"Iraqi civilian deaths avoidable"

[Leif Roar]

According to a report by Humans Right Watch, two particular military tactics, the use of cluster munitions in populated areas and attacks on Iraqi leaders, caused hundreds of civilian deaths which could have been avoided:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3311705.stm

[Mr Manifesto]

Yeah, but it's a war. We have to sacrifice innocent lives to ensure Saddam <strike>doesn't use WMD's against America</strike>
<strike>doesn't support Al Qaeda</strike>
doesn't stand in the way of democracy for all those cute little Iraqis.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
According to a report by Humans Right Watch, two particular military tactics, the use of cluster munitions in populated areas and attacks on Iraqi leaders, caused hundreds of civilian deaths which could have been avoided:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3311705.stm

Indeed. And if you use 0 weapons at all then only Saddam's regime will be causing the death of hundreds, thousands of civilians. But that's ok, right?

[NullPointerException]

http://www.reinhartgenealogy.com/iraq.htm

Just to put things in perspective, look at the bottom picture of this page. If things like that stop happening for 1000 years thanks to 1 year of death, I would say it was a trade off that had to be made.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by NullPointerException
http://www.reinhartgenealogy.com/iraq.htm

Just to put things in perspective, look at the bottom picture of this page. If things like that stop happening for 1000 years thanks to 1 year of death, I would say it was a trade off that had to be made.

Big 'if'.

[c0rbin]

"Iraqi civilian deaths avoidable"

Perhaps the person who claims this should go for the million dollars as no death is "avoidable."

Maybe "delayable" but death is certain.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by c0rbin


Perhaps the person who claims this should go for the million dollars as no death is "avoidable."

Maybe "delayable" but death is certain.

I think we all know what he meant, dimwit.

[c0rbin]

You are such a tough guy.

[NullPointerException]

Well Mr. Manifesto here are some avoidable deaths for you:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/27/sprj.irq.main/
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/28/sprj.irq.main/
http://us.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/22/sprj.irq.main/
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/19/turkey.explosion/
http://us.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/04/mideast/
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/06/01/israel.explosion.03/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/casualties/facesofthefallen.htm


:hb:

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by NullPointerException
Well Mr. Manifesto here are some avoidable deaths for you:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/27/sprj.irq.main/
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/28/sprj.irq.main/
http://us.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/22/sprj.irq.main/
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/19/turkey.explosion/
http://us.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/04/mideast/
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/06/01/israel.explosion.03/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/casualties/facesofthefallen.htm

:hb:

But how can we blame USA for that?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Indeed. And if you use 0 weapons at all then only Saddam's regime will be causing the death of hundreds, thousands of civilians. But that's ok, right?

That's not the argument that's raised in the article.

It is clear that the Human Right Watch's argument is that the two tactics in question - targetted killings and the use of cluster munitions against urban areas - did not yield any real military benefits and that the civilian deaths that were caused by them could therefore have been avoided easily and without negative consequences for the US forces.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


That's not the argument that's raised in the article.

It is clear that the Human Right Watch's argument is that the two tactics in question - targetted killings and the use of cluster munitions against urban areas - did not yield any real military benefits and that the civilian deaths that were caused by them could therefore have been avoided easily and without negative consequences for the US forces.

Are you honestly saying that targeting leaders has no military benefits?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Are you honestly saying that targeting leaders has no military benefits?

It looks like that is what Human Rights Watch is saying. One wonders why anyone would take HRW's suggestions on how wars should be fought seriously.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
According to a report by Humans Right Watch, two particular military tactics, the use of cluster munitions in populated areas and attacks on Iraqi leaders, caused hundreds of civilian deaths which could have been avoided:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3311705.stm

I'd agree with the use of cluster bombs and other munitions of the sort not being the best thing to use in a populated area. I'd also agree that hiding troops and military targets in populated areas violates the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

But I still contend that removing Saddam saves far more lives in Iraq than could have been saved had the entire thing been down in the fashion of a pillow fight. Someone would have choked of a feather, gotten a tetanus from a rusty zipper, gotten suffocated, etc...

[Mike B.]

Honestly,
As far as wars go, has any war in recent memory been fought with the idea of saving the opposing side's civilians more?

If the US forces had such bloodlust, as some think on this board, they could have easily pulled up a few miles from Baghdad and unlimbered their heavy artilliary and turned the city to dust.

Does anyone recall the carpet bombing of Grozny a few years ago by the Russians in which thousands of civilians died?

Where were the contingents of useful idiots around the world then?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Honestly,
As far as wars go, has any war in recent memory been fought with the idea of saving the opposing side's civilians more?

If the US forces had such bloodlust, as some think on this board, they could have easily pulled up a few miles from Baghdad and unlimbered their heavy artilliary and turned the city to dust.

Does anyone recall the carpet bombing of Grozny a few years ago by the Russians in which thousands of civilians died?

Where were the contingents of useful idiots around the world then?

Probably out looking for ways to link the US to it.;)

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Are you honestly saying that targeting leaders has no military benefits?

I am not saying anything - I don't have the knowledge and skills to make worthwile statements on military tactics. I found the statements made in the article of interest, and wanted to draw attention to it and perhaps open a debate about them.

Human's Right Watch has not said that targeting leaders does not have any military benefits - but it is (as I read it) pretty close to saying that the coalition's attempts at targetted strikes in Iraq did not have any military benefits. To quote from the article:

"The report also condemns the policy of so-called precision attacks against Iraqi leadership targets.

In 50 such strikes it says no Iraqi leaders were killed but dozens of civilians were."

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Honestly,
As far as wars go, has any war in recent memory been fought with the idea of saving the opposing side's civilians more?

If the US forces had such bloodlust, as some think on this board, they could have easily pulled up a few miles from Baghdad and unlimbered their heavy artilliary and turned the city to dust.

The reason why I found this particular report interesting is because it doesn't engage in any wholesale condemnation of the US or their military operations, but rather had specific criticism against specific military tactics.

I would hope it might be possible to discuss that particular criticism, rather than jumping into the familiar "us versus them" trenches.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


The reason why I found this particular report interesting is because it doesn't engage in any wholesale condemnation of the US or their military operations, but rather had specific criticism against specific military tactics.

I would hope it might be possible to discuss that particular criticism, rather than jumping into the familiar "us versus them" trenches.

Fair enough, I misjudged your basis for this thread and I apologize.

While it would be ideal to have wars with no civilian casualties I think that is impossible. Everything has a failure rate and all sides don't play "fair" when it comes to war. I believe USA tries its hardest to bring civilians death rate to 0 and that is enough for me. As some have already stated when USA fights wars the civilians’ death rate is far below when compared to other countries. Targeting leaders is a one of the best military tactics. The less leadership the opposing force has the easier it becomes to fight.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


The reason why I found this particular report interesting is because it doesn't engage in any wholesale condemnation of the US or their military operations, but rather had specific criticism against specific military tactics.

I believe, for example, that their criticism of targetted attacks on leadership is clearly flawed.

Only the most simplistic analysis would say (http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/12/us-iraq-press.htm) "The decapitation strategy was an utter failure on military grounds, since it didn´t kill a single Iraqi leader in 50 attempts."

Keeping the opposing leadership ducking and afraid to contact their armies can have multiple benefits, from confusing the opposing armies to encouraging military units without significant Iraqi leadership oversight to surrender.

MattJ

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I believe, for example, that their criticism of targetted attacks on leadership is clearly flawed.

Only the most simplistic analysis would say (http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/12/us-iraq-press.htm) "The decapitation strategy was an utter failure on military grounds, since it didn´t kill a single Iraqi leader in 50 attempts."

Keeping the opposing leadership ducking and afraid to contact their armies can have multiple benefits, from confusing the opposing armies to encouraging military units without significant Iraqi leadership oversight to surrender.

MattJ


(my underline)
"Can" being the operative word.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto



(my underline)
"Can" being the operative word.

So would you then agree with Mr. Roth that the strategy was an utter failure on military grounds? Iraqi leadership was sporadic and undependable, and many large formations of the Iraqi army surrendered without a fight.

Do you believe Mr. Roth is in a position to deny that either was affected by the decapitation campaign, or do you believe (as I do) that he simply hasn't thought of either possibility because he knows diddly squat about military tactics? Something else, perhaps?

MattJ

[American]

Sure, let's let Human Rights Watch run the war for us.


Any other hands you wish to tie for our soldiers, or just what munitions they are "allowed" to use?


Better yet, why doesn't Human Rights Watch just shut up, eat *****, and die in precisely that order, since that's what they're asking our men to do.

[crackmonkey]

It;s admirable for Mr. Leif to admit he has no knowledge of military strategy and therefore cannot make an informed critique of the campaign against Iraq; it's unfortunate that he seems to feel that HRW is somehow competent in these matters...

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


So would you then agree with Mr. Roth that the strategy was an utter failure on military grounds? Iraqi leadership was sporadic and undependable, and many large formations of the Iraqi army surrendered without a fight.

Do you believe Mr. Roth is in a position to deny that either was affected by the decapitation campaign, or do you believe (as I do) that he simply hasn't thought of either possibility because he knows diddly squat about military tactics? Something else, perhaps?

MattJ

Your whole argument rests on the idea that the war has been won. 214 dead American soldiers since 1st May would disagree with you.

The following two posts by "American" and crackmonkey seem to run along the lines of, "Don't tell us how to run our wars". Interesting that the Iraqi people have been freed from a brutal dictator, yet they hate their liberators. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Would civilian casualities have anything to do with the problems the US currently faces?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Your whole argument rests on the idea that the war has been won. 214 dead American soldiers since 1st May would disagree with you.

The following two posts by "American" and crackmonkey seem to run along the lines of, "Don't tell us how to run our wars". Interesting that the Iraqi people have been freed from a brutal dictator, yet they hate their liberators. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Would civilian casualities have anything to do with the problems the US currently faces?

Yeah that makes sense unless of course you look at how many Iraqis have been killed by none-allied forces with such precision devices as car bomb, truck bomb, homicide bombers, mortar attacks and rocket propelled grenades. Oh yeah they obviously care about Iraqi people.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Your whole argument rests on the idea that the war has been won. 214 dead American soldiers since 1st May would disagree with you.

The following two posts by "American" and crackmonkey seem to run along the lines of, "Don't tell us how to run our wars". Interesting that the Iraqi people have been freed from a brutal dictator, yet they hate their liberators. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Would civilian casualities have anything to do with the problems the US currently faces?

Hate their liberators? Are you talking about the general population or the ones doing the fighting, who seem to contain some non-Iraqi people as well?

[Troll]

As I stated previously some aren't from there and are just using Iraq as another place to attack us infidels from. Some are desperately clinging to hope that they can get what little power or authority they had back again. And there's a small chance some never got the word about how much control they've lost

Hell, here's a guy that thought he was stil at war long after it was over. (http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/onoda/)

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Troll
As I stated previously some aren't from there and are just using Iraq as another place to attack us infidels from. Some are desperately clinging to hope that they can get what little power or authority they had back again. And there's a small chance some never got the word about how much control they've lost

Hell, here's a guy that thought he was stil at war long after it was over. (http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/onoda/)

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Because Iraq is so much like a tiny island in the Phillipines, isn't it?

What a dork.

[Otther]

214 dead American soldiers since 1st May would disagree with you. Emotionalist tripe. The death of a soldier doesn't make a war a loss, it merely shifts the ratio of the war's price to gain. Did the thousands of soldiers who died fighting hitler make that war a loss?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Otther
Emotionalist tripe. The death of a soldier doesn't make a war a loss, it merely shifts the ratio of the war's price to gain. Did the thousands of soldiers who died fighting hitler make that war a loss?

:hit: PAY ATTENTION! Aerocontrol's argument is that decapitation is a good strategy, despite civilian deaths, because it helped end the war quickly in Iraq. I'm saying the war isn't over yet, supported by over 200 deaths in Iraq since the end of 'major operations'.

Try again.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


:roll: :roll: :roll:

Because Iraq is so much like a tiny island in the Phillipines, isn't it?

What a dork.

Not at all. Merely illustrating a point. Hiroo Onoda was all set to keep killing for his cause which was no longer the cause of his people. Had he continued to kill, he'd have claimed it was done in the name of Japan, while the Japanese would not have agreed.

I don't think most of the people in Iraq feel the guys still fighting are able to claim to do so in their name.

[Otther]

Aerocontrol's argument is that decapitation is a good strategy, despite civilian deaths, because it helped end the war quickly in Iraq. I'm saying the war isn't over yet, supported by over 200 deaths in Iraq since the end of 'major operations'. Being in the military is great! Unless a war breaks out... then you lose your Manafisto granted immortality.

The differences between guerilla warefare and conventional war are significant. If you please, would you show some examples of actual conventional warfare? As I see it, the stuff going on right now is the guerilla s**t, of which the warhood is subjective. Would you say the palestinians are at war with Isreal? Doesn't matter, because the meaning of the word has blurred since WWII.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Otther
Being in the military is great! Unless a war breaks out... then you lose your Manafisto granted immortality.

The differences between guerilla warefare and conventional war are significant. If you please, would you show some examples of actual conventional warfare? As I see it, the stuff going on right now is the guerilla s**t, of which the warhood is subjective. Would you say the palestinians are at war with Isreal? Doesn't matter, because the meaning of the word has blurred since WWII.

Using Samson-like strength, he pushes on the columns (marked 'reality' and 'logic'), his muscles bulging as he strains to push them over. Finally, with the power of his ill-educated beliefs, the columns fall!

...Bringing the roof down upon his head.

[Otther]

Good sir, I am hungry for knowledge and truth.

Please spare a moment to educate me...

Why is it incorrect to say that conventional warfare has ceased?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


:hit: PAY ATTENTION! Aerocontrol's argument is that decapitation is a good strategy, despite civilian deaths, because it helped end the war quickly in Iraq. I'm saying the war isn't over yet, supported by over 200 deaths in Iraq since the end of 'major operations'.

Try again.

The war is over. There is no more fighting the Iraqi military and government. What is going on now is what could be classified as a police or peacekeeping action. And yes I know Vietnam was a war regardless of what others labled it. It's not the lable I gave it so don't try to play the semantics game with me later.

I know you're gonna need some help understanding that so I'm gonna offer you something to help.

A soldier dying in action is not always the result of "war". During the LA riots both reservists and active duty military were sent in to assist the cops. A few ended up in firefights. To the best of my knowledge none were killed. But had someone unfortuantely been killed while assinged there, they would have been killed in action but I don't think any sensible person would consider the riots a war.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Otther
Good sir, I am hungry for knowledge and truth.

Please spare a moment to educate me...

Why is it incorrect to say that conventional warfare has ceased?

It's not. He just has a hard time understanding things about the military and war and such.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Otther
Good sir, I am hungry for knowledge and truth.

Please spare a moment to educate me...

Why is it incorrect to say that conventional warfare has ceased?

Just because it isn't a "conventional war" (whatever that is) doesn't mean it isn't a war, whatever Troll thinks.

[Mr Manifesto]

Interestng essay on 'what is war' (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_eth_warwhat.htm)

Clearly there is no one, single characteristic which we can use to distinguish war from peace - so how should we define the concept? According to the conservative philosopher Hugo Grotius, war is a "condition of those contending by force" (emphasis mine). War certainly involves conflict and force, but it is also a condition or situation in which a number of different factors might play a role.

What is crucial, however, is the fact that those factors would not be permitted during a state of peace. In other words, a state of war is a condition which is believed to allow for behavior and action normally considered illegal or immoral. Examples including killing others (including innocents), destruction of property, lying (usually called propaganda), etc. This definition, while perhaps not always easy to apply, certainly seems to capture much of what characterizes a wide variety of situations which qualify as "war" rather than "peace."

[Troll]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Just because it isn't a "conventional war" (whatever that is) doesn't mean it isn't a war, whatever Troll thinks.

Well thanks for illustrating a point for all. You show you don't know squat about the subject and merely post on an emotional level and how you feel about it. Not that there is anything wrong with expressing yourself. It's just poor form to use emotion as the basis of your posts.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Troll


Well thanks for illustrating a point for all. You show you don't know squat about the subject and merely post on an emotional level and how you feel about it. Not that there is anything wrong with expressing yourself. It's just poor form to use emotion as the basis of your posts.

I'll give you the chance to read the basis for my opinion, which you wouldn't have read when you posted the above.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Interestng essay on 'what is war' (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_eth_warwhat.htm)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly there is no one, single characteristic which we can use to distinguish war from peace - so how should we define the concept? According to the conservative philosopher Hugo Grotius, war is a "condition of those contending by force" (emphasis mine). War certainly involves conflict and force, but it is also a condition or situation in which a number of different factors might play a role.

What is crucial, however, is the fact that those factors would not be permitted during a state of peace. In other words, a state of war is a condition which is believed to allow for behavior and action normally considered illegal or immoral. Examples including killing others (including innocents), destruction of property, lying (usually called propaganda), etc. This definition, while perhaps not always easy to apply, certainly seems to capture much of what characterizes a wide variety of situations which qualify as "war" rather than "peace."




Not bad really but he is attempting to describe, and does a good job of it to be honest, the concept of war and not war as an action. We can apply his concept to sporting events as well, as other actions he left out to illustrate his point as he saw fit, such as assault is illegal or immoral, yet boxers whomp on each other within the law.

He also admits it's not easy to apply his definition.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Troll


Not bad really but he is attempting to describe, and does a good job of it to be honest, the concept of war and not war as an action. We can apply his concept to sporting events as well, as other actions he left out to illustrate his point as he saw fit, such as assault is illegal or immoral, yet boxers whomp on each other within the law.

He also admits it's not easy to apply his definition.

There's only one way to solve a semantics debate... The poll!

[Troll]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


There's only one way to solve a semantics debate... The poll!

Ah yes. So we can get short essay answers from others that have varying opinions on what "war" is. Provided the choices are worded by someone without a preformed definition. That ain't gonna be either of us.:p

[Otther]

Just because it isn't a "conventional war" (whatever that is) doesn't mean it isn't a war, whatever Troll thinks. Absolutely... but you don't seem to be admitting that you could be wrong as well.


I apologise that I do not have the time to read the entirety of that essay, but I did read your selection and I can appreciate how that would be an appealing way of quantifying war.

My biggest problem with the selection is how with some bending and stretching you could almost claim that some corperations are at war with eachother and the American population... but that's off topic.

The philosophical deffinition of war is a side issue here... we can't really redeffine the term when it's already been used in it's common form. For the sake of easy communication, we have developed terms which while aren't precice, convey the information they are intended to. The things which usually account for standard warfare aren't happening in Iraq. We've got an occupation, and guerilla warfare going on. Go ahead and change the deffinition of war for next time... but during this one we're going to use the terminology we started out with.

edit: fixed incredible spelling error.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Your whole argument rests on the idea that the war has been won.

No it doesn't. My argument rests on the idea that attacking the leadership split the army off from the command and helped the coalition achieve its military objectives. One might also add that there were large formations of enemy troops that didn't fight against us, which made it uneccessary to kill them. Both are possible benefits that HRW seems not to have considered.

I ask you again:

Do you believe Mr. Roth is in a position to deny that either was affected by the decapitation campaign, or do you believe (as I do) that he simply hasn't thought of either possibility because he knows diddly squat about military tactics? Something else, perhaps?

MattJ

[Ed]

Originally posted by Troll


Probably out looking for ways to link the US to it.;)

Well, we did invent powered flight after all.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
[BClearly there is no one, single characteristic which we can use to distinguish war from peace - so how should we define the concept? According to the conservative philosopher Hugo Grotius, war is a "condition of those contending by force" (emphasis mine). War certainly involves conflict and force, but it is also a condition or situation in which a number of different factors might play a role.

What is crucial, however, is the fact that those factors would not be permitted during a state of peace. In other words, a state of war is a condition which is believed to allow for behavior and action normally considered illegal or immoral. Examples including killing others (including innocents), destruction of property, lying (usually called propaganda), etc. This definition, while perhaps not always easy to apply, certainly seems to capture much of what characterizes a wide variety of situations which qualify as "war" rather than "peace." [/B]
By that definition, every country in the world is at war, because "those factors would not be permitted in a state of peace".

So, every country in the world is in a state of war, unless you're in a fictional utopia w/ no crime whatsoever. You're grasping at straws, Manifesto.

Tell us, when was the last time Iraqi armor was engaged in this war? How many uniformed Iraqis have been killed recently?

Does having drug gangs mean a country is at war? The Mafia? Why are you silent about Chechnya, is it that only the US can be in a war?
This definition, while perhaps not always easy to apply
Meaning that you can make up arbitrary definitions that single out the evil US, right?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Your whole argument rests on the idea that the war has been won. 214 dead American soldiers since 1st May would disagree with you.




A population of 130,000 23 year olds would expect a death rate of about .2% in a year. That translates to about 170 in 8 months. I am pretty sure the math is right but you can check here (http://www.demog.berkeley.edu/wilmoth/mortality/States/nchs/mort.rate/mx.1x1) .

I hate to sound callous but an increment of 40 dead over what you would expect actuarily does not strike me as the result of a kick ass war.

Please spare me any appeals to emotion ("YOU tell the grieving families that"). If the maths are right, them's the facts.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Mr. Manifesto:
Your whole argument rests on the idea that the war has been won. 214 dead American soldiers since 1st May would disagree with you.

So you're in contact with the "other side" then? What do the 406,000 US troops that lost their lives have to say about the outcome of World War II?

[Luke T.]

It's strange to hear so much noise being made over the relatively few soldiers' deaths we have had. I seem to recall that prior to the war, there were expectations on the part of some that we would have thousands of American soldiers' deaths before we even entered Baghdad. Civilian casualties were also expected to be much higher.

To criticize the strategies that have been used is to be completely out of touch with reality. These low numbers are a huge success.

[gnome]

If I might try to generate a useful point...

let's phrase it as a question...

How would one assess the performance of the US in using the appropriate amount of respect for avoiding civilian casualties? While there are inevitably some "collateral damage" as it were... it is clear that extremes exist, and we ought to be able to ballpark how the US did in this case.

Second question: Do the tactics mentioned reflect badly, well, or neutrally on this assesment?

One does not have to argue that we must bend over backwards and undermine the war, in order to criticize particular tactics.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by gnome
If I might try to generate a useful point...

let's phrase it as a question...

How would one assess the performance of the US in using the appropriate amount of respect for avoiding civilian casualties?

In general, I would do so through historical and contemporary comparison. How many civilians typically die in an invasion of one country by a hostile force? One would have to control for the size and strength of the two opposing forces. Population density, how much the civilians themselves oppose the invaders, etc.

I think a good example would be the Russian attempts to control Chechnya.

A better example would be NATO attempts to occupy Serbia, if NATO had in fact made the attempt.

Originally posted by gnome
Second question: Do the tactics mentioned reflect badly, well, or neutrally on this assesment?

I believe that the decapitation strikes were of great benefit to keeping the war short, keeping big chunks of the Iraqi military out of the fight, having quick surrenders in many key cities. The benefits of the campaign are not necessarily obvious, but it seems to me impossible that an observer could just dismiss them out-of-hand as HRW has done.

The cluster munitions are more difficult to defend. I believe using them also shortened the war and led to surrender of troops that otherwise would have fought us from strong points. In Iraq, this means 'cities'. Ground battles for cities between armies is how civilians really get slaughtered. Sustained ground battles for cities that drag on into the Iraqi summer is how hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians die from lack of water and sanitation. Having problems with the water supply in the summer was quite bad enough without having battle lines in the middle of Baghdad.

Originally posted by gnome
One does not have to argue that we must bend over backwards and undermine the war, in order to criticize particular tactics.

One doesn't have to, no. Human Rights Watch, however, doesn't impress me as an organization that has carefully thought this through. It's ok... they have an agenda. They are advocates of the elimination of cluster munitions, so they don't ask themselves (at least, their publication doesn't demonstrate it) if the harm to civilians might have been worse had cluster munitions not been used.

Their comments on the effectiveness of decapitation strikes seem quite self-deluded to me.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by gnome
If I might try to generate a useful point...

let's phrase it as a question...

How would one assess the performance of the US in using the appropriate amount of respect for avoiding civilian casualties? While there are inevitably some "collateral damage" as it were... it is clear that extremes exist, and we ought to be able to ballpark how the US did in this case.

Second question: Do the tactics mentioned reflect badly, well, or neutrally on this assesment?

One does not have to argue that we must bend over backwards and undermine the war, in order to criticize particular tactics.

Fair enough. But let's not count on the BBC's spin of the Human Rights Watch report. I have found them to be biased against the U.S. too often.

Here is a direct link to the actual HRW "Off Target" report. (http://hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/)

From that report, we have:



The investigation showed that Iraqi forces committed a number of violations of international humanitarian law, which may have led to significant civilian casualties. These violations included use of human shields, abuse of the red cross and red crescent emblems, use of antipersonnel landmines, location of military objects in protected places (such as mosques, hospitals, and cultural property), and a failure to take adequate precautions to protect civilians from the dangers of military operations. The Iraqi military’s practice of wearing civilian clothes tended to erode the distinction between combatants and civilians, putting the latter at risk, although it did not relieve Coalition forces of their obligation to distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians and to target only combatants.

That explains why civilians were caught in the crossfire. There is no munition in the world, cluster bomb or otherwise, that will prevent civilian deaths in that kind of situation.


Many of the civilian casualties from the air war occurred during U.S. attacks targeting senior Iraqi leaders. The United States used an unsound targeting methodology that relied on intercepts of satellite phones and inadequate corroborating intelligence. Thuraya satellite phones provide geo-coordinates that are accurate only to within a one-hundred-meter (328-foot) radius; therefore, the United States could not determine the origin of a call to a degree of accuracy greater than a 31,400-square-meter area. This flawed targeting strategy was compounded by a lack of effective assessment both prior to the attacks of the potential risks to civilians and after the attacks of their success and utility. All of the fifty acknowledged attacks targeting Iraqi leadership failed. While they did not kill a single targeted individual, the strikes killed and injured dozens of civilians. Iraqis who spoke to Human Rights Watch about the attacks it investigated repeatedly stated that they believed the intended targets were not even present at the time of the strikes.

This is the problem when you lack human intelligence on the ground. You end up having to rely on intercepted communications. Factor in flight times, and the target has probably moved on by the time the ordnance arrives. I believe that is exactly what happened in the opening shots of the war. Remember the cruise missiles that were the first shots fired at a building believed to house Saddam? I think the flight time was something like 90 minutes, which means they were launched prior to the announcement of hostilities so that they were timed to land right after the announcement.

Despite never hitting their intended military leader targets, I do believe they served the purpose of forcing those leaders to be constantly on the move, which can be of great destablizing value.
One look at Saddam's face after his capture shows their worth.

None of this really matters. What matters is how the Iraqi people will interpret these events. They may be more pragmatic about it, or they may be angry about it. We may never know.

[Luke T.]

There is a long section in the report called "International Humanitarian Law" in which HRW outlines what is and is not allowed in war. They go on at length without saying the U.S. violated such laws, or even if we violated treaties to which we are not signatories. The implication that we did violate the law could be made if you spin it the right (wrong) way, though, as I am sure some will. But it should be noted that not even HRW says we did.

In another part of the report, they say:


Human Rights Watch recommends that if the United States bombs populated areas, it should:

Complete a collateral damage estimate in advance and balance this against the expected direct and concrete military advantage of the attack.

Use the smallest effective precision munitions to limit civilian harm.

Carry out a bomb damage assessment as soon as possible after the attack and apply immediate lessons learned.

The United States has committed itself to all these steps, but it needs to implement them more consistently.

[aerocontrols]

The United States has committed itself to all these steps, but it needs to implement them more consistently.

That clears that up, doesn't it?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


That clears that up, doesn't it?

Yes. Warfare needs to be more consistent. More, uh, predictable.

[Mr Manifesto]

Getting back to whether we're at war or not, apparently we're not at war because, even though we're an invading coalition being shot at by the occupied, we've said it isn't a war. So it can't be a war. Oh, and no armoured divisions have fired at us lately.

Riiiiight.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Getting back to whether we're at war or not...

Why are we getting back to that question? Didn't you start a completely different thread for the benefit of those who think the answer matters?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Why are we getting back to that question? Didn't you start a completely different thread for the benefit of those who think the answer matters?

I dare say because Ed and Wildcat brought it up. But you're right, let's move on...

Cluster bombs.

Essentially, these are area denial weapons. True, they are used in direct attacks on vehicles and equipment, but the fact is that about 2% of cluster bomb sub-munitions are hazardous duds (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cluster.htm) (meaning, they are duds with a chance of exploding if stepped on, kicked, picked up, etc). This means that a single CBU 71/B bomb has a dozen hazardous duds at best.

Maybe such a weapon is vital in a war against an evenly-matched army. However, the Iraqi army were no match for coalition forces. One of the objectives is to get the Iraqi people on-side, to trust the coalition forces. They aren't going to do this if their kids get a limb blown off playing with an unexploded sub-munition. So, not only are cluster bombs not needed, they can be counter-effective to the goals of the occupying forces.

But, hey, HRW aren't army men... What would they know?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
According to a report by Humans Right Watch, two particular military tactics, the use of cluster munitions in populated areas and attacks on Iraqi leaders, caused hundreds of civilian deaths which could have been avoided:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3311705.stm


Brown people: good for testing weapons on.

[clk]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Are you honestly saying that targeting leaders has no military benefits?

I remember that early on in the war, the US bombed the sh*t out of several targets that they thought Saddam might be in. If I remember correctly, several civilians were killed instead. Grammatron, would you approve the use of cluster bombs if the target was a high ranking leader, even if you knew there was also a high risk of civilian casualties and the intelligence could be wrong? If it were me, I would have ground forces go in to capture/kill Saddam instead.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Maybe such a weapon is vital in a war against an evenly-matched army. However, the Iraqi army were no match for coalition forces. One of the objectives is to get the Iraqi people on-side, to trust the coalition forces. They aren't going to do this if their kids get a limb blown off playing with an unexploded sub-munition. So, not only are cluster bombs not needed, they can be counter-effective to the goals of the occupying forces.

Right. After all, Iraqis are too simple to understand that war is dangerous and are likely to become murderous jihadists if any civilian is ever hurt.

Also, in war, the superior force has an obligation to handicap itself to maximize its own casualties.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Mycroft

Also, in war, the superior force has an obligation to handicap itself to maximize its own casualties.

It's a question of degree. For example, we could defeat a country with no casualties by destroying it with nuclear weapons. I think we DO have an obligation to forego this option.

By this extreme example I am trying to establish that at least to some extent we are willing to suffer casualties to avoid civilian deaths. What we differ on is not this fact, but how many casualties we should be willing to suffer in order to avoid how many civilian deaths. A ratio, so to speak. We can argue about where to draw the line, but I don't believe anyone would argue that the line should be drawn at zero.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Ed



A population of 130,000 23 year olds would expect a death rate of about .2% in a year. That translates to about 170 in 8 months. I am pretty sure the math is right but you can check here (http://www.demog.berkeley.edu/wilmoth/mortality/States/nchs/mort.rate/mx.1x1) .

I hate to sound callous but an increment of 40 dead over what you would expect actuarily does not strike me as the result of a kick ass war.

Please spare me any appeals to emotion ("YOU tell the grieving families that"). If the maths are right, them's the facts.


It's not really relevant to the discussion but that seems like a rather blatent misuse of statistics to me.

There's ordinarily a .2% death rate, as you say around 170 out of 130,000 in 8 months.

There's no reason to assume that whatever various causes led to that death rate suddenly ceased just because the people involved went to war.

That means that the casualties in Iraq were on top of the .2% of "normal" deaths, not instead of them so in that 130,000 you have a total of 170 + 214 = 384 dead, an increment of (obviously) 214 over what you would normally expect.

Graham

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by gnome

It's a question of degree. For example, we could defeat a country with no casualties by destroying it with nuclear weapons. I think we DO have an obligation to forego this option.

By this extreme example I am trying to establish that at least to some extent we are willing to suffer casualties to avoid civilian deaths. What we differ on is not this fact, but how many casualties we should be willing to suffer in order to avoid how many civilian deaths. A ratio, so to speak. We can argue about where to draw the line, but I don't believe anyone would argue that the line should be drawn at zero.

I can think of other reasons not to use nukes.

Technical superiority is not the only consideration. We have the better equipment, tech and training, but we hurt in actual manpower. 150,000 troops isn't much to look after a country with a population of around 25 million. From a tactical point of view, you cant afford to spend the lives of your troops to protect civilians. You could have the technology of Buck Rogers and still lose to attrition.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Indeed. And if you use 0 weapons at all then only Saddam's regime will be causing the death of hundreds, thousands of civilians. But that's ok, right?

Bzzt! Alert. Alert. Major Error in Logic Detected. This account will be automatically deleted.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Right. After all, Iraqis are too simple to understand that war is dangerous and are likely to become murderous jihadists if any civilian is ever hurt.

Also, in war, the superior force has an obligation to handicap itself to maximize its own casualties.

The Iraqi armed forces were totally overwhelmed anyway, as everyone knew they would. The use of cluster bombs is just gratuitous and totally inconsiderate of the people the US invited itself in to supposedly help.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The Iraqi armed forces were totally overwhelmed anyway, as everyone knew they would. The use of cluster bombs is just gratuitous and totally inconsiderate of the people the US invited itself in to supposedly help.

Wow, I figured you must have me on ignore after having twice ignored my request for historical examples to support your opinion in this thread: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870285187#post1870285187

I'm against the war in Iraq. That doesn't stop me from having the common sense to know that words like inconsiderate are idiotic when used to describe military tactics.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Wow, I figured you must have me on ignore after having twice ignored my request for historical examples to support your opinion in this thread: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870285187#post1870285187

I'm against the war in Iraq. That doesn't stop me from having the common sense to know that words like inconsiderate are idiotic when used to describe military tactics.

That's right, kids missing arms aren't worth any consideration when planning tactics.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


That's right, kids missing arms aren't worth any consideration when planning tactics.

There you go jumping to this conclusion when nothing of this sort was mentioned. US army arguably does the most planning when it comes to minimizing civilian deaths or even deaths in general. It's always easy to criticize how things should have been done.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I can think of other reasons not to use nukes.

Technical superiority is not the only consideration. We have the better equipment, tech and training, but we hurt in actual manpower. 150,000 troops isn't much to look after a country with a population of around 25 million. From a tactical point of view, you cant afford to spend the lives of your troops to protect civilians. You could have the technology of Buck Rogers and still lose to attrition.

Whenever we make any consideration to protect civilians, we are doing exactly that... putting some soldiers at risk and eventually expending soldier's lives.

Again I say the question is not whether to, but how much... unless you disapprove even of our current efforts to do so.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by gnome
Again I say the question is not whether to, but how much... unless you disapprove even of our current efforts to do so.

I don't. On this issue, my disapproval is limited to armchair generals.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


I don't. On this issue, my disapproval is limited to armchair generals.

War is not a high science.

It's pretty simple in this case.

The US could have won without using weapons such as cluster bombs.
Cluster bombs cause needles civilian deaths.
Australian troops in Iraq did not use such ordnance by order.

It's hardly rocket science, and other generals did not see the need to use them. In fact, I am going to have the temerity to actually question whether the US generals who authorised the use of cluster bombs did the right thing. There, I said it.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


War is not a high science.

It's pretty simple in this case.

The US could have won without using weapons such as cluster bombs.
Cluster bombs cause needles civilian deaths.
Australian troops in Iraq did not use such ordnance by order.

It's hardly rocket science, and other generals did not see the need to use them. In fact, I am going to have the temerity to actually question whether the US generals who authorised the use of cluster bombs did the right thing. There, I said it.

And what makes you such an expert in modern warfare?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


And what makes you such an expert in modern warfare?

You don't have to be an expert. The US had no need to use cluster bombs. Are you trying to tell me that if the US had not used cluster bombs, the Iraqis would have won? The US would have suffered thousands of dead? You had better not be.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

War is not a high science.

It's pretty simple in this case.

The US could have won without using weapons such as cluster bombs.
Cluster bombs cause needles civilian deaths.
Australian troops in Iraq did not use such ordnance by order.

It's hardly rocket science, and other generals did not see the need to use them. In fact, I am going to have the temerity to actually question whether the US generals who authorised the use of cluster bombs did the right thing. There, I said it.

It's easy for the token force to say they won't use them when they have the big old U.S. of A watching their backs ready and willing to provide them wherever they might be needed.

As for your temerity, aren't you the pacifist who was shocked that anyone would want to join an ROTC program? It's funny that you would want to be an armchair general after the fact.

[peptoabysmal]

The article fails to mention how many civilian deaths are attributable to non-uniformed combatants drawing fire upon civilians and how many civilians were killed by roadside bombs and other terrorist maneuvers.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


It's easy for the token force to say they won't use them when they have the big old U.S. of A watching their backs ready and willing to provide them wherever they might be needed.

As for your temerity, aren't you the pacifist who was shocked that anyone would want to join an ROTC program? It's funny that you would want to be an armchair general after the fact.

"Token Force". Noted. Also noted the "Year of the American Soldier". John Howard crawls so far up Bush's @ss he could brush his teeth for him, and all he gets is 'token'. I shall forward this post to him. I hope you realise Mr Howard was invited for a genuine Texan BBQ at the President's Ranch. That's how high in Bush's estimation John Howard is.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
"Token Force". Noted. Also noted the "Year of the American Soldier". John Howard crawls so far up Bush's @ss he could brush his teeth for him, and all he gets is 'token'. I shall forward this post to him. I hope you realise Mr Howard was invited for a genuine Texan BBQ at the President's Ranch. That's how high in Bush's estimation John Howard is.

I'm astounded that such a pacifist as yourself was offended by my pointing out that Australia's contribution to the war so minor. I figured you'd be proud of that.

I actually had to look up "John Howard" to see who he was. I guess Australian politics doesn't make the news here in the States that I would know who your Prime Minister is. Forward the the post if you like, but I would think that a Prime Minister, even an Australian one, would have other things to do than worry about the opinion of some foreigner. If you think otherwise, well, you know your country better than I do.

I'm not sure I understand your bragging that your leader sucks up to mine and only gets a lousy barbeque out of it, but there is a lot to Australian culture I don't get.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I don't. On this issue, my disapproval is limited to armchair generals.

So who gets the blank check here?
What extent of questioning is allowable?

Don't get me wrong. I would give far more weight to a veteran commander's opinion than any civilian... but we can at least settle on a goal here? That is a political decision, not a military one, correct?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by gnome

So who gets the blank check here?
who do you perceive as having a blank check?
What extent of questioning is allowable?
Is my disapproval of armchair generals allowable?

Don't get me wrong. I would give far more weight to a veteran commander's opinion than any civilian... but we can at least settle on a goal here? That is a political decision, not a military one, correct?

Goals are useful things. They can guide you in choosing a policy, choosing an action, and knowing when to quit. However, micro-management of a war from the electorate just isn't possible.

The decision to go to war is a political one. The politician that makes that decision is accountable to the electorate. Having made the decision to go to war, the decisions on how to conduct that war should be left to the veteran commander, who being a veteran commander is also aware of political considerations.

[charley_bigtime]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Technical superiority is not the only consideration. We have the better equipment, tech and training, but we hurt in actual manpower. 150,000 troops isn't much to look after a country with a population of around 25 million. From a tactical point of view, you cant afford to spend the lives of your troops to protect civilians. You could have the technology of Buck Rogers and still lose to attrition.

Hmm...looking at this from a historical perspective, the British managed to "look after" an Indian population of around 250 million for about 100 years with about 120,000 people (not all troops).

Mind you - they were complete bastards in doing so. Something I don't believe that you Yanks are in Iraq at the moment - despite agenda riddled protestations to the contrary.