Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
This complex of issues has little to do with bevies of lawyers. It has a great deal to do with Command Responsibility and Responsible Command. What do others feel about these issues ?
I suspect it has as much to do with personal risk aversion and personnel risk aversion.

By this, I mean we tend to use stand off weaponry to lessen the risk of having to put troops in direct combat (personnel risk aversion). However, when we are required, for whatever reason, to get up close and personnel with enemy combatants, we must take significant personal risk to protect those who have not given up their privilege not to be killed without good reason (the innocent civilians). Commanders should have high levels of personnel risk aversion and so tend to use stand off weapons. Since using these kinds of weapons reduces the risk to the troops, folks are probably more likely to look the other way when collateral damage (not the kind excusable under the doctrine of double effect by the way) occurs. When troops do have to get involved directly, the personnel risk aversion is still there and is compounded by personal risk aversion. But, to outsiders, personal risk aversion is not permissible; for them a "you knew the job was dangerous when you took it" attitude prevails. Thus, collateral damage that occurs as a result of limiting personal risk (I'll just pick off the guy on the motorcycle from here rather than put myself at more risk by getting close enough to a see if he is armed) is just not as acceptable.

BTW dealing with personnel risk aversion instantiates aspects of both Command Responsibility and Responsible Command while personal risk aversion relates almost exclusively to Command Responsibility in my view.