|
Humane war despite casualties
By Christian Bell
Editor in Chief
FILE PHOTO
CNN video footage of one of the mobile surgical hospitals being set up in Iraq.
|
Regardless of what side of the war debate you fall on, the current confrontation has brought to light some fundamental differences in how the United States conducts modern military operations as opposed to the conduct of its enemies. The proof in this lies in what we have seen and read: greatly humane treatment from the United States for even the soldiers we are fighting versus cruel, unjust and terrifying treatment by the Iraqis.
To this end, we can be thankful that if this confrontation must be fought, we have the benefits and progress of 21st century warfare. Whereas previous wars have cost millions of lives and shattered entire continents for decades, our current conflict involves precise surgical military confrontation against precise military targets, and because of this, the current war we are fighting – though its atrocities are still many – is a more militarily-engaged war.
Take for example the weapons that coalition forces are using. Our bombs and cruise missiles are guided by lasers and satellites that offer precision targeting to the meter. We thankfully no longer carry out massive fire bombing campaigns like allied forces did during the Second World War, where we bombed entire city regions and destroyed military, commercial and civilian targets. We now identify military targets through a combination of forward-intelligence and satellite imagery, and we are able to hit those targets with little to no collateral damage.
Secondly, the United States’ method of fighting is greatly more humane than that of the Iraqis or other enemies we have fought. As much as we have been told, the U.S. military has taken strenuous measures to ensure that collateral damage and civilian impact of the war is as negligible as possible. Furthermore, we are carrying out a humanitarian effort in connection with the military effort, in order to ensure that the infrastructure necessary to support civilian life is not egregiously harmed during the conflict.
Furthermore, we might even go so far as to say that we fight more morally than our enemies. While this is a tricky claim to navigate, we can speak of it intelligently if we look at some of the events that have been unfolding in the opening days of the Iraq war.
CNN recently reported on mobile surgical units that have been deployed alongside regular troops. The units set up surgical tents wherever they are needed, and treat casualties as they come off the battlefield. On several occasions, Iraqi soldiers who have been wounded in combat were treated by the American military surgeons, sometimes before an American soldier who was in less severe condition. According to the article, “The most badly wounded fighters from the front lines are treated first, regardless of whether they are friend or foe.” It is unthinkable in many countries that an invading force would give medical aid to the army it is fighting in the same way it treats its own soldiers. But this, we find out, is the way that the modern United States military conducts business.
It is also well documented both in the current conflict and in Desert Storm that Iraqi POWs are treated humanely and with respect, and are cared for. POWs are given a warm meal, clean clothing and what medical attention they need.
By comparison, the Iraqi military under the command of Saddam Hussein apparently has no such interest in keeping the conflict humane. On Sunday morning rumors circulated the American press that a coalition aircraft had crashed into a river in Baghdad. An Abu Dhabi TV crew in Baghdad recorded Iraqi soldiers patrolling up and down the river in boats, firing their rifles into the water, and setting fire to brush on the riverbank to try and smoke out the allegedly downed soldier (it turned out that reports of the crash were fictitious). An American military commander said of the spectacle, “Obviously their search-and-rescue techniques leave a lot to be desired.”
And we have seen other war atrocities committed against American soldiers. POWs have been tortured, shot and killed by the Iraqi military. Advancing coalition forces have been ambushed by Iraqi soldiers posing as surrendering civilians. If the conflict becomes prolonged, this list is sure to grow longer. The Iraqi military does not seem to want to fight a war on the same humanitarian level that the United States does.
This evidence does not lend its support to either the pro- or anti-war side, however. Rather, what it is evidence of is this: our modern military capability has allowed a large conflict to have considerably reduced or more localized trauma than previous wars we have fought in. Unless terrible new weapons are used, we may end up measuring the war’s casualties in hundred or dozens, instead of in millions as with previous wars.
While even one loss is a traumatic and catastrophic occurrence, history is rife with examples of how damaging war can be in terms of the human condition. This war will no doubt carry with it some of those burdens. However, our humanitarian treatment and commitment to avoid collateral damage may help reduce the most critical burden of all: the human one. Each soldier that we bring back alive – be they American or otherwise – ought to feel a sense of relief on that matter.
|
