The United States, which periodically lectures to developing Third World nations about protecting human rights, rule of law, good governance and high moral standards, annually issuing ‘human rights practices’ of other countries, cannot restrain its own Special Operations forces stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan from indiscriminately killing innocent civilians.
The worst is that U.S. authorities blatantly lie about these atrocities and war crimes by twisting the story to read that ‘insurgents’ were killed in a confrontation.
This week, the United States, the foremost advocator to the Globe on human rights and rule of law while accusing other nations of committing genocide, war crimes and other atrocities, was exposed how U.S. Special Operations forces killed an innocent family in Afghanistan last February and another civilian massacre in Iraq in 2007.
U.S. war crimes-atrocities in Iraq/Afghanistan exposed: Attempted cover-up foiled | Asian Tribune
You raise some complex issues that extend well beyond the scope of this thread. I'll provide my personal opinion, but keep it brief.
1. There is a difference between deliberately targeting civilian objectives and accidentally hitting them. That's one distinction and it's vital. One should be careful to avoid drawing false equivalences e.g., as were drawn during the intifada of terrorism unleashed against Israel. At the same time, it should be noted that there have been elements of U.S. forces that have engaged in what properly can be termed war crimes. One such suspect responsible for a massacre in Afghanistan was recently convicted in the U.S. That he was tried and convicted indicates that the U.S. is making efforts to deal with these problems. One can't say the same about every country.
2. When carrying out military strikes, one has to be careful to ensure that the expected harm to civilians is not excessive relative to the military advantage expected to be attained. Where there is doubt or where an reasonable assessment can't be made, there should be no strike. Like any forecasting exercise and any act of human judgment, expectations can prove off the mark. Accidents can also occur. Other unforeseen scenarios can unfold.
What I would like to see is much greater review of operations to compare outcomes with expectations. Based on the empirical evidence, if harm to civilians is consistently excessive in cases or greater than expectations, adjustments to the decision making process should be made. Adjustments could include limiting certain kinds of targets, seeking greater information prior to targeting, using different approaches to implement military operations in certain cases, and building in more realistic assumptions to guide decision making. The reviews need to occur on a continual basis.
It is not illegitimate for foreign nations, partners, even the U.S. government to continually ask whether the U.S. could do better. With a robust review process, it probably is not unreasonable to expect improvements. Such improvements could only reduce the incidence of the issues in question, foster fewer unfavorable perceptions, and increase the likelihood of the U.S. meeting its larger goals.
3. In the larger foreign policy framework, the U.S., like any country, can't be expected not to articulate its ideals, including those related to human rights. However, it should be careful not to be overbearing, as that can only result in others' exploiting its own shortcomings when they invariably arise. It is also unrealistic for one to expect every country to embrace a liberal, democratic system as exists in the U.S., Western Europe, parts of Asia, etc. Homegrown factors be they sectarian rivalries, historic experience (especially recent experience), institutional/legal frameworks, etc., create different structural environments, some of which are quite hostile to sustainable democratic governance.
4. The U.S. should remain willing to cooperate with other states in areas of common interest, even those with different political systems than the U.S. Avoiding excessive idealism can allow the U.S. to find more of the common ground that exists and to achieve more successful foreign policy outcomes. In turn, that can amplify its diplomatic capacities and reduce the need for it to resort to hard power. As is the case with any other state, the U.S. needs to respect the critical interests of other states to the extent possible in pursuing realistic foreign policy goals. Occasionally, interests will diverge, and the U.S. cannot be expected to abandon its critical interests nor its strategic allies. Its the defense of those allies and interests that can make the use of force necessary. The sectarian conflict in Syria and recent civil war in Libya do not rise to that threshold. I believe the use of force in the former would be an error inconsistent with American interests. I believe the latter was a mistake and it has led to unintended consequences without materially benefiting American interests or strategic allies. In contrast, a deliberate attack on Jordan or Israel, as two examples, would rise to that level where, if necessary, the use of force would be justified.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on what are really some complex issues, both in substance and perception.