4
4
0
After our mixed track record for mistaking wedding parties in Iraq and Afghanistan for insurgent activities, and already acquiring a reputation for indifference to civilian casualties, why does it seem like our intelligence teams still either don't know or don't care about how many civilians get killed by careless (thoughtless?) targeting? Is this a de facto new standard that will be the price of our preoccupation with zeroing out American casualties?
As a related concern, how many folks here have qualms about our decision a few years ago to quietly redefine "insurgent" to include all military-age males in the target area?
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/10/and-yemen-burns-washingtons-blessing/122521/?oref=defenseone_today_nl
As a related concern, how many folks here have qualms about our decision a few years ago to quietly redefine "insurgent" to include all military-age males in the target area?
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/10/and-yemen-burns-washingtons-blessing/122521/?oref=defenseone_today_nl
Intelligence
Warfare
Honor
Morals
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 7
3
3
0
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS has it correct. That being said, there is no such thing as perfect intelligence. Anyone who demands it is a fool. Risk is left to commanders, not to congressmen or reporters. It's easy to look back at a situation, which is hard to determine from a Tactical Operations Center at 0300 in the morning and say that the commander should not have made a call. BS. If you don't want bad things to happen, don't go to war. Don't fly sorties. Don't launch drones. The only way to ensure no loss of civilian life is to keep a military away from the area. Our definition of "significant" civilian casualties has changed significantly as well. We go OUT OF OUR WAY to ensure that civilians don't get hurt. We are spending millions of dollars creating missiles that limit damage. We used to turn the mean temperature of cities in Japan to 500 degrees farenheit and call it a strategic success. I think we have come a long way in the efforts we take to reduce casualties. Anyone who demands a "no-civilian casualty" war is a fool. Moving out without the reason behind the strike is ignorant. We don't know the whole story. All we know is that civilians died. Just like last week....and a month ago...and a year ago...and 10 years ago. We do our best to control it. Sometimes (and not often) we fail. Things that explode kill people.
(3)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
COL (Join to see), I think that our ground-based forces do go out of their way to minimize civilian casualties.
I'm far from convinced that the folks managing air strikes not involving units in direct contact with the enemy are anywhere near as concerned. Granted, we have come a long way from when we deliberately firebombed cities full of "yellow people", but we still seem way more sanguine than we should be that the people we decide to drop bombs on need to die right now.
Also, I think it's worth mentioning that I'm not talking about incidents like the air strike this weekend where we dropped ordinance on what I suspect was an unmarked medical facility whose location we had been made aware of. I'm talking about strikes where we have limited intel and no friendlies imminently in harm's way.
I'm far from convinced that the folks managing air strikes not involving units in direct contact with the enemy are anywhere near as concerned. Granted, we have come a long way from when we deliberately firebombed cities full of "yellow people", but we still seem way more sanguine than we should be that the people we decide to drop bombs on need to die right now.
Also, I think it's worth mentioning that I'm not talking about incidents like the air strike this weekend where we dropped ordinance on what I suspect was an unmarked medical facility whose location we had been made aware of. I'm talking about strikes where we have limited intel and no friendlies imminently in harm's way.
(0)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Understood. Intel is never perfect. Risk versus possible reward. Those decisions are weighed out by commanders. They will get it wrong sometimes. Rarely.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
The most important and best reconnaissance asset an Intelligence Analyst has is the Infantryman.
Let me repeat, the BEST asset we have is INFANTRY. You have the most visibility. Everything else is playing second fiddle, either because of DISTANCE or TIME. Intelligence is Information which has been analyzed to provide a picture for the commander. That's it.
If we have a Squad encounter a Squad, that tells us there is likely a platoon "in the area." When another squad finds the second squad, we use that information "to build a more complete picture" like a jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing.
In unconventional warfare there are less pieces, and the picture is fuzzy. So, it is getting harder for Intelligence present a reasonable image. We're not fighting a ground war on this, so we're neutered on this. There is no "man on the ground."
Let me repeat, the BEST asset we have is INFANTRY. You have the most visibility. Everything else is playing second fiddle, either because of DISTANCE or TIME. Intelligence is Information which has been analyzed to provide a picture for the commander. That's it.
If we have a Squad encounter a Squad, that tells us there is likely a platoon "in the area." When another squad finds the second squad, we use that information "to build a more complete picture" like a jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing.
In unconventional warfare there are less pieces, and the picture is fuzzy. So, it is getting harder for Intelligence present a reasonable image. We're not fighting a ground war on this, so we're neutered on this. There is no "man on the ground."
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
1LT William Clardy - They're all essential, but knowing your target... like if it's a wedding or a training camp....
(1)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
As a general rule of thumb, if there's somebody actually meaning it when they ask for more PT, it's probably a wedding...
(I know, incredibly rude, lewd and socially unacceptable...)
(I know, incredibly rude, lewd and socially unacceptable...)
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I think the reason why is we have more times where the target is not being observed by a FO and fired on by drones.
(2)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
That would be part of the price for making casualty-avoidance a strategic priority, wouldn't it 1stSgt (Join to see)?
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google