|
Trending Topics
|
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/14/AR2009111402279.html
Did the U.S. Act "Disproportionately" Against the Taliban?
[Washington Post] Editorial - In order to eliminate Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, the U.S. launched at least 15 missile strikes in Pakistan this year and killed, besides Mehsud, somewhere between 200 and 300 people, according to a study by the New America Foundation. At least a quarter of those who died were civilians. Was that toll "disproportionate" to the threat posed by a single terrorist and therefore a war crime? How about the recent NATO bombing of hijacked fuel tankers in northern Afghanistan, in which a mix of 80 to 120 Taliban militants and civilians died? Justified strike, accident or war crime? Asymmetrical wars, in which terrorists and insurgents deliberately mix among civilians, are the story of the 21st century so far - and there are no clear norms for managing the moral dilemmas they pose. Can a drone's targeter knowingly expose civilians to injury if a terrorist leader is in range? How should a civilized army respond when its soldiers are mortared, or its own civilians exposed to rocket fire, from a position inside a schoolyard? The Goldstone commission made a mockery of impartiality. It concluded, on scant evidence, that "disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy" by Israel. At the same time it pronounced itself unable to confirm that Hamas hid its fighters among civilians, used human shields, fired mortars and rockets from outside schools, stored weapons in mosques, and used a hospital for its headquarters, despite abundant available evidence. As it happens, Israel is ahead of most other nations in managing these issues. In Gaza its forces used thousands of e-mails, phone calls and even non-lethal explosives to warn civilians away from airstrike targets.