This blog is intended to enhance your learning experience. We can share thoughts and ideas which, I hope, will expand our perspectives on not only topics related to war, genocide, and peace but also in our everyday lives. Good luck and have fun! PLEASE NOTE - Your responses will be assessed for 1.) responding to the prompt thoroughly, 2.) responding to the thoughts of your classmates, 3.) creativity of response, and 4.) appropriate language and correct writing conventions.
Monday, February 25, 2013
War, part 1
Junger describes the civilian casualties of operations in the Korengal in the first excerpt. Are the casualties justified? Be sure to connect your ideas to the Just War theory. Please post by Wednesday, February 27.
I would like to start off by saying that innocent civilian casualties can never be justified. I do not feel that there is ever a civilian death that could no have been prevented. It may make the task much harder, but ultimately is worth it. The situation in War was one of the many horrible outcomes of war. In any situation I don't believe taking the life of an innocent person can be justified. The bombing of that village was completely unnecessary and did not even aid in finding a few RPGs and a few guns. The civilians deaths could EASILY have been prevented with more intel and planning. The proportionality was incredibly off, even without civilian deaths. It was certainly not our last resort. These innocent civilian deaths are absolutely not justified. - Zack Shepherd
Before discussing my personal thoughts about whether or not the civilian casualties that Junger describes, or any other casualties can ever be justified I would like to express the fact that in no way should civilian casualties of any sort be regarded as an “okay” or “good” thing. With this being said the killing of the five Yaka Chine civilians by American soldiers is not and can in no way be justified.
Words such as “supposed to do”, “suspected enemy position”, “I think”, and “I believe” do not in any way, shape, or form constitute grounds for an attack that, if performed could take the lives of innocent, harmless, and blameless citizens. However, despite this rationale the American troops decided that because they believed a few insurgents were hiding in a village home, it would be a good idea to drop a 2,000 bomb in an area in which there were known civilians. In short, the American troops became sloppy and messy in their actions against the insurgents and instead of gaining proper intelligence; they took it upon themselves to drop a bomb without a second thought regarding its deadly consequence. Sure enough, the bomb killed five village civilians and wounded ten more. Furthermore, by killing the five innocent civilians in the attack the American’s broke the Rule of War number two in the jus in bello section of the Just War Theory which states: “soldiers must discriminate between the civilian population and military targets.” Clearly and blatantly, the American soldiers disregarded this rule and essentially murdered five guiltless people. Granted, upon entering the village the soldiers did find weapons such as rifles and RPG’s however those weapons were probably being kept to defend against the insurgent population and were never used or seen by the American’s prior to them dropping the 2,000 bomb. Worse still, a soldier writes off the incident as “a matter which will require diplomacy and compensation.” This thoughtless and heartless remark would never even have been thought of if it were an American who lay dead, burned, and charred on the ground. This then brings me to my next point:
According to the Rules of War, Yaka Chine needs to be “compensated” for its losses. Normally, I would agree with this statement if the losses were monetary such as buildings and artillery however, what is the price of a human beings life let alone five innocent lives. The answer is nothing. No amount of money can or will ever return a son to his parents, a loved one to its family, or a husband to a wife. It is for these reasons that the American military made the wrong call in dropping the bomb without first surveying the area for possible “collateral damage.” Not only were no American’s punished as it states in the fifth jus post bello rule of the Just War Theory, but American troops failed to use proportionality regarding the third jus in bello rule and dropped a bomb on people whom they believed to be carrying hand and machine gun weaponry. Lastly, the final reason why these casualties cannot be justified is the fact that it was the fault of the Americans themselves that Vandenberge, Rice, and Rougle were shot and in Rougle’s case killed. This of course does not mean that the actions against them were right or justified either due to the Rule of War specifying not to retaliate against malicious behavior. None the less, had the American’s confirmed that no civilians were in danger before dropping the bomb then the elders of the Yaka Chine would not have declared Jihad on them which resulted in American casualties. ---Nick Palumbo
Civilian casualties are never justified, they are often preventable and are usually a result of the opposing military being fed up and careless. In the case of the bombing of the village it was unnaceptable however in some cases where a country strikes another countries civilian population, there is just cause to go after that country's civilian population as well. This is not morally ethical but the just war theory slightly justifies. Civilian deaths are tragic however when a country goes to war there are bound to be causulties throughout the whole population. This should not be the case because civilians are not the ones choosing to be involved in the war, they are innocent bystanders of what is ultimatley there goverment using military action for political gain. Conclusively the casulties in Korengal were not justified because they had no right to kill the civilians that they did and it ultimatley just made the situation worse for the Americans. -Sarah Kennedy
The way I see it is that there is no excuse for things such as civilian casualties because jus bello or during the war says that that the enemy or us should be able to discremenant betwwen combatants and non-combatants. People should be able to tell the difference because first of all you can see someone is a combatant because they are holding a weapon. The people who are discribed are three kids who seem scared and a women who is mute and scared as well with 5 dead corpses which could have only happened because of wrekless shooting. Even though the children are being blamed of trying to attack the american troopers it is hard to explain a combatant as a kid who is being paid five dollers to shoot an rpg. Its not all the kids fault because the way I see it is that to shoot any weapon it seems as easy as pulling a trigger. These children shouldnt be seen as a combatant even though they carry a weapon it doesn't feel right to kill a child who is just a curios person which is why it is never all right to kill civilians. -Jesus Garcia
First of all, I think that civilian casualties are never justifiable. One of the rules for jus in bello is discrimination and non-combatant immunity. It says that soldiers must discriminate between the civilian population and the military. By dropping that bomb on the village and killing innocent civilians they were clearly ignoring this rule. The casualties could have been prevented if they hadn't been so careless. I also think that they should have been held accountable for all the casualties. Gilisa Paternina
There will always be casualties in war. It’s wrong but it’s a war, where death is pretty much inevitable. It’s hard to determine who is bad and who is just standing on the side hoping for security in what’s left of their home. In a war it’s not justified when tragedies and casualties happen. It’s wrong to kill innocent people who are on the enemy’s side literally but not fighting the government. I felt like Kearney didn’t care about the people and just wanted to see them all dead because they were against him and the government he represents. He was serving his duty to find the enemy and the civilians had RPG’s in their possession, so that shows Kearney that they were enemies ready to fight. So his feelings can be justified by what was found, but still not just enough to kill the civilians who were not trying to get involved and were only defending themselves like any scared person would. ~Megan
The civilian casualties described by Junger are justified. When airstrikes we called in on the Afghan village there was substantial intelligence that there insurgents in the village. Their intelligece was proven true when they find "eight rpg rounds and a shotgun..." etc. What Captain Kearney says regarding this "When I come into villages and I find RPG's and weapons that are shot at myself...that indicates that there are bad people here. Good people don't use these weapons" is a very legitimate reason that civilians were killed. According to the rules of war you have to distinguish between civilian and military personnel but when these two groups are so close together and inditinguishable from one another some collateral damage is allowed. -Colin Krohto
I believe that casualties in a war is justified. That is because along with many other factors this is the price of warfare. When it comes to warfare one of the most rational ways of attack is through airstrikes. This is because it limits the amount of our own troops on the ground, lowering the chance of casualties. Along with benefits there is also negative effects such as civilian casualties. When bombs are dropped especially in villages there is always a chance that civilians are there. As long as there is direct intel that proves that there are dangerous enemies at the point of attack I believe that a few civilian casualties is justified. -Ben Guyette
Justice for all. This is the goal of America since the country came to fruition back in the 18th century. So why is it that we act as if justice is only for us? Evidence is the vital factor in determining justice for those suspected of wrongdoing, and so why did we kill these civilians without any. Why did we take away innocent souls from this earth without the thing that is quintessential to how we, as Americans, determine someone’s guilt? Working off of statements such as, “there may have been,” or “we believed that,” just does not hold up to our American standards. It is us that leads the world, and so we must do so with great caution and humility. We cannot assume that because we are the leaders, we can do as we please. We cannot just say we support something and tell others to support it, such as justice through evidence, and completely abandon our word and do the complete opposite of what we say. We cannot turn into a nation of hypocrisy. The death of the civilians in Korengal, and any civilians for that matter, can never be justified.
America must lead by example. Although the rules of the Just War Theory are not codified, they serve as a great guideline for how war should be conducted. One rule America completely ignored was the discrimination between civilians and combatants. We did not at all distinguish between the insurgents in the house and the civilians. Instead, we had a Spectre gunship rain hell down onto the house. Using the gunship is a violation of another rule of war, proportionality. Using the gunship on the house was completely unnecessary and utterly imprudent. Using the gunship meant a 100% that the civilians in the house would die. The Army should have chosen to send men into the house to search for the insurgent, significantly reducing the chance of civilian casualty. Ignoring such rules of war should not be the American way. Doing so sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of the world to follow, with dire consequences that would undoubtedly follow.
The casualties that what described in the first excerpt were not justified killings. Killing civilians is a horrible thing and should never be justified. What happened in this excerpt should have been prevented. They shouldn't have taken the chance of killing civilians just because there were enemies nearby. When we are at war it is our job to protect our civilians and keep them safe. We should not be going out there killing any civilians even if they do belong to the enemy side.
Their is no right in killing civilians in war. You are too kill the enemy and thats it. Any killing of civilians in my opinion is murder. They should not have killed civilians, the United States is to protect civilians, so we don't get a bad reputation to the rest of the world. -Connor Lanoie
There is never a justification to kill an innocent civilian. They do happen all the time tho, but does that mean that the deaths are meaning less and are ok? No its not the military has to be more 100% that they are going in and killing a target that is 100% guilty. Espcially in the case of an air raid, they cannot just drop raid a village because they think there is a chance that an enemy is there and there are citizen life at risk. they just shouldnt be able to do that, they need to be able to single out the target and take out the target and only the target. There is never a justification for civilain death, and more has to be done to protect citzens. Tommy janicki
In war I think no civilians should ever be killed. It was avoidable in this situation and they should have checked where they were bombing. In every war civilian deaths will be seen but that doesn’t make it any less tragic when people are killed. It is a rule that no civilians should be killed and they didn’t check the facts which could have saved these innocent people. These people did nothing to be in this situation and for them to die because of it I believe is unacceptable. -Pamela
I would like to start off by saying that innocent civilian casualties can never be justified. I do not feel that there is ever a civilian death that could no have been prevented. It may make the task much harder, but ultimately is worth it. The situation in War was one of the many horrible outcomes of war. In any situation I don't believe taking the life of an innocent person can be justified. The bombing of that village was completely unnecessary and did not even aid in finding a few RPGs and a few guns. The civilians deaths could EASILY have been prevented with more intel and planning. The proportionality was incredibly off, even without civilian deaths. It was certainly not our last resort. These innocent civilian deaths are absolutely not justified. - Zack Shepherd
ReplyDeleteBefore discussing my personal thoughts about whether or not the civilian casualties that Junger describes, or any other casualties can ever be justified I would like to express the fact that in no way should civilian casualties of any sort be regarded as an “okay” or “good” thing. With this being said the killing of the five Yaka Chine civilians by American soldiers is not and can in no way be justified.
ReplyDeleteWords such as “supposed to do”, “suspected enemy position”, “I think”, and “I believe” do not in any way, shape, or form constitute grounds for an attack that, if performed could take the lives of innocent, harmless, and blameless citizens. However, despite this rationale the American troops decided that because they believed a few insurgents were hiding in a village home, it would be a good idea to drop a 2,000 bomb in an area in which there were known civilians. In short, the American troops became sloppy and messy in their actions against the insurgents and instead of gaining proper intelligence; they took it upon themselves to drop a bomb without a second thought regarding its deadly consequence. Sure enough, the bomb killed five village civilians and wounded ten more. Furthermore, by killing the five innocent civilians in the attack the American’s broke the Rule of War number two in the jus in bello section of the Just War Theory which states: “soldiers must discriminate between the civilian population and military targets.” Clearly and blatantly, the American soldiers disregarded this rule and essentially murdered five guiltless people. Granted, upon entering the village the soldiers did find weapons such as rifles and RPG’s however those weapons were probably being kept to defend against the insurgent population and were never used or seen by the American’s prior to them dropping the 2,000 bomb. Worse still, a soldier writes off the incident as “a matter which will require diplomacy and compensation.” This thoughtless and heartless remark would never even have been thought of if it were an American who lay dead, burned, and charred on the ground. This then brings me to my next point:
According to the Rules of War, Yaka Chine needs to be “compensated” for its losses. Normally, I would agree with this statement if the losses were monetary such as buildings and artillery however, what is the price of a human beings life let alone five innocent lives. The answer is nothing. No amount of money can or will ever return a son to his parents, a loved one to its family, or a husband to a wife. It is for these reasons that the American military made the wrong call in dropping the bomb without first surveying the area for possible “collateral damage.” Not only were no American’s punished as it states in the fifth jus post bello rule of the Just War Theory, but American troops failed to use proportionality regarding the third jus in bello rule and dropped a bomb on people whom they believed to be carrying hand and machine gun weaponry.
Lastly, the final reason why these casualties cannot be justified is the fact that it was the fault of the Americans themselves that Vandenberge, Rice, and Rougle were shot and in Rougle’s case killed. This of course does not mean that the actions against them were right or justified either due to the Rule of War specifying not to retaliate against malicious behavior. None the less, had the American’s confirmed that no civilians were in danger before dropping the bomb then the elders of the Yaka Chine would not have declared Jihad on them which resulted in American casualties.
---Nick Palumbo
Civilian casualties are never justified, they are often preventable and are usually a result of the opposing military being fed up and careless. In the case of the bombing of the village it was unnaceptable however in some cases where a country strikes another countries civilian population, there is just cause to go after that country's civilian population as well. This is not morally ethical but the just war theory slightly justifies. Civilian deaths are tragic however when a country goes to war there are bound to be causulties throughout the whole population. This should not be the case because civilians are not the ones choosing to be involved in the war, they are innocent bystanders of what is ultimatley there goverment using military action for political gain. Conclusively the casulties in Korengal were not justified because they had no right to kill the civilians that they did and it ultimatley just made the situation worse for the Americans.
ReplyDelete-Sarah Kennedy
The way I see it is that there is no excuse for things such as civilian casualties because jus bello or during the war says that that the enemy or us should be able to discremenant betwwen combatants and non-combatants. People should be able to tell the difference because first of all you can see someone is a combatant because they are holding a weapon. The people who are discribed are three kids who seem scared and a women who is mute and scared as well with 5 dead corpses which could have only happened because of wrekless shooting. Even though the children are being blamed of trying to attack the american troopers it is hard to explain a combatant as a kid who is being paid five dollers to shoot an rpg. Its not all the kids fault because the way I see it is that to shoot any weapon it seems as easy as pulling a trigger. These children shouldnt be seen as a combatant even though they carry a weapon it doesn't feel right to kill a child who is just a curios person which is why it is never all right to kill civilians.
ReplyDelete-Jesus Garcia
First of all, I think that civilian casualties are never justifiable. One of the rules for jus in bello is discrimination and non-combatant immunity. It says that soldiers must discriminate between the civilian population and the military. By dropping that bomb on the village and killing innocent civilians they were clearly ignoring this rule. The casualties could have been prevented if they hadn't been so careless. I also think that they should have been held accountable for all the casualties.
ReplyDeleteGilisa Paternina
There will always be casualties in war. It’s wrong but it’s a war, where death is pretty much inevitable. It’s hard to determine who is bad and who is just standing on the side hoping for security in what’s left of their home. In a war it’s not justified when tragedies and casualties happen. It’s wrong to kill innocent people who are on the enemy’s side literally but not fighting the government. I felt like Kearney didn’t care about the people and just wanted to see them all dead because they were against him and the government he represents. He was serving his duty to find the enemy and the civilians had RPG’s in their possession, so that shows Kearney that they were enemies ready to fight. So his feelings can be justified by what was found, but still not just enough to kill the civilians who were not trying to get involved and were only defending themselves like any scared person would. ~Megan
ReplyDeleteThe civilian casualties described by Junger are justified. When airstrikes we called in on the Afghan village there was substantial intelligence that there insurgents in the village. Their intelligece was proven true when they find "eight rpg rounds and a shotgun..." etc. What Captain Kearney says regarding this "When I come into villages and I find RPG's and weapons that are shot at myself...that indicates that there are bad people here. Good people don't use these weapons" is a very legitimate reason that civilians were killed. According to the rules of war you have to distinguish between civilian and military personnel but when these two groups are so close together and inditinguishable from one another some collateral damage is allowed.
ReplyDelete-Colin Krohto
I believe that casualties in a war is justified. That is because along with many other factors this is the price of warfare. When it comes to warfare one of the most rational ways of attack is through airstrikes. This is because it limits the amount of our own troops on the ground, lowering the chance of casualties. Along with benefits there is also negative effects such as civilian casualties. When bombs are dropped especially in villages there is always a chance that civilians are there. As long as there is direct intel that proves that there are dangerous enemies at the point of attack I believe that a few civilian casualties is justified.
ReplyDelete-Ben Guyette
Justice for all. This is the goal of America since the country came to fruition back in the 18th century. So why is it that we act as if justice is only for us? Evidence is the vital factor in determining justice for those suspected of wrongdoing, and so why did we kill these civilians without any. Why did we take away innocent souls from this earth without the thing that is quintessential to how we, as Americans, determine someone’s guilt? Working off of statements such as, “there may have been,” or “we believed that,” just does not hold up to our American standards. It is us that leads the world, and so we must do so with great caution and humility. We cannot assume that because we are the leaders, we can do as we please. We cannot just say we support something and tell others to support it, such as justice through evidence, and completely abandon our word and do the complete opposite of what we say. We cannot turn into a nation of hypocrisy. The death of the civilians in Korengal, and any civilians for that matter, can never be justified.
ReplyDeleteAmerica must lead by example. Although the rules of the Just War Theory are not codified, they serve as a great guideline for how war should be conducted. One rule America completely ignored was the discrimination between civilians and combatants. We did not at all distinguish between the insurgents in the house and the civilians. Instead, we had a Spectre gunship rain hell down onto the house. Using the gunship is a violation of another rule of war, proportionality. Using the gunship on the house was completely unnecessary and utterly imprudent. Using the gunship meant a 100% that the civilians in the house would die. The Army should have chosen to send men into the house to search for the insurgent, significantly reducing the chance of civilian casualty. Ignoring such rules of war should not be the American way. Doing so sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of the world to follow, with dire consequences that would undoubtedly follow.
The casualties that what described in the first excerpt were not justified killings. Killing civilians is a horrible thing and should never be justified. What happened in this excerpt should have been prevented. They shouldn't have taken the chance of killing civilians just because there were enemies nearby. When we are at war it is our job to protect our civilians and keep them safe. We should not be going out there killing any civilians even if they do belong to the enemy side.
ReplyDeleteTheir is no right in killing civilians in war. You are too kill the enemy and thats it. Any killing of civilians in my opinion is murder. They should not have killed civilians, the United States is to protect civilians, so we don't get a bad reputation to the rest of the world.
ReplyDelete-Connor Lanoie
There is never a justification to kill an innocent civilian. They do happen all the time tho, but does that mean that the deaths are meaning less and are ok? No its not the military has to be more 100% that they are going in and killing a target that is 100% guilty. Espcially in the case of an air raid, they cannot just drop raid a village because they think there is a chance that an enemy is there and there are citizen life at risk. they just shouldnt be able to do that, they need to be able to single out the target and take out the target and only the target. There is never a justification for civilain death, and more has to be done to protect citzens.
ReplyDeleteTommy janicki
In war I think no civilians should ever be killed. It was avoidable in this situation and they should have checked where they were bombing. In every war civilian deaths will be seen but that doesn’t make it any less tragic when people are killed. It is a rule that no civilians should be killed and they didn’t check the facts which could have saved these innocent people. These people did nothing to be in this situation and for them to die because of it I believe is unacceptable.
ReplyDelete-Pamela