Stopper wrote:As to the bolded questions: I'll put myself on the line here, because I'm not an expert on military history, but I've always had the impression that since the Second World War, the Americans/British have become more reluctant to put soldiers' lives on the line, and as much as possible, to keep their own casualties low - mainly for political reasons. Even in Vietnam - I realise the Americans sustained a lot of people killed, about 58,000, and that partly led to the Americans leaving, but in the context of the whole war, that actually wasn't very high.
People would say that that is a good development, as it makes our leaders less likely to be militarily adventurous, but the same level of concern for casualties doesn't seem to have ever been extended to civilians in the places that America/Britain have fought. Massive bombing campaigns in both Vietnam and Iraq had been gone ahead with, and there's no doubt huge numbers of civilians have died in these, whatever our leaders and media may say.
I tend to think that the risk of Iraqis being killed never really figured as a significant factor in popular opposition to the war in the first place, so the lack of coverage since isn't that surprising.
An interesting analysis, most of which I agree with. However, keep in mind that the type of military operations that we've been in since WWII have been very unconventional. Mostly insurgencies and poorly trained guerrillas. Police operations on steroids, if you will.
As to disregard for Iraqi casualties from the start, well I doubt that is the case. In fact, from the very beginning the idea has been to "win the hearts and minds" of the Iraqis. That has included everything from propaganda posters to handing out candy to Iraqi children. My point? It has been a fact well-known among American command that victory in this war will come from winning over the Iraqi populace. As such, damage to civilians is taken very much into account. Many Marines have died as a result of being denied air support because of the possibility of collateral damage.
Read some books with firsthand accounts of the soldiers and Marines in Iraq. I recommend
Blood Stripes. Anywho, in doing so you'll find that the lives of the Iraqi citizenry are something considered quite important.
Unfortunately, the line between "civilian" and "combatant" is a very fine one. The security forces there are so corrupt that many of them are on the US side one day and on the Muj side the next. People are desperate to make a buck in Iraq, and oftentimes that means they'll go with whoever pays them. In many instances, even women become combatants. This was the case in Fallujah, when the Muj sent women carrying suicide bombs at the Marine line. They were shot. It's the reality there.
However, this said, I believe there is one thing the US commanders DID overlook from the start: the Muj decision to attack IRAQI civilian targets. Who knew they''d attack their own countrymen? Who know they'd send women who would otherwise be considered noncombatants to blow themselves up or get shot trying? Who know anyone could be that sick?
.jpg)
are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
