Yeahbut...
Hasn't war (and whatever we want to call the post-2001 hostilities we're participating in) always been like this? "Sherman killed my great-great-grandpa and destroyed our farm so the Yankees can go to Hell."
In a way, I think it's a little surprising that there isn't more animosity toward the US than there is. We (by some estimates) dropped 7.8M tons of bombs on SE Asia, killed millions, and people are still being killed by them every year, yet we have good relations with Vietnam and her people now. I think it shows that people generally want to look forward even after a horrible past and will do so if given the chance.
The military as an institution spends a lot of money to try to minimize "collateral damage" and civilian deaths and injuries. Things like sniper systems with guided bullets are being researched. Drone operators make mistakes - they're human after all - but I believe the alternative is generally worse when it comes to collateral damage.
It's horrible and counter-productive when wedding parties and the like are attacked and dozens are killed in an attempt to kill one or a few leaders of the other side. I don't know of a way to prevent things like that in a war situation, though. If we say we will not attack a target if there is a chance of non-combatant casualties, then "human shields" will become the norm. If we say that drones will no longer be used to attack people (but only used for surveillance), then will we really get better results if humans are in the aircraft doing the firing? (Remember the videos leaked by Manning?)
I don't know.
If history is any guide, the answer is to minimize the time of the conflict while not obliterating the enemy; work to achieve a just, fair, definitive result; and give the people in the countries and regions affected a decent, respectful life through economic development and reasonable political and social advancement. Having the result be a wishy-washy stalemate with insufficient investment afterward is a recipe for continued resentment and anger. That's what breeds terrorists and asymmetric warfare, I think.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
In a way, I think it's a little surprising that there isn't more animosity toward the US than there is. We (by some estimates) dropped 7.8M tons of bombs on SE Asia, killed millions, and people are still being killed by them every year, yet we have good relations with Vietnam and her people now. I think it shows that people generally want to look forward even after a horrible past and will do so if given the chance.
The military as an institution spends a lot of money to try to minimize "collateral damage" and civilian deaths and injuries. Things like sniper systems with guided bullets are being researched. Drone operators make mistakes - they're human after all - but I believe the alternative is generally worse when it comes to collateral damage.
It's horrible and counter-productive when wedding parties and the like are attacked and dozens are killed in an attempt to kill one or a few leaders of the other side. I don't know of a way to prevent things like that in a war situation, though. If we say we will not attack a target if there is a chance of non-combatant casualties, then "human shields" will become the norm. If we say that drones will no longer be used to attack people (but only used for surveillance), then will we really get better results if humans are in the aircraft doing the firing? (Remember the videos leaked by Manning?)
I don't know.
If history is any guide, the answer is to minimize the time of the conflict while not obliterating the enemy; work to achieve a just, fair, definitive result; and give the people in the countries and regions affected a decent, respectful life through economic development and reasonable political and social advancement. Having the result be a wishy-washy stalemate with insufficient investment afterward is a recipe for continued resentment and anger. That's what breeds terrorists and asymmetric warfare, I think.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.