No Such Thing as a “Clean War.”

The Bush/Cheney "Shock & Awe" team seems to think that war can be conducted from a distance and with “surgical strikes” that cause damage only to the designated “enemy.” Most rational people know that this thinking is seriously flawed and dangerous. There is no such thing as a “clean war” and the risk of “collateral damage” must always be considered by any military force clinging to any sense of morality. Collateral damage is a military euphemism for describing innocent victims that get injured or killed, or homes of innocent people that get destroyed in a military mission.

Recent investigations by the United Nations, as reported in the French Press, detail hard evidence of how US forces conducted a tragic raid in Afghanistan on August 21 that resulted in a massacre of more than 90 innocent civilians:
A United Nations team has found "convincing evidence" that 90 civilians, including 60 children, were killed in US-led air strikes last week, the body's representative in Afghanistan said Tuesday. The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) human rights team was sent to the western province of Herat after local claims that scores of civilians were killed in Friday's strikes.

The basic military decision to strike back against Taliban or other insurgent militia forces is not what is being challenged here. There is legitimate evidence that many average Afghani citizens and villages would prefer not to be dominated by Taliban extremist factions and simply live their lives in peace. Unfortunately, living in border territories contested by Afghani and Pakistani government forces and by Taliban militia has left these villagers no such option. The Bush policy of “combating terrorism” and "exporting democracy" by financing often fundamentally undemocratic leaders has helped keep the conflict raging.

The strategic and moral questions at the heart of contention here involve the tactics used by the US military and the US government to pursue such policies. If there is a strategic and policy justification for intervention in Afghanistan [not a given when there is no actual threat of Taliban attack in the US], then the choice of tactics to be employed for such purpose should reflect positively upon the character of the intervening party and mission goals.

The strategy and tactics should be designed to be effective and expeditious in achieving the intended result. Planning should include the optimal assignment of proper resources and should also anticipate the level and type of resistance to be expected. In addition, the strategy should consider the risks and the level of collateral damage, both in human mortality and property damage, which is likely in order to determine whether a given strategy is worthwhile and effective. We have all heard of the apocryphal story of the rescuing force that destroys the village in order to “liberate” it. Unfortunately, the Bush team strategists have failed on both counts and are looking a lot like the aforementioned foolish and misguided “rescuers.”

“War is hell” is not just a cliché. It is a fact and a reality that must be faced by any honest military leader. Commanding officers with actual combat experience, something Bush and Cheney regrettably lack, know that any military mission risks property and people’s lives beyond the designated target. The more remote the military attack strategy from the site, the greater the risk of error and risk of collateral damage. The level and precision of laser guided missiles and “smart” bombs aside, something always turns out somewhat different than the details of any planned offensive. Complete precision and control is a fantasy and a dangerous delusion. Some aspect of intelligence will be flawed, some aiming mechanism will operate outside the expected margin of error, some person on the ground will unexpectedly change plans or some unexpected third parties will enter the area of attack. The variables are simply too great to control.

Experienced military commanders know this. But it seems that the only military commanders that Bush and Cheney are willing to listen to are ones that are spineless, incompetent or immoral, willing to sacrifice sound military judgment for career advancement or political favor. Scores of competent and experienced high ranking military commanders have been summarily dismissed when they objected to the whims and demands of Bush and Cheney. When this happens, the result has been thousands of US military men and women dead, tens of thousands of service men and women injured, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians maimed or worse and millions displaced.

When, as in the case of the August 21 attack in Afghanistan, 2/3 of the victims of the attack are innocent children, the military mission was unquestionably a fiasco. We may never know whether the main flaw was poor planning, poor execution or simply a wanton disregard for the safety and lives of those poor children. Whatever the reason, any moral justification that the US government may have advanced for undertaking the mission immediately evaporated. The Taliban, like other extremist armed groups, are not above using human shields as a defensive strategy. [There is no repported evidence that such tactics were used in this recent event.] However evil the Bush administration may seek to portray the Taliban, the manifest results of this massacre of innocent children outstrips any effort to seek a moral high ground.

What is the alternative? It really is not that complicated. If the designated target is hiding in a nursery school, you do not bomb the school and kills tens or hundreds of innocent children. You attempt to isolate the site and wait until a more effective and morally justifiable strategy can be employed. If an enemy leader is identified to be located in a populated town, you do not send in bombs from many miles away from the ground or air and bomb the entire town. If there is strategic urgency, you send in Special Forces to take out the target while minimizing risk of collateral damage to persons or property other than the targeted enemy leader and his or her direct accomplices. You weigh the costs and benefits, you act rationally and you act with a sense of a moral compass consistent with a larger purpose.

While any act of war is inherently "dirty," in the sense that there will be risk of death and destruction, there is such a thing as ethical and morally justifiable use of military force. How can the Bush administration ever expect the people of the bombed village who lost at least 60 innocent children to believe that the US government action was intended to help them? Why should they, or other Afghanis who learn of the tragedy, ever believe that supremacy of force by the US government is better than the fate they suffer at the hands of the Taliban? The Bush administration labels the Taliban or Al Qaida as evil “terrorists,” and yet behaves in a morally reprehensible and monstrous manner as did the forces that massacred these children.

This moral bankruptcy is not isolated. The same flawed moral judgment is at play when the Bush administration expressly approves the use of illegal and inhumane torture as a tool for “expedient” interrogation. The use of the tactic is not effective in achieving the intended result; and the consequence of using the tactic undermines any moral authority the US government might otherwise have for the interrogation. Moreover, the subsequent loss of respect and confidence in the US government taints future actions, no matter how justifiable or well planned. That the way the US conducts itself is a critical facet of both diplomatic and military policy effectiveness is a lesson that the current administration apparently has not learned. Simply put, the ends DO NOT justify the means. There is no such thing as clean warfare. And unless the Bush administration is willing to listen to sound military strategic advice [instead of whispering in their own ears and substituting political ego for intelligence], the former reputation of the US military as the most respected fighting force on the planet will continue to decline and may be irreparably tarnished.