Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> Alberto I don't think anyone in the US high command would argue that killing > children (or any other innocent) is anything but a mistake - and something > that US forces have gone to considerable lengths, and taken considerable > risks, to avoid. The Pentagon has been quite open about the extent to which > it is being extremely selective in choosing targets. What about the use of cluster bombs? I'm not arguing here, just inquiring, I haven't read too much about them but have seen a few reports. Is their use justified? Is it true that 10-20% of them do not detonate turning them into de facto land mines? -- Doug Me: It's a balance, right? Obviously if we did no bombings at all, no civilians would die at American hands. Of course, a huge number of civilians (Afghan and, eventually, American) would die at the hands of the Taliban and their allies. So we bomb. But we don't bomb indiscriminately. If we were using cluster bombs in the middle of Kabul - I'd argue for the prosecution of whoever gave that order on war crimes grounds. During World War 2, we didn't have other options than the indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets. Now we have weapons that make such things unnecessary, so what was acceptable then becomes unacceptable now. But cluster bombs are immensely effective weapons for destroying vehicles and troop concentrations. Used in non-urban environments they minimize the risk to American soldiers and, by shortening the war, minimize the risk to Afghan civilians as well. After the war we can help clean up the cluster bombs. We can ask American soldiers to take some risks to avoid killing civilians, but we shouldn't deprive them of the tools to do their job - particularly when their job will be for the benefit of Afghan civilians as well, not just American ones. Now, there's no doubt in my mind that the use of cluster bombs will result in some number of Afghan civilians being killed in the future. That number will almost certainly be very small - we keep track of where we dropped the bombs, and should be able to sweep them very effectively. The use of cluster bombs also shortens the war by some period of time - saving the lives of some number of Afghan civilians _and_ - at least equally important - decreasing the risk to American soldiers. That is a moral imperative as well, one that it seems to me is very casually dismissed by anti-landmine crusaders. So in the specific case of cluster bombs, I would say - they're not perfect weapons. There's no such thing. Every weapon presents a risk of civilian casualties. You measure the effectiveness of the weapon against the risks that they impose. Given the _very high_ effectiveness of cluster bombs in conflicts of the type in which we are engaged, their (careful) use seems to me entirely justifiable. Gautam
