Balance

--Sebastian

One of my key watchwords is "balance".  For instance I believe that temperamental conservatives and temperamental liberals both have excellent things to add to society and that they need each other to be most effective.  I'm not all about splitting the middle, I'm often quite sure that there is a right and wrong answer, but I'm sure that there are multiple fruitful approachs to a question.  This post by Joseph Britt (guest writing for Daniel Drezner) reminded me of one of things about foreign policy analysis that tends to get out of balance:  the alleged duality between "realist" and "idealist" concepts of foreign policy.  Now I realize that international relations professors use the two terms in highly specialized ways that are not closely related to how everyone else uses them.  I think it is a mistake to choose your jargon in such a way as to make such confusion easy, but that is a rant for another day.  In common parlance (and that may actually have more of a political effect than the international relations jargon anyway) the discussion seem to treat "idealist" foreign policy and "realist" foreign policy as opposite.  Carter is usually cast in the role of "idealist" and Nixon as "realist" for instance.  The problem is that the terms, especially as loosely used, are not opposites.  The reason they are sometimes seen as in tension is that realists often offer a pragmatic check on what idealists want to do.  It isn't a bad thing to try to know what you can and cannot do.  But focusing exlusively on means doesn't tell you what ends you ought to be striving for.  It is perfectly proper to be driven idealistically and let realistic assessments of the situation influence your methods. 

It isn't wrong to be an "idealist" unless you just ignore pragmatic concerns.  It isn't wrong to be pragmatic so long as you are willing to let idealism guide your general direction. 

Interestingly enough (because I'm sure the comparison will offend almost everyone) both Carter and Bush II offered policy directions which seemed to be largely idealistic, and also unwilling to adequately address the pragmatic concerns of their critics.  The key problem with both presidents is that they knew where they wanted to go, but didn't spend enough energy figuring out how to get there in an imperfect world.  Bush's key problem in Iraq is that he saw where he wanted to go, and (in my view correctly identified the first step) but did not plan further than that.  His strategic aim was correct (with Saddam presiding over a festering Iraq in the Middle East, the likelihood of needed change happening was slim) but he approached the problem from a purely tactical consideraton of getting rid of Saddam without implementing a strategic vision of what to do after Saddam was gone.  He did not address the concerns of cautionary realists.  It is possible to have a successful foreign policy without convincing the realists around you to do what you want, but that is very different from not even addressing their concerns.  Instead of saying "I will address the limitations you worry about in the following ways, and though you think it isn't enough to make it worthwhile, I am definitely addressing the area of concern", he basically said "I'm not going to worry about it".  Interestingly enough, the flip side of the problem is found in Bush I and Clinton.  Neither could get past momentary pragmatic concerns enough to really lead in foreign policy .  They might start on a problem, but would get so bogged down in technical concerns that they were often paralyzed into inaction or gave up too quickly.  Bush I gave up on crushing Saddam far too quickly.  Even if he didn't want to conquer Baghdad, he could still have supported the revolutionary attempts (which he had encouraged) when they finally came or at the very least destroyed Saddam's armies while they were fleeing (as opposed to the ones that were surrendering).  But both choices would have involved making things difficult for the 'coalition' of the First Gulf War.  Instead of trying to move forward and change coalition goals into a more idealistic vision, he basically gave up and let Saddam become the Arab hero who was able to successfully stand up to the US and walk away from it (leading to the dangerous myth of US lack-of-will which contributed to Osama bin Laden's miscalculations later). 

Idealistic foreign policy visions and realist concerns ought not be considered separate schools of thought which are distinct methods of forming policy.  Both are crucial ingredients to a well formed foreign policy. 

Not all complaints about the limited vision of self-identified "realists" are wrong, nor is it evident that the current administration's "idealism" is the wellspring of its policies as opposed to an ex post facto justification for them. Effective foreign policy requires an understanding of what you want to do, a strategy for getting it done, and the ability both to distinguish the battles that can be won from those that cannot and to distinguish the situations where America can impose its will from those in which we must respond to events. It is not an accident that the period of greatest American success in foreign policy have come when the people running it -- Marshall, Acheson, Nixon, Kissinger -- have had these things and something else that is mostly lacking today, an understanding that a foreign policy made with one eye on campaign politics is bound to run into trouble regardless of what doctrine it proclaims. The people, not their doctrines, make the policy.

(From the danieldrezner link above.)

Comments

[dutchmarbel]

disagrees, slartibartfast:

U.S. claims that cluster munitions have not caused significant damage to civilians in Iraq are highly misleading since the Pentagon is evidently citing only figures on air-dropped cluster bombs, Human Rights Watch said today.

The U.S. Army has used ground-based Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) and other artillery-launched cluster munitions in populated areas of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, Human Rights Watch said.

In a later report (december 2003):

The widespread use of cluster munitions, especially by U.S. and U.K. ground forces, caused at least hundreds of civilian casualties. Cluster munitions, which are large weapons containing dozens or hundreds of submunitions, endanger civilians because of their broad dispersal, or “footprint,” and the high number of submunitions that do not explode on impact. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) reported that it used 10,782 cluster munitions,2 which could contain at least 1.8 million submunitions. The British used an additional seventy air-launched and 2,100 ground-launched cluster munitions, containing 113,190 submunitions. Although cluster munition strikes are particularly dangerous in populated areas, U.S. and U.K. ground forces repeatedly used these weapons in attacks on Iraqi positions in residential neighborhoods. Coalition air forces also caused civilian casualties by their use of cluster munitions, but to a much lesser degree.

Many of the civilian casualties from the air war occurred during U.S. attacks targeting senior Iraqi leaders. The United States used an unsound targeting methodology that relied on intercepts of satellite phones and inadequate corroborating intelligence. Thuraya satellite phones provide geo-coordinates that are accurate only to within a one-hundred-meter (328-foot) radius; therefore, the United States could not determine the origin of a call to a degree of accuracy greater than a 31,400-square-meter area. This flawed targeting strategy was compounded by a lack of effective assessment both prior to the attacks of the potential risks to civilians and after the attacks of their success and utility. All of the fifty acknowledged attacks targeting Iraqi leadership failed. While they did not kill a single targeted individual, the strikes killed and injured dozens of civilians. Iraqis who spoke to Human Rights Watch about the attacks it investigated repeatedly stated that they believed the intended targets were not even present at the time of the strikes.
[...]
Most of the civilian casualties attributable to Coalition conduct in the ground war appear to have been the result of ground-launched cluster munitions. In some instances of direct combat, especially in Baghdad and al-Nasiriyya, problems with training on as well as dissemination and clarity of the rules of engagement (ROE) for U.S. ground forces may have contributed to loss of civilian life.

Explosive remnants of war (ERW) caused hundreds of civilian casualties during and after major hostilities and continue to do so today. The Coalition left behind many tens of thousands of cluster munition “duds,” i.e. submunitions that did not explode on impact and which then became de facto landmines. If the average failure rate were 5 percent, the number of cluster munitions Coalition forces reported using would leave about 90,000 duds. The humanitarian and military harm they caused has led even some of the soldiers who fought in Iraq to call for an alternative to a weapon that produces so many duds. Meanwhile, Iraqi forces abandoned staggering quantities of arms and ammunition that have injured or killed civilians searching for playthings or scraps to sell or reuse.

U.S. and U.K. military and civilian leaders have repeatedly stressed their commitment to avoiding civilian casualties and other harm to civilians. Neither country,however, does an adequate job of investigating and analyzing why civilian casualties occur. That job, left largely to organizations like Human Rights Watch, should be the responsibility of parties to the conflict. Having the capability to do this kind of assessment, the United States and United Kingdom should accurately account for the civilian casualties they cause in armed conflict so that they can provide maximum protection to civilians in any future conflict.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

The problem is 'bombs'. You can put the cluster in front of it or not and the bomb part is still the problem. Bombs kill people, including civilians. Cluster bombs are selected because they are a particularly effective method of doing so. Though you apparently do see it, your argument essentially boils down to 'you shouldn't use effective people killing devices in cities'. No one has shown that cluster bombs are particularly more dangerous than any other unexploded bomb, shell, or other device. I don't see a single thing in your argument that isn't absolutely applicable to using a tank gun, artillery piece, or anything else. Cluster bombs are not particularly more indiscriminate than any of those. All are aimed but have a blast radius larger than zero.

And from the fact that the army uses effective means of killing people, you draw rather broad conclusions about the nature of the civilian command. Which may or may not be appropriate conclusions independent of the question of 'cluster bombs', but is a question independent of 'cluster bombs'. Cluster bombs are not illegal weapons, and frankly I don't think they should be. If you want to object to city warfare, do so. But you might have to convince the jihadis to come out. They rather like hiding behind civilians and religious artifacts, and probably won't listen to you.

[dutchmarbel]

typo in the tags... first sentence should have been 'HRW disagrees" and the tag should have ended there. Sorry.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"The United States used an unsound targeting methodology that relied on intercepts of satellite phones and inadequate corroborating intelligence. Thuraya satellite phones provide geo-coordinates that are accurate only to within a one-hundred-meter (328-foot) radius; therefore, the United States could not determine the origin of a call to a degree of accuracy greater than a 31,400-square-meter area. This flawed targeting strategy was compounded by a lack of effective assessment both prior to the attacks of the potential risks to civilians and after the attacks of their success and utility. All of the fifty acknowledged attacks targeting Iraqi leadership failed. While they did not kill a single targeted individual, the strikes killed and injured dozens of civilians. Iraqis who spoke to Human Rights Watch about the attacks it investigated repeatedly stated that they believed the intended targets were not even present at the time of the strikes."

This is the classic double bind. We try to pinpoint things to within a 100-meter radius and we try to minimize outside damage by targeting only the basis of special intelligence instead of bombing out the entire Iraqi military structure. Is that considered a good thing? Of course not. That would only be a good thing if any other military in the world did it. Russia bombs to plus or minus a whole city, and that causes pretty much the same level of outrage.

The problem is that you want to protest the bombing of the city at all. Fine. Just do so.

[Slartibartfast]

disagrees, slartibartfast:

Even with the edit, dutchmarbel, the point is that they don't. As both Sebastian and myself have explained.

[Gary Farber]

"....disagrees, slartibartfast...."

This is a matter of specific terminology. Indeed, a "munition" is not a "bomb."

This isn't a terribly major point, other than that, yes, it's useful to use accurate terminology, so people don't wind up talking about different things. But your "correction," I'm afraid, dutchmarbel, of the precise language shows the opposite of what you intended. An MLRS munition is definitely not a "bomb." A "bomb," in modern terminology is, loosely speaking, dropped from an airplane; all explosives intended to be used in combat, more or less, on the other hand, are "munitions."

This is, however, to repeat, not a major issue, merely one of communicating clearly.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

With that in mind, Jesurgislac please note your link is chiefly a criticism of US use of all munitions--very little is specific to cluster bombs. UXO is pretty much unexploded anything. Using UXO statistics as if they were cluster bomb statistics is highly misleading.

[Gary Farber]

"Donald, I decided some months ago that it really wasn't worth getting into dialogue with Gary any more - I'll explain why in e-mail if you're interested."

Indeed. Because the honorable thing to do is whisper slurs about someone behind their back, rather than in public where they might be refuted. Very brave. Very admirable.

Got something to say about me to someone? Have the honor to say it where I can hear it, why don't you?

"Gary's aware of this,"

All I'm aware of is that you don't seem very interested in honest debate, or ever admitting error in the course of it. I remain open to learning that you merely have fits of that, or have learned better, or choosen to behave better in future, or any number of other optimistic possibilities.

Beyond that, all I know is that I had just gotten through a very nice invitation to you to dinner, after some unpleasantness, and you then, for reasons utterly inexplicable to me -- because, you know, you've never bothered to explain them -- declared that I was "dishonest" in what I wrote, and implicitly a liar. And have been unpleasant in my direction ever since.

And that's it. Whatever policy you have in your head that you think is obvious, isn't.

Nor, as it happens, do I keep running lists of whom I've offended and what light they hold me in this week and what their Policies towards me are. For the record.

That's what I'm "aware" of; alas that you don't hold a very prominent place in my universe of people whose attitude I might keep track of.

"...and frequently says provocative things trying to get me to respond to him."

You mean, I talk to you like anyone else here, save that I don't go out of my way to do it, and don't bother engaging in a lot of conversation I might, because I've grown to find it generally futile, for reasons I'm unaware of.

Witness:

So, I say here:

Try Human Rights Watch. I do hope you will retract your error, please.

Jes responds here with:

Further information on cluster bombs.

So what the frick was that supposed to communicate? Boggle.

Then, of course, you try to squirm out of admitting that this statement of yours is simply false: "This is because cluster bombs are designed so that some of the bomblets won't explode when they're dropped: they're intended to explode later on, when picked up, thrown, kicked, whatever."

"Intended" actually has a non-metaphoric meaning, and pretending the metaphor substitutes for the actual meaning is, well, I guess some people might suggest that that's not an "honest" way to use language. I also rather doubt it fools anyone. (And this has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of using said bombs; they can be criticized honestly with no problem.)

To insist that it's proper to use "designed to" to refer to "any resulting effect" is Orwellian newspeak. Doing it in defense of that which is Left And Good And Just doesn't change that.

And it's so pointless. You're completely free to decry any and all aspects of cluster bomblets and munitions from any number of angles, having admitted that they are not "intended to explode later on, when picked up, thrown, kicked, whatever."

Why act so strangely? I don't know. Stubborness, pride, fear, alien possesion, I have no clue. All I know is that it's bizarre.

Try doing the right thing. Stand up. If you've made a trivial error in an assertion, so what: be a grown-up about it, why don't you, instead of channeling it into verbal aggression?

And if you want to slander me, or, to assume the best, simply explain your just complaint about me to someone, have the honor to do it where I can respond. You're not otherwise obligated to engage in pleasantries with me, although I am, when not poked with a sharp stick, generally a very genial and silly and funny and pleasant person.

I think there's plenty of evidence on this blog that when I make a mistake, I admit it, and that when I say something jerk-headed (as I do from time to time), I apologize. When I accept apologies made to me, I do my best to forget the issue, and carry on as if it hadn't happened. If you ever want to start behaving reasonably towards me, I stand as ready as ever. Otherwise, you can enjoy whatever's festering in your head and soul for as long as you like, and may you make of that what you can. Your choice, Jesurgislac.

[Slartibartfast]

Actually, Sebastian, there are some decently well-documented dud rates kept on cluster bomb submunitions. For the M77 used on the MLRS rocket, 4% is the given rate, which means that on average each rocket delivers a couple of dozen unexploded submunitions. Its replacement would lower that by a factor of four. What's not discussed so much is what percentage of the dudded submunitions were armed. I'm sure there's quite a lot of research that's been done, but this isn't my area.

This suggestion that we're targeting civilians has been objectionable from a number of points of view, most of which have been presented by Gary, it should go without saying, much more ably than I could have done. What seems out of sorts to me, though, is that we'd be dropping these in an urban setting. I know we dropped quite a few cluster bombs in Iraq, but the only ones I'm aware of were carrying the SFW submunition, which is specifically an antiarmor weapon and obviously NOT the submunition described in the article Donald linked to. Furthermore, these were dispensed from a WCMD cluster bomb, which is GPS-guided and in any case doesn't have much in the way of aerodynamics that would enable it to fly from, say, a column of armor in the desert to the edge of a large urban area.

And of course the answer is: we weren't dropping cluster bombs in urban areas. Why we were dispensing cluster munitions in urban areas using unguided mobile artillery is something I know just a little bit more than nothing about, so I'm not going to comment on this other than note that this probably is a bad idea in general, and goes exactly against our commitment to refining the accuracy of our weapons so as to avoid collateral damage, and that in the event this isn't already against rules of engagement in an urban setting, perhaps a rule change is in order.

And you can take that with a grain of salt this big: my current job is basically making positive target identification and accurate weapon delivery a higher probability, so I'm possibly more likely to cheerlead efforts in that direction than I would be if my job was to design submunitions that don't explode until a baby picks one up.

[Slartibartfast]

Gary, I was tempted to cry foul on that very point, only I had this niggling fear that she actually had a point, and that you knew that she was referring to, and it was this great, dark secret involving multiple personality disorder, murder, stolen identity, betrayal of a close relative, and possibly incest and so I was afraid to ask. This fear multiplied with each hour that you didn't respond. So now I wait with semi-breathless anticipation for Jesurgislac to either fill in the blanks, offer a humble apology, continue to stonewall, or pretend it never happened.

[Gary Farber]

"This fear multiplied with each hour that you didn't respond."

Strangely enough, I have higher priorities in life than in responding to Jesurgislac. I imagine you can contain your surprise without even distributing it into clusters of subsurprise, some of which are duds.

[Jesurgislac]

Gary: Got something to say about me to someone? Have the honor to say it where I can hear it, why don't you?

I did. Back when the incident happened, I explained why I wasn't going to respond to you any more, and - as I recall - invited you to discuss it with me via e-mail, rather than on this blog. That invitation is still open, but you've never taken me up on it. I concluded you'd rather sulk publicly than discuss issues in private. Certainly that's your choice, but I decline to have a fight with you about it on this blog.

[Gary Farber]

Some observations here and here. Any comments from anyone appreciated. Note I picked up on the same "long-term" bit that you did, although I highlighted "to have Iraq retain some U.S. forces beyond the insurgency's defeat -- something critical to achieving the United States' broader security objectives."

I have the irritating thought that there was another major point about all this in the back of my head yesterday and earlier that's hiding for now, but, oh, well, if so (and I think it is), it will come back to me.

[Jesurgislac]

This suggestion that we're targeting civilians has been objectionable from a number of points of view

I have in fact never yet encountered an American who was willing to accept that the US military targets civilians.

Willing to accept that for the US military to use cluster bombs in urban areas means that the US military is killing civilians, and that the people who give the orders to use those bombs know that in doing so they are killing civilians, especially children. But unwilling actually to step from the passive voice "The US military uses cluster bombs in urban areas knowing that this use means civilians, especially children, will be killed" to the active voice "The US military is targetting civilians".

Stepping to the active voice demands a response: keeping in the passive voice suggests that there is nothing that anyone should do about it.

Sebastian's reluctance to accept that there is something peculiarly vile about the civilian-targetting capacity of cluster bombs, and preference for believing that I am actually trying to argue that all bombing is wrong, is noted.

Slartibartfast's essential decency shines through in the most unexpected places.

[Gary Farber]

How annoying. My previous comment should have gone into another window in another Firefox tab for a comment on another blog.

Very first time I've ever done that. Sorry.

[Phil]

So there's no difference in degree, kind or moral culpability between a known secondary effect that follows from one's actions and the actual thing one intends to achieve? Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

[Gary Farber]

"...and - as I recall - invited you to discuss it with me via e-mail, rather than on this blog. That invitation is still open, but you've never taken me up on it. I concluded you'd rather sulk publicly than discuss issues in private. Certainly that's your choice, but I decline to have a fight with you about it on this blog."

I don't recall such an invitation, but I can believe I might have forgotten.

I don't know why you're projecting a "fight" if you have something reasonable to say. I also have no idea what it is either of us is supposed to be unable to say in public. Why not just say it?

I'm not opposed in principle to a private conversation, but I'd prefer having it out in the open because should it not go well, you'd leave me in the position of having to then ask you for permission to quote what you said, in which case we'd either: a) wind up reprinting the relevant parts in public anyway; or b) I'd have to publically refer to That Thing Jes Said I Can't Repeat; I'd have to put up with having, hypothetically and conceivably, suffered some dire insult or astonishing comment that would be necessary to explain to others for anyone to understand the dynamics of some later interaction, but I'd be unable to and would have to keep silent; or c) I'd have to repeat it without your permission.

And I wouldn't do c without extreme cause if I'd otherwise given my word. And if you don't want a promise of secrecy, why not be public in the first place?

A is merely inefficient, but tolerable; the possible excessive effort involved seems pointless. If you can explain the point to me, I'll happily reconsider. Why not just say what you have to say?

Or, at the least, send it off in e-mail first, and see what happens.

If, on the other hand, you're not asking for secrecy at all, why not just say what you have to say?

However, I'll note that I'm perfectly prepared to believe that I'm being possibly being blind to any number of possible aspects here, and so I'm quite prepared to learn that, and to revise or withdraw anything I've said here.

Meanwhile, you've ignored everything else I said, and not withdrawn your kind offer to Donald to whisper your grievances in private. This fills me with reassurance not. Why don't you just mass e-mail everyone else here about your grievience? If you're doing it for one person, why not more? Why not everyone? Do you really think that was an honorable offer you made to him in the first place? Should I be reassured by your good faith from it?

[Slartibartfast]

Wrong, but interesting.

What, you're saying automobiles weren't actually designed with the intent that people would get liquored up and kill themselves and/or others in them?

[Gary Farber]

"I have in fact never yet encountered an American who was willing to accept that the US military targets civilians."

Depends upon your meaning of "target." Is it like "intentional"? Or is it like "drops bombs knowing there is a certain probability of also hitting civilians"?

But unwilling actually to step from the passive voice "The US military uses cluster bombs in urban areas knowing that this use means civilians, especially children, will be killed" to the active voice "The US military is targetting civilians".

"The US military is using cluster bombs in urban areas knowing that this use means civilians, especially children, will be killed" is active voice, but seems to change the meaning not at all. And I have no problem believing that either sentence accurately describes some situations.

Your second construction: that word "targetting" doesn't mean what you think it means. If there are such cases, and there may well be, obviously they are subject to debate, and if indicated condemning. Have you never in fact encountered an American willing to condemn American war atrocities, such as, say, My Lai? Somewhat astonishing, if so, and you must obviously have never had any contact with anyone on the American left or mainstream, but if so, it would explain much.

"Stepping to the active voice demands a response: keeping in the passive voice suggests that there is nothing that anyone should do about it."

What absolute nonsense. If unnecessary civilian casualties are being committed, or deliberately inflicted, they can bloody well be condemned, and should be, in as strong a set of terms as one likes, without any reference to the active or passive voice. The latter couldn't be more irrelevant.

"Sebastian's reluctance to accept that there is something peculiarly vile about the civilian-targetting capacity of cluster bombs...."

I'm pretty sure being killed by shrapnel from a 250, 500, 1000, or 2000 lb bomb is pretty darn vile, too, and I'm reasonably sure that's all Sebastian's point was. Are you defending dropping 1000 lb bombs on urban areas, then? Do you advocate that as more humanitarian?

[Jesurgislac]

Phil: So there's no difference in degree, kind or moral culpability between a known secondary effect that follows from one's actions and the actual thing one intends to achieve? Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

How nice for the children killed by US cluster bombs to know that when the US military decided to kill them it was a different decision in "degree, kind, and moral culpability" because the decision to kill them was regarded by the US military (and by many Americans)as a "secondary effect".

You appear to feel that a decision to kill civilians is less culpable if the decision to kill civilians is monomaniacally regarded as a "secondary effect". I don't see how this works. If you are genuinely unaware that your action is killing civilians, then this is plainly less culpable. If you know that your action is killing civilians, how is it less culpable to assert that your decision to kill civilians is only a "secondary effect"?

And finally, Gary, again, if you want to talk it over in e-mail, I'm willing. E-mail me. I see no reason to discuss it in public, nor any reason why either of us should quote what the other one says. If you prefer not to talk it over in e-mail but to sulk publicly, I will certainly not respond further.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I have in fact never yet encountered an American who was willing to accept that the US military targets civilians.

Willing to accept that for the US military to use cluster bombs in urban areas means that the US military is killing civilians, and that the people who give the orders to use those bombs know that in doing so they are killing civilians, especially children. But unwilling actually to step from the passive voice "The US military uses cluster bombs in urban areas knowing that this use means civilians, especially children, will be killed" to the active voice "The US military is targetting civilians".

That is because even the super active 'knowingly killing people in cities' is not the same as 'targets civilians'. The fact that you think it means the same thing makes me think that you don't understand the concept of 'target'.

If you said that Vioxx was created to cause heart attacks, you would be flatly wrong. It probably does slightly increase the chance of heart attacks, Merck may or may not have hidden some knowledge of that at some point, and it may or may not be worth trading a very slightly increased risk of heart attack for a chance to live without crippling pain, but all of those are other issues. It was neither designed to create heart attacks nor was prescribed to create heart attacks. Cluster bombs weren't designed to kill civilians (they were designed to kill people--combatant status almost certainly irrelevant). The US military targets combatants. It targets combatants who intentionally hide behind civilians--often causing civilian deaths, and in some case there are civilians who intentionally hide the combatants. None of this changes the fact that the combatants are the ones being targeted under the normal usage of the word. No one is denying that civilians are getting killed.

A huge point of the Geneva Conventions was to make combatants and non-combatants as distinct as possible. This is being undermined by jihadi method of warfare against the West. This guarantees that fighting them will get more civilians killed than if they made the distinctions.

Now if you want to talk about targetting civilians we could talk about planting bombs on buses and train stations. That isn't aiming at combatants and tolerating civilian deaths on the side. But that is precisely the moral equivalance you want to assert, isn't it?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

How nice for the children killed by US cluster bombs to know that when the US military decided to kill them it was a different decision in "degree, kind, and moral culpability" because the decision to kill them was regarded by the US military (and by many Americans)as a "secondary effect".

Oh, for the children. How nice for the thousands of children killed and maimed by moving vehicles every year that we find little 'moral culpability' assigned to the fact that people want to get from one place to the next and as a secondary effect it increases the number of people killed each year.

Clearer and clearer that you don't understand the word 'target'.

[rilkefan]

The extra dead children are an unintended benefit, aren't they? The locals will know that if you harbor bad guys, your kids may get taken out too. Seems like a moral hazard to me.

There probably should in fact be some moral culpability for discouraging mass transit and accepting drunk driving and hiding the real costs of energy consumption.

[Slartibartfast]

I hate to repeat this again, but Jesurgislac still wrongly maintains that her link says anything at all supporting the claim of cluster bombs killing lots of civilians in Iraq. Maybe gremlins came and stole the part of this thread that discussed that point.

[dutchmarbel]

But your "correction," I'm afraid, dutchmarbel, of the precise language shows the opposite of what you intended. An MLRS munition is definitely not a "bomb." A "bomb," in modern terminology is, loosely speaking, dropped from an airplane; all explosives intended to be used in combat, more or less, on the other hand, are "munitions."

As Sebastian shows, just a few posts above me (I miss the time stamp too), bombs is used for things that go BOOM, loosely speaking. And using clusterbombs for the ones dropped from the air and not counting the 'cluster munitions' that have the same effect is misleading - as the HRW report I linked too stated quite clearly.

I have to flee, the car is packed with kids and luggage, so I cannot reply further till friday. Read the HRW reports...

[Anarch]

So there's no difference in degree, kind or moral culpability between a known secondary effect that follows from one's actions and the actual thing one intends to achieve? Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

I actually have a pacifist friend who, in all seriousness, makes that argument, especially in regards to civilian casualties during a time of war. FWIW, it's essentially impossible to argue against -- which doesn't make it right, just infuriating.

[Donald Johnson]

I noticed that the article I cited was about cluster munitions but not cluster bombs, but didn't anticipate that anyone would think the distinction was important. I have to say I find the emphasis people are placing on artillery-delivered munitions vs. those dropped by planes kinda funny. I'm as interested as the next layperson in the technical details of weaponry, but whether a cluster of explosive devices is delivered via artillery or a plane seems a little beside the point.

Yeah, Sebastian, in general, I think it's a bad idea to be using any sort of artillery or bomb in a city that contains civilians one is trying to, ah, liberate, unless of course their lives are not of any great concern. My position would change if someone invents a device that only blows up the insurgents, but cluster munitions aren't even remotely in that category.

Using a device that scatters little bomblets around in urban areas, some of which may not explode until later, sounds like the definition of indifference to human life. You keep talking about effectiveness at killing. Yes, cluster munitions are very effective at killing and if that's the only criteria then why not add napalm or white phosphorus or that 22,000 lb thing they dropped on Taliban positions in Afghanistan? You know the answer--effectiveness at killing isn't the only criteria for a weapon that you're using in a city filled with people you're supposed to be liberating. I'll go back to what I remember reading John Paul Vann saying in the Neil Sheehan book on Vietnam (or maybe it was somewhere else)--the ideal weapon to be used in counterinsurgency warfare is a gun or even a knife. The use of artillery and bombs in cities is clearly going to kill civilians and claims that it's all collateral damage, tragic and "unavoidable", are just hollow rationalizations. We didn't have to go into Iraq (or Vietnam) and if we're there to liberate them (gag), then the moral obligation is on us to fight it as cleanly as possible. If we don't want to fight it cleanly, then don't do it. It was a choice, after all.

John Paul Vann used to go into apoplectic rages when he couldn't get his superiors in Vietnam to understand this point, something a fairly bright 8 year old could comprehend. And the VC lived among civilians too. They were civilians themselves part of the time.

By the way, when I said the sun rises in the east I didn't intend to imply anything positive about the geocentric theory. Given the debate over plane vs. artillery, I thought I ought to clarify that point.

[Phil]

How nice for the children killed by US cluster bombs to know that when the US military decided to kill them it was a different decision in "degree, kind, and moral culpability" because the decision to kill them was regarded by the US military (and by many Americans)as a "secondary effect".

That's some terrific rhetoric, Jes. It doesn't answer the question I actually asked, but if I were president of the local Toastmaster's, I'd certainly applaud the effort here.

[Slartibartfast]

bombs is used for things that go BOOM

Which would be a brilliant point, if you don't want to be taken for, well, less than smart by referring to missiles, tank shells, grenades and mines as "bombs". Seriously, there is in fact a correct set of nomenclature for all this, and if you choose not to adhere to it, those who do will tend to see your arguments as bunk.

[Anarch]

I'm with Donald Johnson on this: is there a substantive distinction between cluster bombs and general cluster munitions with regards to this discussion? It seems people are getting massively, and pointlessly, het up about the one word (bomb v. munition) when it's the other word (cluster) that seems relevant.

[Slartibartfast]

I have to say I find the emphasis people are placing on artillery-delivered munitions vs. those dropped by planes kinda funny.

If you're objecting to cluster bombs and you voice that objection to...someone who's in a position to do something about it, that person will simply respond by (correctly) pointing out that cluster bombs simply aren't responsible for large numbers of civilian casualties in Iraq.

See what you get for being funny? You get to be ineffective. Still, the laughs might be worth it.

[Tad Brennan]

Look, I don't want to defend Jesurgislac's conduct of her side of this debate. I think the whole thread could have been much short and less contentious with some clearer terminology. (E.g. "will be killed" is by no stretch of the imagination the passive form of "is targetting").

But isn't her question still a perfectly reasonable one to ask, when phrased roughly as follows:

1) US forces have a variety of weapons at their disposal;
2) different weapons have different rates of collateral damage, either due to imprecise targeting, failure to explode on impact, inherent design, etc.
3) Of any combat situation our forces may face, we can ask: are they using weapons with the minimal necessary collateral damage rate?

The comparison of cluster munitions with land mines is illuminating at least in this respect: it is now fairly standard military policy not to use land-mines to set up a perimeter defense around an emplacement. IIRC, the only place we still use them at all is along the Korean DMZ.

That reflects some thought about the likely rate of collateral damage that goes with using that kind of weapon, versus the military necessity to use them, in light of the alternatives available.

So: have US forces in Iraq used weapons with a high rate of collateral damage (e.g. cluster munitions), in contexts where they could have attained the same ends with "safer" weapons (i.e. ones that have lower rates of collateral damage)?

Just like there's a fair question after a police raid: did the cops *have* to use shotguns in that hostage situation, and would it not have been wiser to use sniper rifles instead? Maybe the answer will be yes, maybe no, but it's a comprehensible question about tailoring ends to means.

It seems to me an entirely different question, one raised by Donald Johnson, whether some people in the Pentagon were trying to drive up civilian casualties in order to create political pressures against the insurgents. That question certainly involves the intentional infliction of civilian casualties, but is, (as I think Mr. Holsclaw noted), unrelated to the cluster munition question, or to the use of any particular kind of weapon.

[rilkefan]

"there is in fact a correct set of nomenclature for all this, and if you choose not to adhere to it, those who do will tend to see your arguments as bunk"

And those who aren't invested in the whole argument will tend to see your tendency as an excuse to avoid the argument (esp. given you're talking to a non-native speaker).

[Anarch]

rilkefan: So that was the diplomatic way of making that point. All my earlier attempts (thankfully deleted) were a lot more... pointed.

[Phil]

Tad, if that's the question she wanted to ask, she should have done so, instead of asking, "Why won't you bloody Yanks admit you're targeting children?" or somesuch.

I find nothing to disagree with in your post.

[Tad Brennan]

slartibartfast--

"See what you get for being funny? You get to be ineffective. Still, the laughs might be worth it."

I think that was unhelpful and uncalled for.

You have made your point about terminology. In my post I followed the locution you prefer. But now you are just being nasty to Donald Johnson on a point that, I agree with Anarch, really is irrelevant to the central moral issues under discussion here.

[Gary Farber]

"Read the HRW reports...'

I'm getting a little tired of this. I go to the trouble to find a cite that I think is both accurate and presents the best possible accurate case against the U.S., so as to best pre-empt any accusation that I wasn't facing the issues.

What's the result of my effort? I get presented with my own cite as new information. And I get presented with my own cite as new information again. And I get told to be sure to read that cite I've not read before.

If people can't read, I can't help them. There's no point to writing things when they're responded to in this fashion.

[Slartibartfast]

And those who aren't invested in the whole argument will tend to see your tendency as an excuse to avoid the argument (esp. given you're talking to a non-native speaker).

I'm simply attempting to establish what the argument is. I've already shown that cluster bombs are not, in point of fact, the source of the civilian casualties in question. More accurately, Jesurgislac's own links show that.

Given that, you can discuss civilian casualties in any context you please, other than bombs. Given Jesurgislac's insistence on continued use of cluster bombs as a source of indignation, what am I to conclude? That she's being deliberately dishonest? That she's failed to read 90% of the thread?

For another amusing thread diversion, we can discuss particle physics using such descriptive terms as "thingies".

[Gary Farber]

"Yeah, Sebastian, in general, I think it's a bad idea to be using any sort of artillery or bomb in a city that contains civilians one is trying to, ah, liberate, unless of course their lives are not of any great concern."

But that wasn't the case in Fallujah. The idea -- and this may be argued with, challenged, or condemned as a war crime, as has been already done here in comments, on a provisional basis -- was that everyone innocent in Fallujah had been told to evacuate and given lots of time and chance to evacuate, and that therefore those left were consciously part of the "enemy."

Now, one can additionally argue that perhaps some who stayed were under duress. And that's a valid point, all though it does leave unanswered the question of how, assuming it's true and it's a moral duty to not attack if such people are at risk, how one would be able to attack at all. But the notion that there were a lot of innocent people hanging around in Fallujah, playing cards, or whathaveyou, doesn't seem to have been suggested by anyone, although I could easily have missed it.

On the flip side, should Berlin in 1945 not have been bombed or shelled, given that theoretically some people were there to be liberated? (Let's set aside that in reality it was largely the Soviets who did the bombing and shelling.)

Now, one might say, "but this is fighting an insurgency, and that's partially about winning hearts and minds, which wasn't the case, overall, in WWII." And that's a good point. But it goes directly to the problems of fighting insurgencies again: often there aren't simple answers.

"Using a device that scatters little bomblets around in urban areas, some of which may not explode until later, sounds like the definition of indifference to human life."

No, war is the definition of indifference to human life, on a large scale. Theoretically, for a higher purpose. But innocent deaths in war are a given. Which is not a shield against the moral duty to minimize them to the best practical degree, and reasonable people may differ where that line is, or whether someone did their best to adhere to it (whether it's done by calculation aforehand, or in the heat of the moment, is always relevant in the moral calculus, of course).

"We didn't have to go into Iraq (or Vietnam) and if we're there to liberate them (gag), then the moral obligation is on us to fight it as cleanly as possible."

I do fully agree.

[Tad Brennan,]

okay--

this is a completely content-free comment.

You see, I keep looking at the list of recent comments and seeing (e.g.) "Gary Farber on Balance", and thinking "yes, on balance Gary Farber is a fine fellow". Or I see my own name and think "well, on balance, I'm not so sure."

But that's reading the phrase with a comma in the middle.

So, just for this one post, I am changing my name to "Tad Brennan,", with a comma,so that I can see "Tad Brennan, on Balance".

Sorry to derail the thread with typographical whimsies, but you can get back to debating the doctrine of double effect in just seconds.

[Anarch]

I'm simply attempting to establish what the argument is.

Forgive me for saying so, but I doubt that.

[Gary Farber]

So the next new thread here should be entitled "is unbalanced"?

[Slartibartfast]

I think that was unhelpful and uncalled for.

I think you misunderstand me. I was referring to Mr. Johnson's insinuation that the only value the munition/bomb distinction held for him was humor. So in the comment you referred to, the one doing the laughing would be Mr. Johnson, not me. I certainly didn't intend for anyone to read that the way you evidently did.

[Slartibartfast]

Forgive me for saying so, but I doubt that.

You insult me, sir. Petards at five paces?

[Anarch]

Incidentally, given the number of cross-postings of late -- insert obligatory comment from Gary on the utility of time-stamps here -- I'm going to recommend that most of us simply walk away from the thread and wait for other people to respond to us in person, rather than trying to play free-for-all catch-up with the comments surging forth.

[Gary Farber]

Obviously, "munition/bomb" distinctions hold no moral value, and no one is sugesting otherwise.

Jargon, like most things, has its useful side and its counter-productive side. It's useful to speak as precisely as possible so as to avoid confusion and ambiguity; it's counter-productive if it's used merely as a test people have to pass to be entitled to speak to an issue.

If confusing or ambiguous language is used, and more precise terms are pointed out, it's to everyone's benefit if the more precise terms are adopted and used by all.

There's almost always an emotional component of this; people who have a good knowledge base on a subject find it painful when those with less of a grasp use inappropriate, erroneous, or ambiguous language ("bombs are things that go 'boom'" seems useful to Dutchmarbel's grasp of English and technical terminology, whereas from Slart's position, it makes him feel like he's talking to a third-grader; but if Slart makes too much of this from the opposing view, he's just unnecessarily bullying over unimportant technical differences; one needs to see the other person's view no matter which side one starts on.)

Perception matters, as well as do the objective facts.

[Gary Farber,]

"cross-postings"

Speaking of jargon.

"I'm going to recommend that most of us simply walk away from the thread and wait for other people to respond to us in person, rather than trying to play free-for-all catch-up with the comments surging forth."

I recommend carpet-bombing the enemy. I suggest CBU-97's. I suspect some people here are armored.

But if anyone is dueling, choose your munitions here.

(And this will doubtless be seen as in bad taste by some; they're right.)

[Dantheman]

Tad,

I'm glad it's not just me adding that comma in scanning the Recent Posts lists.

Since my ability to contribute in any substantive way to this food fight is thus fulfilled, I will now resume my silence.

[rilkefan, sometimes off Balance, sometimes]

kinda meta for my taste, but just this once.

[ecnalaB no]

lied

[Dantheman]

"kinda meta for my taste, but just this once."

That's becuase I never meta rilkefan I didn't like (with apologies to Will Rogers).

[Jesurgislac, feeling off-]

Ah, hell.

Responding to Gary (indeed, making that initial comment to Donald) was the wrong thing to do. I've managed for months not responding, whatever the provocation, and I apologise to all inconvenienced for my lapse. It will not happen again.

[Tad Brennan]

rilkefan--

Oh sure. "Just this once I'll go meta--just once, and then I'll quit!"

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"If confusing or ambiguous language is used, and more precise terms are pointed out, it's to everyone's benefit if the more precise terms are adopted and used by all."

One thing that annoys me on this thread is that what should be non-confusing and non-ambiguous language like "target" is being used inappropriately and for inflammatory effect. As with the case of our discussion of the death of Nicola Calipari rehtorical firebombs are thrown and then the verbal terrorist hides behind the accusation that those who disagree can't you simple language.

And since it has been said that conservatives don't like to use the active voice I will simplify--though it is less diplomatic to do so. Jesurgislac is throwing rhetorical firebombs. When challenged she either pleads that it is unfair to hold her to her actual words, or pretends to be misunderstood. I believe she knows full well what she says. I believe she has not been misunderstood on this thread.

But hey, if you really want to talk about it, I have what I thought was a rather illuminating Vioxx analogy that you could respond to.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

heh, can't 'you' instead of 'use'? Sounds like a transcriptionist error, only I wasn't speaking or recording a spoken conversation. Hmmm.

[Slartibartfast]

Jesurgislac, I can't think of any course of action that would leave you with less honor than the one you've chosen. Your choice, certainly, but...ok, I'm speechless.

[Donald Johnson]

Slartibartfast, you are perfectly right that sarcasm isn't usually helpful in these discussions and in my better moments I know that. But I think you're being petty in a couple of different ways. First, most of us are talking about the morality of using indiscriminate weaponry in cities. If you work on weapons, I'd assume as a decent person you'd want to minimize their tendency to kill innocent people whether or not people here use the right term. And calling Jes dishonest because she uses terminology that you find sloppy beyond your capacity to endure is an imprecision of language in itself.

Second, with respect to my post, I said a lot of things, most of them about the substantive moral issue and you ignored them all, focusing only on my amusement over the terminological dispute. Well, it's a ridiculous tangent. If you can't discern what the important issue is and want to fixate on the terminology, I'm not going to feel responsible for your choice. You work on cluster bombs and they haven't killed people in Iraq. It's cluster munitions. Now that this is clear, we can get back to talking about the moral issue. I'll try and avoid sarcasm in the future, but you might want to examine your own conduct in this thread.

On the secondary effects issue, Jes makes some valid points--Americans in the respectable political mainstream almost never admit to targeting civilians. They often favor policies that are certain to hurt civilians and sometimes the idea is that the hurt civilians will be beneficial in achieving some policy goal. But people rarely come right out and say "The US government is targeting civilians." When it does happen, it's usually someone who doesn't seem to realize the implications of what he's saying. As an example, there was a Washington Post report by Barton Gellman in the June 23, 1991 issue in which various Pentagon targeting planners said that they'd hit Iraqi infrastructure in order to hurt civilians--the sanctions would prevent repair and this would put pressure on Saddam and maybe even lead to his overthrow. But I'm sure if the press had jumped on this story and pressured the Bush I Administration about it they would have denied any such intent. Cheney is quoted in the article and knows better than to talk that way. And there's also the story I quoted way upthread, where various unnamed US officials saw benefits to collateral damage. That doesn't mean they targeted civilians, but it strongly implies they didn't care much if they killed some and in fact saw a silver lining in it. Has a Ward Churchillish ring to it--Gary's own "alternate" reading amounted to saying that people who remained in Falluja had it coming. (That was Gary's possible interpretation of the quote, not Gary's opinion AFAIK.) That, along with what else we know about Falluja, ought to make people feel more than a little uneasy about what happened there. Sending men back to the city, for instance, was barbaric.

With respect to cluster munitions in cities, it's not quite equivalent to targeting civilians deliberately. It's rating their lives as not very important in comparison to the goal we're trying to achieve. And then blaming our choice of weapons on the insurgents. I mentioned this before--there are military men who feel very strongly about the way an insurgency should be fought, for both moral and pragmatic reasons. If you show that you are willing to use weapons in cities solely because of their lethality and show insufficient concern for civilian casualties, the people present are going to notice. Rationalizations that may go down well in blog comment sections won't impress them. And I think they'd be correct.

[ecnalaB no]

"verbal terrorist"

I don't know what Jes's deal is with Gary and certain terminology, but the above can't help, can it?

I suggest closing the thread and moving on.

[rilkefan]

Whoops, that was me. Now you can close the thread.

[Slartibartfast]

First, most of us are talking about the morality of using indiscriminate weaponry in cities.

Any weapons?

If you work on weapons, I'd assume as a decent person you'd want to minimize their tendency to kill innocent people whether or not people here use the right term.

Yes, of course. And to be sure, I'd want to be aware of where, specifically, the problem lies so that I could more effectively fix it. Maybe that's just me, though.

And calling Jes dishonest because she uses terminology that you find sloppy beyond your capacity to endure is an imprecision of language in itself.

On the contrary, I'm doing so in precisely the same way that Jesurgislac calls Charles Bird dishonest for repeating things that, according to her, he repeatedly has been corrected on.

Second, with respect to my post, I said a lot of things, most of them about the substantive moral issue and you ignored them all, focusing only on my amusement over the terminological dispute.

On the contrary, I mostly agreed with them. In fact, if you'd read any of my earlier posts (here, for example), you'd see that there wasn't much for me to respond to.

But people rarely come right out and say "The US government is targeting civilians."

Mostly so as to avoid lying, I'd hope. Or lying through omission, such as dropping the combatants after "civilian[s]".

But I'm really unsure of what your purpose is with me, here. Either you get the bomb/submunition distinction, or you don't. Say, and I'll try to explain it a different way. Or you can continue to complain about the wrong thing, and have anyone in the know on the other end of the complaint wonder what the hell you're talking about.

If I were attempting to get our armed forces to change military policy, I'd try and make sure what policy it is that I'm complaining about. But, again, that's me.

[Anarch]

Slarti: On the contrary, I'm doing so in precisely the same way that Jesurgislac calls Charles Bird dishonest for repeating things that, according to her, he repeatedly has been corrected on.

Given what you've said about that behavior in the past, that's an awfully curious role-model to be choosing; and that's even presuming the analogy holds, which it rather plainly doesn't (see below re relevant distinctions).

Mostly so as to avoid lying, I'd hope.

Are you declaring with certain knowledge that the US has never targetted civilians? Are you declaring with certain knowledge that those making the claims would be lying, i.e. deliberately telling an untruth in order to deceive?

For that matter, while I agree that this is a somewhat imprecise use of the word "targetting", I'd say that this:

As an example, there was a Washington Post report by Barton Gellman in the June 23, 1991 issue in which various Pentagon targeting planners said that they'd hit Iraqi infrastructure in order to hurt civilians--the sanctions would prevent repair and this would put pressure on Saddam and maybe even lead to his overthrow.

would count as (indirectly) targetting civilians, as for example blowing up a dam in order to flood the factories below would count as (indirectly) targetting those factories. Depends on what, precisely, you mean by "target" and whether you use it in the tactical sense to refer to the specific locus of a particular strike or in the strategic sense to refer to a broader goal. Both are legitimate uses and, IMO, both carry the intent that renders them equivalently culpable.

Either you get the bomb/submunition distinction, or you don't.

Since numerous people above, including your interlocutor, have noted the distinction: either you get that most of us aren't seeing why this distinction is relevant to the issue at hand, or you don't.* Frankly, I have no idea which, and I'm not entirely it makes a difference at this point. Given, however, that you seem hellbent on not answering the question of that relevance -- which has been asked, what, three times upthread? -- I'm guessing that there isn't a meaningful distinction (again, vis a vis this discussion) and am thus left wondering why you didn't simply repeat your tacit acknowledgement of this fact (from the post you just cited) and move on.

To put it another way, and perhaps more plainly: until you explain why you have this particular bee in your bonnet, pretty much everyone else is going to conclude (rightly or wrongly) that your present participation in this discussion is for some reason other than legitimate debate. Can I suggest that you take a moment to reconsider what your purpose here is, and how these posts are furthering that goal?

And then, petards at dawn. But not regular petards: cluster petards.

* For example, maybe cluster bombs are more dangerous than regular cluster munitions because they could plonk someone on the head, causing a lethal noogie even without an explosion. Maybe they're less dangerous precisely because they tend to "plonk" instead of "boom". Beats me.

[Gary Farber,]

"(That was Gary's possible interpretation of the quote, not Gary's opinion AFAIK.)"

Yes. I don't have remotely enough fact to have an opinion. I don't know remotely enough about who was in Fallujah, what their circumstances were, what their politics were, what their military involvement was or was not. I don't know remotely enough about the actual strategy and tactics used by the Americans, nor remotely enough about their actual operations or use of munitions, nor enough about the chain of command.

And I've read a reasonable amount on the subject, to be sure. But I'd want to have a fairly sure command of the facts before forming an opinion. And, thankfully, I don't bear the responsibility for such decisions.

[Tad Brennan]

Anarch--

yes. Many thanks for saying much of what I was going to say.

It's bad to ignore *morally relevant* distinctions.

It is also bad to ignore the distinction between morally relevant distinctions and morally *irrelevant* distinctions.

[rilkefan]

Incidentally, I will try to observe the munitions/bomb distinction in future because precision is a good thing for many reasons, even if I am so ignorant as to not know what the deal is here - perhaps we drop lots of bombs but use relatively few munitions, at least of the cluster sort.

Sadly still haven't read that text on basic military lingo and facts and history - that I know about as much about Athenian soldiers as American soldiers is not good.

[Slartibartfast]

Are you declaring with certain knowledge that the US has never targetted civilians?

No, hence mostly.

Are you declaring with certain knowledge that those making the claims would be lying, i.e. deliberately telling an untruth in order to deceive?

Gee...I'm torn. On the one hand, the word "lie" has been presented on many an occasion here to represent an untrue statement. On the other hand, perhaps replacing "looking stupid" with "lying" wasn't all that bright an idea.

would count as (indirectly) targetting civilians

Certainly, if one neglects the word infrastructure.

either you get that most of us aren't seeing why this distinction is relevant to the issue at hand, or you don't

If you don't get the relevance, you don't get the distinction, or at least this is how I see it.

Given, however, that you seem hellbent on not answering the question of that relevance -- which has been asked, what, three times upthread? -- I'm guessing that there isn't a meaningful distinction

You mean all those times I answered it in increasingly painful detail, I wasn't really answering it? You mean, you really didn't get the distinction after all, even though you said you did? Or is there some other interpretation of your statement that makes sense, that I'm missing?

Well...maybe I need to think on how better to explain this. In the meantime, please do continue campaigning against cluster bombs, even though cluster bombs are manifestly not even an issue with HRW. Even if I can't look at you oddly when you're doing that, I'll still be thinking of you oddly.

It is also bad to ignore the distinction between morally relevant distinctions and morally *irrelevant* distinctions.

It's also bad to ignore distinction altogether, simply because you don't see why it's an important one.

[Donald Johnson]

Slartibartfast, I sincerely apologize for my sarcastic tone in several posts above. I can't help suspecting that this must be the bigger reason for your anger, because I can't quite wrap my mind around the notion that you're mad about this misuse of weapons terminology. Well, that's not quite true. I just deleted a cute little story about how angry I once got at a high school classmate for saying that William the Conqueror "easily" won the Battle of Hastings, but the point was that I sometimes get ticked off at people for messing up some point of fact where I know better (or think I do).

Anyway, if I'd known the stink it was going to cause, I'd have been careful to use the right term when I cited that article.

[Donald Johnson]

Oh, btw, the high school classmate story took place a long, long time ago. I just reread that and realized how it might have been interpreted.

[Anarch]

In some haste:

Certainly, if one neglects the word infrastructure.

Yes, and if I'd written a completely different sentence it totally would have meant something different. Hooray. Would you mind addressing what I actually wrote?

You mean all those times I answered it in increasingly painful detail, I wasn't really answering it?

You have not yet answered why the distinction between cluster bombs and general cluster munitions is relevant to the discussion of whether such devices should be used in civilian proximity (or however you want to abbreviate the present debate), no. [In fact, you yourself basically denied that distinction upthread which makes your present pedantry all the more bewildering.] The closest you've come -- which barely scratches the surface of "increasingly painful detail" -- referred to attempts to change the policy of the US military which no-one here is doing at the moment, unless there's a petition that I've missed.

You mean, you really didn't get the distinction after all, even though you said you did? Or is there some other interpretation of your statement that makes sense, that I'm missing?

Rather manifestly. May I suggest you read what people have actually been writing?

[As an aside, I've now read this thread in its entirety three times, as well as having read the latter half of the thread over eight times. The previous post I submitted went through about a dozen drafts, the present (due to lack of time) only three. Is it too much to ask for a comparable effort on your part?]

Well...maybe I need to think on how better to explain this.

Apparently so, given that we've now asked four times. What is the moral distinction between cluster bombs and more cluster munitions, and why is it relevant to this discussion?

In the meantime, please do continue campaigning against cluster bombs, even though cluster bombs are manifestly not even an issue with HRW.

If you pay veeeeery close attention you might note that my name is neither Jesurgislac nor Donald Johnson, and therefore the above remark is not particularly well-directed. Once again, can I suggest you take a break from this thread and consider what your purpose is here?

[Donald Johnson]

The infrastructure was targeted in order to cause civilian suffering--that suffering included increased death rates, If you destroy much of the electrical power system, apparently you automatically damage the water treatment plants and according to Human Rights Watch (in a report they published on the air war back in 1991), the US even deliberately hit at least one water treatment plant themselves. Obviously that would cause increased death rates.

The insurgents today do the same thing, for the same reason (destablization) with the same concern for innocent human life.

I would equate this to terrorism--if al Qaeda did the same to us we'd have no difficulty seeing this. It didn't even occur to me that people wouldn't see it as terrorism.

[Jackmormon]

Okay, here's what I've learned from the terminology debate so far:

A bomb is dropped from an airplane.

A munition is any explosive used in battle.

A submunition is an individually explosive piece of a munition.

Any of these explosive devices can be guided or not. We probably all agree that guided explosives should be prefered so as to minimize civilian casualties.

Any of these explosive devices can fail to blow up when they were supposed to. These UXBs can be dangerous, if armed: nobody can predict if/when they'll explode.

Okay, now what? It does seem to me that munitions that contain lots of individually explosive components that are then scattered around where they're less easy to track down effectively would seem to be more dangerous to later passers-by.

Maybe there's more information that could be inserted into some of these definitions, maybe all munitions systems need guidance systems, maybe there are no good solutions in fighting an urban guerilla war. I do there is some room to mitigate harm to innocents, though.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"It's bad to ignore *morally relevant* distinctions."

Sure. Like the difference between 'targetted' and 'not targetted'. Like the difference between 'killed' and 'murdered'. Like Lancet articles that don't bother with the difference between 'combatant and non-combatant'. Like the difference between bombing an Iraqi propaganda outlet and Saddam's forces shelling civilians to drive them in front of US forces. I really feel your pain on the arguing with people who don't want to recognize moral distinctions you find important front.

That said, the most important distinction I see in this discussion is 'bombing a city' vs. 'not bombing a city'. 'Cluster bombs' just are not different enough from generic 'bombs' to make a big moral difference. In both cases civilians are likely to end up dead or injured as a side effect of attempting to kill combatants.

You can argue that cities should never be bombed. I think it is a particularly stupid argument, but it is internally consistent. You can argue that cities shouldn't be subjected to nuclear attacks and I might give you the long term radiation card in your favor. You might even argue that it is better to go with massive explosives over napalm because the death is unnecessarily painful with napalm. I could see the utility of such distinctions even if I came out differently in the conclusion of whether or not the tactics shoud be allowed.

The distinction between cluster bombs and regular bombs however is not particularly useful.

And the little game Jesurgislac plays--as if the cluster bombs were designed specifically to kill more civilians than other bombs, is not only a lie, it doesn't even make sense except in an "I like to make nasty stuff up about America" kind of way. The military favors cluster bombs because they kill the people they are lobbed at more effectively than many other bombs. They don't have a little chart of civilians/non-civilians where they look at it and say "Sweet! This one kills civilians at a 5-to-1 higher ratio and is less effective against insurgents. Let's use it". Jesurgislac's lie is particularly nasty because it is the exact opposite of how the US fights right now. We could easily have wiped any number of Iraqi cities completely off the map and made them uninhabitable for quite some time in the future. Many, many of our civilian-protecting choices have made us less effective than we could have been in this war.

[Gromit]

I realize everyone has their own little terminological pet peeves. I'm endlessly annoyed by folks who can't distinguish apes from monkeys or spiders from insects, for example.

But if bombs are only dropped from planes, someone had better talk to Francis Scott Key and Ted Kaczynski. And we'll all have to learn to call them VBIED's, not car bombs. The upside will be the final retirement of "homicide bomber".

"And the rockets' red glare, the munitions bursting in air..."

[rilkefan]

I can imagine this:

"Sweet! This one kills civilians at a 5-to-1 higher ratio and is [more] effective against insurgents. Let's use it".

But it seems to me the claim is rather, "This one is more effective against insurgents, maybe it'll kill more kids but who'll know or be able to prove it or be able to get the proof widely known?"

Neither country,however, does an adequate job of investigating and analyzing why civilian casualties occur.

[Tad Brennan]

Mr. Holsclaw--

I said:

"It's bad to ignore *morally relevant* distinctions."

You quoted me, and then you said:

"Sure. Like the difference between 'targetted' and 'not targetted'. Like the difference between 'killed' and 'murdered'. Like Lancet articles that don't bother with the difference between 'combatant and non-combatant'. Like the difference between bombing an Iraqi propaganda outlet and Saddam's forces shelling civilians to drive them in front of US forces. I really feel your pain on the arguing with people who don't want to recognize moral distinctions you find important front."

I believe we are in agreement here; but at the same time the phrase "I really feel your pain", which is generally used by way of mocking or sarcastic disdain, suggests that perhaps you think you are disagreeing with me.

In fact, the distinction between "targetting" and other kinds of non-culpable or less-culpable killing is exactly what I had in mind as a *morally relevant* distinction. (I said as much in my earlier comment about active and passive--which we had time-stamps!).

The distinction between cluster munitions delivered by plane and those delivered by rocket seems to me clearly *not* morally relevant, and it was exactly the one I had in mind in making my abbreviated comment. (I abbreviated because I had just registered my agreement with Anarch, who had also said that he saw no relevant difference in the method of delivery of the cluster munition).

SO, I believe we are in agreement, and I don't think that any mocking or sarcastic disdain is called for on your part. If you intended none by your use of the phrase "I really feel your pain," then nothing stands between us and a lifetime of harmony.

Unless perhaps you *do* want to argue that there is some difference, relevant to the issues under discussion in this thread, between cluster munitions delivered by airplane and those delivered by rocket or other means? I would be very interested to hear that thought expanded upon.

Sometimes I come to see that I have been mistaken about what is morally relevant. Perhaps this is one of those times. I am open to persuasion.

[Gary Farber]

"'Cluster bombs' just are not different enough from generic 'bombs' to make a big moral difference. In both cases civilians are likely to end up dead or injured as a side effect of attempting to kill combatants."

On the other hand, that doesn't mean there's necessarily no moral difference, and the question, best answered by a close look at the facts, and further debate (not necessarily here at this level of expertise), is valid.

It does seem true that cluster dispersal are going to leave more potentially explosive dud submunitions than large unitary munitions. So, numerically, one would seem to be upping the possibilities of potentially later injuring an innocent. On the other hand, the explosive when it detonates is far less powerful.

"But if bombs are only dropped from planes, someone had better talk to Francis Scott Key and Ted Kaczynski."

That's why I specifically said in modern terminology. Were those words unclear?

[Gary Farber]

To forestall the obvious: and add the word "military" as a modifier, please.

[Gary Farber]

Italic out!

[Gary Farber]

Targeted, incidentally.

The word is "targeted."

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Yes, two t's and not three. :)

"SO, I believe we are in agreement, and I don't think that any mocking or sarcastic disdain is called for on your part. If you intended none by your use of the phrase "I really feel your pain," then nothing stands between us and a lifetime of harmony."

No I honestly do feel your pain--the refusual to make useful distinctions is a constant annoyance I have here. I wasn't being sarcastic. Though I can totally see how you might think I was. Hell--I read what I had written and I thought I was being sarcastic. Sorry.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Refusual? is that like a usual refusal? Sheesh, too bad I can't dictate my posts and have someone transcribe them. ;)

[Tad Brennan]

Mr. Holsclaw--

good--then it's a lifetime of harmony.

see you on another thread.

[Donald Johnson]

Regarding that Lancet study that Sebastian says didn't distinguish between civilians and non-civilians, here's a relevant quote--

"Many of the Iraqis reportedly killed by US forces could have been combatants. 28 of 61 killings attributed to US forces involved men age 15-60 years, 28 were children younger than 15 years, four were women, and one was an elderly man. It is not clear if the the greater number of male deaths were attributable to legitimate targeting of combatants who may have been disproportionately male, or if this was because men are more often in public and more likely to be exposed to danger."

Presumably most of the women and children and some of the men were non-combatants. The bulk of those 61 deaths (52, in fact) occurred in Fallujah, something I think I think was discovered by someone at Tim Lambert's blog Deltoid--he emailed one of the authors and asked. You could almost figure that out from the paper, but not all the breakdowns one would like were given in the paper.

Here's another tidbit--"At all sites, only 64 households (<8 %) were recorded as empty at the time of our visit and none were abandoned after all or most of the residents had died. In Falluja, 23 households of 52 visited (44%) were temporarily or permanently abandoned. Neighbors interviewed described widespread death in most of the abandoned houses, but could not give adequate details for inclusion in the study." They then discuss whether this could have led to either an overestimate (yes) or underestimate (yes) of the deaths in Fallujah.

The survey was done in September 2004, before the final assault. This carnage came from air strikes.

There's enough detail in the Lancet paper to let us know that something pretty terrible probably happened in Falluja, even if you can't use one neighborhood and make a trustworthy estimate of the death toll for the city as a whole.

[kenB]

Wow, this was a fun romp. Props to Jes for making incendiary statements that generated another 50 comments full of accusations and recriminations when the thread was in dire danger of dying out due to mass agreement. Are the blog owners paying her for her services in generating traffic?

Slart might perhaps be mildly condemned for pedantry regarding the cluster submunitions fuss (though I'm inclined to cut him some slack given that that's his bailiwick), but those of you who accused him of attempting to thereby change the subject might ask yourselves why he would want to do that, considering that he had acknowledged that deploying cluster submunitions in an urban area was of questionable morality.

This could have been a calm, thoughtful discussion about how one goes about determining what the acceptable level of risk of civilian casualties is for a given conflict when choosing tactics; but I guess the atmosphere around here is too toxic for calm discussion about anything politically controversial.

[Gary Farber]

This is going to sound very callous and cruel, doubtless, to some, but I'm merely going to point out a sad, tragic, fact. Which is that in innumerable wars around the globe, from Nepal to Congo to Israel/Palestine to Afghanistan to Chechnya to Somalia to Haiti and on and on, it's perfectly common for soldiers with automatic weapons to be from 8-13 years old. Perfectly common.

It's very horrible. But the "presumption" that those under 15 are non-combatants, is, alas, not at all warranted.

Of course, neither would any presumption that they automatically were combatants be in the least justified.

[Francis]

hmmm, I take a week's vacation and this thread is the one that catches fire? go figure.

some probably not terribly helpful thoughts:

jes -- sometimes your passion betrays you. absent stronger evidence, at best your argument is that the US military shows deliberate indifference toward civilian, especially children, deaths. but especially with a philospher of the caliber (munitions joke) of Prof. H supervising this place, i think you would be well served by recognizing that deliberate indifference is not the same thing as intent.

that said, i'm sorry that you and Gary appear to be at such a bitter impasse. i believe you are both a smidge stubborn, and the threads here would be well served by both of you extending an olive branch.

please consider doing so.

SH: when you say "'Cluster bombs' just are not different enough from generic 'bombs' to make a big moral difference", you really need to explain yourself better, given that the HRW link much debated appears, to me, to show that cluster munition UXO has a far greater impact on civilian children than other kinds.

are you making a flat argument that all weapons and munitions are of equal moral weighting? given the worldwide views of mustard gas, that seems unlikely.

are you making a factual argument that cluster munitions and submunitions have an equal impact (both during and after battle) on civilians, thereby giving them equal moral weight? that seems factually wrong.

what, then, the basis of your belief in that moral equivalence?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"SH: when you say "'Cluster bombs' just are not different enough from generic 'bombs' to make a big moral difference", you really need to explain yourself better, given that the HRW link much debated appears, to me, to show that cluster munition UXO has a far greater impact on civilian children than other kinds."

The HRW report is pretty much a brief for the prosecution and certainly should not be seen as a neutral source on the concept.

That said, it fails to explore the fact that cluster bombs are all so much more effective at their intended function. By way of analogy, dropping loose straw and hay on the enemy is likely to much safer for civilians, but not very effective.

It pretty much brushes aside the fact that the 'inital failure rate' is about the same for cluster and non-cluster weapons.

Much of the distinction in banned weapons is NOT effectiveness in killing, but rather the unnecessary ugliness in death or uncontrollable effect. Say what you want, but the uncontrollable effect and ugliness of gas or biological weapons is vastly different that that of cluster bombs. Gas can drift for miles. Compaints about Iraq (which I quoted as did dutchmarbel) is that they can spread over 100 square meters. That is hugely different in terms of control.

HRW pretty much wants perfectly controlled weapons. They don't exist. But following the Geneva conventions by not hiding in civilian areas would do wonders to protect civilians--far more than the difference between cluster and non-cluster munitions. Not that anyone on this thread will pay more than slight bit of attention to that fact.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Which is not to say that absolutely nothing could or should be done to address some of the concerns noted. For instance adding fuzes might be technologically challenging but worth it.

BTW, if you tend to push that type of thing you should be aware that it can be expensive and think about how it intersects with complaints about the monetary costs of the war.

[Francis / BRGORD]

"Not that anyone on this thread will pay more than slight bit of attention to that fact."

oh for god's sake, lay off the persecution complex. yes, all the regulars here are well aware of your views about insurgents hiding in civilian populations. and yes, many regulars here, myself included, pay close attention to your posts which are not overly self-indulgent.

moreover,

1. the OpFor is cheating (based on the US's rules of war). So? they're home; we're not.

2. last I checked, we invaded for the SOLE purpose of deposing the Saddam regime. that was done a while back. it seems to me that our moral case for using cluster munitions against insurgents who legitimately wish to throw out an occupier is a little weaker than if we fighting Iraqi regulars.

3. last I checked, the purpose of this war was to win. Since winning, per CBird, involves a regime that is not virulently anti-US, some of us believe that using munitions that cause civilian casualties will lead to our strategic defeat even if it results in a tactical victory.

4. also last i checked, you were arguing that the iraqis were insufficiently crushed by the original american offensive. although you've been coy about what additional crushing would involve, most readers here, including me, have assumed that you desired substantial additional casualties, one result of which would have been substantial additional civilian casualties. you're not exactly on high ground here.

5. the choice is not simply between regular munitions and those containing sub-munitions. the choice also includes not using artillery and air power. i recognize that giving up those capabilities would likely cause additional american casualties, at least in the short run. but if eliminating / substantially reducing civilian casualties allows the US to "win" sooner (or at all), won't the sacrifice be worth it?

[Josh]

But following the Geneva conventions by not hiding in civilian areas would do wonders to protect civilians--far more than the difference between cluster and non-cluster munitions. Not that anyone on this thread will pay more than slight bit of attention to that fact.

You keep bringing this up, and I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Are you of the impression that anyone here is rooting for the insurgents? Yes, the bad guys don't follow the Geneva conventions. (That's but one of many reasons why THEY'RE THE BAD GUYS.) What exactly are we supposed to do with that fact, try to kill them more?

[Katherine]

I don't know anything about cluster bombs (or munitions) and if I did I'd be afraid to say it.

The most damning thing to me, about our military's policy towards civilian casualties, is the lack of any serious effort at all to count them.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"What exactly are we supposed to do with that fact, try to kill them more?"

More? Quite a few people here don't think we should be killing them at all in Iraq.

[Donald Johnson]

Small correction department--the Lancet paper is clear on the number of its counted violent deaths that were killed in Fallujah. There were other details that someone commenting at Tim Lambert's site got from one of the authors.

Sebastian, yeah, there's some considerable question about whether we should be killing insurgents in Iraq. They are in Iraq, after all, not here, and we invaded them, not vice versa. Sure, they're often bad guys, though some may only be defending their country against occupation by shooting at US troops (something which in my slightly-pacifistic way I see as a very bad choice on their part and which I wouldn't cheer for anyway, since I'm American and also know someone who might be sent over there.) There are also government death squads and private militia Shiite death squads and maybe we ought to be killing them too, though there's the problem that according to a Peter Maas (sp?) article in the NYT Magazine some months back, the US is working with some of those units--I think the article was called "The Salvadorization of Iraq".

I'm not at all sure about this, Gary, but I don't recall seeing many stories about kids shooting at American soldiers in Iraq. Not that it couldn't happen or hasn't happened. In the case of Fallujah (or Falluja--I see both spellings), where the biggest chunk of Lancet deaths were counted, these were people who were attacked from the air and I doubt this particular randomly selected neighborhood was crawling with armed child soldiers. Anyway, here's a relevant quote from the Lancet paper--

"Of the 28 children killed by coalition forces (median age 8 years), ten were girls, 16 were boys and two were infants (sex not recorded). Aside from a 14 year old boy, all these deaths were children 12 years or younger."

Most of these would have been in the Fallujah cluster--it doesn't much sound like precision bombing aimed at insurgents to me, though maybe large civilian casualties are to be expected when you use aerial bombing in cities whether you try to target carefully or not.

[Gary Farber]

"Of the 28 children killed by coalition forces...."

"...maybe large civilian casualties are to be expected when you use aerial bombing in cities whether you try to target carefully or not."

Is 28 "large"? It depends upon the context: the size of the population and the number of munitions laid on, and, as we've touched upon, what sort of attacks where made and how they were made.

It says here that the pre-war population was approximately 350,000. For an example of what can happen, during Gulf War 1:

The first bombing occurred early in the Gulf War when a British jet intending to bomb the bridge dropped two laser guided bombs on city's crowded main market. Between 50 and 150 civilians died and many more were injured. In the second incident, Coalition forces attacked Fallujah's bridge over the Euphrates River with four laser-guided bombs. At least one struck the bridge while one or two bombs fell short in the river. The fourth bomb hit another market elsewhere in the city, reportedly due to failure of its laser guidance system.

So that's bad, and it happens, but theoretically a number of our systems are more accurate now than they were in 1991 (when, in fact, the overwhelming majority of bombs were "dumb," despite the videotapes shown on tv of smart bombs at the time; they were a small minority; now most of our bombs are guided).

Regarding the attempt to retake Fallujah in April, 2004, Wikipedia says:

he attempt by coalition forces to regain control of Fallujah, Operation Vigilant Resolve, led to about 40 U.S. Marine deaths. Estimates of the number of Iraqi deaths (both insurgents and civilians) in the attack range from 271 (according to Iraqi Ministry of Health officials [1]) to 731 (according to Rafie al-Issawi, the head of the local hospital [2]). The occupying force on April 9 allowed more than 70,000 women, children and elderly residents to leave the besieged city, reportedly also allowing males of military age to leave. On April 10, the U.S. military declared a unilateral truce to allow for humanitarian supplies to enter Fallujah. U.S. troops pulled back to the outskirts of the city; local leaders reciprocated the ceasefire, although lower-level intense fighting on both sides continued. An Iraqi mediation team entered the city in an attempt to set up negotiations between the U.S. and local leaders, but as of April 12 had not been successful. The rebel forces capitalized on this 'ceasefire' to conduct the most aggressive counter-offensive of the cordon. Additionally, numerous weapons were found hidden in the humanitarian supply trucks that were attempting to enter the city. [3]

A source for this is here. It's very much worth reading. It starts:

FALLUJAH, Iraq -- Sunni insurgents are smuggling weapons and fighters into Fallujah in aid convoys and ambulances, making it difficult for U.S. troops to stem the flow of weapons, Marines said Monday.
ADVERTISEMENT

On Monday alone, U.S. troops in Fallujah uncovered anti-aircraft guns buried in a load of humanitarian aid and saw an ambulance pull up to two shot insurgents and take away their weapons -- leaving the casualties lying there.

"One guy was found hidden in a sack of grain in the back of a truck," apparently intent on joining fighters in the city, Army Military Police Capt. Kurt Barclay, 38, from Ridgeway, Pa., said at a checkpoint on a desert road leading into Fallujah.

Humvees blocked the road as troops checked through a line of cars, buses and trucks loaded with sacks and boxes of food, medicine, blood plasma and blankets.

Using sniffer dogs, Marines and MPs poked through truck cargo holds and car trunks. But the understaffed troops waved some vehicles through after only a cursory look. They said they don't have enough personnel or the right equipment, such as large x-ray machines, for comprehensive checks of every vehicle.

"There was bus with a false bottom filled with assault rifles and rocket-propelled-grenade launchers," Marine 1st Lt. David Denial said.

But the bus -- with the weapons undiscovered -- made it through the checkpoint. Troops inside the city happened to stop the vehicle and found the stash, Denial said.

The anti-aircraft gun stash hidden in a truckload of aid also slipped through the cordon but was discovered in the city later, he said.

Up to 100 vehicles have been ferrying aid into Fallujah every day since Friday, when U.S. forces halted major attacks on Sunni Muslim insurgents after five days of fierce fightingof fierce fighting, Denial said.

Later:

Inside the city, insurgents have been using ambulances to transport weapons between neighborhoods, Marine Lt. Col. Brennan Byrne said.

On Monday, Marines shot and killed two insurgents seen setting up a machine gun near their position, Byrne said. An ambulance wheeled up, and a man got out to collect the machine gun, leaving the men, he said. The ambulance man also was shot and killed.

"We have to be careful because ambulances are being used for legitimate purposes, but we are also treating them with suspicion," Byrne said.

Nothing there about barring men leaving, but one can't rely on a single article, of course, so that means little. But it gives some clues as to some of the problems.

Back in the Wiki piece, there's nothing more about children; during the November counter-offensive, it says:

As of November 18, 2004, the US military reported 1200 insurgents killed and 1000 captured. US casualties were 51 killed and 425 wounded, and the Iraqi forces lost 8 killed and 43 wounded. [10]

If that's vaguely correct, 28 accidental deaths of children seems as if it might be a fairly low and unsurprising number, but I really wouldn't come to any judgment based upon the rather vague level of information I possess. Neither bombing nor shelling is specifically addressed in the Wikipedia piece.

[Gary Farber]

This account, via Democracy Now!, from an independent journalist clearly not at all friendly to the U.S. thoroughly condemns the U.S., but leaves the impression that the overwhelming majority of Fallujans were in refugee camps (interview on April 28th, 2005:

It is a horrendous situation, and we still have hundreds of thousands of refugees as a result. [...] AMY GOODMAN: And how many people are kept out of Fallujah now? How many people actually live there? How many were there to begin with?

DAHR JAMAIL: The latest estimate is of a city of 350,000 people, that 50,000 now have returned back inside the city.

AMY GOODMAN: And what's happened? Where have the others gone?

DAHR JAMAIL: They are still in refugee camps. There are refugee camps all around the outskirts of Fallujah, throughout many areas of Baghdad, even parts of Iraq south of the capital city. They are living in, of course, horrible conditions. There's running water at some of these refugee camps, none at others. No electricity. They are depending primarily on other Iraqis for aid, which is a very difficult situation, because now we have an estimated 65% unemployment in Iraq. Basic infrastructure remains in shambles. And this is a community then that is trying to support over 300,000 refugees at this point.

If ~350,000 people live there, it would seem that most had left before the fighting.

The Grauniad, on the other hand, thoroughly condemning Fallujah as "our Guernica" says, on April 27th, 2005:

Warnings of the onslaught prompted the vast majority of Falluja's 300,000 people to flee. The city was then declared a free-fire zone on the grounds that the only people left behind must be "terrorists".

Which truly suggests not so many left in the city during the fighting. They don't include any more hard or soft info on civilians in the city, save to note that they can't really know since they didn't have free access (which I kinda have the idea was denied them by more than just the U.S. Army, FWIW).

[Donald Johnson]

Gary, you are missing the point, or my point at least. All the Fallujah deaths identified in the Lancet study occurred before the final assault. The survey was done before the final assault. These people were killed by air strikes. And it was the air strikes which drove people out, except for military aged men who were forced to stay behind and any families that also stayed behind.

[Slartibartfast]

Yes, and if I'd written a completely different sentence it totally would have meant something different. Hooray. Would you mind addressing what I actually wrote?

You mean, you want me to misinterpret the targeting of infrastructure as targeting of civilians? No, thank you.

You have not yet answered why the distinction between cluster bombs and general cluster munitions is relevant to the discussion of whether such devices should be used in civilian proximity

Other than noting that the devices actually being singled out for mention aren't, in fact, being used in civilian proximity? Given that this is the entirety of my point, no, thank you.

If you pay veeeeery close attention you might note that my name is neither Jesurgislac nor Donald Johnson, and therefore the above remark is not particularly well-directed.

If you'd paid veeery close attention to the preceding portion of the thread, you'd already have noticed that your dispute with me is not particularly well-directed unless you disagree with the distinction that I'm putting forward. As for moral vs. any other kind of distinction, this is orthogonal to my point. If you insist on dragging the discussion back to this point, though, I point out that the use of cluster bombs in urban areas in Iraq is a hypothetical, whereas the use of unguided artillery bearing cluster munitions is not.

I'd respond further, but the messenger has been shot, hung, disembowelled, and has spent the last 36 hours or so in bed and has no more energy for this sort of nonsense.

Donald, I have no anger at all toward you, outside of the original state of slight annoyance at the snark. If snark had a lasting effect on me, the cumulative snark would have had me out of all blog comments long ago.

And if I've been excessively, needlessly harsh with anyone, please do attribute it to grumpiness and impatience born of the virus that put me down for the last day and a half, and still has me feeling under the weather now. And please do take my grumpiness as impatience rather than a sign of disrespect.

[dutchmarbel]

Gary::bombs are things that go 'boom'" seems useful to Dutchmarbel's grasp of English and technical terminology, whereas from Slart's position, it makes him feel like he's talking to a third-grader
[from a later post]
But your "correction," I'm afraid, dutchmarbel, of the precise language shows the opposite of what you intended. An MLRS munition is definitely not a "bomb." A "bomb," in modern terminology is, loosely speaking, dropped from an airplane; all explosives intended to be used in combat, more or less, on the other hand, are "munitions."

My original statement was: "As Sebastian shows, just a few posts above me (I miss the time stamp too), bombs is used for things that go BOOM, loosely speaking. And using clusterbombs for the ones dropped from the air and not counting the 'cluster munitions' that have the same effect is misleading - as the HRW report I linked too stated quite clearly."

From my 1982 New Collins Concise English Dictionary: "bomb: a hollow projectile containing explosive, incendiary, or other destructive substance". "projectile: 1. an object thrown forwards. 2. any self-propelling missile, esp. a rocket. 3. any object that can be fired rom a gun, such as a shell." "munitions: militairy equipment and stores, esp. ammunition"

Looking at the above definition my loosely speaking 'goes BOOM' seems to be more accurate than your loosely speaking 'dropped from an airoplane'.

In this discussion I think Slartibartfest could quite easily have said "One should say cluster munitions , since the US army uses the word clusterbombs only for the kind that is dropped from an airplane". Instead he seemed to use semantics to make the discussion LESS clear.

Read the HRW reports...

That was aimed at Slartibartfest Gary, not at you.

Sebastian:Like the difference between bombing an Iraqi propaganda outlet and Saddam's forces shelling civilians to drive them in front of US forces. I really feel your pain on the arguing with people who don't want to recognize moral distinctions you find important front.
[...]
You can argue that cities should never be bombed. I think it is a particularly stupid argument, but it is internally consistent. You can argue that cities shouldn't be subjected to nuclear attacks and I might give you the long term radiation card in your favor. You might even argue that it is better to go with massive explosives over napalm because the death is unnecessarily painful with napalm. I could see the utility of such distinctions even if I came out differently in the conclusion of whether or not the tactics shoud be allowed.

The distinction between cluster bombs and regular bombs however is not particularly useful.

By " Iraqi propaganda post" you mean the hospital in Fallujah that was bombed? When you say that as far as nuclear attacks are concerned the "radiation card" is the major argument against them, do you mean to say that you feel that nucleair weapons could be used if there was less long-term radiation coming from them? If so, what is your interpretation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its goals?

Also: when the Germans occupied Europe in WW2, do you agree with them that the European resistance were terrorists? Do you feel that the members are to be judged harshly for not making themselves clear targets for the Germans? If (I hope not) the US is ever occupied, should there be a resistance movement and if so, should they make sure not to mingle with civilians?

[Slartibartfast]

Instead he seemed to use semantics to make the discussion LESS clear.

Needless to say, that was the opposite of the intended effect. I guess I suck, and am ruining this blog.

That was aimed at Slartibartfest Gary, not at you.

What, you mean that thing that I've only read eight times or so? It still says what it said the first time I read it.

[dutchmarbel]

[Dutchmarbel:]Instead he seemed to use semantics to make the discussion LESS clear.

[slartibartfast:]Needless to say, that was the opposite of the intended effect. I guess I suck, and am ruining this blog.

Nah, that position is allready taken ;)
I am glad the effect was not intended, but it lead to great confusion and it took the thread totally away into a discussion about technical terms.

That was aimed at Slartibartfest Gary, not at you.

What, you mean that thing that I've only read eight times or so? It still says what it said the first time I read it.

There was an 's' behind report... There are several reports about the devastating effect of cluster munitions *and* cluster bombs on the civilian population. The one I quoted from only said that the US government muddied the issue by giving the numbers about cluster *bombs* and not all cluster munitions, when these effects are discussed.

[Anarch]

You mean, you want me to misinterpret the targeting of infrastructure as targeting of civilians? No, thank you.

No, I would have liked for you to acknowledge that tactically targeting infrastructure can also be strategically targeting civilians, as per my post.

Other than noting that the devices actually being singled out for mention aren't, in fact, being used in civilian proximity? Given that this is the entirety of my point, no, thank you.

If that really was the entirety of your point, I have to say that you did a really poor job of conveying that. Of course, see below.

And please do take my grumpiness as impatience rather than a sign of disrespect.

I completely understand and, fwiw, you've lost no respect of mine during these exchanges. [It's a royal pain to be an expert in a technical field and watch laypeople misuse precise terminology, so I understand your pain.] I hope you can say the same of me.