Killing Civilians is No Way to Win a War

by Daniel J Gerstle · 2010-02-16 13:25:00 UTC
Topics:

The greatest means to ensure the safety of civilians and the reduction of tension is not to go to war in the first place. But what if turning the cheek leads to the aggressor murdering scores of civilians, and the only way to prevent it is to take action which may also kill civilians? No-win scenario? Complicated business.

Fortunately, organizations like Oxfam-GB and CIVIC have done a tremendous job holding the NATO military specifically accountable for reducing the numbers of civilians killed in war as long as they're going to war anyway. And General Stanley McChrystal has finally made it a priority to reduce civilian casualties as part of NATO strategy.

Nevertheless, the news reports, "Stray bomb kills 12 civilians." Here's the same story on Yahoo and the NY Times. Better to hold in place and refrain from fighting, or to take chances with accidentally hitting the wrong people?

For a long time, people active in politics and foreign affairs have been entrenched on one side or another.  War is Hell, and sloppy, says one side. And avoid war at all costs, says the other. In recent wars, the peace message has begun to seep into the mindset of the war hawks primarily because they finally realized that reducing civilian casualties is not only helpful for humanity but also helpful for reducing the reasons many insurgents attack them.

True, the real challenge is protecting humanity from the scourge of war as a whole, and reminding each other how precious human life is. But when military commanders and soldiers living in a very complicated situation hope to simplify in order to survive, the strategy argument gets the most traction.

If peace activists wish to help reduce civilian casualties, the movement may achieve greater changes by aligning their aims temporarily beside those who have power over the policy as a first step. I think the analogy is, it's easier to get a wolf to stop eating your chickens, if you meet him by the chicken house.

In other words, many soldiers would probably agree with a peace activist that they should avoid civilian casualties at all cost, even if they don't agree with the reduction in military spending and action. But when they are in the heat of battle, simply trying to stay alive, they're more than likely only going to make choices that appear to lead to their buddies and themselves getting out alive.

Photo credit: U.S. Army

Daniel J Gerstle is a journalist, human rights researcher, and humanitarian aid consultant. He is Editor and Chief Correspondent for HELO: The Crisis Story Magazine.
PREVIOUS STORY:
How Many Times Does Kofi Annan Have to Fix Kenya?
NEXT STORY:
A letter from Bettina Siegel, "Pink Slime" petition creator

COMMENTS (1)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.