Hypothetical scenario:

Some country invaded U.S. They successfully defeated U.S. military. They enslaved all U.S. citizens and exploits them. They take all kinds of resources. They brutally oppress anyone who objects.

Now, in your mind. Are civilians of that country who sent their military to take away our freedom and everything we have "innocent"?

If indiscriminate attack on their population civilian or not help regaining independence, would you approve of it?

I don't condone our enemies attacking U.S.
But, I do think "innocent civilians" is phony and find arguments justifying or condemning things under that concept to be hollow.

How about the opposite example?

Some country threatened us. We invade the country. We've destroyed their military. But, we get continuous insurgency attack and suffer great casualty. Not all of their citizen is a part of the attack, but insurgents operate with impunity because the population either passively or actively supports them. Are those "innocent civilians"? Even without the insurgency, are those civilians not responsible for supporting the country that did whatever wrong that made us invade them in the first place?

I an not suggesting genocide against everyone in that country. I would not suggest tie our hands behind our back and do thing because they're civilians either. But, I'm pointing out the phoniness of "innocent" part of the "innocent civilians."

Now, applying that to our current war. I DO think we should attack and eradicate Al Qaeda and other terrorist group that attacked us.
However, that is NOT because they attacked U.S. civilians.

"They've killed civilians...women and children..." What? Are you saying that if Al Qaeda wore uniforms and only attacked military, you would approve of their attack?

It depends.


Is the government that invaded a government set up by the people, or are the people of that fictional state repressed by their own government.

That makes a difference in my mind.

Kevin

quote:

Is the government that invaded a government set up by the people, or are the people of that fictional state repressed by their own government.

Irrelevant.

quote:

Some country invaded U.S. They successfully defeated U.S. military. They enslaved all U.S. citizens and exploits them. They take all kinds of resources. They brutally oppress anyone who objects.

Kind of sounds like our current administration.

Now as to a more thoughtful reply: I agree it depends to some extent on how much freedom the enemy's populace had in selecting and supporting their leader. But even with that said, one only has to look at WWII and the concept of carpet bombing (How's that for the ultimate non-PC term?)to know it was part and parcel of our policy to demolish the civilian population's will to fight.

In terms of our present enemy, although the countries we have currently deployed troops to now have (sort of)freely elected governments, it seems obvious that big chunks of those populations support the bad guys. I have no problem with known terrorist harboring towns, villages and areas being bombed early and often.

In terms of Saudi Arabia (where a lot of this shit is funded,) Pakistan (where a lot of these barbarians are hiding,) and Iran (which is the ideological cradle of radical islam,)I would support a policy of bombing their populations. We will continue to be at risk until their will to fight is smashed into rubble, and even then we might not be safe.

I agree with Davbog44

Either we are in it to win it, or we should bring our troops home. War is about killing and breaking things. It is not pretty. Give it 110% or nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by reddon1969:
I agree with Davbog44

Either we are in it to win it, or we should bring our troops home. War is about killing and breaking things. It is not pretty. Give it 110% or nothing.

Agree, you are in a war to win. The fights we are in now are fought from a lawyers desk in the Pentagon.

Give it to the Generals and tell them to call when they get finished and are headed home.

Our problem is not war fighting! It's when we try nation building. That only worked with the Germany and Japan. You know why it worked then and not since? It's because they were completly destroyed and the will of the population to resist wipped off the face of the earth!

We keep forgetting this step in our war on terror! I would have nuked A-Stan right after 911. Then you can start rebuilding!

Ken

To answer the original issue, I think that there are innocent civilians, but it is a small portion of the population.

The military makes war as a tool of a political goal. The population provides the wealth and labor to build guns and supply butter to the army. The population may or may not like the war, and they may or may not want their government. But they do make possible the war in a general sense.

The targeting of non-military people or facilities is wrong morally. There has to be a military objective involved. In WWII we did not have smart bombs or GPS navigation, so the only way to take out the munitions factories or military installations was to drop thousands of bombs at a time with the hope of hitting the factory with a few of them. In the beginning of WWII, the populations of our enemies were in support of their governments' policies. So it is a valid strategy to try to break that will of the enemy to fight. However, I do think that there is a moral line that should not be crossed. It would be wrong to target schools, for example. But targeting general infrastructure or industry would be valid. Make it difficult for the population to live normal lives by taking out their food supply or highways. Turning the population against the war is a valid strategy.

In our current situation, we could in fact win the war pretty quickly. But, we would have to be willing to do a lot of damage and kill a lot of people. The mentality of having a nice war, or of having a limited war is flawed because it does not destroy the will of the enemy. Even if we inflict much higher casualties on them than they do on us, their will to fight isn't necessarily destroyed.

As far as terrorist acts, that is not a legitimately moral way to fight a war. To be clear, I am talking about targeting purely civilian locations, such as schools and shopping malls. Our enemies who do such things are evil.

Attacking military personnel and installations is a recognized part of war, and combatants undertake the risks of being attacked. While we may disagree most completely with our enemy's reasoning for fighting, I can accept that there will be military casualties in fighting the enemy. What is abhorrent is bombing schools or shooting up stores for the purpose of scaring the population.

quote:

Originally posted by tanksoldier:

quote:

Is the government that invaded a government set up by the people, or are the people of that fictional state repressed by their own government.

Irrelevant.

Exactly. It isn't a debate class it's a WAR. I could give a crap about my enemie's election process.

The only way we have won wars is to destroy the enemie's ability to wage war on a military level and destroy the population's will to continue to support hostilities. "winning hearts and minds" doesn't work. It is all too easy to smile at our "peacekeepers" during the day, and then help the insurgents/guerillas at night. That could go on forever. When the penalty for helping the insurgents is to get your head blown off there is a negative reenforcement for the behavior. When you find the food and other goodies you give the "civillians" in the hands of the enemy, that's called a "CLUE".

quote:

"winning hearts and minds" doesn't work

Actually, it does work; but not in the limp-wristed, kumbaya-singing way most liberals think.

We nuked Japan TWICE....liberated the people from oppressive imperialism, and then Japan became one of our greatest allies.

We firebombed Berlin and Dresden...liberated the people from a megalomaniacal tyrant (originally ELECTED), and Germany went on to become one of our greatest allies.

There will be plenty of time to be nice and "win hearts and minds" AFTER the enemies ability and will to fight have been THOROUGHLY CRUSHED. Innocent people will UNAVOIDABLY be hurt. Blame the tyrants for that, not the liberators.
When "occupations" drag on and terror cells are allowed to fester like a cancer, eventually the patient dies.

quote:

Originally posted by tanksoldier:

quote:

Is the government that invaded a government set up by the people, or are the people of that fictional state repressed by their own government.

Irrelevant.

I agree with Kevin. I don't think it's irrelevant at all. If the people in a nation are themselves oppressed by their own government and have no control over it, how can they be held responsible for the government's actions?

If our government disarmed us, forcefully oppressed all opposition, and acted in ways I disagreed with, I would not feel responsible for its actions. Nor would I want to be held accountable for them.

Take Japan in WWII for example. We dropped two nukes on two cities filled with civilians, thus ending the conflict. IMHO, if we are at war with a country, we are at war with the whole country. While its sad to see uninvolved citizens of a country perish, collateral damage happens.

Now, given the technology our military possesses today it is possible to inflict great damage to an opposing military without causing too many civilian deaths.

Looking at the War on Terror, I don't think we should just blast all of Afghanistan as we are supposedly fighting Al Queda and not the Afghani's.

So in summary...It depends. If you're using a Nazi Germany or WWII Japan where the government had the support of the populace, then no holds barred. In regards to the WOT, I think target selection is important as WE need the support of the populace to accomplish the mission.

quote:

Originally posted by TestPilot:
I an not suggesting genocide against everyone in that country. I would not suggest tie our hands behind our back and do thing because they're civilians either. But, I'm pointing out the phoniness of "innocent" part of the "innocent civilians."

No, but most every successful COIN operation in the past recognized that civilian (friendly, neutral or passively opposed) casualties are counterproductive and that must be balanced against the gains of pursuing an operation in a civilian area. Thus some of the rules about not chasing low-level insurgents into crowds: the gain doesn't outweigh the risks.

Remember, you don't win wars by killing the enemy. You win by making him submit to your will. They're not identical and while war does involve killing the enemy, it's not the measure of success.