[Some musings while the tea brews and cools…]
I’ve been reading a lot lately from folks concerned about the civilians under attack in the current Middle-East flareup. They bemoan the fact that the side they don’t like is killing innocent civilians, while writing off the civilians killed by their side as being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Personally, I think such comments reflect a misunderstanding of how war is waged nowadays, and the meaning of collateral damage.
Back in the days before rockets and airplanes, wars were (for the most part) fought in battlefields. Those directly involved with the battle were those that took the risk of damage, either by bullet, bayonet, or bladed weapon. The risk to innocent civilians was low, Sherman’s March to the sea and the torching of Atlanta notwithstanding. Yes, there were innocents that were killed, but more often they were in uniform, in the form of unwilling conscripts.
Now that we have weapons that can kill at a great distance… be they bombs dropped from aircraft or rocket-propelled, innocents get killed. This has been happening for almost a century now. Look at London and Dresden in WWII. Look at the citizens near Pearl Harbor, in the islands of the Pacific, or the cities in Japan during WWII. Look at the villages in Korea or Vietnam. Look at the villages in Eastern Europe, or Africa, or the Middle East. Collateral damage is an increasing result of war, even with better targeting mechanisms. This is because bombs cannot see who they kill, and avoid going off if the wrong people are in the area.
Complicating the problem often is the tactics of those under attacks. In the past, weapons and military logistics were in clear areas: forts, military bases, military encampments. Organized national armies still follow those conventions of war. Terrorist and guerrilla combatants don’t follow these rules, by their nature. They locate in houses in civilian areas, operate where the populace is. This is done for a number of reasons: it provides cover, and it (supposedly) prevents attack by conventional powers loath to go into civilian areas. However, when these groups are attacked, there is civilian loss of life, with misplaced sympathy going to the attacked (without realizing that was their strategy in the first place). The only way not to have the collateral casualties is one-on-one combat, which is less than effective because (a) the insurgents know the cities better; (b) the insurgents often want the collateral damage for the publicity it gets them.
The third aspect of the problem is targeting. As noted above, the organized armies follow convention, and select targets of military and logistic interest, which the insurgents place in civilian areas. The insurgents? Often, they don’t have the information on military targets, or the weapons sophisticated enough to do the targeting. So they behave like a playground bully lobbing water balloons over a fence. They know that if they get their target riled up enough, the target will do something stupid and get sympathy again on their side. They don’t care if they hit the specific person they are targeting — they are bullys, and just want to hit someone.
So lets stop bemoaning the civilians lost. It is tragic, but it is part of warfare today. The best we can do is to inform those in a battle zone to limit their exposure. Ethical government do just this (yes, not only Israel has dropped leaflets — recall that the US did it before the bombing in Japan). If you want to stop the loss of civilians, we need a Darkover-style compact: no use of weapons that can kill at a range — the only permitted weapons require you to see the person you are attacking, and be at equal risk of attack back.
George Washington: Do you think it’s working, Lieutenant?
Lieutenant: Well, I don’t…Wait! General Washington-
George Washington: Huh?
Lieutenant: Here come a couple of British officers, waving a white flag!Lord Cornwallis: I say, we surrender! We give up! Stop all that dreadful shooting, old man!
George Washington: Alright. Wait a minute, let me kill the sound effects here. (sound of a record player slowly winding down.)Okay, you guys-strike the war set! Roll it up!(flapping of a roller)
Lord Cornwallis: Good heavens-we’ve been diddled!
George Washington: Did I hear you surrender there? Hmm?
Lord Cornwallis: Yes, but-but look here, fellow-it’s not cricket. You’re not playing the game.
George Washington: What’s that?
Lord Cornwallis: We thought you had a whole regiment here. Look, Bradshaw, the whole thing was nothing but a ruddy painting, a-a backdrop.
George Washington: That’s right. Well, a little gimmick I thought up there. Actually, our army was routed yesterday. Nobody here but me, the lieutenant, and the skinny kid with the …where’d he go?
Lieutenant: You, uh, rolled him up in the backdrop, sir.
George Washington: Oh, yes. Well, release him there. (sound of a thud on the ground) You alright, young man?Rockwell: Mmmmph. Thuuuh’s uh pup….
Lord Cornwallis: Oh, Reg! There’s a pipe jammed in his cheek. Give him a hand, Bradshaw.
Bradshaw: Yes, of course. Hmmm. Ruined a good Kaywoodie, there.
Lord Cornwallis: Mmm. Fortunes of war.
[Stan Freberg, The United States of America, Volume I]
