President Hamid Karzi has called on troops to put a stop to the civilian deaths. He said “Although the NATO troops have done a lot to reduce civilian casualties, our objective is to reach the point where there is no civilian casualty,”
But is this a realistic request during a war?Blogger Diane West outlines the problem faced by the troops calling it a “no -lose” situation for the Taliban. She says, A: The Americans don’t fire back for fear of causing civilian casualties, leaving the Taliban free to use the place as a launch site or more; and B: The Americans do fire back, killing civilians in the process and thus giving the Taliban a nice little international PR coup.
Blogger SWAC Girl is frustrated by the restrictions based on the army and says, “In my opinion, it is unfair to send our military forces into combat situations such as Afghanistan (far more dangerous than Iraq) and tie their hands behind their backs.”
But this blogger argues, “It is simple: if you kill civilians, damage their homes and destroy their crops, you are not going to win their support. Better for the commander to hold fire and let an insurgent get away than kill an innocent.”
Here Matt Hayes reasons that when at war,“Unfortunately, these casualties are inevitable.”
Are civilian death justifiable? And if so how many?