Civilian casualties are unavoidable in war, and this one is no exception.
"People are going to die," General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said this month before the invasion of Iraq began, preparing the public for some of the consequences of the campaign.
That is the reality despite intense efforts to avoid civilian deaths. Compared with much of the world, the US military is vigilant about training its soldiers on the rules of war and the importance of avoiding needless civilian deaths. The Defense Department's lawyers are constantly consulted about military strategy and targets when time permits; and the military has invested huge resources in developing precision-guided weapons to reduce the loss of innocent life.
"It's an embedded and intrinsic part of American military culture, post-Vietnam," said William Arkin, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic Education at Johns Hopkins University and senior military adviser to Human Rights Watch.
Still, civilian casualties inevitably bring anguish and outcries. That is particularly true now, when war's face can be instantaneously broadcast and magnified to millions all over the globe. Indeed, there was even discussion of charging NATO officials with war crimes for the 1999 bombing of Kosovo, which killed about 500 civilians, although justified on humanitarian grounds. (The charges, brought before the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, were ultimately dropped by prosecutors.)
The 20th century's experience with war has produced a web of international treaties setting out detailed rules of armed conflict. When it comes to non-combatants, there are two overarching principles that everyone seems to agree on.
The first is that the military can't intentionally make targets of civilians. The second is that if commanders know that striking a legitimate military target will kill civilians, causing so-called collateral damage, they must weigh the importance of the military target against the loss of civilian lives.
Just how to interpret those principles, though, and how to weigh the loss of civilian life against other factors, like the lives of American soldiers or the success of the entire military campaign itself, is vigorously debated.
The divisions have become so severe that over the past two years, the Carr Center for the Study of Human Rights Policy at Harvard has sponsored a project that brings together representatives from the military, international lawyers and human rights groups to consider each other's vastly different legal interpretations.
"The human-rights community is absolutist at its core," said Sarah Sewall, program director at the Carr Center and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance in the Clinton administration. "From a military mind-set, civilian casualties are one of the trade-offs."
She added, "It's inherently more complex than the human-rights community approaches it."
The most widely accepted rules derive from the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which govern a range of humanitarian issues arising in wartime, from aiming at civilians to the treatment of prisoners of war.
In 1977, protocols were added to elaborate on the conventions, and that's where bitter disagreements have arisen, particularly with the Americans. (Although more than 150 nations have ratified the protocols, the US has not.)
"It isn't like there's one set of rules," said Ken Anderson, a law professor at American University who has written widely about the rules of armed conflict.
RETHINK? The defense ministry and Navy Command Headquarters could take over the indigenous submarine project and change its production timeline, a source said Admiral Huang Shu-kuang’s (黃曙光) resignation as head of the Indigenous Submarine Program and as a member of the National Security Council could affect the production of submarines, a source said yesterday. Huang in a statement last night said he had decided to resign due to national security concerns while expressing the hope that it would put a stop to political wrangling that only undermines the advancement of the nation’s defense capabilities. Taiwan People’s Party Legislator Vivian Huang (黃珊珊) yesterday said that the admiral, her older brother, felt it was time for him to step down and that he had completed what he
Taiwan has experienced its most significant improvement in the QS World University Rankings by Subject, data provided on Sunday by international higher education analyst Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) showed. Compared with last year’s edition of the rankings, which measure academic excellence and influence, Taiwanese universities made great improvements in the H Index metric, which evaluates research productivity and its impact, with a notable 30 percent increase overall, QS said. Taiwanese universities also made notable progress in the Citations per Paper metric, which measures the impact of research, achieving a 13 percent increase. Taiwanese universities gained 10 percent in Academic Reputation, but declined 18 percent
UNDER DISCUSSION: The combatant command would integrate fast attack boat and anti-ship missile groups to defend waters closest to the coastline, a source said The military could establish a new combatant command as early as 2026, which would be tasked with defending Taiwan’s territorial waters 24 nautical miles (44.4km) from the nation’s coastline, a source familiar with the matter said yesterday. The new command, which would fall under the Naval Command Headquarters, would be led by a vice admiral and integrate existing fast attack boat and anti-ship missile groups, along with the Naval Maritime Surveillance and Reconnaissance Command, said the source, who asked to remain anonymous. It could be launched by 2026, but details are being discussed and no final timetable has been announced, the source
CHINA REACTS: The patrol and reconnaissance plane ‘transited the Taiwan Strait in international airspace,’ the 7th Fleet said, while Taipei said it saw nothing unusual The US 7th Fleet yesterday said that a US Navy P-8A Poseidon flew through the Taiwan Strait, a day after US and Chinese defense heads held their first talks since November 2022 in an effort to reduce regional tensions. The patrol and reconnaissance plane “transited the Taiwan Strait in international airspace,” the 7th Fleet said in a news release. “By operating within the Taiwan Strait in accordance with international law, the United States upholds the navigational rights and freedoms of all nations.” In a separate statement, the Ministry of National Defense said that it monitored nearby waters and airspace as the aircraft