Pages

Monday, May 11, 2009

Collateral damage

There’s a Catch-22 is modern warfare. On the one hand, due to advances in military technology, it’s possible to minimize civilian casualties in a way that wasn’t possible in the past.

And, indeed, we’ve exploited that technology to minimize civilian casualties where possible.

On the other hand, even though civilian casualties have been declining as a result of smart-bombs and other suchlike, every time a military strikes results in collateral damage, bobble-heads in the news media hype the story. Then a parade of gov’t officials rush to waiting microphones to promise a “thorough investigation” of the incident. Promises stated in defensive, apologetic, or even accusatorial tones.

The more our military tries to minimize collateral damage, the more it succeeds in minimizing collateral damage, the more it comes under fire for any incident of collateral damage.

Frankly, if that’s how its efforts are rewarded, then there’s no incentive for the military to minimize civilian casualties.

Collateral damage is an inevitable consequences of war. Despite painstaking efforts to minimize collateral damage, there will always be some loss of innocent life in time of war.

In a further irony, while our soldiers bend over backwards to minimize civilian casualties, our enemies bend over backwards to maximize civilian casualties–by using human shields.

Indeed, this is a deliberate strategy. They are banking on the Pavlovian reaction of the news media and the political establishment to an incident of collateral damage.

If, despite its best efforts to the contrary, our military is constantly criticized for civilian casualties, then why bother? Why not go back to carpet-bombing or nuking a city?

If, no matter what you do, you’re going to be attacked by the news media and opportunistic politicians, then why not get it over with sooner rather than later? Why put your troops at extra risk to spare civilian lives?

Or perhaps our armed forces should just go on strike for a few years until the news media and the political establishment begin to feel personally threatened by what happens when our enemies are allowed to flourish unchecked.

3 comments:

  1. "If, despite its best efforts to the contrary, our military is constantly criticized for civilian casualties, then why bother?"For one, if a civilian dies in their presence they'll be tried for war crimes by their own commander in chief, and be in danger of the death penalty. So, the real question is not why someone already in the military should follow the rules, but why anyone would join!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Doesn't matter how litle the collateral damage is. War is yucky and scary.
    We shouldn't be involved in any wars because, you know, war doesn't feel good.

    We should be investing "green" whatever instead. THAT feels good.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mesa Mike said:
    ---
    We should be investing "green" whatever instead.
    ---

    Starting with green fatigues.... :-D

    ReplyDelete