March 18, 2003

U.S. SOLDIERS vs IRAQI CIVILIANS

MR. PRESIDENT, DON’T PUT OUR MEN AT A DISADVANTAGE

In the Gulf War and even in Afghanistan there was much hand-wringing in the State Department about “collateral damage.” Haunting every military strategy and tactic was the ghost of collateral damage. The scenario goes something like this: there is a successful air strike against an important enemy installation, but the enemy calls in the press to show them that one of the walls of the orphanage next to the bombed installation collapsed killing 13 little orphans and maiming 20 others. The press has a feeding frenzy and the bloody scenes are on U.S. and world-wide TV for the evening news cycle. The military offers no word except to say that it will look into the matter. The following day the White House press corps smells blood and poor Ari Fleischer is eaten alive. For the next week the pictures are shown in every newspaper in the world with accompanying stories asserting how cruel and heartless the beastly Americans are. The net result is that the White House tells the Pentagon and the Pentagon tells the CINC and the CINC tells the commanding General and the Commanding General tells the Air Strategy Controller, and he tells the pilots to lay off being so aggressive. That’s exactly what happened in the Gulf War. The net result was that we were inhibited from pursuing our war aims for a week or more. What that means is that the war gets prolonged and more men have an opportunity to get killed or wounded.

War being what it is, whenever soldiers are inhibited from performing their soldierly duties they are disadvantaged and vulnerable to an opportunistic enemy. You can be sure that some of our men will die or be wounded unnecessarily.

It boils down to this, that soldiers are frequently put in an ambiguous situation in the fog of war that requires them to make choices between “us” or “them.” And whether they take lethal action against an unknown target or not depends on the “Rules of Engagement” issued to them at the time of battle. If, for example, they are told not to fire unless fired upon, they are put at a distinct disadvantage. They may never get a chance to return fire.

Such rules of engagement may sound like a fair and honorable way of fighting, but that’s not the way to win wars and diminish casualties.

It is enough to ask our soldiers to risk their lives for our safety, it is too much to ask them to risk their lives for the safety of Iraqi civilians as well.

The important idea that our soldiers and their civilian masters must keep in mind and publish loud and frequently, especially to the press, is that if Iraqi civilians, women, children, orphans, sick people, get killed or injured, it is completely the responsibility of Saddam Hussein and his government. His countrymen are in his care, they are his to safeguard and not expose to danger.

Our men must be given rules of engagement that explicitly tell them that pursuing their military objectives—which is a military way of saying they are protecting their country and its people—is first on their agenda, that keeping themselves as safe as possible is next on the agenda, and then and only then can regard for civilian life be considered.

The press must be told that our soldiers are not risking their lives in Iraq in order to be humanitarians—at least not until the war is over.