Marc Garlasco claims that you have to compartmentalize when thinking about collateral damage. I feel, very strongly, that he is wrong. Collateral damage is not acceptable at all. I absolutely cannot understand any justification for it. Here is another scenario: I think that Bob Smith is a bad man. Not just a bad man, a really bad man, and he has the potential to do bad things. I decide that it would be beneficial to my company to kill Bob. Now I have a knife and I go to Bob's house and I kill his wife, his infant daughter, his teenager son, his brother and sister, and his dog. Then I go out side and walk down the street. Along the street I see a couple taking a romantic stroll under the stars, so I stab them too. Then I go into a few other houses on the block and kill the families in those houses (also the pets). All told I have killed 31 men women and children. Luckily, I had not anticipated running into the couple on the street so I did not have to ask my boss for permission. Unfortunately Bob was visiting his parents, so I missed him.
Is there a difference between this scenario and what really happens (what we accept) in war? Yes, of course there is, there are many differences. Firstly there isn't only one person deciding to kill the families. Secondly, the company is a country. Thirdly once in a while, they actually get Bob. But most importantly it is not done with a knife, it is done with a bomb. Bombs are very impersonal so otherwise non-sociopaths don't seem to have a problem using them.
Marc said that a great deal of collateral damage occurs when a ground force is under fire from another small ground force so they have the area bombed. Lets try to put this into perspective. Police have Kelly Hall (Drexel University dorm building) surrounded because there is somebody shooting at them from one of the windows. The police call in air support and Kelly Hall gets blown up, along with the 400 innocent students. The difference in this situation is that there is no war against Philadelphia insurgence. But make no mistake, innocent is innocent no matter where you are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
And to think that a soldier can completely change their mentality when fighting. They wouldn't look at Kelly Hall as a building with 400 innocent students. They would see it as a potential threat, and nothing more.
I don't necessarily agree with that mentality...but what other mentality can be taken if we want progression in the war?
Post a Comment