News yesterday of the findings of an investigation into the deaths of 33 civilians during an August raid in Afghanistan, a raid that also killed 22 militants.
While the death of civilians in war is regrettable and worth taking action to avoid, we should not forget why it is 33 civilians died in this raid. It is because the civilians and the militants are indistinguishable from each other, and this is part of their strategy. Relying on the knowledge that Western forces will do all they can to avoid the killing of "innocent" civilians, militants and terrorists seek and gain succor from the civilians in their area (see also Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Israel), and the civilians are often all to happy to give it to them.
Yes, I know, there have been instances in history where forces have terrorized civilians into giving them this support....there is however, no evidence that such coercion is necessary in the modern war on terror.
We of course, will put ourselves through emotional gymnastics in order to demonstrate the requisite sorrow over the unfortunate deaths of 33 civilians, including 12 children. But it is time to begin talking about this problem with a new lexicon, one that ultimately concludes that not all civilians are innocent.
While I agree that not all civilians are innocent, commanders must be cognizant of the ramifications of strikes that kill any civilians. More times than not we are better off foregoing the lethal strike and allow the enemy to fight another day….. We will not kill our way to victory in the poorly name “war on terror”. Rule number one of waging a counter insurgency -- secure, protect and ultimately earn the trust of the population. Killing civilians is akin to recruiting for the very people we aim to defeat. JPH
ReplyDelete