Most weaponry is by nature inaccurate. There is a concept called Circular Error Probability (CEP); in a word, a piece of artillery is good if it has a fifty percent chance that its shots will land in a circle (the size varies, but it won’t be too small) around the aim. For terrorists, they won’t hesitate to put their own cannons near a kindergarten or a hospital. If you want to destroy their weapons, the price that you have to pay is that the hospitals and schools might be hit. If that is humiliation, then humiliation is almost unavoidable.

So the next question is: is it necessary? At first something must be clarified: the civilian deaths do not necessarily mean illegality under the laws of war or responsibility under international criminal law. The intent of the commander is the key: if the strike is against a legitimate military objective, the collateral deaths may not incur liability even though the commander knows that there might be some risk of civilian casualties. And I believe very few commanders would try to intentionally hit civilian targets. Therefore, I don’t think there is much sense in talking about how to conduct a war because civilian casualties are just inevitable (of course, better technology may reduce the number, but it won’t disappear). The real question still lies in whether there should be a war.

Jus ad bellum (laws of war) and jus in bello (laws in war) are different. Even though the means and methods are totally legal, the war’s legality in the first place must still be examined. In this sense, the war in Iraq may be an easier question, since it is quite apparent (at least for me) that it was illegal when it was initiated in 2003. The war in Afghanistan is a different case: the war itself seems to be legal; thus it is hard to make a legal argument against it if the forces on the ground conduct the fighting following the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, it’s not so much about whether the war in Afghanistan is legal or not, but more about whether it’s worth it.

Let’s assume the purpose of the war is to eradicate as much terrorism as possible. Military solution has its advantage. However, the hatred arising from it may lead to the creation of more terrorists in the future. So it is really a dilemma. As I mentioned, there is no way to avoid civilian casualty totally, but is there a way to prevent the sense of humiliation arising from these inevitable civilian deaths? There may be a solution theoretically: telling the people that the US is on their side against the terrorists. However, it’s easier said than done.

-- WenweiLai - 30 Jun 2010