John Keegan asks whether trying to avoid civilian casualties may cause more deaths:
How much more difficult are the allies making this war for themselves by their determination to spare the Iraqi civilian population as much suffering as is humanly possible? That is certainly a condition of the strategy being pursued.
…is the effort to minimise civilian mortality counter-productive? Do slow and careful operational procedures actually increase the number of civilian deaths and the amount of suffering, when a less precautionary and more peremptory approach might achieve the same, or even a better effect, by hastening the end?
A good analysis of the classic military dilemma. Also, an important reminder that it is Saddam’s ba’athists who are using civilians as a proxy:
Saddam and his apparatchiks have absolutely no compunction about employing violence to keep themselves in power. They will shoot anyone who looks like changing sides or trying to escape from the regime’s control. They benefit from the indisputably powerful effect of displaying force. They equally benefit from the reluctance of the allies to display any more force than they believe to be necessary.
Now that up to 50% of the ‘armies’ ringing Baghdad are composed of not merely conscripts, but POWs within their own ‘army’, held to ransom/hostage by the ‘loyal Saddamites’; they are compelled to fight by threat of being shot in the back of the head or having their families shot.
Evil pschopaths as enforcers!
It is simply astounding to watch the range of opinions on how long this war will take and how difficult it will be and whether or not the right strategies are being pursued.
It’s reached the point where I simply accept what the generals say, since they seem to know what they’re talking about. We’ll see if that’s foolish of me or not.