Weighing war in Afghanistan on a moral scale
US officers appear to be duly considering questions related to 'just war' as military action proceeds.
(Page 2 of 2)
Indeed, the US military's near miss of Omar early in the campaign demonstrates the extreme caution of US commanders in verifying targets. After tracking Omar's convoy to a building, the military held off on an attack to try to photograph Omar.
"They wanted to be sure they could ID him," says journalist Seymour Hersh. As a result, Omar escaped.
"It is practically impossible to know with certainty who is on the ground in any given location by name and serial number," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a carefully worded reaction. But he reiterated his "desire to deal aggressively with command and control."
What are US obligations in terms of minimizing civilian casualties?
The imperative of averting civilian casualties is central to "just war" theory, as well as international law and military training, ethicists say. US military leaders state unequivocally that they follow this imperative, unlike the terrorists in the Sept. 11 attack that killed more than 5,000 civilians.
"Nobody, no armed force, no coalition has ever shown such care and caution in discriminating, has put so much effort in planning and in selection of tactics, techniques, and weapons to ensure that ... unintended casualties are kept to a minimum," said Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold this week.
Yet at the same time, the Pentagon makes it clear that some civilian casualties are inevitable, as they apparently were when the US missiles struck two underground tunnel complexes near the village of Karam last week, reportedly killing several people.
In such cases, military commanders must weigh the need to destroy a target with the cost in civilian lives, experts say. "The collateral damage [civilian deaths] has to be proportionate to the good I want to do," says Stephen Lammers, a religion professor and ethicist at Lafayette College in Easton, Pa.
What type of force should be used?
Ultimately, limiting casualties will require a shift away from the less discriminatory air power to the use of ground forces, experts say. "We are going to have to use ground troops so we can separate out the criminals from the other people," says Mr. Whitman. The military's decision this week to begin using the lower-flying, slower, yet more accurate AC-130 gunships to hit moving targets is a move in this direction.
When should US forces take prisoners, rather than killing Afghan troops?
According to "just war" theory, enemy soldiers are legitimate targets until they lay down their arms and surrender. Nevertheless, Whitman says, the mowing down of retreating Iraqi troops in the Gulf War was so "distasteful" to US pilots that ultimately they were called off.
Is there a plan for peace?
The Bush administration's initial "hands-off" approach to Afghan's future government was misplaced, experts say. "Once we have attacked the Taliban and destabilized it," Johnson says, "then morally we are obliged to consider creating a more peaceful result than the one we started with."
Page:
1 | 2




