Thursday, May 20, 2004
Mistaken Targeting
The forty killed near the Syrian border may or may not have been a "wedding party". But the event is much too similar to another supposed wedding party in Afghanistan and many other less well reported apparent mistakes. Such mistakes will always occur. But in wars like this, they are especially costly.
Renewed effort should be made to reduce their frequency. Someday I would hope that we once again revisit treaty limits on the use of "non-lethal" or incapacitating agents in warfare. The Pentagon is interested in the issue. Unfortunately, the heavy weight of academic and world opinion against anything of the kind would make such an introduction at this point in this war counterproductive, no matter how many lives might be saved. So this reconsideration will have to wait for another war.
Right now the obvious approach would be to place a higher priority on distinguishing between targets that need to be hit immediately (for example, because the persons targeted are immediately threatening or are in the process of escaping) and those that do not require immediate response. In both the best-known cases (this one and that wedding in Afghanistan) it would seem that immediate action was not actually necessary. I suspect a higher number of targets could be placed in the "let's look more closely" category than has been the case. We have excellent means of surveillance and equipment that can "see in the dark". Let us use it more often and let us have interpreters of the results that are familiar with both the enemy and the culture of the area we are operating in.
Careful consideration of a series of such mistakes may well lead to still more creative and carefully designed means of lessening such mistakes. If this consideration is being urgently undertaken as these lines are written, we can all be thankful.
The forty killed near the Syrian border may or may not have been a "wedding party". But the event is much too similar to another supposed wedding party in Afghanistan and many other less well reported apparent mistakes. Such mistakes will always occur. But in wars like this, they are especially costly.
Renewed effort should be made to reduce their frequency. Someday I would hope that we once again revisit treaty limits on the use of "non-lethal" or incapacitating agents in warfare. The Pentagon is interested in the issue. Unfortunately, the heavy weight of academic and world opinion against anything of the kind would make such an introduction at this point in this war counterproductive, no matter how many lives might be saved. So this reconsideration will have to wait for another war.
Right now the obvious approach would be to place a higher priority on distinguishing between targets that need to be hit immediately (for example, because the persons targeted are immediately threatening or are in the process of escaping) and those that do not require immediate response. In both the best-known cases (this one and that wedding in Afghanistan) it would seem that immediate action was not actually necessary. I suspect a higher number of targets could be placed in the "let's look more closely" category than has been the case. We have excellent means of surveillance and equipment that can "see in the dark". Let us use it more often and let us have interpreters of the results that are familiar with both the enemy and the culture of the area we are operating in.
Careful consideration of a series of such mistakes may well lead to still more creative and carefully designed means of lessening such mistakes. If this consideration is being urgently undertaken as these lines are written, we can all be thankful.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
