collateral damage and historical memory

[William F. Owen]

Wilf,

I will continue to disagree with your final point because what you say before it is true.

Killing civilians does have political effect and in a counter-inurgency campaign where securing the population is the objective, the use of the term collateral damage is self-defeating. Civilian deaths are not collateral, they are friendly.

You make a good point Tom, which is why the qualifier Military Necessity is extremely important. The art of command must include balancing risk versus reward, and thus judgements about the necessity of certain actions.

[Bob's World]

It all boils down to the type of war one is in, the perspective of the populace being killed, and who is doing the killing.

Most populaces don't like being killed by some invader.
Most populaces don't like being killed by their own government.
Most populaces don't like being killed by some other government in support of their own goverment.

Most populaces will tolerate being killed by their government or those who help their government in order to remove an invader or some greater evil (as measured from their perspective, not anyone elses).

Often populaces must be targeted directly as a supporting effort to breaking the will of a nation waging a state-based war against your state. (#### happens, you started it, and you must KNOW you are defeated when this is truly over so you don't start it again as soon as you can breed, raise and train a new army).

There is no situation that the US is currently involved in where civilian casualites (though sadly unavoidable) are anything but detrimental to the ends we are seeking. Sometimes this means not taking a shot, as the potential tactical gain just isn't worth the potential strategic loss.

[Billy Ruffian]

You make a good point Tom, which is why the qualifier Military Necessity is extremely important. The art of command must include balancing risk versus reward, and thus judgements about the necessity of certain actions.

I take that attitude myself.

I'm not a soldier, but I have observed that defending forces, especially ones that defend a system that is unjust, will make no effort to give battle away from centres of population, if not deliberately placing assets among non-combatants, in order to alienate these non-combatants from those who are trying to liberate them.

It's what I would do if I were in charge of the propaganda machine. Regrettably, it seems to come down to which side is best at saying and demonstrating 'It sucks now, but if the other side wins it will be worse. So if you're willing to work with us, the sooner we can all go back to a safe and lawful community.'

I have no wish to be impolite, and I will try to say this in such a way as to accurately reflect my thoughts, but being trained and disciplined by the military doesn't necessarily make someone a good person or guarantee lawful/good behaviour. However, I do believe that it is a good way to inculcate those values in most individuals.