Civilian Casualties of War

2009-06-07T21:37:00.000-04:00

There is much debate and much decrying of civilian casualties in the ongoing war in Afghanistan in the mainstream press, as well as in private blogs and public forums. While civilian casualties are unfortunate, they are a by-product of war and are nearly impossible to avoid.

Current reporting and blogging seems to reflect a majority opinion among the moderate and left wing camps that the US military is intentionally bombing civilian targets, or is unsympathetic to the civilian population. It becomes apparent by this reasoning that a good number of those who are expressing vocal and written opposition to the tactics employed by the United States and their allies have little understanding of the tactics being employed on the ground by the enemy forces, as well as little imagination as to how civilian casualties are accidental in many cases and incorrectly reported in others.

The war in Afghanistan is not a war with a defined "front". The enemy is not necessarily uniformed and able to be identified apart from the civilian population. In many instances, fighters with allegiances to Taliban and other rival factions reside peacefully with their families during the day in villages adjacent to US military encampments, only to rally at night and attack the very US soldiers that they were sharing tea with that same morning. Tactical responses by US ground units often result in fire fights within these villages, where armed "civilians" fire upon patrolling soldiers from residential buildings. The media might suggest that when a non-uniformed insurgent combatant throws his weapon in a ditch, he becomes a "civilian". The reality is that this is not the position taken by the US troops being fired upon. Many combatant deaths of this nature are reported as civilian casualties, particularly by the local Afghan media. In villages where ground troops experience heavy fire or resistance, air strikes are often called in, which will indeed result in a limited number of non-combatant casualties.

Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire, in his extremely thorough and intensely researched reporting of Afghan civilian deaths due to US aerial bombing, provides information useful to demonstrate what might lead to many of these incidental casualties.

The aforementioned report cites numerous incidents in which civilians have been killed while attempting to flee a combat area. While this tragic loss of innocent life is unfortunate, to a field commander, seeing only an unauthorized vehicle (in some instances, a commercial vehicle or chemical tanker) in a controlled zone that has evaded checkpoints and is on a heading that suggests it may be retreating to enemy held territory, this becomes a target of opportunity......a suspected enemy unit fleeing the area, carrying with him a strategic resource. AC-130 gunships or Apache helicopters cannot very well swoop down to ask for the driver's identification, but they can certainly eliminate a potential threat or perceived aid to the enemy.

Several instances are cited in Professor Herold's report regarding off- target bombing or bombing in civilian populated areas. Nothing is 100% effective or accurate, not even the costly guided munitions used by today's modern forces. The bombs used today are certainly more accurate than those used in any previous conflicts where civilian casualties resulting from aerial assaults were astronomical. Bombing of strategic targets within populated areas becomes necessary in this conflict as a result of the placement of such assets by the Soviet Union during the invasion and subsequent occupation of Afghanistan from 1978 to 1988. Many ministries, local headquarters, anti-aircraft batteries, and weapons and fuel caches were located in densely populated areas during the Soviet occupation in order to protect them from the rural mujahideen fighters. Necessary targeting of these assets by US forces is likely to produce civilian casualties, but certainly not in the numbers one might expect using conventional unguided weapons.

While I agree with Professor Herold that civilian casualties should be avoided by all available means, I also possess an intimate understanding of the reality of this war due to the fact that my son and stepson have both served in infantry units in the Afghan area of operation. I suggest to anyone that has not done so already........if you have a desire to know the truth about what is happening in the war in Afghanistan, and to have an understanding of why there are civilian casualties......turn off your computer, radio, and television and go speak with a soldier who has been there.

Gay Marriage

2009-05-16T19:11:00.008-04:00

This is a particularly tough topic for me to comment on, as I have a number of personal friends who are openly gay.

Let us examine homosexuality. Studies over the last several years have spawned theories that homosexuality may have it's roots in genetics and/or early brain development. Other neurological studies have concluded that the brain of a human infant is "pre-wired" only for the most basic autonomic functions necessary to keep it alive, and that all other neurological connections made in the developing brain are the result of environmental stimuli. Homosexual behavior has been observed in many mammal species other than humans, and is generally behavior forced upon a younger victim by an older member of the social unit in the animal world.

While I do not necessarily believe that human homosexuality, in every case, is a result of child sexual abuse (as is the case with some primates species), I do believe that the connections made in the developing brain of a young human are formed based on their familial or social environment, and not necessarily intentionally. Concisely, I believe that homosexuality is a learned trait which is not altogether taught directly, but rather surmised as the result of a combination of influencing factors. The prepubescent homosexual is not necessarily aware of this influence until puberty or shortly beforehand.

Assuming this is indeed the case, it can be argued that homosexuality is not a chosen behavior, but rather a learned behavior that has been wired into the brain subconsciously by outside influences, causing an individual to prefer same gender relationships without their knowledge or consent, making it seem perfectly natural to them.

By this, we can conclude that post-pubescent individuals do not chose to be gay, but rather are gay by default. No one is necessarily born heterosexual nor homosexual, but rather move about their way based on the neurological connections made in their brains as youngsters.

Experts estimate that roughly 10% of the US population is gay. Americans in general tend to believe that the number is twice that, or roughly 20%. Surveys have shown that American acceptance of homosexuality had risen from 38% in 1992 to 51% in 2002. While homosexuality as a lifestyle is becoming more acceptable, gay marriage, and all of the legal implications thereof, is an entirely different matter.

Marriage has been traditionally defined as the union of a man and a woman, both by legislative enactment and religious text. Marriage is typically the beginning of a bonding phase between members of the opposite sex that puts them in an emotional and financial position to be able to responsibly start a family and raise children. The procreation argument has been at the center of many gay marriage debates, and I have always embraced the notion that the legal benefits of marriage should be reserved for those who choose to procreate and perpetuate the species. After two failed marriages, I am now of the opinion that nobody should marry, gay or otherwise, but that is my problem......

For many years, I quietly opposed gay marriage from the same homophobic standpoint as the majority of American heterosexuals, feeling that things such as spousal benefits and government assistance should not be given to people who had consciously chosen to not procreate, or endure the stresses of a heterosexual relationship. I believe that legislatively mandated acceptance of gay marriage will lead to further erosion of personal freedoms, such as laws against public displays of affection. (Seriously, who wants to see two big hairy construction workers making out at a bus stop?) At the same time, I understand that two people who are attracted to each other and love each other, regardless of gender, have the same right to be themselves as the rest of the population. (Although history shows us that all societies who have embraced homosexuality have collapsed or otherwise ceased to exist since mankind began keeping written records.)

In conclusion, recognizing the many positive contributions by gay people throughout the history of this country, I believe that, rather than be put to a legislative vote demanded and pushed for by a vocal minority (such as what is happening in New York), the issue should be brought before a popular vote and let the majority of the voters decide. This type of sweeping social reform cannot and should not be mandated by the government based on the pleas of a few, or there will certainly be consequences come election time.

Mrky's World

Civilian Casualties of War

Gay Marriage