On Civilian Casualties - Part 1

I want to continue this interesting and useful discussion from the comments section related to my previous post here. But I want to try to focus on the question of civilian casualties in warfare, both historical and modern. My primary idea here is to discuss why I think the current tactics and strategies employed by coalition forces are morally unacceptable and unsupportable, and why that means we should not be doing what we are doing.

So, setting the table, let's first recognize some already defined common ground:

• The Velvet Fogg is correct - civilian casualties have always been and will always be a tragic part of war.
• Terrorists intentionally targeting civilians is horrendous, terrible, immoral, and wrong.

I hope the next bullet point is also common ground:

• There is an enormous moral difference between (1) the accidental killing of a civilian by a military actor in a cross-fire, for example, between rival factions, soldiers, fighters, etc. and (2) the intentional killing of a civilian by a military actor (or terrorist) with some sort of weapon of mass destruction (i.e., a bomb not specifically aimed at military targets or aimed at military targets in a place where it is known there are also civilians).

And now for some more interesting stuff. That I think should be common ground, but that I suspect (to my horror) is not.

I submit:

1. That a military campaign that (a) asserts that its goal is to root out and kill terrorists and to find and destroy terrorist cell groups and then (b) drops very large bombs onto large cities in places where it knows beyond a shadow of a doubt non-terrorist civilians are living (and praying) is a military campaign that will not achieve a very high degree of success with respect to its stated goal and will result in many criminal murders and personal injuries; and
   
2. That a military campaign that (a) would succeed at rooting out and killing terrorists and finding and destroying terrorist cell groups (b) would result in greatly increased casualties to coalition forces and is therefore not politically acceptable.

One thing I think is happening here is that we want blood, revenge, and justice (maybe in that order). We are mad as hell. Many horrible, violent, tragic crimes, including criminal murder, were committed against us (WTC, Pentagon, suicide bombings in Israel, Bali, etc.). On our turf. And that (correctly) makes us upset. And that (correctly) makes us want to find the criminals and stop them and kill them or bring them to justice. But at the same time most of us are (correctly) very much opposed to very many of us dying or getting hurt in that effort.

So this presents a moral dilemma for our politicians. On the one hand, it will be very costly in terms of soldiers getting hurt and killed (so politicians lose votes) to follow a military strategy that is designed to minimize civilian casualties. (Soliders on the ground are a lot easier for terrorists to ambush and kill than airplanes dropping bombs from the skies are to shoot down.) And on the other hand, it will be very costly politically to take no action because the citizenry wants to know the politicians are out there working to keep them safe (so taking no action = politicians lose votes).

So, under the circumstances, our current slate of politicians did what most politicians have done throughout history. They intentionally implemented a military strategy that was predestined to result in large numbers of civilian deaths and casualties. We are not on the moral high ground here. Our politicians have chosen an immoral path. They have chosen to kill foreign civilians rather than risk the lives of coalition soldiers. They are telling the world that they think the lives of "our" soliders are worth more than the lives of "their" civilians. It is impossible for me to reconcile that decision with the moral code we purport to follow. I just don't think that is a morally supportable decision.

I also highly recommend - on this topic - Gary North's columns analyzing and discussing the morally repugnant decision to drop atomic bombs in World War II. His thoughts and his reader's responses to his columns are very much worth reading. See Part 1 and Part 2 and Part 3 for those articles.

CONCLUSION:

It is wrong for terrorists to kill civilians. It is wrong for the coalition military to kill civilians. Two wrongs don't make a right. If we want to bring the terrorists to justice (or kill them) morality requires us to choose a different path.