Collateral damage: self defence or murder?

[Racoon]

Originally Posted by Edella

You do have a point Racoon,and have thought about opening a thread to discuss this very subject(not here,don't want to hi-jack sebbysteiny's thread),but like threads on abortion or homosexual marriage,it can turn nasty fast.What thinks you racoon?

By all means Edella.
I would be interested in what you might have to say.
As red-blooded as any American, I am thankful I had the fortune of being an Exchange Student, during my developmental years...One valuable lesson I learned was open-mindedness. It took a lot of effort.

I am against these terrorist bastards.
But, since they cannot fight face to face conventionally, they resort to these guerrilla tactics...much like the Viet Cong did. Eventually they wear you out. Its their method.

Terrorists aim to panic people...and yes kill many...But the net result is Economic Damage, and an implosion of societal structure...

[sebbysteiny]

You make some good points about technology, Clay, and it also appears in my attempt for an answer.

Okay, I'm going to attempt to answer my question.

The must fundamental principal in war is a nations right to self defence. Next comes the nations right to self defence, and thirdly, it is a nations right to self defence. Did I mention that I think a nation's right to self defence is important??

However, this self defence MUST be preportionalte. So what makes a measure proportionate? Essentially, the defender must use the means that will cause the least amount of collateral damage and suffering without sacrificing the overall goal of the action: defending yourself (aka winning the war). This is where technology comes in. With advanced technology, you have more and less bloody options. However, collateral damage can never be avoided and is therefore absolutely okay (as long as attempts to minimise it are made).

I think this is a problem with today's society. We've become so used to peace we've forgotten what war is like. In consequence, we put so much moral blame on democracies and soldiers for doing nothing more than acting in a war or a war like environment. Thus, armchair human rights activists spend too much energy on criticising democracies for acts which they should not criticise and not enough time protesting against truely repugnant regimes. In short, I think their moral compass is totally off thanks to their cushy, safe lifestyle.

In the problem, I think the trick is seeing how bombing German civilians can possibly be 'self defence'. I think the answer lies in the obvious truth that it worked. When one battle field commander squares up against another, the positioning of the troops is important, but provoking the enemy into making bad moves with his troops is also important. If killing a small number of German civilians would provoke Hitler into diverting his resources from the crucial RAF fields to British civilians (which make much better 'cannon fodder') then it is a legitimate tactic and very preportionate given that Britain was almost on its knees and defeated. I'm sure the British civilians that died understand that their sacrifice saved Britain from a most brutal tyrany.

So it wasn't a war crime: just an example of how bloody war can sometimes be and the types of moral dilemas one faces in trying to win a war.

Further, the bombing of Dresdon was a dark day for the allies, but the battle field commanders genuinely believed that such a bombing was a military necessity, so it was self defence, not a war crime. Okay, after the event, it proved that there was no worth while target in Dresdon, but intelligence is always sketchy so it might have been best to be sure. If, however, the Nazis surrendered and Churchill still ordered bombings of cities then it would be a war crime.

Of course, such an analysis must work both ways. This means that Hitler's response in bombing London and other British civilians was not a warcrime as he believed he needed to do it to prevent Britain from bombing Germany and / or improving civilian moral in Germany: both of which are war winning factors. Hitler's war crime was invading Poland and starting the war not to mention the gassing and slaughter of over 10 million innocent civilians in death camps for no particular reason other than hate.

[C1ay]

You're still trying to use tactics of the past to qualify intentional collateral damage in the present or the future as an acceptable tactic. Learn from the past but don't use it as a measuring stick for today's wars. Intentionally killing innocent civilians with the knowledge that they are innocent civilians is wrong and nothing from the past will make it right. Wise people learn from the mistakes of the past, stupid people just keep making the same mistakes over and over.....

[sebbysteiny]

You're still trying to use tactics of the past to qualify intentional collateral damage in the present or the future as an acceptable tactic. Learn from the past but don't use it as a measuring stick for today's wars.

C1ay

I think you've missed my point entirely.

What I'm saying is that the moral validity of the act does not change with time. What changes is technology. My fundamantal principal through which I got my answer was that self defence is the most important factor, but it must be proportionate considering the options available. In particular, the military tactics must be those that cause the least amount of collateral damage but still do the job. If that option is chosen, then any amount of collateral damage is justified and not a war crime.

With new technology, we can accomplish the same things with much less collateral damage. Were, say, America to pursue carpet bombings of cities now, then given that it has cruise missiles and stealth bombers with smart bombs, it would be a war crime. Further, research has showed that carpet bombing of civilians is actually counter productive and increases people's motivation to fight, but they did not know that at the time. So now, it would be a war crime whatever, whilst then it wasn't. What made Churchills decision particularly right was the need for some kind of tactical break on the battlefield so bombing civilians to piss of Hitler and make him make mistakes was justified.

VERY IMPORTANTLY, unless a state is suffering from an existual threat, such a decision can never be right even in those days. But deliberately killing civilians is an option for any existual threat even today as long as it gives some kind of battlefield advantage and there is no better military option.

So with today's technology and given the total military dominance of the West, the standard that we must live up to with our armed forces is much higher. With other nations, it may not be as high. But even countries like America and Britain are allowed to pursue bloody tactics if they have no better military option. Further, more serious threats justify more harsh responses capable of handling those threats.

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by Edella

I completely agree C1ay,But is seems the label "terrorist" is very derogatory and hard to define.It is commonly carlessly tossed around like the word nazi can be. In the struggle against terrorism, definition is important for the international fight against it.Don't get me wrong,I have no sympathy for terrorists.When I hear people say “One man's terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter" I cringe.Still, the international community seems to be having a hard time defining it.Maybe a definition for the word would be a good idea for a different thead,if it hasn't been done already.

Edella, how about this definition? Make sure and go the next couple of posts to see CraigD's extension of the definition.

Bill

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by sebbysteiny

I think you've missed my point entirely.

What I'm saying is that the moral validity of the act does not change with time. What changes is technology.

You missed my point. Technology is what makes is less morally valid over time because collateral damage becomes more avoidable and should therefore be expectedly avoided. Tactics of yesteryear were par for the course at the time but the times have changed and we should learn from that.

[sebbysteiny]

You missed my point. Technology is what makes is less morally valid over time because collateral damage becomes more avoidable and should therefore be expectedly avoided.

C1ay

Superb . We agree. Looks like nobody is challenging my principal either.

If nobody disagrees with what I'm saying then we have developed a good moral map that could be applied to all kinds of problems without worrying about straying away from morality.

Applying it is where the fun begins.


War on terror: targetted killings of Al Quaeda leaders; ID cards; torture; breaching human rights of terror suspects; Guantanimo bay.

War in Iraq: war crime to invade; tactics used okay including checkpoints, roadblocks, targetted killings and the so called 'crime' of faluja; how does Abu Grave and other crimes by American soldiers impact on America's moral conscience.

Israel - Palestine: suicide bombers; targetted killings; arrests of militants; the security fence / wall; checkpoints and roadblocks; crimes committed by individual soldiers; the shooting of two British pro palestinian activists.

And any other contriversial subjects involving the actions of soldiers and security measures.

[sebbysteiny]

I thought I might try and give answers to the above questions.

1) A soldier has an absolute right to kill his enemy if there is no chance they will surrender even if it kills civilians. Firstly, his life will be personally under threat so his right of self defence allows him to shoot. Secondly, if he is on the attack, by letting the militant go, they will kill others, so he has a right to defend, his fellow soldiers and the lives of civilians at home or elsewhere. Any civilians killed during this are a tragic but unavoidable consequence of war as long as they don't go on a killing spree or do any sadistic stuff like shoot the guys hundreds of time.

The suicide bomber has no such excuse. Those civilians were never going to threaten him.

2) The commander has more responsibility but again, any civilian casualties suffered under his command are blameless as long as he uses the best tactics for both doing the job and minimising civilian casualties.

3) The government's primary responsibility is to keep it's citizens safe. If the government forms a view that the best way to do that is to order certain military actions, then, as long as that view is a reasonable one (ie they aren't insane) declaring war is not a war crime even if the facts on which the war was based turned out later to be untrue.

4) There will always be some soldiers who are effectively criminals or the power of the gun gets to their head and some may just be driven mad by war. These people WILL commit crimes. This is a factor to consider before going to war, but, as long as the rules are made clear and there is a decent judicial system and investigative system in place, people who die at the hands of such people are unavoidable casualties of war. This, if this factor is considered and the government still believes war is necessary, then neither does the declaration of war nor the actions of these soldiers amount to a war crime.

As such, even if the war is a bad idea, it is not a war crime if some people could reasonably say it is necessary.

5) The decision to use armed forces means that there will be tragic accidents, there will be criminals going on a killing spree and there will be other effects on civilians. The advent of the suicide bomber has made this particularly so because when they disguise themselves as civilians, all civilians are moved into the firing line. However, the only thing worse than using an army to defend a nation is not using an army. As such, all innocent blood spilled from making this decision is a morally blameless and unavoidable consequence of war aka calateral damage.

7) Targetted killings, security fences, checkpoints, roadblocks, stringent border checks to stop weopons smuggling, reasonable deterance and killing all hostile civilians are the only tactic that work against suicide bombers.

Killing all hostile civilians, however, is totally disproportionate as, since the other measures are good enough to strongly reduce the threat. However, Sadam Huisain defeated Islamic militants by doing just that.

Reasonable deterrance (like house demolitions or firing into open fields) is justified as long as it is effective since this could perform the military task of stopping the suicide bombers whilst minimising civlian losses for doing so. However, this is only justified if it is not proved that such deterance is inneffective. For example, carpet bombings of civilians has been proven to be counter productive. Therefore, it is wrong in all circumstances. Evidence with house demolitions is not as clear cut yet.

However, the other options really are the very best way to stop the bombers and it is every nation's basic right of self defence to use these tactics when fighting suicide bombers even if this causes suffering to the hostile civilians through any of the above ways.