ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Monday, October 29, 2007

What do you get when you let the Left lead in wartime?

Terrorists surrounding themselves with women, children, and Lefty Human Shields.

The Moonbats over at Firedoglake are shocked
- shocked - that the US military would dare strike a target in which it knew that civilian casualties might be the result. Here's an excerpt:

US Air Strikes in Afghanistan: A “Macabre Kind of Calculus”
By: Scarecrow

CBS 60 Minutes revealed last night that the US military in Afghanistan uses air strikes in situations it knows will kill innocent civilians, if the commanders also believe enough Taliban might be killed. The result has been a doubling of civilian casualties, such that we now kill as many civilians as the Taliban and al Qaeda kill.

And all Afghan President Karzai can do is plead with George Bush, so far unsuccessfully, that the US stop using air strikes against civilian targets.

In one of many such incidents this year, US forces announced they had carried out an air strike and had killed several suspected militants. However, the military declined to provide further information on who might have been killed, and when reports leaked out that most of the victims had been women and children — innocent civilians — 60 Minutes sent a team to find out what happened.

In interviews with 60 Minutes, US military acknowledged that field commanders had clearance to call in air strikes on civilian targets, knowing that innocent deaths would likely occur, provided they made what one official described as a “macabre kind of calculus” about whether the “target” was “worth” the likely number of civilian deaths.
We learned there are two kinds of targets: deliberate targets which are analyzed for days and watched for patterns of civilians coming and going, and immediate targets, such as when troops are in combat and need air support. In both cases, civilian casualties are estimated in advance and it’s up to the commander on the ground to decide whether the strike is worth the cost.

“We rely on those commanders to make the assessment at the time of what the requirement is. He assesses proportionality. He assesses the validity of the military target,” Crowder explains. . . .
[...]
That an officer has to consider civilian casualties that could result from taking out the enemy - all the while under fire from the enemy - speaks to the character of our military personnel and the quality of their training. It also speaks to the restraint which they show while conducting military operations.

Now, civilian casualties are obviously unfortunate, but war isn't flag football. And the Left's attempt to compare Chimpy W. McBushitler and the military to terrorists is just ridiculous. Compare and contrast the following:
  1. Terrorists actively seek out to slaughter innocent civilians
  2. The US Military has a rational process for determining the cost/benefits of taking the military target out, with the goal being to limit civilian casualties - even when those civilians may be harboring and/or aiding the enemey
I know that many moonbats won't understand the distinction there, but I've got to make an attempt.

But, what is the result of such ridiculous criticism? What if the Moonbats were to be thrust into leadership positions on conducting the War on Terror (if they'd ever agree that we were actually at war in the first place)? What if they implemented Rules of Engagement which stated that no civilian casualties could be allowed, ever, ever, ever, ever?

Well, simple - Osama & co would simply surround themselves with women, children, and perhaps some gray-haired Human Shields (who were fortunate enough to survive our bombings in Iraq) and call it a day.

And this goes to another point... the purpose of the Geneva Conventions that deal with illegal combatants (at least, those to which we are a signatory) are not there to protect the combatant - they're there to protect the civilian non-combatants.

When an enemy disguises himself in civilian garb and makes himself indistinguishable from civilians, it is no surprise that civilians are killed during war. The Geneva Conventions regarding illegal combatants require that they carry their arms openly, are distinguishable from the civilian population by uniform or other insignia, etc. The benefit of comporting oneself to the rules of civilized warfare as outlined in the Geneva Conventions is that you are provided protections should you surrender to your enemy.

Failing to follow the rules of the Geneva convention makes you an illegal combatant and you can be executed following a military tribunal to justify such a classification.

Surrounding yourself with women, children, and non-combatants, while at the same time dressing as a non-combatant will cause the deaths of you and the non-combatants.

And, we know it'll also cause the moonbats to squeal and call for a war crimes tribunal against Chimpy W. McBushitler.


Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Comments (1)
George said...

Here's the Spook86 commentary on this subject: http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2007/10/sense-of-proportionality-please.html