When is it ok for civilians to die as a result of our war efforts? Civilian casualties are virtually unavoidable. But where do we draw the line. How hard should our government be working to ensure that civilians’ lives are not threatened? As we have talked about lately, our military has engaged in many wars and attacks which have caused thousands of civilian casualties. That is why people are opposed to cluster bombs, because civilians are affected the most.
Let’s look at this from an ethical perspective. When dealing with issues of war, if we do not have ethics, we are no better than those people we fight against. First of all, does it make it right to target civilians if the enemy has done so to us? Fortunately, most people would agree that the answer to that question is no, it is not acceptable to repay evil with evil. I am also gracious that our government agrees with this perspective. As a general rule, we have tried to avoid killing civilians whenever possible. Though terrorists killed civilians on 9/11 we did not retaliate by targeting cities in Afghanistan. Instead we launched a careful attack against those involved in terrorist regimes.
This issue is clearly not black and white. In the past, we have chosen to strike nations knowing that the majority of those affected would be civilians. Look at the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thousands of civilians wound up dead there. But at the same time, it is difficult to conclusively say whether that was an incorrect decision.
How should government officials weigh ethical issues? How many civilian casualties are acceptable in matters of war? Can anyone offer conclusive evidence either way?
We welcome any thoughts and insight on this delicate manner. All I have tried to do today is to provide a springboard for discussion about ethical issues of war that must be addressed for our government and military to prosper. Thank you for your input.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:47 am
I can speak with some experience, having spent nearly 18 years in the British Army and 22 years since leaving the service primarily working with communities affected by conflict for a wide range of organisations. I established some of the first UXO clearance operations (often referred to as mine clearance - but always including a broader range of ordnance and, wherever they have been used by combatant forces, unexploded submunitions. Those of us involved in those early widescale clearance operations recognised very quickly that two groups of UXO stood out from everything else - AP Mines and Cluster Munitions. I emphasise this - we weren’t a bunch of tree-hugging hippies trying to ban war; many of us were former military with no ambition to make soldiering in combat more dangerous than it is - but we did see that these weapons seemed to cross the proportionality boundary. I think it is important to recognise two things which can often be forgotten when servicemen discuss these issues:
1. Just because a weapon has some utility for the military it cannot be assumed it is an acceptable weapon. It’s utility must be balanced against its non-military impact (immediate and long-term).
2. I often get assurances from servicemen that ‘we’ (whichever nationality he is) always use cluster munitions responsibly. That may or may not be so, but it is obviously not relevant if everyone else is not taking such precautions. You cannot make international law based on the tactical behaviour of one military force.
Finally (there are many aspects to discuss but I have limited time right now) I have often been bemused by the ‘tough’ stance of Defence Department/Ministry spokespersons and find that it is very often dramatically different, and far tougher, than the position taken by frontline soldiers.
Glad to respond to any questions, criticisms, arguments etc.