and prevent the Taliban from continuing to provide resources and a safe haven for them.
As fractured as Afghan society is, and as clannish as it’s people are, I doubt there IS a collective ‘best interests’ that are shared among them. Best interests of who exactly? City dwellers? Villagers? In which region? Belonging to which faction? Which religious group? With what tendencies?
Actually, you are wrong. My opinion does matter more, because, at least in theory, my opinion is reflected in the disposition of the US’s armed forces. Just as your own opinion matters more. Same with the opinions of our Canadian brethren and sistren. As well as the opinions of the other NATO participants who have sent troops, material and support.
Our opinions are the one’s on which the future of Afghanistan hinge…if we, collectively, decide to cut and run, the Afghan’s will be left holding the bag. Whereas, if Anoosheh the Afghani decides he’s had enough of this war, there isn’t a hell of a lot he can do about it.
-XT
What an unfortunate remark.
My father was at Iwo Jima, and hated the Japanese to the end of his days. I tried to talk him out of it, his answer was that I had not been there, he had, so this trumps all other arguments.
Was that a reasonable position, do you think?
By an odd set of circumstances, I happened to spend a lot of time in the company of Viet Nam Veterans Against the War. Several of them were some of the finest men it has been my privilege to call friends, to this very day. Of course, other Viet Nam vets disagree most strenuously with their point of view.
So, which set of opinions should I defer to, being a life-long civilian with no right to a opinion of my own?
Barbara Tuchman wrote what many regard as the definitive history of the bungling, fumbling beginning of WWI (The Guns of August). Of course, she was not there, but JFK credited her with offering him valuable insight as he considered how to proceed during the Missile Crisis. She should have shut up, then, and tended to her knitting? Rather a good thing she didn’t, don’t you think?
And that wins the Afghans’ hearts and minds how?
They’re all human.
See “hearts and minds” comments above.
Gods know…did I mention hearts and minds anywhere?
Um…to be sure. Very profound. And, in this one instance I’m forced to agree with you. AFAIK, none of them are lizard people or space chipmunks, etc etc.
I’m agreeing with you only reluctantly, mind…and I’m open to any evidence presents that they are in fact space chipmunks…
See ‘Gods know’ comment above.
-XT
Having spent time in the company of soldiers who are members of Iraqi Veterans Against the War (which also encompasses those who have served in Afghanistan), I’m also curious as to which set of opinions I should defer to.
Should…or will? Depending on your answer, I’d say it’s a no-brainer…at least for me to guess which one you will depend on. 
-XT
No. Why not? That’s the battlefield, as has already repeatedly been pointed out.
Now continue the thought, in light of the above.
I tend to agree with you on this point - I’ve made similar arguments in the past. And I read The Guns of August years ago - not only was it a fairly complete history of that period but it led others, especially Graham Allison, to develop new models to help explain government and bureaucratic behavior in decisionmaking.
Because that’s not the point I was addressing. If you want to talk about hearts and minds then we can do that. Personally, I’d say in Afghanistan attempting to win the hearts and minds of the populace would be…complex. You’d need to focus on which group you are trying to win over, and what you’d be willing to give up to win them over to your side.
Another factor would be, what do you do when the enemy launches attacks at you using the civilian population as cover? Not if…when. There is really no way to tell some Afghani peasant farmer that you are sorry you blew away his family (and, perhaps more importantly, his goats and fields) because the Taliban and/or AQ decided to launch a rocket attack at your troops while hiding on his property. Or that you THOUGHT there was a large weapons cache under his barn, based on various intelligence sources you are using.
While I didn’t address this earlier, I think it’s important to attempt to win over the local populations hearts and minds by doing civil type projects and assistance…I just don’t know how realistic it is to expect this to happen in this particular region. How well have we done at this thus far? Despite all the money and effort we’ve put into it? Keep in mind that the US isn’t the only country with troops there…nor the only country who is providing aid and support to the Afghani’s.
Hm…nope. I have to continue my reluctant agreement with your original statement, they are definitely all humans.
-XT
Where is the line dividing “not the norm” and “far too often”?
While it is true that civilian casualties do occur in war, the magnitude of such atrocities can and should be consciously controlled by those prosecuting the war. The magnitude of atrocities against civilians stems directly from the reasons for prosecuting the war: a genuine war for liberation, consciously planned and prosecuted, would be much more circumspect and careful in its use of military force; wars of conquest and domination (which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are) have less regard for the civilian population and consequently less concern for their lives and livelihoods. Consequently you can have a liberation army that has some seriously backward, archconservative politics and worldviews enjoying mass support on the ground because the civilians see and understand that the army isn’t treating them like dogs, whereas the conquering army, though waving the flag of democracy and freedom, encounters serious resistance because, well:
Which leads me to the question: Where is the stopping point between “You can’t tell them apart” and “Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out”?
Then you’re missing the nub of the problem altogether.
Hell yes, it’s complex. But what’s the value in not doing it?
Yet his view of what you did is what will affect who he decides to support in the future. If you’re as bad as, or worse, than the Taliban in what you do, then you’ve made your own problem worse.
I had thought that was obvious, but maybe it isn’t.
There was Laura Bush’s effort to get every schoolchild in America to send a dollar for reconstruction, but after that? Not much that we’ve seen.
How much is that?
Then you haven’t continued the thought.
I don’t pretend to be able to answer that one on my own. The Geneva Conventions spells out pretty clearly what is and is not a lawful combatant - this was done in large part to protect civilian populations.
In this case those populations are endangered because they cannot easily be distinguished from combatants - because these societies do not in general recognize such a bright dividing line and because the combatants involved see a tactical advantage in fighting without an identifiable uniform. Insurgents in these wars (and in places like Gaza) do not care about protecting their civilian population, and will happily store weapons in civilian centers, operate safe houses there and launch attacks from there.
In the face of this, the Geneva Conventions seem ill suited alone to address the situation. I wish I knew what to do about it, apart from battlefield counterinsurgency tactics. It isn’t an easy situation to work out legally.
Elucidator and Onlentzero, nobody is trying to tell anyone to shut up, or to not have your opinion on matters. Or that your opinion is lesser than mine because I have served and have a deep and cherished family history of military service dating back to WWI and includes direct family members in every American conflict since then.
I am railing against the position that because civilian casualties occur that they are somehow intentional in accordance with military operational planning. They are not.
Sometimes US soldiers go crazy and kill civilians for no reason, or they lob a grenade into the tent of their superior officer. Bombs, tank rounds and artillery can go off target. Mis-identifying civilians as enemies in the kind of conflict we have in Afghanistan and Iraq occur. Heck, accidentally killing your own soldiers happens in friendly fire incidents.
We wage war pretty carefully within the limits we set for ourselves, but ultimately (and I mean this) war is hell and should not be taken lightly. The Iraq war should not have happened any more than we should have been involved in Vietnam.
The Afghanistan war to me is a just use of our forces in an attempt to root out, kill, keep on the run or otherwise continuously destabilize Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, enemies that have proven time and again on scales grand and small that they are deserving of the fates that we can dole out to them.
Edit: and Elucidator, my snarky response towards you was merely a reply to your blithe assertion that only hard-headed men can define what is and what isn’t, and that luckily, they aren’t in short supply. Your remark was just as “unfortunate” as mine.
Then you should elucidate your position so I get it, ehe?
You are missing the nub of my answer. But, let me elucidate (so that you can get MY point). We ARE doing those things. My point is, I’m unsure how effective they will be given the historical context, as well as regional socio-economic and religious factors. Then there is the whole ‘vicious war’ aspect.
That’s true…and it’s going to be a case by case call of every local Afghani. No doubt, as in Vietnam, there will be locals who love the US/NATO, or hate them…or are ambiguous, having other fish to fry (ok…maybe goat to fry would be a better term considering the land locked nature of Afghanistan).
Sure, it’s obvious…just like ‘they are all humans’. The devil, though, is in the details. Not to lead the horse to water and then beat it to death mid-stream after looking it in the mouth, or anything.
Horseshit. We’ve spent billions in Afghanistan (and Iraq) for reconstruction projects. Laura Bush’s effort was political window dressing…it was completely horseshit.
Something over $30 billion (in strictly humanitarian aid) the last time I bothered to look it up. Probably more by now.
Well, not really much to add to ‘They’re all human’. I mean…yeah. They are. Um…what more can you say about that?
-XT
At least, not any more. Our bombing of Tokyo, though, or several German cities, would meet that criterion, though. What happened in World War II was not collateral damage, it was deliberate targeting of civilians. Now, does anyone want to argue that World War II was not justified?
That fine line can only be traversed with a lot of training, language skills, trustworthy interpreters and reliable intelligence. It isn’t always so.
It would be rather convenient if the Taliban would don uniforms to distinguish themselves from the general populace so that we could delineate whom is whom. But that’s not how they like to play the game. They are banking on generating political pressure on the willpower of the USA forces by allowing a certain number of their own civilians to be killed so they can point to it and say “See? The Americans kill our babies and women!”.