The sad truth is that if guns and bombs are used by any party anywhere, some innocents are going to be in the wrong place, and killed. So the short answer to the question is yes. Yes, the killing of civilians is unavoidable, regrettable, and horrific.

That said, as much as possible, the war on terrorism, any war, should be fought with minimizing accidental civilian deaths as much as possible. The challenges are great: terrorists may hide among civilians. Or, poverty may play a part in transforming a daytime civilian into a night-time enemy.

The difficult decisions are endless. If a high-level Al-Qaeda leader is spotted in a market district, should bombers be sent? How many civilian lives are worth sacrificing? How high a priority must the target be?

What needs to be added to this grim equation is the idea that for each civilian killed, more terrorists will be created. Imagine it from your point of view. You are innocent, your family is innocent. Yet your neighbor is a terrorist. In the destruction of your neighbor's house, your family is killed. Are you not going to seek revenge? In a country so riddled with problems of poverty and war like Somalia, there are few other choices.

This all builds a case for fighting the war on terror more from a standpoint of law enforcement domestically and the elimination of lawless lands with support. Bombs may kill their targets, but they are sure to create more enemies as well. Killing a high profile target today will create ten high profile targets tomorrow.

Terrorists thrive in lands where there are no options. With assistance in the form of infrastructure and aid with law enforcement, nations can transform themselves. Iraq could have been a shining example of this, except its rebuilding was so poorly mismanaged (the army disbanded, and outside contractors rather than local ones, were hired to rebuild Iraq.)

The only way to avoid civilian casualties from bombs would be to not drop them. But then how fight a war on terror? Execute domestic defense programs. Here in the USA, "We have to fight them there so we don't fight them here," is a common excuse for the Iraq war and any random bombing run. That excuse needs to go. Why not fight them here? We have the home-field advantage, people would understand and not resent why they were being searched. The soldiers would be heroes and not seen as an occupying force.

Bombing runs would not and did not prevent 9/11. Better screening at the airports for suspicious people, more secure borders, security officers on planes and locks on cockpit doors would have.

The only time bombs should be used is to eliminate a known camp of terrorists, as was done immediately following 9/11 in Afghanistan. Otherwise, the USA should focus on strengthening their own security, or we're just making more of the enemies we seek to destroy. If any good can come from Iraq, it's that it was such a plethora of corruption and bad planning, it offers endless lessons about what NOT to do. If Somalia has any hope, bombs are not the answer, smart rebuilding and restoring law are.

Sources:

US names Somalia al-Qaeda wanted
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/afr ica/7278888.stm

Iraq Ministry of National Security and Defense
http://www.globalsecurity.org/ military/world/iraq/defense.ht m

Rebuilding Iraq: The Contractors
http://www.opensecrets.org/new s/rebuilding_iraq/index.asp

Learn more about this author, Larry Nocella.
Click here to send author comments or questions.

---

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!