Civilian Casualties, Religion, and COIN Operations

[William F. Owen]

Sometimes, you and I are much closer than would appear . I have a real problem with the wooly socio-cultural agendas as well, both because they are driven by poor social science and because they stem from a particular cultural position.

Was never aware that we were not that close!

Here I have to partly disagree with you, Wilf, although I do agree with the "should". Historically, warfare is about the prcise application of force designed to break the enemy's will to resist and sometimes that means the complete destruction of the enemy's society (Carthage, Assyria, NAZI Germany, Koisan, etc.).

I was/am only talking about Irregular warfare, where the population concerned is either your own or the one which you want to defer to the Governments authority. Not killing them and taking a lot of care not to, is probably wise. It's a political choice, not a moral one.
When it comes to the population of an actual, or de-facto enemy state, you should do everything to break the enemies will. You should not target civilians, but you should not let civilians prevent you from destroying legitimate targets.

[marct]

Hi Wilf,

I was/am only talking about Irregular warfare, where the population concerned is either your own or the one which you want to defer to the Governments authority. Not killing them and taking a lot of care not to, is probably wise. It's a political choice, not a moral one.
When it comes to the population of an actual, or de-facto enemy state, you should do everything to break the enemies will. You should not target civilians, but you should not let civilians prevent you from destroying legitimate targets.

Just out of interest, where would you draw the zone (or line) between an insurgency and a de facto enemy "state"? I suspect that we would both agree that Hezbollah is a de facto state, but what about, say, Deseret, the 2nd Riel Rebellion or the Bar Kochba Revolt?

[William F. Owen]

Just out of interest, where would you draw the zone (or line) between an insurgency and a de facto enemy "state"? I suspect that we would both agree that Hezbollah is a de facto state, but what about, say, Deseret, the 2nd Riel Rebellion or the Bar Kochba Revolt?

Well obvioulsy I draw the line with regard to the political objective my military action is seeking to achieve!!

...but seriously. That's basically it, and it depends whose view is used. The question is really, how do you want to influence the civilians, in regard to the political outcome? Do you even care? Is it your people rejecting your authority or some one else's people rejecting your authority?

In Iraq, and A'Stan, you/we want them to support a Government acceptable to the wider international community, so the aim is to destroy any other entity capable of presenting a political alternative - which is why I don't care what the populations wants. It's irrelevant to the outcome we/you are forcing upon them.