4 ms·

If you're worried your citizens might not appreciate you committing war crimes, there's an obvious solution to that.

HeckFeck 4y ago
Indeed. Normalising the targeting of civilians is not a path we want to tread. The rule has already been applied against the aggressing nation.
boomboomsubban 4y ago
ARandomerDude 4y ago
Judging by world history, the usual solution is crush the citizens.
- 9tailedkitsune 4y ago
  Or point fingers and/or create a new enemy
danielvf 4y ago
McCrystal was in fact all about actually reducing civilian deaths. He drastically altered almost every aspect of daily combat life of US and Afghanistan government soldiers in that quest. An example from someone I know: Multiple helicopters are searching for a piece of enemy equipment hidden in the mountains. They find it, miles from the nearest anything in a rocky open mountain. The helicopters then spend six hours in pair shifts circling it, while the authorization to shoot at it works it's way up to Washington DC and back down again, with multiple calls coming in to "confirm there are no civilians in the area". All to destroy something worth like $200. Airstrikes and artillery use were cut way back, and subject to crazy delays and process. This reduced how far out units could push, since support was far delayed. Army staff even proposed a medal for "Courageous Restraint", for going above and beyond not shooting even when threatened and allow by the rules of engagement. It was deeply unpopular with the boots on the ground. And civilian deaths actually went up. From an academic paper: "The restrictions on the application of firepower protected the Taliban as well. This was likely a contributing factor in the dramatic overall increase in civilian deaths during the year that courageous restraint was implemented given that the large majority of civilian deaths recorded were attributed to actions initiated by the Taliban."
- colpabar 4y ago
  100% of these problems could have been avoided if we just didn't invade afghanistan.
  - shuntress 4y ago
    Ok but it's kind of complicated.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    That's a political question, not a warfighting question and it doesn't help the soldiers on the ground fighting the war. The fact is that they are there, now what can they do about it?
- aa-jv 4y ago
  >McCrystal was in fact all about actually reducing civilian deaths. He drastically altered almost every aspect of daily combat life of US and Afghanistan government soldiers in that quest. Please cite a source. Everything I have read from him indicates he was more concerned with the perception that civilians were being intentionally targetted, and it is also specious to argue that he attempted to reduce civilian casualties during a period when Obama intentionally changed the definition of "male enemy combatants" to ensure that any males in the target area - any at all - would be counted as combatants, not civilians - regardless of whether they were actually aggressive. This was a highly duplicitous act that has done more harm for American interests than good.
  - danielvf 4y ago
    Sure, here's one source: https://direct.mit.edu/daed/article/146/1/44/27133/Limiting-Civilian-Casualties-as-Part-of-a-Winning https://direct.mit.edu/daed/article/146/1/44/27133/Limiting-... This paper is very in favor of paying the cost on reducing civilian casualties, but even so quotes things like: "They were on target and began taking fire from a two-story compound. One of the Rangers was seriously wounded. The Platoon maneuvered and suppressed the target but based on the thickness of the walls were unable to neutralize the threat. They fired 40mm, m320 rounds, m240l, and multiple m3 Carl Gustaf rounds without any success. They then requested permission to utilize a Hellfire (air to ground missile) from a support Apache (attack helicopter), and were denied. They were told to withdraw and return to base. These types of missions were the hardest to explain to the guys who were risking all and feeling that they weren't always supported based on the need to prevent the strategic negative."

Indeed. Normalising the targeting of civilians is not a path we want to tread. The rule has already been applied against the aggressing nation.

boomboomsubban 4y ago

ARandomerDude 4y ago

Judging by world history, the usual solution is crush the citizens.

9tailedkitsune 4y ago
Or point fingers and/or create a new enemy

danielvf 4y ago

McCrystal was in fact all about actually reducing civilian deaths. He drastically altered almost every aspect of daily combat life of US and Afghanistan government soldiers in that quest. An example from someone I know: Multiple helicopters are searching for a piece of enemy equipment hidden in the mountains. They find it, miles from the nearest anything in a rocky open mountain. The helicopters then spend six hours in pair shifts circling it, while the authorization to shoot at it works it's way up to Washington DC and back down again, with multiple calls coming in to "confirm there are no civilians in the area". All to destroy something worth like $200. Airstrikes and artillery use were cut way back, and subject to crazy delays and process. This reduced how far out units could push, since support was far delayed. Army staff even proposed a medal for "Courageous Restraint", for going above and beyond not shooting even when threatened and allow by the rules of engagement. It was deeply unpopular with the boots on the ground. And civilian deaths actually went up. From an academic paper: "The restrictions on the application of firepower protected the Taliban as well. This was likely a contributing factor in the dramatic overall increase in civilian deaths during the year that courageous restraint was implemented given that the large majority of civilian deaths recorded were attributed to actions initiated by the Taliban."

colpabar 4y ago
100% of these problems could have been avoided if we just didn't invade afghanistan.
- shuntress 4y ago
  Ok but it's kind of complicated.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  That's a political question, not a warfighting question and it doesn't help the soldiers on the ground fighting the war. The fact is that they are there, now what can they do about it?
aa-jv 4y ago
>McCrystal was in fact all about actually reducing civilian deaths. He drastically altered almost every aspect of daily combat life of US and Afghanistan government soldiers in that quest. Please cite a source. Everything I have read from him indicates he was more concerned with the perception that civilians were being intentionally targetted, and it is also specious to argue that he attempted to reduce civilian casualties during a period when Obama intentionally changed the definition of "male enemy combatants" to ensure that any males in the target area - any at all - would be counted as combatants, not civilians - regardless of whether they were actually aggressive. This was a highly duplicitous act that has done more harm for American interests than good.
- danielvf 4y ago
  Sure, here's one source: https://direct.mit.edu/daed/article/146/1/44/27133/Limiting-Civilian-Casualties-as-Part-of-a-Winning https://direct.mit.edu/daed/article/146/1/44/27133/Limiting-... This paper is very in favor of paying the cost on reducing civilian casualties, but even so quotes things like: "They were on target and began taking fire from a two-story compound. One of the Rangers was seriously wounded. The Platoon maneuvered and suppressed the target but based on the thickness of the walls were unable to neutralize the threat. They fired 40mm, m320 rounds, m240l, and multiple m3 Carl Gustaf rounds without any success. They then requested permission to utilize a Hellfire (air to ground missile) from a support Apache (attack helicopter), and were denied. They were told to withdraw and return to base. These types of missions were the hardest to explain to the guys who were risking all and feeling that they weren't always supported based on the need to prevent the strategic negative."