Air strikes - challenging the "collateral damage" narrative
Thread Starter
Air strikes - challenging the "collateral damage" narrative
Another public debate over the use of air power, another round of commentators and Twitter-mobs worrying about collateral damage and dead women and children, some saying that only 'boots on the ground' can get right in to terminate the enemy without a general bloodbath. The MoD media office must be busy enough already steering press coverage in its desired direction, but they've obviously felt it necessary to publish under their own cover a statement on how careful our aircrews are, how precise and controlled the weapon effects are, etc. This is good stuff.
However, I think that advocates of air power need to take a more robust stance and challenge more directly the enduring link in the public consciousness between air strikes and collateral damage, as if air power is somehow inherently less discriminate than other forms of military force. Plenty of material to build such a case is available in the series of UN reports on civilian casualties in Afghanistan (2015 midyear report here and others easily Google-able under "UN Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict Report"). Taking one example from the 2014 report:
it is pretty obvious that ground war is far, far worse for civilians than air strikes. Even if our ground troops cause few casualties themselves (as was the case in Afghanistan) the use of asymmetric tactics against them, including IEDs, rockets, mortars, suicide bombs and urban ambushes, creates far more suffering than anything air power has managed in recent times. I can only conclude that the negative public sentiment towards air strikes derives from the fact that when air strikes go wrong, they can go REALLY wrong, as in the Kunduz hospital attack, the oil tanker strike in Afghanistan some years ago, and a goodly number of (possibly apocryphal) wedding parties. Events such as these certainly grab the headlines, but our 'talking heads' should make more of an effort to point out that the continuous drip-drip of casualties of land warfare makes it, in the long run, far from a discriminate option. Not to do down land forces in any way - but to try to put some perspective into and take some emotion out of the debate that always emerges at times like these.
A second chart from Afghanistan:
can be used to make a moral case that we should worry less about causing civilian casualties ourselves, and worry more about defeating the enemy quickly before he causes a far greater number. A tricky case to make, for sure, but the obsession with "zero civilian casualties" may not always be the morally-defensible cause that it seems on first sight.
Thoughts?
However, I think that advocates of air power need to take a more robust stance and challenge more directly the enduring link in the public consciousness between air strikes and collateral damage, as if air power is somehow inherently less discriminate than other forms of military force. Plenty of material to build such a case is available in the series of UN reports on civilian casualties in Afghanistan (2015 midyear report here and others easily Google-able under "UN Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict Report"). Taking one example from the 2014 report:
it is pretty obvious that ground war is far, far worse for civilians than air strikes. Even if our ground troops cause few casualties themselves (as was the case in Afghanistan) the use of asymmetric tactics against them, including IEDs, rockets, mortars, suicide bombs and urban ambushes, creates far more suffering than anything air power has managed in recent times. I can only conclude that the negative public sentiment towards air strikes derives from the fact that when air strikes go wrong, they can go REALLY wrong, as in the Kunduz hospital attack, the oil tanker strike in Afghanistan some years ago, and a goodly number of (possibly apocryphal) wedding parties. Events such as these certainly grab the headlines, but our 'talking heads' should make more of an effort to point out that the continuous drip-drip of casualties of land warfare makes it, in the long run, far from a discriminate option. Not to do down land forces in any way - but to try to put some perspective into and take some emotion out of the debate that always emerges at times like these.
A second chart from Afghanistan:
can be used to make a moral case that we should worry less about causing civilian casualties ourselves, and worry more about defeating the enemy quickly before he causes a far greater number. A tricky case to make, for sure, but the obsession with "zero civilian casualties" may not always be the morally-defensible cause that it seems on first sight.
Thoughts?
Last edited by Easy Street; 5th Dec 2015 at 01:06.
These graphs will be hand waved away by people who have a confirmation bias in a different direction.
Nice post, but sadly the people who need to hear it won't listen.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We live in world where the vast majority of the voting public willingly imbibe brain-numbing bilge from whatever media channel they have at their finger tips and buy in to whatever social media message hits their retina and strikes a limbic accord with their materialistically driven self-obsessed, wish-I-was-a-celebrity, level one thought process.
There's no "narrative" for them on this or any other political judgement. Just a snap call, based on whatever random lever is pulling their chain at any given moment.
You want a majority for peace...show a kid wounded by friendly fire.
You want a a majority for war...show a kid wounded by a terrorist bomb.
That German Air Force chap said something about this at Nuremberg...come to think of it, there was a Blackadder sketch that summed it up pretty much as well.
There's no "narrative" for them on this or any other political judgement. Just a snap call, based on whatever random lever is pulling their chain at any given moment.
You want a majority for peace...show a kid wounded by friendly fire.
You want a a majority for war...show a kid wounded by a terrorist bomb.
That German Air Force chap said something about this at Nuremberg...come to think of it, there was a Blackadder sketch that summed it up pretty much as well.
The so called general public' think we are sending a thousand Lancaster's out each night. I use the analogy, in 1944 we needed 800 bombers to shatter a city to destroy a factory, now we need one bomber to destroy the factory and leave the city unharmed.
The world moves on, just people have no idea, which is a result of the armed forces shrinking and moving away from their communities and politicians painting them as unthinking robots, fortunately we know different.
The world moves on, just people have no idea, which is a result of the armed forces shrinking and moving away from their communities and politicians painting them as unthinking robots, fortunately we know different.
We live in world where the vast majority of the voting public willingly imbibe brain-numbing bilge from whatever media channel they have at their finger tips and buy in to whatever social media message hits their retina and strikes a limbic accord with their materialistically driven self-obsessed, wish-I-was-a-celebrity, level one thought process.
There's no "narrative" for them on this or any other political judgement. Just a snap call, based on whatever random lever is pulling their chain at any given moment.
There's no "narrative" for them on this or any other political judgement. Just a snap call, based on whatever random lever is pulling their chain at any given moment.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After reading the total inaccuracies on The Guardian website, this thread is very appropriate.
At first I thought The Guardian comments were just naive. When they think of a bomb they picture a dumb 1000lb GP and totally oblivious to what Paveway is or does. To quote their journalist Boyle in his article dated Fri 4th Dec "Dropping something from a great height can never be precise".
However after a few days of the same comments, I don't believe they are that stupid. But in denial. They don't want to say Paveway and Brimstone are good kit as it would go against their biased agenda.
At first I thought The Guardian comments were just naive. When they think of a bomb they picture a dumb 1000lb GP and totally oblivious to what Paveway is or does. To quote their journalist Boyle in his article dated Fri 4th Dec "Dropping something from a great height can never be precise".
However after a few days of the same comments, I don't believe they are that stupid. But in denial. They don't want to say Paveway and Brimstone are good kit as it would go against their biased agenda.
Last edited by gr4techie; 5th Dec 2015 at 12:54.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think people are generally sick and tired of being involved in matters that were either created by us or made worse. Collateral damage is only a small part of the discontent, people are sick of the lies and industrial/commercial/political/military agendas, let alone the still fresh images of repatriated military personnel that have died for the square root of f**k all.
So yeah, many people are generally pissed off with it all. Being taxpayers, also have a right to display their opinion whether you like it or not.
So yeah, many people are generally pissed off with it all. Being taxpayers, also have a right to display their opinion whether you like it or not.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PP,
Theres voicing your opinion then there's The Guardian being selective with the facts to deliberately mislead the public.
Is there a newspaper out there that doesn't have a bias or agenda and just states the facts and both sides of the argument objectively?
A newspaper that just publishes news and not sensationalism or opinion? it'll never catch on.
Theres voicing your opinion then there's The Guardian being selective with the facts to deliberately mislead the public.
Is there a newspaper out there that doesn't have a bias or agenda and just states the facts and both sides of the argument objectively?
A newspaper that just publishes news and not sensationalism or opinion? it'll never catch on.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough, at best all sides are selective with 'facts'.
The general point remains, that a good number of people are sick of the death and destruction regardless of who is at fault. It's all we've seen for the past 25 years, people are pissed off. This Syria scenario gives another few years of bombing before the inevitable ground troop deployment and more UK deaths.
It's for reasons such as this, as to why Tony Blair cronies et al should be in jail. Sending troops to war on the basis of lies has caused all this death, destruction and billions £ pissed up the wall. No wonder people are saying enough is enough. Bit late now a monster has occupied the power vacuum though, send peace envoy Blair over to them to sort it out.
The general point remains, that a good number of people are sick of the death and destruction regardless of who is at fault. It's all we've seen for the past 25 years, people are pissed off. This Syria scenario gives another few years of bombing before the inevitable ground troop deployment and more UK deaths.
It's for reasons such as this, as to why Tony Blair cronies et al should be in jail. Sending troops to war on the basis of lies has caused all this death, destruction and billions £ pissed up the wall. No wonder people are saying enough is enough. Bit late now a monster has occupied the power vacuum though, send peace envoy Blair over to them to sort it out.
I understand that people have concerns, and when those concerns are genuinely born out of not understanding I'm more than happy to sit down and explain things. What really gets me irritated is when the holier than though self righteous brigade spout absolute drivel and it isn't challenged. It really makes me fear for the future of the country when such utter cockwombles are given air time and then when everybody else blindly agrees without knowing what they are agreeing to. I bet these are people who would join the back of a queue without knowing what they were queuing for.
The perfect case in point was when some bearded imbecile in the Question Time audience on Thursday began preaching that our bombing Syria was racist. I kid you not. Apparently that we viewed civilian deaths in Paris as a tragedy but collateral in Syria was racist. Cue lots of shouting at the to in Melchett HQ. I suspect he didn't even understand what racist actually means, but instead bandies it around as a tool to beat people with who don't follow his PC line of thinking.
Radio 4's Today Programme wasn't much better with Nick Robinson's inference that because we weren't using the much vaunted Brimstone, then we were causing CIVCAS. Now that worried me because Robinson is usually competent and down the line, so if even he is getting it wrong, I don't hold out much help for the rest of the media darlings.
The perfect case in point was when some bearded imbecile in the Question Time audience on Thursday began preaching that our bombing Syria was racist. I kid you not. Apparently that we viewed civilian deaths in Paris as a tragedy but collateral in Syria was racist. Cue lots of shouting at the to in Melchett HQ. I suspect he didn't even understand what racist actually means, but instead bandies it around as a tool to beat people with who don't follow his PC line of thinking.
Radio 4's Today Programme wasn't much better with Nick Robinson's inference that because we weren't using the much vaunted Brimstone, then we were causing CIVCAS. Now that worried me because Robinson is usually competent and down the line, so if even he is getting it wrong, I don't hold out much help for the rest of the media darlings.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: beyond the Pale
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..and,unlike the MSM, let's not forget all the civilians being murdered daily by IS, which should be factored in to any decision not to act/to impose restrictive RoE, but typically isn't.
And for a complete picture, though it's very difficult to calculate, those of our own citizens who die from delayed medical help/poverty/etc because the money got spent on expensive precision weaponry, instead of cheap bombs and kidney transplants, etc.
And apart from the sheer numbers game, our civilians or theirs?
And for a complete picture, though it's very difficult to calculate, those of our own citizens who die from delayed medical help/poverty/etc because the money got spent on expensive precision weaponry, instead of cheap bombs and kidney transplants, etc.
And apart from the sheer numbers game, our civilians or theirs?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.sott.net/article/273517-Study-US-regime-has-killed-20-30-million-people-since-World-War-Two
I wonder what the real number is? 20-30 million seems a bit conservative. Suppose the article only goes to 2007.
How many people did the Nazis kill??
I wonder what the real number is? 20-30 million seems a bit conservative. Suppose the article only goes to 2007.
How many people did the Nazis kill??
Thread Starter
tb7,
Nowhere did I advocate denial. The facts presented in those UN reports speak for themselves. The point about collateral damage events is that the way in which they have been handled over many years has skewed the perception of air power by the public. No-one has ever made a concerted effort to put the figures in wider context, and the public rarely hears about any other forms of collateral damage so are just left with the impression that air power has a particular propensity for killing babies. That's what needs correcting if we are to have public debate of any quality over the use of air power (including in Parliament, where the standard of debate on the topic was abysmal).
As to other posters' points on the right of the press or public to have their own opinions, let's turn to philosophy to examine those claims:
Having a right to an opinion does not make that opinion right.
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.
Nowhere did I advocate denial. The facts presented in those UN reports speak for themselves. The point about collateral damage events is that the way in which they have been handled over many years has skewed the perception of air power by the public. No-one has ever made a concerted effort to put the figures in wider context, and the public rarely hears about any other forms of collateral damage so are just left with the impression that air power has a particular propensity for killing babies. That's what needs correcting if we are to have public debate of any quality over the use of air power (including in Parliament, where the standard of debate on the topic was abysmal).
As to other posters' points on the right of the press or public to have their own opinions, let's turn to philosophy to examine those claims:
Having a right to an opinion does not make that opinion right.
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.
Last edited by Easy Street; 6th Dec 2015 at 02:17.
SM3 raises an excellent point.
While we chalk up the Butchers Bill on Collateral Deaths....should we not add onto that tally the thousands that die while we show our wondrous restraint and by doing so delay ending the killing that goes on by the other side.
Are we not in some way responsible for those deaths that could have been prevented had we unleashed the proverbial Dogs?
While we chalk up the Butchers Bill on Collateral Deaths....should we not add onto that tally the thousands that die while we show our wondrous restraint and by doing so delay ending the killing that goes on by the other side.
Are we not in some way responsible for those deaths that could have been prevented had we unleashed the proverbial Dogs?
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: beyond the Pale
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check out the Guardian's Defence bod - he does investigations into alleged miscarriages of military justice, and wouldn't know one end of a Paveway from the other - They really ARE that stupid.
Thank you, SASless. The point is: there is no zero option. Taken to the extreme - Do absolutely nothing and IS would take over the Planet (that is their stated aim) - 6.8 billion non-muslims executed. Probably another half billion of those we think of as muslims but they don't as well. Well, maybe 5 billion executed and the rest as sex slaves. The responsibility only accrues if we have the capability to stop them and do not. We have, and we currently aren't doing.
Thank you, SASless. The point is: there is no zero option. Taken to the extreme - Do absolutely nothing and IS would take over the Planet (that is their stated aim) - 6.8 billion non-muslims executed. Probably another half billion of those we think of as muslims but they don't as well. Well, maybe 5 billion executed and the rest as sex slaves. The responsibility only accrues if we have the capability to stop them and do not. We have, and we currently aren't doing.
In defence of the Guardian article, having read it, what I think he actually means by 'dropping weapons from height can never be precise' is that dropping a PWIV with a CEP of bugger all is fine, but if you drop it in the wrong place because the only intel you have is 'from height' then it still misses.
Not saying I agree with the guy, but give him some credit for a modicum of intelligence.
Not saying I agree with the guy, but give him some credit for a modicum of intelligence.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
It may be splitting hairs but there is a difference between collateral and accidental deaths.
At a policy level the decision to deliver ordnance will result in collateral damage.
At a tactical level true collateral deaths will occur when non-combatants are in close proximity to a legitimate target. Mis-identifying a target as combatant is a tactical error and at the same time political collateral.
At a policy level the decision to deliver ordnance will result in collateral damage.
At a tactical level true collateral deaths will occur when non-combatants are in close proximity to a legitimate target. Mis-identifying a target as combatant is a tactical error and at the same time political collateral.
All this concern over Collateral Damage confuses me.
We did not give a Tinkers Damn about carpet bombing Cities during WWII and even used two Nuclear Weapons on the Japanese.
The early surrender of the Japanese as a result of the Nuclear Bombs saved Millions of Lives probably.
Perhaps we need to get back to fighting Wars instead of what we do these days as we certainly do not have a very good record from the Tactics and Strategy we employ today.
Comparing the Nazi's and Militant Japanese to the likes of ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Taliban is not completely inappropriate as each were and are subgroups of various populations that brought death, pain, and misery to everyone around them.
Finding the way to attack their infrastructure and funding sources along with their personnel without harming too many innocents in the process is the hard part.
If we are going to defeat ISIS we shall have to wage War on them....War in every essence of the concept.
We did not give a Tinkers Damn about carpet bombing Cities during WWII and even used two Nuclear Weapons on the Japanese.
The early surrender of the Japanese as a result of the Nuclear Bombs saved Millions of Lives probably.
Perhaps we need to get back to fighting Wars instead of what we do these days as we certainly do not have a very good record from the Tactics and Strategy we employ today.
Comparing the Nazi's and Militant Japanese to the likes of ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Taliban is not completely inappropriate as each were and are subgroups of various populations that brought death, pain, and misery to everyone around them.
Finding the way to attack their infrastructure and funding sources along with their personnel without harming too many innocents in the process is the hard part.
If we are going to defeat ISIS we shall have to wage War on them....War in every essence of the concept.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
SASLess, you would be better employed pushing a pea up a hill with your nose.
Allied bombing in WW 2 undoubtedly had am effect with targets selected with collateral damage as an intended effect. Subsequently the campaign was rewritten as abhorrent. Your Vietnam war was undoubtedly crippled by this new consciousness.
To fight a total war against those terrorists is impossible.
Allied bombing in WW 2 undoubtedly had am effect with targets selected with collateral damage as an intended effect. Subsequently the campaign was rewritten as abhorrent. Your Vietnam war was undoubtedly crippled by this new consciousness.
To fight a total war against those terrorists is impossible.