Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 37 of 37

Thread: Terrorist Targeting vs Military Targeting

  1. #21
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    Actually, under the logic of the times, the firebombing campaigns in Japan were justified as the only way to attack their cottage industry base. And the British made no bones about their approach to the Germans in World War II with their night bombing campaign.

    The impact of both bombing campaigns (as well as the differences between the European and Pacific campaigns) have been debated for years and will continue to be the subject of debate. Air power advocates will always claim that bombing could have won both wars, while land power advocates will disagree.


    Oh, I'm not suggesting that air power alone can win any war, unless we're willing to drop enough nukes on a country to completely eliminate it as a functioning society (which may ulitimately be necessary and should never be taken completely off the table).

    However, a relentless campaign, waged without mercy, CAN curtail a nations ability to fight back. I'm from the old school who believes the primary goal of any war is to force the other side to quit fighting first. After that, other such niceties as helping them develop a different form of government or increase economic activity, can be done in relative peace.

    Naturally, this war is a little different in that the enemy is diverse and scattered around the globe. However, we do know which nations provide funding, training, safe-havens etc, and until we end that support, by whatever means, the hydra just keeps growing more heads.

  2. #22
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by kit View Post
    We may not be doing that now, but we have in the past. There wasn't much military justification for unleashing our fire-bomb raids on Japan (unlike Germany where we attempted "pin-point" bombing of military targets), but the case could be made that such deliberate targeting of civilians went a long way toward convincing the Japanese to surrender.

    Perhaps it's a tactic we should reconsider in this war. Not in Iraq, but against those regimes we know support jihadism and oppose us, such as Iran.
    If we're going to indulge in mass murder of civilians as a method to win the global war on terror, I would suggest we use ground forces instead. Much easier to seize the vital oil and natural gas fields that way. We could also engage in the mass rape of Iranian women as we move across the countryside, thus shaming insecure Persian males and showing the world the true resolve and virility of the American fighting man. These women and any loose children could then be driven before our forces as minesweepers and IED detectors, and to soak up enemy fire as we storm the cities.

    Why not? It worked for the Mongols. No insurgency in Khurasan after they went through.

  3. #23
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tequila View Post
    If we're going to indulge in mass murder of civilians as a method to win the global war on terror, I would suggest we use ground forces instead. Much easier to seize the vital oil and natural gas fields that way. We could also engage in the mass rape of Iranian women as we move across the countryside, thus shaming insecure Persian males and showing the world the true resolve and virility of the American fighting man. These women and any loose children could then be driven before our forces as minesweepers and IED detectors, and to soak up enemy fire as we storm the cities.

    Why not? It worked for the Mongols. No insurgency in Khurasan after they went through.

    LOL Yes, I suppose we could regress to the 10th century, but I wouldn't recommend it. But, then again, that seems to be where our adversaries are!

    Seriously, the cost of doing it that way would be prohibitive. In such a scenario, ground troops would only be a follow up to secure what's left.

  4. #24
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Kit,

    Quote Originally Posted by kit View Post
    Perhaps it's a tactic we should reconsider in this war. Not in Iraq, but against those regimes we know support jihadism and oppose us, such as Iran.
    Hmm, well, I would have to totally oppose that for two reasons. First, under the prevailing moral systems in the US, this would be an atrocity. Second, it just wouldn't work.

    Let me expand on this last point a little more. Targeting civilian populations during a war "works" if and only if the vast majority of the civilians (and their leaders) that you are trying to influence are physically present. Targeting irhabi supporting countries with this type of attack, even if you managed to pull a Curtis LeMay on them and "send them back to the stone age" would not eliminate their diasporic supporters in other countries (including the US), it would only generate more supporters worldwide, including all of the anti-US factions who are also anti-irhabi.

    Furthermore, to achieve that level of destruction, you would have to use very high explosive quantities; either millions of tons of bombs or a fair number of nukes. I suspect that such a "strategy" would lead to massive civil unrest in the US, including the military. There certainly is a role for highly targeted air strikes, and we saw just that in the first Gulf War and its aftermath. Still and all, it comes down to exactly what is being targeted to achieve which specific effect.
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  5. #25
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    In addition to the moral objections, there's also the factor that a campaign like that has a tendency to serve as a focal/rallying point for future opposition. One good example (although perhaps at the extreme) would be the Nazi campaign against the Jews and other elements that they considered undesirable. The Albanians in Turkey would be another. I draw these comparisons with a purpose, since an unrestricted air campaign is really a form of standoff ethnic cleansing. I submit that such an exercise would create a firestorm of opposition in all corners, from within our own country to former allies.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  6. #26
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default There is neither a good war nor a bad peace...

    ...Any war is the war

    Hello kit and welcome to the forum !

    You may not know this, but this thread was started from, shall we say misguided interpretations regarding US Military intentions. You will more than likely meet him/her herein. You two will get along fine - It's right up your alley

    I suppose since we're right next door, we could just remove any and all ethics and morality in the decision-making process and just bomb the piss outa all of them

    That would go over real well at home, and we would no longer have to worry about support from our buds in Europe - there will no longer be any.

    I'd like to think the US Military has come a long way since WWII, and we have a strategy besides blanketing Iran in nukes.

    Regards, Stan

    Quote Originally Posted by kit View Post
    We may not be doing that now, but we have in the past. There wasn't much military justification for unleashing our fire-bomb raids on Japan (unlike Germany where we attempted "pin-point" bombing of military targets), but the case could be made that such deliberate targeting of civilians went a long way toward convincing the Japanese to surrender.

    Perhaps it's a tactic we should reconsider in this war. Not in Iraq, but against those regimes we know support jihadism and oppose us, such as Iran.

  7. #27
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default With Pitchforks and Sharpened Sticks Will They Fight..

    One rationale aside from destroying the cottage industry aspect of Japanese civilians was the fear that a massive invasion would result in civilians using any and all means to attack US forces, thus forcing our troops to kill thousands of women and kids bearing sharpened sticks. Better to fry them from the air than to shoot them on the ground was the motto in some quarters - less PTSD for sevearl hundred pilots killing from 10,000 feet than say 400,000 front line troops having to shoot women with sharpenedsticks. It was believed the Japanese military could have exerted enough influence on the Divine Emperor that he would have issued an edict commanding civilians to fight the Americans to the death when they invaded.

    It might interest Sarajevo to know that I'm researching the Tattler archives looking for the source and expose' of the American plan to carpet bomb all of Kosovo during that episode of our history. The rationale behind this secret plan that never came to fruition was this: if we carpet bombed all of Kosovo, the Serbs wouldn't have to fight there and we then in turn wouldn't have to fight them. I won't take up any posting space when I find that reference, I'll just PM it.

  8. #28
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    Hi Kit,



    Hmm, well, I would have to totally oppose that for two reasons. First, under the prevailing moral systems in the US, this would be an atrocity. Second, it just wouldn't work.

    Let me expand on this last point a little more. Targeting civilian populations during a war "works" if and only if the vast majority of the civilians (and their leaders) that you are trying to influence are physically present. Targeting irhabi supporting countries with this type of attack, even if you managed to pull a Curtis LeMay on them and "send them back to the stone age" would not eliminate their diasporic supporters in other countries (including the US), it would only generate more supporters worldwide, including all of the anti-US factions who are also anti-irhabi.

    Furthermore, to achieve that level of destruction, you would have to use very high explosive quantities; either millions of tons of bombs or a fair number of nukes. I suspect that such a "strategy" would lead to massive civil unrest in the US, including the military. There certainly is a role for highly targeted air strikes, and we saw just that in the first Gulf War and its aftermath. Still and all, it comes down to exactly what is being targeted to achieve which specific effect.

    Oh, I won't deny that adopting such a strategy now would generate some substantial opposition. Of course, it wouldn't have on Sept. 12, 2001, but why we've frittered that support away is meat for another thread.

    However, I don't think our enemies will give us the option NOT to fight a total war. That's what they are engaged in, and so long as we deny that, we leave the initiative in their hands. They can pick the time, place and conditions of fighting while we busy ourselves fighting a "morally" correct war and trying to "help" them achieve our vision for their future. To them, that's a sign of weakness which they won't fail to exploit. Worse, it will embolden other nations, and groups, who don't wish us well to align with the jihadist's, or their supporters, for their own selfish interests. Ultimately, I think we'll be forced to fight an all-out, total war, but unless we prepare for it and start it ourselves, we may very well find our hands tied by our own foolishness and have no other option than nuclear weapons. If you think shifting strategies at this point would cause cries of protest around the world, just wait until we're forced to do that or acquiese. The blowback from that is mind-boggling in it's contemplation.

    Let me expound a little so you'll understand that I'm not a blood-thirsty, "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" person. I'm not, but I think I see catastrophe looming on the horizon if we DON'T change gears and go after those nations, and people, who support and harbor jihadism. If someone is die in this war, I'd rather it be them.

    What we're involved in now is a series of small wars, different but connected. I can't think of a single small war in recent history which was a stand alone entity and neither are the ones we're fighting now in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, the Philippines and God knows where else. There is a linkage between them all and, though the individual groups we are fighting are seperate, losely affiliated (if at all) and distinct, the one common thread which unites them is islam.

    No, I don't think all of islam is the enemy and, no, I don't think we should kill them all. That WOULD be genocide and only a fool favors that. However, jihadist's swim in a sea of support or acquiesence to their presence and we can't differentiate between the "good" muslims and the "bad" muslims. We have neither the resources or the understanding to make that differentiation. THEY must make it for us or we have no alternative than to consider them all as enemies. What other choice do we have? Right now, they're not doing that, so the question is how to compel them to do so.

    Right now, our strategy is to offer them democracy and economic freedom as an alternative to, basically, islam because in the Arab world especially, islam is not a stand alone entity: it's part and parcel of the both the culture and the government and that's they way they like it. In other words, we're offering them the chance to moderate their religion in order to become acceptable to us, thereby eliminating the need to fight. I think that's foolishness of the first magnitude. How would WE feel if someone essentially demanded we Christian's "moderate" our views on Jesus Christ? Isn't that what the jihadist's are doing? Convert or die?

    Given that I think that strategy is doomed to failure, my position is that we need to commit to the other alternative: The use of extreme force in order to effect a change in behavior. After all, that's all war really is. At it's base, it's the idea that if we kill enough of them, they'll beg us to quit out of self-preservation and turn out, or over to us, any jihadist's in their midst. Fear is a greater motivator than a rational explanation of the alternatives.

    Now, let's get back to the small war scenario. All of the conflicts in which were engaged have external support. In fact, most (if not all) small wars do. During the Cold War, that support was practical and ideological and it came from the Soviet Union and/or China. No, that does not mean every revolutionary group or independence movement back then suscribed to Moscows' or Beijing's visions, but they did draw upon their resources in order to fight their respective wars.

    Today, those small wars, and warriors, draw upon the resources of Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. That does not mean, for instance, that Iran is a big fan of jihadism, but they're engaging in supporting terrorist groups as disparate as Hizbollah, Fatah, the Taliban and Al Queda in order to advance their goals. They may very well be riding the Tiger which ultimately consumes them, but for now, they're realizing the short-term goal of weakening the United States by their support and that's something we must deal with, not only to curtail Iranian ambitions, but to send a message to the rest of them that we know who's doing what and there is a horrible price to pay for it.

    If we don't, what happens? For me, I'm not afraid of the imposition of the Caliphate any time soon. That would be generations away, if at all. However, I DO fear a move against Israel once we're weakened and extended to the point that we cannot respond conventionally, leaving only the nuclear option to defend the Jewish state. That would open Pandora's Box for sure and I doubt anyone would want to see that or it's worse scenario: Israel using nukes themselves in the absence of American power.

    Having said all that, I think we need to engage Iran first, as an example of what's to come for other supporters of jihadism, and I think we need to do whatever is necessary to force the Mullah's from power. If that means killing millions of Iranians? I'm sorry, but that's better than risking the lives of billions by continuing down the path we're on now.

  9. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    4

    Default

    So I've herd some reasons why the US might wish to target civilians but how 'bout some talk on why AQ and other such groups actively do. I think it has to do with an expanded idea of 'enemy', or at least a broad contempt for the potential casualties, stemming from an elitist world-view; like the believer / infidel distinction in Islam or revolutionary vanguard / everyone else split in Marxism. The identification of them, as less than us, excuses all sorts of violence.

    But another reason could be that the group in question stands to benefit from the violence, or rather the hatred, fear and continued violence it provokes. Specifically, in Iraq violence begets more violence but the US needs Iraq pacified. This necessities the continued occupation of the country which directly accomplishes AQ goal of engaging US troops in an extended conflict.

    In short, AQ targets civilians because conflict it provokes furthers their goals while the US does not because it needs Iraq pacified to secure its goals.

    my .02
    Evan

  10. #30
    Council Member LawVol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Kabul
    Posts
    339

    Default Kit

    I am somewhat confused here. You indicated that you are not "a blood-thirsty, "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" person," but you use the term "total war" and call for, or at least allow for, the possibility of "killing millions of Iranians." I'm not following the line of thought. Perhaps you could elaborate?
    -john bellflower

    Rule of Law in Afghanistan

    "You must, therefore know that there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force; the first way is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second." -- Niccolo Machiavelli (from The Prince)

  11. #31
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    So I've herd some reasons why the US might wish to target civilians but how 'bout some talk on why AQ and other such groups actively do. I think it has to do with an expanded idea of 'enemy', or at least a broad contempt for the potential casualties, stemming from an elitist world-view; like the believer / infidel distinction in Islam or revolutionary vanguard / everyone else split in Marxism. The identification of them, as less than us, excuses all sorts of violence.

    But another reason could be that the group in question stands to benefit from the violence, or rather the hatred, fear and continued violence it provokes. Specifically, in Iraq violence begets more violence but the US needs Iraq pacified. This necessities the continued occupation of the country which directly accomplishes AQ goal of engaging US troops in an extended conflict.

    In short, AQ targets civilians because conflict it provokes furthers their goals while the US does not because it needs Iraq pacified to secure its goals.

    my .02
    Evan
    Terrorists in general tend to target civilians for a number of reasons. First, they're an easy target. No serious security means you can get in close without too much trouble. Second, it's guaranteed media exposure. That ties in with intimidating the population, which is often a goal to create a neutral operations space or to undermine will and morale. And of course there's always the point that (in my view, and especially with the top-end terrorist groups) killing becomes in its own way addictive. Once most groups start down that spiral they don't come back. The action becomes more important than the message, or becomes the message itself. Once that happens, they look for easy targets that will make a big splash. Civilians are "easy" for them and an automatic run on CNN or wherever.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  12. #32
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Kit,

    I think you are following a rather reductio ad asurdam logic here.

    Quote Originally Posted by kit View Post
    However, I don't think our enemies will give us the option NOT to fight a total war. That's what they are engaged in, and so long as we deny that, we leave the initiative in their hands.
    Actually, I agree - it is a total war, but it is primarily a symbolic battelfield.

    Quote Originally Posted by kit View Post
    Worse, it will embolden other nations, and groups, who don't wish us well to align with the jihadist's, or their supporters, for their own selfish interests. Ultimately, I think we'll be forced to fight an all-out, total war, but unless we prepare for it and start it ourselves, we may very well find our hands tied by our own foolishness and have no other option than nuclear weapons.
    Well, all nations are ultimately motivated by self interest. Using nukes? Who would you nuke? Every nation that harbours irhabi? Would that include the UK, Germany, France, Canada and the US (don't forget that AQ sympathizers exist in all of those nations)?

    Quote Originally Posted by kit View Post
    No, I don't think all of islam is the enemy and, no, I don't think we should kill them all. That WOULD be genocide and only a fool favors that. However, jihadist's swim in a sea of support or acquiesence to their presence and we can't differentiate between the "good" muslims and the "bad" muslims. We have neither the resources or the understanding to make that differentiation. THEY must make it for us or we have no alternative than to consider them all as enemies. What other choice do we have? Right now, they're not doing that, so the question is how to compel them to do so.
    Isn't this a type of "I can't tell you apart, so you do it or I'll kill you all" sort of logic? If you don't have the understanding to make the differentiation, then get it, it's not too hard .

    Quote Originally Posted by kit View Post
    Right now, our strategy is to offer them democracy and economic freedom as an alternative to, basically, islam because in the Arab world especially, islam is not a stand alone entity: it's part and parcel of the both the culture and the government and that's they way they like it. In other words, we're offering them the chance to moderate their religion in order to become acceptable to us, thereby eliminating the need to fight. I think that's foolishness of the first magnitude. How would WE feel if someone essentially demanded we Christian's "moderate" our views on Jesus Christ? Isn't that what the jihadist's are doing? Convert or die?
    So, are you basically telling "them" to convert or die and, since you are unlikely to convert, we'll just go ahead and kill you?

    As to how "we" would feel, that all depends on who you mean by "we" - and, given the level of insanity of some radical Christian groups, like the Theonomists, I certainly see nothing wrong with saying "moderate or else". Moderation is one of the bases of civil society.

    Quote Originally Posted by kit View Post
    Given that I think that strategy is doomed to failure, my position is that we need to commit to the other alternative: The use of extreme force in order to effect a change in behavior.
    Kit, that is exactly the same logic that AQ is using.

    Quote Originally Posted by kit View Post
    Now, let's get back to the small war scenario. All of the conflicts in which were engaged have external support. In fact, most (if not all) small wars do. During the Cold War, that support was practical and ideological and it came from the Soviet Union and/or China.
    You left out the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by kit View Post
    Today, those small wars, and warriors, draw upon the resources of Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.... They may very well be riding the Tiger which ultimately consumes them, but for now, they're realizing the short-term goal of weakening the United States by their support and that's something we must deal with, not only to curtail Iranian ambitions, but to send a message to the rest of them that we know who's doing what and there is a horrible price to pay for it.
    Would you nuke Marin County, California because they produced a Taliban fighter?

    Quote Originally Posted by kit View Post
    Having said all that, I think we need to engage Iran first, as an example of what's to come for other supporters of jihadism, and I think we need to do whatever is necessary to force the Mullah's from power. If that means killing millions of Iranians? I'm sorry, but that's better than risking the lives of billions by continuing down the path we're on now.
    Honestly, I think that this is a totally crazy type of logic. I can understand the fear that lies behind it, but one of the things that is blindingly obvious from a study of history is that the groups that follow this logic are destroyed because they create more enemies than they can defend against. It was the use of this type of logic that led to the "awakening" in Al Anbar that has pretty much whiped out AQI there.

    Imposing your own brand of tyranny upon a conquered people is as ethically repugnant, to me at least, as the imposition of AQs brand of tyranny, and that is where your logic will inevitably lead you - back to that "convert or die" position.
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  13. #33
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kit View Post
    No, I don't think all of islam is the enemy and, no, I don't think we should kill them all. That WOULD be genocide and only a fool favors that. However, jihadist's swim in a sea of support or acquiesence to their presence and we can't differentiate between the "good" muslims and the "bad" muslims. We have neither the resources or the understanding to make that differentiation.
    We don't ?? How about talking to them? Isn't that a good resource?
    How can you even suggest we don't have the understanding? Facts are against you. There's quite a few Middle Eastern experts on this board alone, let alone all those in miltary and civilian agencies and organizations throughout the world.
    Last edited by skiguy; 08-31-2007 at 09:34 PM.

  14. #34
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kit View Post
    In other words, we're offering them the chance to moderate their religion in order to become acceptable to us, thereby eliminating the need to fight. I think that's foolishness of the first magnitude. How would WE feel if someone essentially demanded we Christian's "moderate" our views on Jesus Christ? Isn't that what the jihadist's are doing? Convert or die?
    No one's demanding they give up practicing Islam, neither do I have to "moderate" my belief that Jesus Christ is God in order to work with Muslims...even devout Muslims

    From the discussion it became clear that, although in some cases the faith identity of an NGO may create obstacles to involvement in zones of religious conflict (for instance a Christian NGO working in Northern Sudan), an NGO’s religious orientation more often opens doors because the re are sister religious organizations with whom it can collaborate. Almost all faith-based NGOs serve people without regard to their religious affiliations and most faith-based NGOs also recruit staff from a variety of religious backgrounds.
    The Plowshares approach elicits often forgotten traditional community consensus -building processes. It also builds skills in listening, problem analysis, and problem solving, making use of local cultural resources and focusing on local problems in case study format. In multi-faith contexts the trainers use sacred texts; Muslim, Jewish, and Christian participants work collaboratively on the Koran, the Hebrew scripture, and the New Testament. In these situations, the spiritual dimension is central to the training process. The overarching purpose is to promote empowerment and recognition of the worth of those considered to be the enemy, as well as equipping the participants to solve their own problems.
    From USIP
    Faith-based NGO's and International Peacebuilding

  15. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Radical movements often distill into a political wing and an action wing and observe a strict division of labor on those lines. In this instance the political guys in the mosques and madrasas spread the message "New Pan-Islamic Caliphate" and "reject assimilation into the US empire". The guys bombing Iraq's markets are action guys, carnage is not the message it's a means to an end. Although notice in the media is an ego-booster and bombings are intimidating I think their mission is to spread conflict. Spreading the message is not their mission; and neither is intimidating the people both of which are better accomplished with other means: spokesmen and police, respectively.

    I think it's a mistake to attribute their actions to narcissism or undisciplined prosecution of their mission.

  16. #36
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Radical movements often distill into a political wing and an action wing and observe a strict division of labor on those lines. In this instance the political guys in the mosques and madrasas spread the message "New Pan-Islamic Caliphate" and "reject assimilation into the US empire". The guys bombing Iraq's markets are action guys, carnage is not the message it's a means to an end. Although notice in the media is an ego-booster and bombings are intimidating I think their mission is to spread conflict. Spreading the message is not their mission; and neither is intimidating the people both of which are better accomplished with other means: spokesmen and police, respectively.

    I think it's a mistake to attribute their actions to narcissism or undisciplined prosecution of their mission.
    You'll also notice that over time the political wing tends to lose control of the action wing, or the action wing divides into even more radical sub-groups that pay little attention to the political wing (look at the cases of the IRA and PLO, as well as the multitudes of European terrorist groups for some examples).

    While this doesn't always happen, I think it's likewise a mistake to assume that the action wings are always under control of another wing or outside body. Sometimes this is the case, but as movements grow and expand - and the cycle of violence spins deeper - such control is often more theoretical than real. You will also see sub-groups "pilot-fishing" with more legitimate groups: wrapping themselves in the political rhetoric when it suits them but not really paying attention to any goal other than their own.

    The political wings may often use these sub-groups (directly or indirectly), but in the end they often have very little or no control over them. Some groups are well-organized and disciplined as you suggest, but it's a mistake to assume that they all are.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  17. #37
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default targeting civilians

    I think we need to disaggregate the question of "targeting civilians" a bit.

    First, there is the question of "targeting" -- who is the group (insurgent or government) trying to kill, and why? Are they attempting to demonstrate the ability of the other side to maintain public order, and hence contribute to a sense of growing insecurity? Are they trying to coerce groups into supporting them? Are they trying to force populations to flee, in a campaign of ethnic cleansing? Are they trying to grab headlines?

    Second, do they see "civilians" as civilians? Al-Qaida argues that since voters in Western democracies support Western foreign policies, they are fair game. Hamas sometimes argues that since Israel has conscription, every adult is a potential soldier. Most Palestinians in the occupied territories would see an armed settler as a combatant, whether they were members of the IDF or not. In 1948, some Israeli troops forcibly displaced Palestinian civilians in order to establish a Jewish majority in the new Israeli state. Radicals on all sides often see the civilian population as the fundamental source of the enemy's military power ("if we leave them alive they'll just have more babies, who will grow up to fight us"). Such logic underpinned the Rwandan genocide, among others. Young and adult males are often at particular risk of being seen as potential combatants, hence the Serbian militia massacre of Bosnian male civilians at Srebrenica.

    IHL may have definitions on who is a civilian, which most of us probably share, but these are distorted in wartime, when political leaders and popular sentiment paints the "other" as subhuman or evil.

    Third, how much discrimination is devoted to, and possible, in targeting? How much collateral damage is acceptable? The neo-Taliban clearly regard fellow Afghans and Muslims as "acceptable" collateral damage in IED attacks in Afghanistan--much as we accepted tens of thousands of French deaths from allied military action as acceptable collateral damage during the liberation of France during WWII. Contemporary US or NATO efforts (and I agree, they're usually strenuous) to keep civilian casualties down have grown both with normative/attitudinal changes in recent decades, and the technology to make more discriminate targeting possible.

    Fourth, who targets? It was correctly pointed out that militant groups may split between political and armed wings, and between moderates and radicals (often, but certainly not always, synonymous with the former). However, it would be a mistake to assume that most targets are carefully chosen by a thoughtful insurgent leadership and implemented by a disciplined military cadre. This might be true of some (the IRA, say), but in other cases its up to the local initiative of young field commanders/thugs (such as pretty much every war in West Africa). In the West Bank, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades cells often consist of a few guys in a coffee shop with more grievances and testosterone than political sense.

    Finally, how does this all work out on the grand moral balance (and I would like to think that's worth thinking about, and not simply issues of operational effectiveness)? I've often heard members of armed radical groups lampoon the West for criticizing suicide bombings despite our willingness, through almost half a century of the Cold War, to hold hundreds of millions of civilians directly or indirectly hostage to East-West nuclear deterrence. (Yes, I know that we switched to counterforce rather than countervalue targeting, but given the number of military "targets" near civilian population centres, and the probably effects of fallout and a nuclear winter, it pretty much amounted to the same thing in the event of a full nuclear exchange).

    Incidentally, in 1999 the International Committee of the Red Cross commissioned a series of global polls (in 12 war-torn countries, and five others) on "who is a civilian," and other questions of international humanitarian law. The report, entitled People on War, is a fascinating read and can be found here.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •