Combatant-NonCombatant Distinction

[slh1089]

Dresden. Coventry. What militants were hiding in those towns?

What militants were around when Apache pilots engaged and killed nine teenagers who were collecting firewood?

The reasons for Dresden have been given, and those will be argued both ways until there is no one left to debate it. I am unaware of the firewood collecting teens that were murdered.

 

[therealUT]

The reasons for Dresden have been given, and those will be argued both ways until there is no one left to debate it. I am unaware of the firewood collecting teens that were murdered.

The reason for bombing Dresden was to destroy civilian morale by killing and wounding great numbers of civilians; the primary purpose was not targeting militants nor military industry. Same with Coventry, Tokyo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Pyongyang, and, most recently, Belgrade in 1999.

As for the teenagers who were collecting firewood:
U.N. Report: Apache Helicopters to Blame for Afghan Civilian Deaths | PBS NewsHour

 

[TennTradition]

Why can't it be both? In war, what is important to me is most likely more valuable to me.

To you, I'm sure. But, if you'll look back to my original response, I asked about innate value.

 

[slh1089]

To you, I'm sure. But, if you'll look back to my original response, I asked about innate value.

And I addressed the fact that innate value doesn't matter to me in this case. I approach the concept of war decisions as pragmatic events.

 

[slh1089]

The reason for bombing Dresden was to destroy civilian morale by killing and wounding great numbers of civilians; the primary purpose was not targeting militants nor military industry. Same with Coventry, Tokyo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Pyongyang, and, most recently, Belgrade in 1999.

As for the teenagers who were collecting firewood:
U.N. Report: Apache Helicopters to Blame for Afghan Civilian Deaths | PBS NewsHour

I am not arguing for the wanton killing of civilians by any means. However, events such as the ones described happen in war. Especially war where you are not fighting an enemy with a uniform. Do I think it is a incredibly sad and unfortunate that civilians are casualties at times, yes. However, when fighting those employing guerilla tactics, it is bound to happen.

 

[slh1089]

Also, the headline to that story is very very misleading.

 

[therealUT]

I am not arguing for the wanton killing of civilians by any means. However, events such as the ones described happen in war. Especially war where you are not fighting an enemy with a uniform. Do I think it is a incredibly sad and unfortunate that civilians are casualties at times, yes. However, when fighting those employing guerilla tactics, it is bound to happen.

There is nothing about fighting a counter-guerrilla war that makes it necessary to kill civilians; in fact, and more so than in a conventional war, such incidents are very much strategically damaging.

However, it was official US policy, according to Henry Stimson, to engage in terror bombing in WWII. Moreover, it was official US policy (as stated by Commanding Generals at each time) to make civilians suffer, by attacking facilities and electrical grids, in the 1991 Gulf War, in 1999 in Belgrade, and in 2003 in Iraq; these policies led to high-death tolls of infants and the elderly, those whose lives most relied on water, sanitation, and electricity. These are not attacks intended against militants where by the doctrine of double-effect civilians are harmed; these are attacks where civilian suffering is the intent. It is terror-bombing.

 

[RespectTradition]

If you are going to wage war, the most moral way to wage war is to kill the people* on the other side that started the war. If their replacements agree to end the war, then YAY! If they do not, rinse and repeat until eventually someone does.

Killing civilians, or even combatants for that matter, should only be done as a necessity.

*it is never moral to be the people that started the war

 

[slh1089]

There is nothing about fighting a counter-guerrilla war that makes it necessary to kill civilians; in fact, and more so than in a conventional war, such incidents are very much strategically damaging.

However, it was official US policy, according to Henry Stimson, to engage in terror bombing in WWII. Moreover, it was official US policy (as stated by Commanding Generals at each time) to make civilians suffer, by attacking facilities and electrical grids, in the 1991 Gulf War, in 1999 in Belgrade, and in 2003 in Iraq; these policies led to high-death tolls of infants and the elderly, those whose lives most relied on water, sanitation, and electricity. These are not attacks intended against militants where by the doctrine of double-effect civilians are harmed; these are attacks where civilian suffering is the intent. It is terror-bombing.

You're ignoring the fact that the civilian/insurgent line in a counter insurgency is not black and white. Do you think that insurgents are walking around with a neon light pointing at them saying "Here I am!"?

 

[slh1089]

If you are going to wage war, the most moral way to wage war is to kill the people* on the other side that started the war. If their replacements agree to end the war, then YAY! If they do not, rinse and repeat until eventually someone does.

Killing civilians, or even combatants for that matter, should only be done as a necessity.

*it is never moral to be the people that started the war

You may want to refrain from speaking in absolutes.

 

[therealUT]

You're ignoring the fact that the civilian/insurgent line in a counter insurgency is not black and white. Do you think that insurgents are walking around with a neon light pointing at them saying "Here I am!"?

I am not ignoring any facts about what actually occurs in war; I am stating that it is not necessary to kill indiscriminately in COIN operations and, further, that it is strategically counter-productive. In COIN operations, the most efficient method in which to gain a foothold among the population is to ensure, beyond a doubt, that the individuals being killed are, in fact, individuals that are actively engaged in the insurgency. Every time a noncombatant is killed, it only helps the insurgents and their protection racket.

 

[slh1089]

I am not ignoring any facts about what actually occurs in war; I am stating that it is not necessary to kill indiscriminately in COIN operations and, further, that it is strategically counter-productive. In COIN operations, the most efficient method in which to gain a foothold among the population is to ensure, beyond a doubt, that the individuals being killed are, in fact, individuals that are actively engaged in the insurgency. Every time a noncombatant is killed, it only helps the insurgents and their protection racket.

Yes, that is completely true. I am just stating a fact that civilians are going to be killed in war, especially counter insurgencies, when the enemy is dressed as the civilian. I am not saying it is right and I am not saying that these civilians should be killed. I am, however, saying there is a high percentage that it will happen when soldiers are, and I do not blame them, having to deal with the type of deception that I stated above.

 

[therealUT]

Yes, that is completely true. I am just stating a fact that civilians are going to be killed in war, especially counter insurgencies, when the enemy is dressed as the civilian. I am not saying it is right and I am not saying that these civilians should be killed. I am, however, saying there is a high percentage that it will happen when soldiers are, and I do not blame them, having to deal with the type of deception that I stated above.

The number of civilian casualties dropped dramatically in 2006 when Patraeus and Gates ordered that the following are abided by:
1. Escalation of Force measures (show, shout, shove, shoot, shoot) would be resorted to by all US military personnel on the ground, to include those manning checkpoints and in force potection positions.
2. In order to target high value individuals from the air, missions would only be approved if less than one (reduced from thirty) civilian casualty is foreseen in the operation.

It is not very difficult for Soldiers engaged in a firefight to distinguish between individuals firing at them and individuals who are not; it is difficult to enter and clear houses; however, even in these situations infantry Soldiers are repeatedly trained and drilled to immediately distinguish between threats and non-threats as they enter. We do not simply throw grenades into houses; doing so would destroy any COIN strategy.

Civilians will, unfortunately, still be killed; however, these are mistakes and they are not, or at least should not, be justified by claiming that their lives were less valuable.

 

[RespectTradition]

You may want to refrain from speaking in absolutes.

Morality is absolutes. I don't believe in relativistic morality. Right and Wrong exist whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.

 

[slh1089]

Morality is absolutes. I don't believe in relativistic morality. Right and Wrong exist whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.

Then explain different moral structures for different societies for me.

 

[slh1089]

The number of civilian casualties dropped dramatically in 2006 when Patraeus and Gates ordered that the following are abided by:
1. Escalation of Force measures (show, shout, shove, shoot, shoot) would be resorted to by all US military personnel on the ground, to include those manning checkpoints and in force potection positions.
2. In order to target high value individuals from the air, missions would only be approved if less than one (reduced from thirty) civilian casualty is foreseen in the operation.

It is not very difficult for Soldiers engaged in a firefight to distinguish between individuals firing at them and individuals who are not; it is difficult to enter and clear houses; however, even in these situations infantry Soldiers are repeatedly trained and drilled to immediately distinguish between threats and non-threats as they enter. We do not simply throw grenades into houses; doing so would destroy any COIN strategy.

Civilians will, unfortunately, still be killed; however, these are mistakes and they are not, or at least should not, be justified by claiming that their lives were less valuable.

As I have stated before, in war idealism goes out the window. Therefore, this notion of innate value of life really holds no weight for me.

 

[therealUT]

As I have stated before, in war idealism goes out the window. Therefore, this notion of innate value of life really holds no weight for me.

In war, according to you, idealism goes out the window. According to the individuals actually planning the wars, it is an integral part; according to the individuals that execute the plan, it plays a huge factor in their future mental condition.

What is it, in your opinion, that makes individuals and states liable to being killed/warred upon?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

The reason for bombing Dresden was to destroy civilian morale by killing and wounding great numbers of civilians; the primary purpose was not targeting militants nor military industry. Same with Coventry, Tokyo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Pyongyang, and, most recently, Belgrade in 1999.

As for the teenagers who were collecting firewood:
U.N. Report: Apache Helicopters to Blame for Afghan Civilian Deaths | PBS NewsHour

Do you really think Hiroshima and Nagasaki belong in this group?

Okinawa was a taste of what to come in terms of civilian casualties. The conservative estimate was 100000 civilians perished and the majority were mercy killings because the populace was told the americans tortured, raped and killed.

 

[therealUT]

Do you really think Hiroshima and Nagasaki belong in this group?

Okinawa was a taste of what to come in terms of civilian casualties. The conservative estimate was 100000 civilians perished and the majority were mercy killings because the populace was told the americans tortured, raped and killed.

I do for two reasons; however, in the interest of not completely derailing this thread, I will only give one (which I actually think is the weaker reason).

The atom bombs had no affect on the Japanese surrender. They were willing to surrender prior to the attacks on the condition that the Emperor would remain as part of the government. Truman insisted on unconditional surrender. We dropped the bombs. Later, we accepted their conditioned surrender (that the Emperor would remain as part of the government).

On August 7, Togo sent a telegram to Sato in Moscow, instructing him to seek an appointment with Molotov as quickly as possible to find out Moscow's answer to Japan's pending request to receive Prince Konoe. Sato contracted the commissariat of foreign affairs on that day to make an appointment with Molotov This was the first reaction to the outside world by the Japanese government to the atomic bombing on Hiroshima.

...

But if the atomic bombing of Hiroshima did not immediately lead to Japan's decision to surrender, neither did Soviet entry into the war. The Big Six were hopelessly divided. Only Togo advocated acceptance of the Potsdam terms, with one condition: preservation of the imperial house.

Tsuyoshi Hasegawa

The myth that the atom bomb forced an unconditional surrender upon Japan is just that: a myth. The main objection to the Potsdam conditions was the complete removal of the Emperor. This was the condition that kept Japan from surrendering. This was the condition that was ultimately accepted by the US. The US could have easily signed a treaty with the Japanese on 1 August with that condition. Instead, we decimated two cities, full of civilians, and ended up with the same result.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I dont agree with your observation, the japanese high command had no desire to surrender but that is another thread.

You are killing me, your stronger point?

 

[RespectTradition]

Then explain different moral structures for different societies for me.

There is an absolute standard of morality. We are tasked with determining it and applying it.

No nation/people/society has ever accomplished this. Just because they each have a 'moral code' of some kind does not mean that they have a valid morality.

Some people will disagree with this. That is ok. Different philosophical systems arrive at a different meaning of morality. I happen to believe that only one is correct.

One thing to bear in mind, being unethical, which is situational, or sinning, however you define that, are not the same as being immoral.

 

[hog88]

Why is the life of an American more valuable?

Stupid question on your part.

But back to your OP, civilian casulties have been a part of war since war began. Ideally this could be eliminated but when your enemy dosn't play by any rules, uses civilians as shields hides in houses of worship civilians will be killed.

Our current enemy knows one thing, total brutality, we cannot tie our soldiers hands and expect to win. The civilian population should understand they cannot harbour the terroists and not fear the potential reprocussions.

 

[therealUT]

Stupid question on your part.

Then, I will ask it again. Why is the life of an American more valuable than the life of a non-American?

But back to your OP, civilian casulties have been a part of war since war began. Ideally this could be eliminated but when your enemy dosn't play by any rules, uses civilians as shields hides in houses of worship civilians will be killed.

Our current enemy knows one thing, total brutality, we cannot tie our soldiers hands and expect to win. The civilian population should understand they cannot harbour the terroists and not fear the potential reprocussions.

My original post had nothing to do with guerrilla warfare; further, the account of COIN that you and SLH appear to cling to is at odds with actual COIN doctrine, as laid out by Petraeus and Nagl. While I ultimately do not think that counter-insurgency can be won in foreign lands, I do think that the historical record points to great strides that were made in Iraq post-2006; this was the time when the Soldiers' "hands were tied" the most.

If you want to refer to the OP and eliminate the Combatant-NonCombatant distinction, then you run the risk of eliminating the use of the word 'terrorist' as applied to Al Qaeda. The attacks on the US in 2001 would simply be reclassified as the first acts of a war that is either legitimate or illegitimate depending upon the perspective.

 

[gsvol]

When the POTUS decicides to go to war, it should be left to the warriors to win at whatever cost. No enemy life is worth more than an American.

 

[hog88]

Then, I will ask it again. Why is the life of an American more valuable than the life of a non-American?


My original post had nothing to do with guerrilla warfare; further, the account of COIN that you and SLH appear to cling to is at odds with actual COIN doctrine, as laid out by Petraeus and Nagl. While I ultimately do not think that counter-insurgency can be won in foreign lands, I do think that the historical record points to great strides that were made in Iraq post-2006; this was the time when the Soldiers' "hands were tied" the most.

If you want to refer to the OP and eliminate the Combatant-NonCombatant distinction, then you run the risk of eliminating the use of the word 'terrorist' as applied to Al Qaeda. The attacks on the US in 2001 would simply be reclassified as the first acts of a war that is either legitimate or illegitimate depending upon the perspective.

I will ask you, as an American, do you not believe this is true? In simple terms those on my team are more valuable to me than those that are not.

I'm sure in the history books across the Muslim world it is written as such. Heck in England in the 80's the American revolution was taught as an illegitamate insurection, it's all perspective. And from my prespective as an American anyone not wearing a uniform in armned opposisison against us is a terrorist and should expect no quarter. Same goes to those who provide material or monitary support.