The Liberal Calculus of Collateral Damage

[Booko]

Surely you don't mean to say that killing ~280 people, all but 14 of which were civilians, could be unintentional?

How do you know all but 14 of them were civilians?

The combatants on one side of this fight wear no identifiers.

 

[Ody]

Well in that case all but 2 countries in the developed world (excluding the USA and Japan) can be considered Nazi appeasers since they do not have the death penalty.

I meant as she wouldnt kill the murderers of Nazism! You can't play paddy cake when the insaine have great deals of power!

 

[Ody]

Which option would an Hiroshima like scenario fall under?

Shameless scare tactics.

 

[Booko]

I would have argued for not killing civilians and going for the people that were responsible. If that makes me a Nazi appeaser, so be it.

It doesn't make you a Nazi appeaser, Jensa. It might make you unrealistic about the nature of war.

 

[Jaymes]

How do you know all but 14 of them were civilians?

I'm going based on what I've read on Wikipedia and the BBC.

 

[Booko]

The basic principles of War remain through out time.

Yes and no. Hezbollah doesn't follow one of the time honoured rules of war, which is to identify yourself as a combatant. The Geneva conventions rather assume you do something to identify yourself, and that's to prevent civilian casualties.

But then, the more you read up on the history of war, it's pretty easy to notice there are times when the rules make a bit of a shift.

For example, the British had a terrible time accepting our version of guerilla warfare here in the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. In Europe combatants wore brightly colored clothes and didn't hide behind trees and take potshots at the sentries. We did, and the letters home the Brits wrote are most interesting reading.

Frankly, they sound quite similar to the complaints our modern military folks have about non-state actors not wearing uniforms and blending in with the civilian population.

Military historians often credit General Grant during the U.S. Civil War with inventing the concept of 'total war' -- where the civilians may not be shot at intentionally, but they are viewed as a means of supply for the enemy, and that supply is cut off.

No wonder some Southerners are still sore about Sherman's march to the sea...

 

[Booko]

It's going to take a lot to convince me that someone can accidentally blow up 260 civilians.

Seriously...What would it take?

If you live anywhere within decent distance of Atlanta, we'd be delighted to visit with you. My husband is very knowledgable about military history, and is a pacifist. I have no doubt he could explain it to you.

Failing that, maybe I could convince him to pop on RF long enough to take part in at least one thread.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Somehow civilians don't strike me as Nazis. IIRC, I said we should go after the people that perpretrate the crimes, not the civilians.

So you would have had England engage in a ground war within the borders of Germany?

 

[Booko]

It seems fairly straight forward to me: you either fight the Nazis, condone the Nazis, or seek to appease the Nazis. What alternative am I missing? What would you have suggested Churchill do?

Hm. You dislike the loss of innocent life, and quietly thank your lucky stars that you are not Churchill, who had to make the tough calls.

Frankly, I can't think of any other viable alternatives than the one Churchill took. Other than life as a doormat, anyway.

 

[Ody]

BookoYes and no. Hezbollah doesn't follow one of the time honoured rules of war, which is to identify yourself as a combatant. The Geneva conventions rather assume you do something to identify yourself, and that's to prevent civilian casualties. I find it hard to believe, on how peasant armies and other rebellions that where organized, due to a lack of capital, somehow decided amongst themselves to find a proper military uniform.

But then, the more you read up on the history of war, it's pretty easy to notice there are times when the rules make a bit of a shift.
Of course, due to the name of the game, mans ingenuity when it comes to designing devices to kill more effectivly.

For example, the British had a terrible time accepting our version of guerilla warfare here in the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. In Europe combatants wore brightly colored clothes and didn't hide behind trees and take potshots at the sentries. We did, and the letters home the Brits wrote are most interesting reading.
Didn't the Dutch employ similar tactics during the war against spain? I'm not to sure, for all I know thats foolish conjecture...

Frankly, they sound quite similar to the complaints our modern military folks have about non-state actors not wearing uniforms and blending in with the civilian population. Yep

Military historians often credit General Grant during the U.S. Civil War with inventing the concept of 'total war' -- where the civilians may not be shot at intentionally, but they are viewed as a means of supply for the enemy, and that supply is cut off.
Mongols ring a bell and Maybe thirty years war?

No wonder some Southerners are still sore about Sherman's march to the sea...
Same thing with Germany during the thirty years war and Iran after the mongolian invasion.

 

[Jaymes]

So you would have had England engage in a ground war within the borders of Germany?

I didn't live in the era of WWII (thank god), and I don't know what the options were then. I do know that I don't support the killing of civilians, no matter what the cause. It's easy to talk about having to kill civilians and there being no alternative until it's your friends and your family being killed.

 

[Booko]

While looking closely at why they feel the need for a group like Hizb'allah to protect them...

Yes, exactly!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It seems fairly straight forward to me: you either fight the Nazis, condone the Nazis, or seek to appease the Nazis. What alternative am I missing? What would you have suggested Churchill do?

Hm. You dislike the loss of innocent life, and quietly thank your lucky stars that you are not Churchill, who had to make the tough calls.

Sorry, Booko, but I see no rational connection between my comments and your response.

Frankly, I can't think of any other viable alternatives than the one Churchill took. Other than life as a doormat, anyway.

Nor can I. although I'll admit that I am no expert in the field.

 

[Booko]

I'm going based on what I've read on Wikipedia and the BBC.

It's much too early to have reliable info on numbers in Lebanon and what they mean. There isn't even agreement on how many casualties there are yet, much less whether you'd consider them civilian or not.

And in the case of Hezbollah, they have every reason to call as many as possible civilians, so their figures really can't be trusted.

This has only been going on for days now. The fog of war may be lift faster these days, but not that much faster, really.

You could look up "fog of war" on Wiki, but unfortunately they have more of a description on its application to gaming than to real war, but hey it's a start. It may or may not be of much use to look up "total war" and "collateral damage" as well. I didn't find the entry on Clausewitz to be very useful for this discussion. Too bad -- Clausewitz wrote a lot that would be relevant today.

If you're really interested, I might be able to dig up a few suggested books that deal with the subject. They might be available in the library, if you're lucky.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I didn't live in the era of WWII (thank god), and I don't know what the options were then. I do know that I don't support the killing of civilians, no matter what the cause. It's easy to talk about having to kill civilians and there being no alternative until it's your friends and your family being killed.

Yes. It is also easy to talk about not killing civillians when its only effect is to make you appear noble - which you no doubt are. But what happens when your decision has real consequences - when your refusal to act facilitates evil and death at the hands of evil?

It is far too facile to sidestep the problem by saying that you "don't know what the options were then". You apparently know enough to denounce the civilian deaths. Perhaps you have a responsibility to learn the options before taking such a position.

 

[Jaymes]

But what happens when your decision has real consequences - when your refusal to act facilitates evil and death at the hands of evil?

So to stop evil we should become evil ourselves? That doesn't make sense, becoming what we want to stop.

 

[Ezzedean]

SOUTH LEBANON/ BEKAA VALLEY: At least 65 civilians and one Hizbullah fighter were killed in a new wave of Israeli attacks against Southern and Eastern Lebanon Wednesday, raising the death toll to about 300 civilians. Twenty-one Lebanese civilians were killed and 30 others wounded in raids on the village of Srifa near the southern port city of Tyre, where 13 houses in the Najdi quarter were destroyed, security sources said.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=74105

65 civillians and one Hezbulla member.... Hizbulla are the nazis? Now I'm not saying Israel is... but I'm curious to see what kind of excuse Jayhawker is gonna come up with now...

So let's see.... 300 civillians dead in Lebanon and only 13 civillians dead in Israel.....and your calling hisbulla nazis? Jayhawker you make me laugh.

 

[Ezzedean]

I'm sorry... 15 civillians dead in israel not 13.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So to stop evil we should become evil ourselves?

Please set the emotional hyperbole aside and address the question. You maintain the pretense that doing nothing, and thereby enabling barbarism, is somehow the more noble course. Yet you bristle when confronted with the term 'appeasement'. It is the stance of one who disavows responsibility and then looks with contempt upon those who don't.


The V2s are falling on your people. You're responsible. What do you do?

 

[Booko]

BookoYes and no. Hezbollah doesn't follow one of the time honoured rules of war, which is to identify yourself as a combatant. The Geneva conventions rather assume you do something to identify yourself, and that's to prevent civilian casualties. I find it hard to believe, on how peasant armies and other rebellions that where organized, due to a lack of capital, somehow decided amongst themselves to find a proper military uniform.

You may find it as hard to believe as you like, Alan, military history is rarely about the peasants rebelling. That's what makes a figure like Spartacus so interesting -- he's unusual.

And it does not require a proper military uniform during an insurrection to determine who is insurrecting, when your entire society is built on dressing people to identify their place in society and even their job, which is precisely the case in Europe for at least a millenium.

In addition, it doesn't require grandiose costumery to identify yourself as a member of some fighting force.

For example, the people revolting in the Paris insurrection during the Fronde wore a particular feather in their hat to identify themselves. During the English Civil War, one side were called "Roundheads" because they cut their hair differently than the Cavaliers, who wore it longer. Even in the absence of clothes altogether, you could make a pretty good guess.

But then, the more you read up on the history of war, it's pretty easy to notice there are times when the rules make a bit of a shift.
Of course, due to the name of the game, mans ingenuity when it
comes to designing devices to kill more effectivly.

You could argue that casualty rates are drastically down since WW2 and Korea. Compared to Antietam, what's a few dozen guys in a few days? Compare the number killed in any WW2 battle to today, and you'll see it's a lot smaller.

Not like I'd call that an improvement. 0 would be an improvement. We do seem to be getting the idea, as a species, that warfare between nations is not the best way to solve problems. We haven't a clue, though, about how to prevent non-state actors from cropping up as they do, because we haven't figured out how not to oppress other peoples to the point where they think they have no better options than terrorism.

Military historians often credit General Grant during the U.S. Civil War with inventing the concept of 'total war' -- where the civilians may not be shot at intentionally, but they are viewed as a means of supply for the enemy, and that supply is cut off.
Mongols ring a bell and Maybe thirty years war?

No, the Mongols didn't give a rats behind if civilians died, except they thought they should keep some alive to work the land and so forth. It's not much use conquering land if you can't get any production from it.

The 30 Years War was just a bloody mess. Civilians were certainly caught up in the mess, as they always are, but not like having a bomb dropped on your town. You might be able to run from an oncoming army that's on foot. Try running from a Katyusha rocket or an aerial bombardment sometime. I think you're slower...