Afghanistan and Wikilieaks

Sure, no problem.

Looking at various battles in history, the answer to that rhetorical question is "oftentimes, way more than with an airstrike." Actual incidents from warfare do NOT back up the idea that an airstrike causes more "collateral damage" than a ground incursion does.

 

Surely there has to be a greater liklihood of unintended civilian casulaties with an airstrike than with a ground assault? And the same would go for any attack from distance (e.g. rocket attack or artillery bombardment.) If you can see what you're shooting at then it gives you more control over what you hit (obviously) and troops on the ground are far more likely to be in a position where they can see exactly what they are shooting at (or being shot at by.)

 

Depends entirely on the situation (and luck). One baddie in the downtown of a metropolis? Yeah, a sniper will cause fewer civilian casualties than a Hellfire missile. A couple dozen heavily-armed baddies in a small or medium-sized village/town? Not so clear anymore. Sending in ground troops will result in a gun battle with hundreds of bullets and dozens of RPGs flying every which way, and stray bullets from both sides are going to perforate most every residence within a direct line-of-sight of the battle, even residences that are far out of the blast radius of that one Hellfire missile. In such circumstances, even if an airstrike kills some civilians, that single explosion may kill far fewer than a gun battle.

EDIT: And even in the first situation, if it takes a dozen different ground battles throughout the city to get that sniper or Special Forces team into position and back out of the city afterward, you could end up with civilian casualties far beyond that of a single airstrike. This is precisely what happened in Mogadishu that led to thousands of Somali casualties.

An airstrike isn't always the right answer, but it certainly isn't always the wrong answer either.

 

As said before it is war, and this is a complicated war because of the fact there is so many civis. Hard to stop killing civis when the enemy is hiding with them or being given shelter by said "civis".

 

Ok, this is where we disagree. We have different ideas about what this war is about. My view is this:

This war isn't about the enemy and it hasn't been about the enemy for years now. We cannot beat the Taliban/Anti Coalition Militias into submission, they are just too damned good at what they do. This war is about the 'civvies', they are the criteria for victory. If the civilian populace supports the coalition and the ANSF, we win. If they turn their rose tinted spectacles back towards the Taliban, no amount of 500lb bombs is going to win this war for us. We must avoid becoming the greater of the two evils.

We have to stop looking at the mission in terms of number of enemy killed and start looking at it in terms of number of civilians saved.

 

By the way, to get back to the original post, I'm glad this information is getting out there, even though I'm curious/suspicious as to how WikiLeaks gets it (and if they get it through illegal means, that's certainly a problem).

NOT because I think that most of the civilian casualties documented are avoidable or that we're using the wrong tactics, but because it illustrates the problems with using war to try to stop a terrorist group that has embedded itself in a civilian population. At a certain point, Americans need to quit ending the inquiry with "were we attacked by terrorists and are the terrorists located in X country," and ask the next question, which is "will waging a full-on war in X country actually prevent future terrorist attacks, or will it make a bad situation worse?" Even if you were attacked by terrorists hiding in X country, so you've got a "right" to "hit back at the terrorists where they're hiding," if it's going to worsen your overall situation instead of improve it, practicality dictates that you shouldn't.

 

if the sole reason for invasion was in the first place solely to counter the terrorists.

 

You see more "friendly fire" incidents from US forces because US forces are there in greater numbers. But they actually happen to everybody, UK included:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire

 

Agreed. That said, given that America is the superpower, I guess that's why the rest of the world needs to keep them in check a bit,

I'd say that it's important because a lot of people are clueless.
Governments often get away with decisions to make war by making claims about how cleanly, humanely and efficiently they'll conduct it. The more people get exposed to the reality, the less they'll get away with it.

 

I think the most damaging aspect of these revalations will be the impetus they give to the recruitment of Jihadi terrorists. There's nothing quite as emotive as innocent children getting killed or maimed.

 

I was in the Army and served two tours of Afghanistan. It never fails to amuse me when I see the all-too-familiar intellectual posturing and political cross-examination by non-military types back home. This action by WikiLeaks, while I find it distasteful, will change nothing.

The debate back home means very little to the soldiers on the front line.

When avoiding stepping on an IED, or rounds flying past your face, is a matter of just a few inches in the right/wrong direction, the only things a "grunt" really thinks about is keeping his rifle clean and getting enough sleep.

 

And your definition of intellectual posturing is?
Should there be no conjecture on the conduct of the military and it's soldiers by the government? That's a pretty scary thought. You can count any number of third world dictators who would tow that line. Whether you like it or not the military and the politicians are inextricably linked. Always have been always will be.

It's surprising (or maybe not) that you find the leak distasteful yet you don't find the dishonesty about the actual situation as it's being reported to the American people by the military distasteful.

Sure - but I don't think anyone is arguing that it does. The debate itself has very few ramifications immediately for the soldiers on the front line. Long term however... it could have very big ramifications. There are any number of incidents where military conduct and politics collide and result in long term changes and shifts in the way things are done. In fact it wouldn't be to hard to argue that it's exactly because of unfettered reporting of the casualties, reality on the ground and civilian deaths that the military handles the media and reporting the way it does today. Which has changed because of the influence of media and reporting on the attitude towards war of the general civilian population during the Viet Nam era.

And that's probably as it should be for the grunt on the front line. But basing your foreign policy and limiting conjecture and discourse to what a grunt needs immediately on the front lines doesn't sound like a very effective plan for government either.

 

They may not think about it on a daily basis, but it's the civilian government (and thus the civilian population) that sent them there, it's the civilian government paying for everything they wear and use and eat and drink there, and it's the civilian government that decides when and why they come home, so it probably should matter to them.

 

The majority of soldiers don't want to hear any debate because they, like all fools, don't want to have to analyse their choices. They are brainwashed to believe they are better than people who are not in the military.

Frankly I have no respect for the military and I see it as an affront to human decency everytime I hear that I HAVE to respect what are essentially just hired mercenaries.

800,000 dead civilians in Iraq, 50,000 dead civilians in Afghanistan. Many of these are children. The use of depleted uranium, the destruction of innocent peoples homes and livelihoods... then the military want to be the first to self righteously lecture people on respect?

Lets run through some simple questions...

Are all people in the military bad people? No. Are they all stupid? No. Do many risk life and limb on a regular basis? Yes. Does this in any way benefit the majority of society? No. Does it benefit the rich and powerful? Yes.

Are they all ignorant? Mostly. Are they all pawns for the forces of evil? Yes.

 

Oh boy, this is gonna get ugly.

So who brainwashed you to believe you are better than people in the military?

And I see this kind of sentiment as an affront to human intelligence. If you can't see the difference between a professional soldier and a mercenary, then I'm afraid you were badly let down by the education system.

Would you rather it was 50,000 dead civilians in the US, or the UK? Iraq was a politically motivated travesty, but if you think that we should have left Afghanistan alone, then you, sir, are a moron.
If you give a terrorist organisation like Al Qaeda a safe place to sit and plot, they will sit and plot. How long do you think it would be before they organised another 9/11 level attack?

Are you kidding? You don't think society benefited from a military in 1914, what about 1939? Did they not teach you history in school?

This ladies and gentlemen is why you shouldn't use narcotics whilst pregnant.

 

Well, to be fair, if they think that leaking that information was treasonous, they're probably not going to report the content.

 

Thank you for this post.