Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
if wounds are reopened or scabs are ripped off. I'm good at doing both.

Secondly, my point, apparently lost in the shuffle, was the difference between (1) targeting civilians with no strategic (military) target involved; and (2) targeting strategic (military) targets where civilians are proximate and are hit (killed or wounded) by the strike. A legal distinction clearly exists between the two situations even though the same number of civilians are casualties.

The multiple Korean incidents you link did involve a real military problem: that of combatants mixed in or controlling civilians for purposes of infiltration - or, in the case of an attack, using them as classic "human shields. How big a problem you perceive that to be, and what measures you take, will depend on your resources available and your views on military necessity and proportionality.

Along the same lines, you have situations like blowing bridges where combatants are mixed with refugees. Or a village where combatants are spread throughout. All of these are variations on the basic theme of combatants and civilians mixed together.

COL Rogers of the memo was a bit confused as to terminology - "large groups of civilians, either composed of or controlled by North Korean soldiers, are infiltrating U.S. positions." If the infiltrators were North Korean soldiers or controlled by North Korean soldiers, they were not "civilians", but combatants or persons acting in aid of combatants (perhaps involuntarily).

A worthwhile topic for discussion because the problem has not gone away since Korea.

Regards

Mike
I suggest that we just accept that over the years since 1945 much has changed is what is perceived to be acceptable and what not when it comes to fighting a war any war... unless you are an insurgent that is (they can do anything).

This thread has traced the legal minefield that soldiers face when they enter the battlefield, in most cases from those supposedly on their own side.

Could we have prepared our soldiers better in this regard?

Did we deal with any and/or all reports/evidence of possible breaches?

What did we learn from these experiences that we carried forward to the next battle or the next war?

How do we train/select soldiers in the 18-19 year old bracket and beyond to prevent a spark which may lead to shooting frenzy which may lead to a bloodbath involving non-combatants?

My level was and my concern remains at the infantry combat interface. I am sad to say that the aerial bombing since 1911 to date continues to result in large numbers of civilian casualties.

Individual or small groups of soldiers are being prosecuted for the deaths of small numbers of civilians in what we used to call "caught in the crossfire" but how many planners of pilots have been so charged?