It has been suggested that our troops protect themselves by disregarding or otherwise being cavalier about the safety of Afghani civilians.This whole thread has nothing to do with targetting, or otherwise intentionall endangering civilians.
I find that no more acceptable than if they were working here domestically and considered some level of civilian casualties sort of par for the course.
Civilians are civilians; they're innocent. They're people. They're just as worthwhile as you, me, or a United States soldier.
Protecting them from harm should be a higher priority than killing a bad guy.
Sometimes, yeah. Other times, that can't be the case.Protecting them from harm should be a higher priority than killing a bad guy.
Our soldiers are innocent, too and their welfare should take priority over anyone and come second only to mission accomplishment.
Our soldiers are toting lethal weapons- which they have been fully trained to use- into somebody else's country; one of their objectives there is to kill bad guys.Our soldiers are innocent, too ...
Our soldiers may well be honorable. But no, they are not 'innocent'.
Not like a 5-year-old civilian is "innocent".
They signed up for this risk, unlike Afghani civilians, who have no choice and no possibility of removing themselves (or their children or elderly) from the danger.
Last edited by 1069; 09-20-09 at 12:00 PM.
A military man's job and duty is to kill the enemy and survive to continue killing. Your American military has defied this basic and generic definition. Your American military has painstakingly moved mountains to avoid killing innocent civilians. It places individuals "behind enemy lines" to paint target for precision air strikes to not only ensure accuracy for the kill, but to avoid mass civilian casualties from simple barrages. It seeks greater precision in technology to, which involves thousands of hours of training all for that little civilian that either protects our enemy or simply ahppens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The American war machine stands apart from almost every military example in history in this respect. Instead of the Hiroshimas and the Dresdens of World War II that ensured unconditional victory, we see our troops facing almost certain death repeatedly just to avoid the stigma of killing civilians. (The irony here is that in regards to humanity, the devistating attacks of old did far more to safe guard civilians thereafter. Today, we merely string out the slaughter with the notion that this is better.)
But when our military is in a situation where they can kill bad guys that are at the moment striking at them, then they have a duty to survive. This means calling in arty or an airstrike. It means sending in a rocket where a civilians may be protecting the enemy or being used as a shield. Precision is still employed. Even our artillery has grown into a fine art. But civilians will die in war even when Americans are pulling the triggers.
And as far as protecting them....the Dresdens and Hiroshimas brought longer lasting peace for civilians than the Fallujahs. In the medias quest to shed crocodile tears over civilians in a war and the average citizen who can't fathom what war is (but quick to send in the troops to exact his revenge), they have made the slaughter last. Iraq was inhumane because the politicians thought that people would complain about how inhumane "martial law" is. Fallujah I was called off literally neighborhoods from victory because politicians wanted the pressure fropm the media and the average citizen to go away. Al-Sadr's position in a Mosque in Najaaf was left untouched because politicians were watching the drama unfold in front of news cameras...and so were their voters. But here is the problem. The leftist and the rest of the international dimwits got what they wanted. From their ignorance of what war is and their quest to be the criticizer of military efforts was born years of civil unrest, Fallujah II, and Al-Sadr's militias. What was more inhumane? The military's wisdom to conduct wars correctly or the civilian's theory on how war should be conducted in accordance to classroom academics?
Your ideas of what war is and how it should be conducted defies reality.
Last edited by MSgt; 09-20-09 at 12:07 PM.
What? But I thought they were "innocent".A military man's job and duty is to kill the enemy and survive to continue killing.
Get your story straight, y'all.
They're just guys doing a job. Their job involves killing some dangerous people.
They can minimize civilian casualties as much as humanly possible while doing that job, and that's what I and all other reasonable Americans expect them to do.
All the tough talk in the world doesn't change it.
And this is exactly what they do. Our military does this better than any other military in history. Your complaining is based on theory and academics. Everytime a civilain dies you look to criticize as if the civilians were lined up and shot. As if precautions aren't in place.
If your son is ever in this position I hope he does his job and comes home to you. This means sacrificing the "innocent" civilian to get the enemy shooting at him before sacrificing himself.
The theories of the classroom quickly go away for the man actively tossed in the fire.
I can't help turning it around and thinking, what if there were some American bad guys hiding here in America?
What if these bad guys had gone and committed some offense against Afghanistan: blown up a government building over there eight years ago, and now they're hiding out somewhere in the Rocky Mountains or something.
Would it really be okay with us if a huge army of Afghanis (for the sake of this analogy, just pretend they have a huge, powerful army) occupied our country for eight years in an attempt to root these bad Americans out and kill them?
And, assuming for the sake of argument that it was okay with us and that we in fact supported their efforts, would it be okay if they sometimes blew up bingo halls full of old ladies or mowed down groups of schoolchildren in school crosswalks, in their effort to get these bad guys?
They're people; we're people.
Our cultures are different, but I don't believe- at the bottom of it all- that anybody's that different from anybody else.
Last edited by 1069; 09-20-09 at 12:46 PM.