|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-09 06:34:00
I think there is a problem, and its very difficult to see which one is right... There will always be civilian deaths in a war, a 'clean' war does not exist... Those who say clean wars exist are idealists. The goal is to make sure there are the least deaths as possible...
Now put yourself in the place of a general(? - the military boss whatever they call him)... You have several options:
1) Classical war, with air support when attacking clearly defined ennemies (the front). This is the longest route, and may cause the most deaths on both sides of the conflict (albeit mostly military).
2a) Air patrols, guided by Special Forces which act on intelligence reports to try to kill (or disable) all leaders and command and control to shorten the war. The intelligence reports might not all be true, so sometimes they bomb someplaces where they should not. There can be civilian deaths here.
2b) Pilots of aircraft can decide to engage and destroy any target that seem reasonable they see without any clear and real picture of the target. Here there can be civilian deaths.
I think the Americans did #2a and #2b in Afghanistan, while leaving the ground assault for special Forces and Northern Alliance soldiers.
The Americans are currently using all three options in the Iraq war.
In all cases, as a General , i would have some serious reservations about option #2b (because i think most, if not all, blunders come from there)... But the other options would be reasonable, no?
Reply to this message
|
