In any war, the accidental killing of civilians by US and other forces is an unavoidable fact.

Moreover, in any war, it is expected that civilians will be killed by the forces of each side. Generals and other officers determine projected numbers of civilian casualties before beginning any action, just as they determine projected numbers of soldiers who, for whatever reason, will freeze or just hesitate long enough when confronted with killing a soldier from their opposition, to die themselves.

"Better" weapons of war is a euphemism to some degree. First, we must define the term 'better'. In what way is a given weapon 'better'?

Does it fire more projectiles faster, more accurately, or both? Does it hold more projectiles per magazine than its predecessor? Is it easier to aim? Does it set up for use more quickly and easily than its predecessors or than another model of this type of weapon? Is it somehow more focussed on killing and maiming only opposition soldiers? Does it cause more human deaths but less property damage? Does it only damage humans and not food animals or plants? Can it be remotely triggered? Can it be remotely operated? If so, is it reliable? Is it accurate?

There are many possibilities to consider, and this is by no means a complete list. You can certainly come with more possibilities for this list of what can be included in the definition of the term "better weapons".

Another factor for those who direct a war to consider is, "what kind of civilians will be killed in a given action?" Are they technicians, farmers, welfare recipients, what? To the minds of those who send others out to die, these are legitimate and necessary questions. Technicians could help rebuild after a war ends; farmers are needed to feed everyone. Technicians are necessary to keep the machines needed to produce food for large numbers of people working. Farmers know how to read the land and the water, and usually, what grows best in a given place. And so on.

When considering the effects of a given weapon in considering civilian casualties in a war, those who run wars must also contemplate the reaction of those civilians themselves, and whether or not they will willingly participate in the war. In some countries, particularly in

Africa, everyone who is not a soldier seems to be running and hiding, especially the women, because rape has become commonplace. Their cultures are breaking down, and many women have reported that now

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

---

Add your voice

Know something about Is the accidental killing of civilians by US forces, in places like Somalia, an unavoidable part of the war on terrorism??
We want to hear your view. Write now!