Is the US to blame for civilian deaths in Afghanistan air strikes?

No

1 of 2

by James Dubreze

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

I will begin this debate by declaring that we're not at war with the Afghan people. To suggest otherwise would be an over statement. We're fighting Taliban while chasing down Al-Qeada. As far as I understand it to be, the concept behind this conflict is to defend our land against further attack from the Taliban. As a country, we should be well aware of our predecessor's mistakes as well as the threat we faced.

To assume that our enemy will not retaliate against us is a nave position to embrace. It doesn't matter who the president is, we should not presume that the enemy will not retaliate as a mean to revenge past conflict. If we're convinced that we maybe attack by Taliban or Al-Qeada members than the best defense is an offensive move, because to stay home and wait for another attack would not be a wise idea. It is with this understand that I believed the Obama's administration have asked our citizens for their patient and support.

I don't think that they were ever a need to go to war with the Afghan people. The focus was always in favor of protecting the American people from harms. It maybe illogical to some that we had to deployed troops to Afghanistan
to insure it but those people might not be looking at the whole picture. The strategy that the Obama's administration employed focused on discouraging Taliban from organizing. And to accomplish that member of our military must be present in Afghanistan.

I honestly don't think this is a conflict that the American people look forward to but some do understand that it is one that is necessary for their safety. We can definitely use the money use to fund the Afghan conflict in our infrastructure and job creation but it's not possible. If we believe that they are a chance that Taliban or Al-Qeada may retaliate against us than this money has properly been distributed for its cause.

If the above conditions that I have stated satisfy your understanding, then we may proceed to further analysis. A ground target is strike by a bomber, a military precision aircraft design to shoot down the enemy combatant from its altitude to any given point of reference on the ground level. With that in mind, can the aircraft pilot mistakenly hit the wrong target, of course yes? However, we should not assume that in all cases where civilians have die because of a bomber strike, US is to blame.

If our strategy is to prevent civilian casualties at all course, than it could be seen as a weakness from a Taliban or Al-Qaeda point of view. In which case, leaders of Al-Qaeda or Taliban can disguise themselves with civilian's bodies as a way to avoid air strike against US
bomber.

The pilot who pulls the trigger is never the one to blame for air strike attacks. One of his functions is to follow orders conveyed by a higher rank officer. His job is to deliver the bomb at the precise location of which his been instructed to. The only time he is to blame, is when he has disobeyed direct order or delivered more than he was asked to.

Knowing that, if Osama Bin Laden were to be pen pointed among civilian supporters, would the US
be wrong for risking civilian lives to take down Bin Laden or should we stand back as a mean to preserve civilian lives. Where this circumstance maybe troublesome to most, to a military bomber pilot, it may not even be a second thought. Sense militants are trained to follow order, they often don't think of the consequences.

As we all know in war civilian casualties are always a problem. They have never been a war without civilian casualties. Perhaps, using ground forces as an alternative to Air bombers can minimize civilian casualties. But what good would that serve the US
military when Afghanistan
is a country of many mountains. It would seem to me that both air and ground forces would be necessary.

Come to think of it ground forces is just as dangerous as the air bombers, they both can cause massive civilian death, the different lies in how the weapon is used. Regardless of the weapon used, to minimize civilian death, the US
military will have to avoid major landmark where people can be found in abundance. Places such as hospitals, libraries and mosque, places of worships.

To fight Al-Qaeda in a civilize manner, if such thing exit. The US
military will have to avoid using weapon that can cause massive civilian death. Those weapons are biological, chemical and unplanned air strike which at time can hit civilians. To prevent civilian death the US
military must also obey international laws set forth by the Geneva Convention.

The strategy that can work best in this case would be for the US
military to have informers on the ground level among the civilian population, informing the US
military on Al Qaeda's way about. Having such information at hand would allow the military to make more precise decision on their enemies' way about. But as some of us know, finding someone who speaks the Afghan language that the US
intelligence can trust can be a difficult task.

For those who opposed this conflict believed that they should never have been one. That is understood because after coming from Iraq,
Afghanistan can definitely be seen as a substitute. Than again they are those who would argue that this conflict will result to nothing. They believe that Afghanistan
has never been defeated and it's not about to happen now. As for me, that's not what I see because it's not a conflict against the Afghan people.
It is one that is in place as a mean to minimize the threat we face from Taliban. This conflict is not design to be worn but instead to disrupt Al-Qeada and Taliban from organizing.

Learn more about this author, James Dubreze.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.