14 of 115

Write now Article Tools

Quite recently in the war on terror taking place in Afghanistan, the Australia forces there as part of the NATO contingent were being beckoned to assist a Dutch patrol fighting against overwhelming Taliban odds at a location in the South of the country. The requirement also was for US aerial bombardment to soften the village up before a final assault by the ground forces. In this case the Australians were ordered at the last minute not to proceed as it was considered by their high command that the civilian casualties would be too high. The final plan saw the Dutch also retreat and the battle would be fought another day.

It begs the question then why some contingents fighting the same battle determine that the life of the civilians can be considered so simply as "collateral damage" as opposed to human lives that need to be conserved.

In all of the military spheres where the US is currently engaged, they have the acrimonious reputation for being the most casual about human life in an endeavor to maximize their military advantages. People have become simply "collateral damage" as opposed to avoidable war casualties. The need to win has been overstated and a greater distance has been put in between those to whom the war is supposedly meant to protect and those seeking to destroy the enemy.

There is some justifications however slim, that the rebels and terrorists that are being waged war against blend in so readily with the civilian populations and distinguishing between the two groups has been blurred to the point of being indistinct.

In as much as the British had established an ideal of fair play, so to did the US set in train the ideals of human rights and were one of the initiating parties first to the Hague Conventions in the late 1800's and then the Geneva Protocol and subsequent Geneva Conventions that set about a set of rule not only to the nature of behavior in warfare but also to the protection of civilian populations. These were somewhat idealistic in imagining that all of the opposing forces would be complicit however the nature of insurrection taking place in the twentieth century is less structured, less formal and less inclined to follow these conventions of warfare.

The US in its desire to win each battle, almost at any cost, has too often, lost sight of the need to adhere to the rights of the uninvolved citizen in its campaign to eliminate its pending threat. Casualty figures amongst civilians are reaching elevated levels beyond what would be reasonable

• 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!