Is the US held to higher standard on Civilian casualties?

[Stravo]

I'm watching Path to War, a very good movie on the buildup and war in Vietnam during the Johnson administration. They spent entire meetings just discussing the potential civilian casualties on bombing runs that many in the military felt as neccessary to hurt the Vietnamese war effort. We've seen alot of the same during the wars since particularly Gulf War I and II.

In the book Bush at War (Excellent read, pick it up if you can) it mentions the Taliban hiding their most valuable targets in civilian areas, same as the Iraqis in order to risk civilian casualties to occur.

Has the revolution in air power and America's reliance and over whelming dominance in that power forced nations that can't compete to try and protect their assets in any way they can? Or are they simply cynically taking advantage of a seemingly higher standard the US is held to in regard to civilian casualties occured in bombing campaigns?

And more importantly is the US held to this standard? If you look at the bombing campaigns in WWII where thousands of civilians died and events like Dresden then compare it to the reaction from an errant smart bomb and a dozen dead why is there such an uproar?

[Joe]

And more importantly is the US held to this standard? If you look at the bombing campaigns in WWII where thousands of civilians died and events like Dresden then compare it to the reaction from an errant smart bomb and a dozen dead why is there such an uproar?

Well, make no mistake, civilian casualties are the greatest failures of warring states. Given that the U.S. is in a position to make war ethically, I think it is fair to hold the U.S. to high standards when it comes to civilian casualties. And I think that we have met those standards pretty well.

[Durandal]

Because we've got smarter bombs than everyone else. Overall, our military strikes are very precise because of our technology. We've got the technology to minimize civilian casualties, so there's no excuse when there ends up being an excess of them.

And frankly, since America likes to strut itself as the leader of the free world and all that, we set ourselves up for being held to a higher standard.

[Darth Wong]

Is there some other standard? What nation is permitted to use bombing on civilian areas without censure? I can't think of one off-hand.

I think we just have less tolerance for indiscriminate warfare in the modern age, and that the US is not being cut any slack, which is only fair.

When the Germans first used bombing against cities, it was such an outrage that propaganda posters immediately sprung up, screaming about how the Huns kill women and children. It was an historical anomaly for bombing of cities to become acceptable during the middle of the 20th century, and should not be considered the default state.

[Alyeska]

Is there some other standard? What nation is permitted to use bombing on civilian areas without censure? I can't think of one off-hand.

I think we just have less tolerance for indiscriminate warfare in the modern age, and that the US is not being cut any slack, which is only fair.

When the Germans first used bombing against cities, it was such an outrage that propaganda posters immediately sprung up, screaming about how the Huns kill women and children. It was an historical anomaly for bombing of cities to become acceptable during the middle of the 20th century, and should not be considered the default state.

Bombing of cities prior to that was fairly impossible. You have to look at the OTHER ways of destroying a city. Raping and pilaging a city was fairly common. Look at what the British did to DC. Look at what Sherman did to the South. Look at all the acient and not so acient warfare. Destroying civilian targets was a relatively common practice. It wasn't until WW2 that people started screaming afoul about the idea.

[Stravo]

In comparison you have the Iran and Iraq war that dragged on for years where chemical weapons were used, Iraq sending Scuds into Terhan and basically a slaughterhouse going on and what was the general reaction of the world? A shrug of the shoulders. In Africa civil wars have been raging for decades and to what outrage? An errant smart bomb goes off in a city and its front page news, every network is on it showing the bodies over and over.

That attitude is what this is about, not whether bombing cities is the right thing to do. last time I checked in Iraq Sadaam parked his assets in residential areas forcing the attacks into cities. Its not like WWII where bombers simply rolled thousands of tons of TNT into city centers indiscriminately.

[Darth Wong]

In comparison you have the Iran and Iraq war that dragged on for years where chemical weapons were used, Iraq sending Scuds into Terhan and basically a slaughterhouse going on and what was the general reaction of the world? A shrug of the shoulders.

Actually, everyone agreed that Saddam was evil. His use of chemical weapons has been held up as proof of his unremitting evil for a long time now.

In Africa civil wars have been raging for decades and to what outrage?

Again, everyone agrees that these regimes are evil.

An errant smart bomb goes off in a city and its front page news, every network is on it showing the bodies over and over.

Key difference: America is supposedly not evil. Obviously, a nation which claims not to be evil should conduct itself differently than regimes which everyone perceives as evil.

That attitude is what this is about, not whether bombing cities is the right thing to do. last time I checked in Iraq Sadaam parked his assets in residential areas forcing the attacks into cities.

Nobody "forced" the attacks to occur in the first place. The fact that they unhesitatingly followed their targets into the cities sent a clear message that Iraqi civilian casualties were a perfectly acceptable price to pay for the larger goal of prosecuting this war. Whether you agree with this or not, that was the PR outcome of this action.

Consider the analogy of the soldier who seeks sanctuary in a church, and the enemy army that blows up the church to get at the soldier. They may say they had no choice because he was hiding out in there, but many will still disapprove.

Its not like WWII where bombers simply rolled thousands of tons of TNT into city centers indiscriminately.

True. But it doesn't say much to compare onself to the conduct of WW2.

I believe the Americans did sincerely try to minimize civilian casualties ... given the decision that the war would be prosecuted regardless of those casualties. In a sense, that sentence encapsulates both the pro-American and anti-American viewpoints on the conduct of the US armed forces during the Iraq war.

[Stormbringer]

We're held to a higher standard because we're the good guys and can do better than massive areas bombings. But in any endeavour something will go wrong. To say we're evil because of accidents or the enevitable deaths that come when a despot uses his people as a sheild is rather silly.

[Stravo]

In comparison you have the Iran and Iraq war that dragged on for years where chemical weapons were used, Iraq sending Scuds into Terhan and basically a slaughterhouse going on and what was the general reaction of the world? A shrug of the shoulders.

Actually, everyone agreed that Saddam was evil. His use of chemical weapons has been held up as proof of his unremitting evil for a long time now.

Yes, but the general apathy exhibited by the majority of the media about these incidents until he became a general nuisance to the West and the oil was odd when one compares the shrieking going on with every casualty pinned on the US.

In Africa civil wars have been raging for decades and to what outrage?

Again, everyone agrees that these regimes are evil.

And everyone also went on to do nothing. When the US went into Somalia they had to be careful about civilian casualties when their enemy were hiding among the civilians. After the battle of Mogadishu the US pulled out and you'll be lucky to see the US get involved in that level in Africa in our lifetimes. What does that do to Africa? All to satisfy this need to criticize.

An errant smart bomb goes off in a city and its front page news, every network is on it showing the bodies over and over.

Key difference: America is supposedly not evil. Obviously, a nation which claims not to be evil should conduct itself differently than regimes which everyone perceives as evil.

But when militray objectives lie within civilian areas, attacks must happen. You cannot win a war by holding back and calling no joy on a misison that might kill civilians. Yet no one points this fact out.

That attitude is what this is about, not whether bombing cities is the right thing to do. last time I checked in Iraq Sadaam parked his assets in residential areas forcing the attacks into cities.

Nobody "forced" the attacks to occur in the first place. The fact that they unhesitatingly followed their targets into the cities sent a clear message that Iraqi civilian casualties were a perfectly acceptable price to pay for the larger goal of prosecuting this war. Whether you agree with this or not, that was the PR outcome of this action.

Absolutely. Civilian casulaties SHOULD be expected in a war. This view that war can ever be reduced to an antispetic battle between armies with no civilians in sight in akin to believing that we will eventually ascend to become Trek like in our goodness. It is part of the mentality involved when analyzing US actions.

Consider the analogy of the soldier who seeks sanctuary in a church, and the enemy army that blows up the church to get at the soldier. They may say they had no choice because he was hiding out in there, but many will still disapprove.

Its not like WWII where bombers simply rolled thousands of tons of TNT into city centers indiscriminately.

True. But it doesn't say much to compare onself to the conduct of WW2.

I believe the Americans did sincerely try to minimize civilian casualties ... given the decision that the war would be prosecuted regardless of those casualties. In a sense, that sentence encapsulates both the pro-American and anti-American viewpoints on the conduct of the US armed forces during the Iraq war.

You and I both agree on that but it is the perception I am most interested in. This perception that Rumsfeld sat in the Pentagon cackling with glee rubbing his hands together as he plans these raids. I don't know what is at the heart of this especially in comparison with other militray actions far bloodier taking place around the world.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, everyone agreed that Saddam was evil. His use of chemical weapons has been held up as proof of his unremitting evil for a long time now.

Yes, but the general apathy exhibited by the majority of the media about these incidents until he became a general nuisance to the West and the oil was odd when one compares the shrieking going on with every casualty pinned on the US.

You're a lot bigger and more powerful. It's only natural. The world's nations are naturally going to be intimidated by the most powerful military the world has ever seen. Naturally, any hint of impropriety on the part of that military will be big news. I don't see this as a double-standard; if Saddam had the same kind of military power that the US had, the rest of the world would be absolutely terrified.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I think large civilian casulties are unacceptable in the Western Nations. Many of the Asian nations probably hold the same idea. I think this is a reflection of modern times. I dont think we are held to a higher standard when it comes to civilian casulties.

I do think certain segments of the world have unrealistic expectations of Military casulties. Everyone thinks Gulf War I set the template for future fights. Every war is unique, and the crushing win in Gulf War I happened for many reasons that may or may not resurface in future conflicts.

However, with that said, I also think people around the world continually misunderstand American resolve. Even in this age, if the fight is deemed to be right, the American public will endure casulties we have not seen since Korea or Vietnam.

[Dark Hellion]

To examine things fairly, I think we must also discuss the possibility of casualties as well. African nation can try progroms for a decade and kill 10 million, America can do that with a few turns of a key. In a week we could depopulate small countries. The amount of power we wield is insane, and has never been seen in the history of the world. Many world leaders of the past would have used this power aggressively and tyranically. America has so far minimized this tyranny. Civilian casualties, while completely unnacceptable, are an eventuality of war. Compared to the casualties America could deliver, a few dozen dead from a smart bomb is small change. We attempt to enforce order with the least blatant use of power possible. We could easily blow up cities, and walk away scottfree, such is the power of the United States. The standard the United States is held to is high because the U.S. has held itself (at least publicly) to that standard. The media attention is overboard, but the standard is good. Sorry if you don't get what I mean, I will try to explain better tomorrow.

[Vympel]

Because the US is in the spotlight it's under more scrutiny- it's also because of it's 'smarter' bombs (I really hate that term, btw, it conjures up images in the layman of a bomb chasing the bad guys down the street or something, waiting at traffic lights ala Looney Tunes, etc) etc.

Other countries are censured for their abuses, but they just don't have a profile as high, so you don't hear about it. Or you do, and you don't care.

[Stuart Mackey]

Is there some other standard? What nation is permitted to use bombing on civilian areas without censure? I can't think of one off-hand.

I think we just have less tolerance for indiscriminate warfare in the modern age, and that the US is not being cut any slack, which is only fair.

When the Germans first used bombing against cities, it was such an outrage that propaganda posters immediately sprung up, screaming about how the Huns kill women and children. It was an historical anomaly for bombing of cities to become acceptable during the middle of the 20th century, and should not be considered the default state.

Dont forget the first world war. When the German battlecruisers raided english towns, like Hartepool, Admiral Hipper very quicklty was dubbed 'Baby Killer'.

[Stuart Mackey]

snipIt wasn't until WW2 that people started screaming afoul about the idea.

WW1, as it happens.

[Joe]

Even earlier than that, actually, with Sherman's shelling of Southern cities. [/quote]

[Sea Skimmer]

When the Germans first used bombing against cities, it was such an outrage that propaganda posters immediately sprung up, screaming about how the Huns kill women and children. It was an historical anomaly for bombing of cities to become acceptable during the middle of the 20th century, and should not be considered the default state.

That was pure propaganda, the bombardment via gunfire of town and cities under siege was acceptable long before that and limited only by the fact that the attacker's guns generally didn't have the range to hit the city from beyond the fortifications., The justifications the Prussians for example gave in 1870 with the shelling of Strasbourg and Paris was that the bombardment would shorten the siege, and end it early with an overall reduction in suffering. Though as it was neither bombardment achieved that result, nor did most. Though in other cases retribution was the entire idea, such as the devastation of Genoa in 1642 by French bomb ketches (small ships armed with very big mortars), the French had no intention of taking the city but sought to punish it for aiding the Spanish against them.

In fact it's always been acceptable to bombard a defended populace. This is also why the concept of the declared open city was entered into international law in the early twentieth century. The idea being that you could remove your troops from a city and cease using it for war making and it would not be bombarded. This was used to spare Paris in 1940, Manila in 1941 and a few other locations.

[SirNitram]

That being said, Skim, there's a rather big gulf between ship bombardment and bombing runs. For one thing, if you see a fleet of ships or an artillery battalion or a bunch of guys with weapons approaching, you can surrender. Such isn't really possible against a high-altitude bombing run against a target deep behind enemy lines. The amount of devastation also drasticalyl raised(Compare any pre-WW2 bombardment to Dresden).

Of course, part of the outrage was bred from the fact Hitler was fighting with one hand tied behind his back with England: He didn't want to hit the populace at first in hopes of getting England to join him.

[Sea Skimmer]

Even earlier than that, actually, with Sherman's shelling of Southern cities.

[/quote]

I'm not aware of any city Sherman bombarded. However General Gillmore shelled Charleston, after he demands for the surrender of Morris Island and Fort Sumter. His initial attempted failed when the Swamp angle blew up after 36 shots. However he soon installed new batteries and proceeded to level a good chunk of the city. His justification was fairly simple, the roads of escape where open to non combatants, the city was full of confederate troops, warships where being built on its docks, armaments in its factories and he had provided warnings before both bombardments and had offered a deal to spare the city.

[Sea Skimmer]

That being said, Skim, there's a rather big gulf between ship bombardment and bombing runs. For one thing, if you see a fleet of ships or an artillery battalion or a bunch of guys with weapons approaching, you can surrender. Such isn't really possible against a high-altitude bombing run against a target deep behind enemy lines.

True, you can't surrender on a whim to bombing, but there is quite often warning before hand. With Iraq both in 1991 and 2003 for example, there was a considerable build up politically before downtown Baghdad begin taking hits.

The amount of devastation also drasticalyl raised(Compare any pre-WW2 bombardment to Dresden).

It's not unheard of for medieval and early modern era towns and cities to have been completely destroyed by an invader, more so then Dresden even, a good deal of that city didn't burn. Of course its not the same scale, but only because cities that large and developed just didn't exist, or at least numbered in the single digits.

Of course, part of the outrage was bred from the fact Hitler was fighting with one hand tied behind his back with England: He didn't want to hit the populace at first in hopes of getting England to join him.

Its not like London or any British city was the first the Nazi's bombarded from the air in WW2, they'd previously hit Warsaw and Rotterdam. Heck Rotterdam, probably the best example of propaganda ever, with the death toll inflated 30 times over, the time of the raid changed to after the Dutch surrender, the target of course was the cities population, not the thousands of Dutch troops busy fighting the Germans.

Though even the first London raids where ordered to specifically target the docks and shipping of the port of London, not residential areas.

[SirNitram]

That being said, Skim, there's a rather big gulf between ship bombardment and bombing runs. For one thing, if you see a fleet of ships or an artillery battalion or a bunch of guys with weapons approaching, you can surrender. Such isn't really possible against a high-altitude bombing run against a target deep behind enemy lines.

True, you can't surrender on a whim to bombing, but there is quite often warning before hand. With Iraq both in 1991 and 2003 for example, there was a considerable build up politically before downtown Baghdad begin taking hits.

Definately. But the runs against civilians in WW2, where people are speaking of the outrage, lacked this. We've come to accept it today, but I'm glad we aren't lacking the high explosives that we need to do another Dresden. Think of that PR boondoggle.

The amount of devastation also drasticalyl raised(Compare any pre-WW2 bombardment to Dresden).

It's not unheard of for medieval and early modern era towns and cities to have been completely destroyed by an invader, more so then Dresden even, a good deal of that city didn't burn. Of course its not the same scale, but only because cities that large and developed just didn't exist, or at least numbered in the single digits.

The city didn't burn because the incindiaries dropped only melted people, not metal.

I know many cities were raved to the ground, but I don't think any of them had such a small warning time, and such a lack of a chance. Even with the standard of open cities, you can't evade a bombing.

Of course, part of the outrage was bred from the fact Hitler was fighting with one hand tied behind his back with England: He didn't want to hit the populace at first in hopes of getting England to join him.

Its not like London or any British city was the first the Nazi's bombarded from the air in WW2, they'd previously hit Warsaw and Rotterdam. Heck Rotterdam, probably the best example of propaganda ever, with the death toll inflated 30 times over, the time of the raid changed to after the Dutch surrender, the target of course was the cities population, not the thousands of Dutch troops busy fighting the Germans.

Though even the first London raids where ordered to specifically target the docks and shipping of the port of London, not residential areas.

Again, the outrage was a result of bombing that kept well clear of the civilian areas, part of Hitler's attempt to recruit the UK. When you suddenly get your nose bloodied in a gentleman's fight, you tend to screech a bit.