Hi Quetzal,
Quetzal writes:
Although I don't concede the point on "criminal" negligence, which has rather specific connotations, I will concede that a) the invasion of Iraq itself was illegal under international law, and b) in that context any loss of civilian life is therefore unjustified by definition. The US's entire approach to Iraq is wrong. However, I don't believe anyone has made a conclusive case for systematic disregard for human rights OR human life. I would be willing to be convinced, however, if it could be shown that a deliberate policy of either indiscriminate destruction of civilian areas or civilian (i.e., protected) structures was being undertaken.
Yes I remember. Its difficult to know how to resolve this disagreement without me barraging you with (what I perceive as) evidence to support this. I still don't have the time to do this properly tho' so we'll have to continue to agree to disagree on this. I agree with your tangential point about the legality of the war, but in addition I think there are aspects within the prosecution of the war which smack of plain negligence to me.
It would not, nor was it intended, to prevent incidents such as Al-Ameriyah. IMO, there is probably no way short of mutually-agreed-upon set-piece battles where both sides line up on an open plain where no civilians can possibly be harmed - sort of like a football game - to avoid civilian casualties in a conflict situation. Nor is it possible to avoid civilian deaths when the combat takes place in built-up areas. As the only other way to conduct combat operations in urban areas is by seige, which entails as much if not more civilian suffering (see, for example, the seige of Lenningrad in WWII), it isn't clear to me that there is any way to avoid civilian casualties except by conceding defeat as soon as urban areas are involved. And that IS unrealistic.
Apolgies if this is strawmanning you, but the terrorism charge is often used in the same tones as those who proclaim that the bombing of cities is somehow morally superior to the beheading of hostages, because the civilain deaths from the bombing weren't
intentional. This is why I think, that although a definition of terrorism based around intent might not actually prevent a repeat of Al-Ameriyah, it might make similar incidents more likely. As long as one could claim that one wasn't acting deliberately, it allows one of the parties, and in this case, the party with the overwhelmingly powerful firepower carte blanche to slip into negligent behaviour whilst maintaining the facade of moral superiority.
I said I wasn't going to bombard you with examples, but one in particular springs to my mind, during the War in Afghanistan. I remember the news report where I think four US bombs hit a village killing about 30-40 people. At first, the US military denied that the village wasn't a legitimate military target and then, a few days later the claim was that somebody had punched in the wrong ordnance co-ordinates somewhere along the chain.
I find this mind-boggling. Nobody checks what somebody else is manually punching in, on
a bomb? Imagine the outrage if a bomb had accidentally been dropped on a US city. If the military stationed in the US exercise more care in their operations then is it fair to say that at least some of the US military is negligent? Is it fair on the dead to put this down to the stresses of modern combat?
(Having said that, I can't find the news article from a websearch - seem to remember it pretty clearly though).
I submit that using an already existing term (that everyone claims to "understand" but no one has effectively defined), regardless of existing connotations AND at the same time convincing state actors of the utter futility of this tactic for the accomplishment of their political-military objectives, then we have gone a very long way down the road to eliminating the deliberate targeting of civilians as a tool of war. With this accomplished, it seems to me to be a logical continuation that other tools that cause suffering in a civilian population during conflict can ALSO be addressed. Or at least we have a better shot at it.
This is fair enough - as long as we
do continue down the path. My intuition tells me that this continuation won't happen though, especially in a war where your opponent is deliberately targetting civilians, one side will always be able to use the "accidnet" defense for atrocities. In a war where neither side is being deliberate, then "accidents" will happen on both sides.
Unless we also recognise negligent behaviour for the war crime that it is, and we do this at the same time as we address deliberate targeting of civilians then I don't think we'll ever see a continuation along the road you suggest.
We do need a real body with teeth to observe armed conflicts and if necessary to bring criminal behaviour (I almost used 'evildoers' there!) to account. sadly, the UN has been delegitimised by the most powerful country in the world and I don't see this happening any time soon. Until then, any defintion of terrorism will be used as an excuse to meet any resistance whatsoever with disproportionate violence, and then claim accident afterwards.
PE
™ Version 4.2