Terrorist Targeting vs Military Targeting

[marct]

Hi Ryan,

Don't believe everything you read. From within the system, it's taken very seriously.

There's an interesting problem that is running around in the infosphere - Americans are judged on a different scale. As a case in pint, I have been following the stories about friendly fire incidents that killed Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. If we look at the first example, there is damnably clear evidence that it was not the pilots fault - it was a system screw up, but they got blamed (and penalized) for it. I think I can speak for most Canadians when I say we were frakin' PO'd when it happened and, on the whole, frustrated with the outcome.

As a nation, we recognize that "Sierra happens" - as the saying goes. I think a lot of us were POd when we say the pilots used as, in our perception, scapegoats for a systemic failure.

I Think what Sarajevo 071 is getting at is the perception rather than a logical examination of the problem. Does "collateral damage" happen? Sure. Is it on purpose? Rarely. Most importantly, how is this type of damage spun in the various press agencies and media outlets?

Logically, someone who is "at fault" for killing civilians, but does so in ignorance and as a result of a systemic screwup is, under Western codes of honour, morality and law, not guilty. They get a slap on the wrist, but that is more of a CYA for the system. Under bother codes, regardless of their intention, they owe a blood debt which must be met. What I would like to see is a recognition of this blood debt and some form of culturally appropriate "payment". I'll point out that the pilots who killed 4 Canadians did this - our blutgelt was an apology and talking with the family.

[RTK]

Hi Ryan,



There's an interesting problem that is running around in the infosphere - Americans are judged on a different scale. As a case in pint, I have been following the stories about friendly fire incidents that killed Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. If we look at the first example, there is damnably clear evidence that it was not the pilots fault - it was a system screw up, but they got blamed (and penalized) for it. I think I can speak for most Canadians when I say we were frakin' PO'd when it happened and, on the whole, frustrated with the outcome.

As a nation, we recognize that "Sierra happens" - as the saying goes. I think a lot of us were POd when we say the pilots used as, in our perception, scapegoats for a systemic failure.

I Think what Sarajevo 071 is getting at is the perception rather than a logical examination of the problem. Does "collateral damage" happen? Sure. Is it on purpose? Rarely. Most importantly, how is this type of damage spun in the various press agencies and media outlets?

Logically, someone who is "at fault" for killing civilians, but does so in ignorance and as a result of a systemic screwup is, under Western codes of honour, morality and law, not guilty. They get a slap on the wrist, but that is more of a CYA for the system. Under bother codes, regardless of their intention, they owe a blood debt which must be met. What I would like to see is a recognition of this blood debt and some form of culturally appropriate "payment". I'll point out that the pilots who killed 4 Canadians did this - our blutgelt was an apology and talking with the family.

Marc:

Excellent point. And you're both right. Here's my point. If A and B, then C.

Humans run the system. Humans will never be perfect. Therefore, the system will never be perfect.

[marct]

Hi Ryan,

Humans run the system. Humans will never be perfect. Therefore, the system will never be perfect.

Totally agree with that. I think what is important here is two things. First, the attempt to restrict collateral damage based on principles. Second, the communication of those principles. And, if we want to start tossing around "baby-killer" epithets, we should see them aimed those whose "principles" follow the line of better dead than unbelievers.

[Evan]

I'm reminded of the principal of strict liability, that should you deal with inherently dangerous things, like explosives, if anything bad happens, it's your fault; even if it wasn't your fault, it's still your fault. Granted, as solderers a friendly government will indemnify you of any criminal liability, absent negligence, but real people have been badly hurt and it's still you fault. Tellingly, your employer is civilly liable for the damages.

I've always thought the broader application of strict liability was one of the more charming aspects of military jurisprudence and I'm rather disappointed to hear commenters abandon it in favour of a 'responsible system'.

Respectfully,
Evan

[marct]

Hi Evan,

I'm reminded of the principal of strict liability, that should you deal with inherently dangerous things, like explosives, if anything bad happens, it's your fault; even if it wasn't your fault, it's still your fault.

A good point. One of the things that has come out over 100 years or so of Anthropological research is how (and where and when) "strict liability" can be applied. In general, it seems that it can only be applied when a particular skill set is considered to be "normal technology", i.e. skills that every "normal" person should have (actually, it varies by classification of person, e.g. child, adult, elder, etc.).

"Professionals", however they may be defined, enjoy their "professional" status in part because the skill sets they claim are "not normal" - they are "inherently" "dangerous" (i.e. on the boundaries of the normal as it moves into the unknown. This is one of the reasons why, in almost all cultures, "professionals" set their own standards for what is "normal" for the "profession" and, hence, falls under "strict liability".

That, of course, is pretty much a generalization. When we get to the point where "even if it wasn't your fault, it's still your fault", we are dealing with a form of social (or cultural, but usually social) pathology - i.e. the application of a standard from one context ("normal") onto another context ("not-normal"). In the case you mention, explosives, I would have to say that if you are a "professional" in the area, then you should only be held to strict liability for the normal for the profession. If you are an amateur, you should be held liable for breaching the professional skill set.

The case becomes trickier when we are dealing with a system - who is held to strict liability? Was the system itself flawed or were the people within the system breaching its normal operations? My favorite exemplar of this problem is "the operation was a success but the patient died". Situations like this require an examination of both the actions of individuals within the system and of the system itself.

In the case of the friendly fire incident I was mentioning earlier, most Canadians perceived the system to be at fault, but saw the pilots as being held accountable - a clear case of "scapegoating" (loading the "sins" of the group on the heads of a few people).

Marc

[RTK]

I know you will blow me off and this cases with some justifications and excuse but just because you don't give a flying hoot for thousands dead and maimed Iraqi or Afghani Muslims, someone do....It is wrong by every standard (!) and it sending wrong message that your enemy will get, record, remember and used against you. By your reasoning, seams to me, you have no problem with civilian deaths (not just "collateral damage" but victims of murder, rape and other crimes) as long you give some money to pay off "blood debt"...

I gave you the benefit of the doubt up until this point. You've successfully pissed me off now.

Don't think for a second I blow this off. You don't know me. You've never been in my command. You don't know my Soldiers. So don't even let it enter your mind that I have "no problem" with civilian deaths. I've been to my share of wakes and funerals in Iraq for Iraqis; Sunnis, Shias, Turkomans, Yzidis, and Kurds. For God's sake, I was agreeing with you. In typical Sarajevo07 fashion, however, you took it a step too far with this post.

It isn't just about me either. Your anger towards, resentment of, and jaded view of the American Soldier, however well perceived in your own mind, is misguided.

You've gone over the top once more.