Media Alert
Today at noon CT, I will be participating in a discussion on the limits of using military force on the BBC’s World Have Your Say.
Specifically, the subject is scheduled to be about when collateral damage is so high that military force isn’t morally justifiable.
Let’s use Haditha as a specific example. On November 19, 2005, 24 Iraqis were killed. Eight of those killed were identified as known insurgents. While it’s truly tragic that 16 innocent civilians were killed, the 3/1 Marines killed alot of insurgents. Eventually, Haditha, a city with a population of approximately 100,000, was rid of insurgents. As much as I don’t want to sound coldhearted, can’t a respectable argument be made that, from a big picture perspective, the people of Haditha are better off because of that firefight?
Which is more justified? Letting insurgents force 100,000 people live in fear while opting not to kill the 16 innocent civilians that the insurgents used as human shields? Or accepting 16 innocent victims in order to bring tranquility to a city of 100,000 people?
From my pespective, I’ll pick the latter rather than the former. It would be a difficult, heartwrenching decision emotionally. It would be a straightforward decision intellectually.
Technorati Tags: Haditha, Collateral Damage, Military, World Have Your Say, BBC, Talk Radio, Insurgents
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
September 17th, 2008 at 4:52 am
Since it’s the BBC, why don’t you point out that the RAF’s intentional targeting of civilians by Air Marshall “Bomber” Harris during WWII?
September 17th, 2008 at 11:45 am
The topic of the discussion itself changes the issue from ‘Why are these war criminals hiding amongst civilians’ to ‘How many undesired casualties does it take before our legal actions become a war crime.’
The GC places military necessity at the forefront of criteria of what’s lawful in warfare. If the enemy is amongst civilians, the target is lawful.
The premise though assumes we bomb without care or concern. The US uses something called a Targeting Meeting to determine whether combustible resources are being efficiently used, the mission is properly supported, noncombatants are protected, historic religious and cultural relics and buildings are preserved, and our public image is maintained. No other countries other than Britain do this. There were no targeting meetings for the Russian invasion of Georgia.
This question is yet another example of Orwell’s admonition that pacifists seem to reserve their indignation for the US and UK. It is also a paltry attempt to shift attention to us, inhibiting the success of our war. Leftists always support victory for our enemies.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
I also want to add that protection of noncombatants, prevention of unnecessary suffering, and proportionality are also tenets of the law of war. Your inquisitors will likely those issues. As I said earlier, military necessity trumps these.
When is proportionality violated and who decides? Well, the answer is that there is no rule and WE decide. This is the factor most unpalatable to people: the law of war is victor’s justice. The US and UK are almost unique in punishing their own war criminals though.
WE decided that vaporizing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were proportional to the threat. WE decided bombing Dresden was necessary.
To critics who disagree with our judgment, I must point out that they seldom have experience with such tough choices themselves and they are ignorant of the decent measures we take to abide by the law. Most of them though would not be assuaged by ANY demonstration of due diligence. Their opinion is pre-decided against us.
If we invented Star Trek phasers and merely stunned our enemies into unconciousness, they’d still blame us for the guy who broke his neck falling out of his sniper position, claiming we had just killed an innocent window washer.
We kill 9 noncombatants unintentionally, our enemies kill hundreds intentionally, and we are still the bad guys.
September 17th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
R, Thanks for those insightful comments. They bring the proper perspective to this debate.