REUTERS/Ismail Taxta
In light of the uproar over civilian casualties incurred by the Palestinians in the current conflict between Israel and Hamas, Jeffrey Goldberg is reminded of another conflict between a Democratic power and Islamic militants: The 1993 “Black Hawk Down” incident in which 18 U.S. Army Special Forces soldiers were killed. This was followed by our “disproportionate force” in which a wide estimate of anywhere from 300-1500 Somalians were killed, many purportedly said to be civilian (some of whom were used as human shields and some acting as armed combatants, as well).
Mark Bowden, author of the book Black Hawk Down, provides some of his perspective on civilian deaths in asymmetric warfare:
“If you feel the need to go to war against an enemy that is not as powerful as you are, one of the tactics of the weaker party is to hide among civilians, and use the global media to advertise the horror of the onslaught. People on the receiving end of the bombs greatly exaggerate the casualties and get photographers to take the most gruesome of pictures, and at the same time, the people in charge of the stronger power try to minimize the number of casualties. If you live in a democracy, then public opinion really matters, and reports of dead children swells the criticism of the war. If you live in a dictatorship, then you don’t care what the people think. Israel is a democracy and it cares about the way the rest of the world feels. It gets hurt by killing civilians, so for moral and practical reasons, they’re trying very hard to avoid it.”
“I believe that culpability for these casualties is very much with Hamas. Take this leader, Nizar Rayyan, who was killed with many of his children. He knew he was a target. If I knew that I was a target, I sure as hell wouldn’t have my children near me. It’s a horrible and cynical choice he made. But if your enemy is a sophisticated manipulator of public opinion, then this is one of the many downsides of choosing to go to war. Israel knows that.”
“The parallel with Mogadishu is that gunmen in that battle hid behind walls of civilians and were aware of the restraint of the (Army) Rangers. These gunmen literally shot over the heads of civilians, or between their legs. They used women and children for this. It’s mind-boggling. Some of the Rangers shot civilians, some of them inadvertently and some of them advertently. They made the choice to shoot at crowds. When a ten-year-old is running at your vehicle with an AK-47, do you shoot the kid? Yes, you shoot the kid. You have to survive. When push comes to shove, faced with the horrible dilemma with a gunman facing you, yes, you shoot. It’s not just a choice about your own life. If you don’t shoot, you’re saying that your mission isn’t important, and the lives of your fellow soldiers aren’t important.”
Hat tip: Michael Totten
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
This is why I don’t question at all if Isreal has the right to defend itself, I do question if they are going about it in a successful way. It’s not so much world opinion as it is the next generation of Palestinians.
Bowden is right. Even back during the American Revolution the patriots always talked up the “massacres” perpetrated the British while using asymmetrical methods. There is an inherent conundrum in what Israel faces, but since this recent operation began I figured they would try to kill as many of Hamas leaders as they could, destroy as much infrastructure as possible and then withdraw on or around the time Obama takes office. I had to laugh about Hamas trying to get a cease fire when they started this operation. It is too bad that many rank and file Palestinians cannot see the futility of supporting Hamas.
edit (add): Of course our founders did not use the population as cannon fodder, unlike Hamas.
An example:
“Palestinian reports said that the IDF hit a multi-story media building that houses several media outlets, including Reuters, Al Arabiya and the BBC. Witnesses said that a Qatari journalist was wounded and that the building was evacuated.
Defense officials said Hamas operatives had barricaded themselves inside the press office in Gaza, and were using people there as human shields. There were 23 people inside, said the officials.”
. . . and it’s not reported by Reuters, Al Arabiya and the BBC. No one was massacred by IDF, so it’s Not News. Move along.
Note they mention the use of ‘human shields’ but don’t mention why they needed them.
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950855726&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
Got it from:
Discretion? Cowardice? Or complicity?