The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #46648   Message #693082
Posted By: GUEST,Claymore
18-Apr-02 - 04:09 PM
Thread Name: BS: Friendly fire?
Subject: RE: BS: Friendly fire?
I don't know how to say "Right on" in German, Wolfgang, but I sense you coming about into the wind. McGrath's comments on the civilian population are pure sophistry IMO.

5% OF WHAT????? 90 % OF WHAT?????

In biblical times, the percentage of civilian fatalities in war was usually 100%, and then the victors poured salt on the ground. Is some twit trying to convince me that that 90% of the Gulf War casualties were civilians? We lost some 128 Americans, the Iraqi's lost some 100,000 soldiers in the field. Is some twit trying to say that the Iraqis also lost some 90,000 civilian dead, when even the most outragious estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths was some 3,000?

McGrath, I have been at numerous meetings of Commanders in the Field, and civilian casualties are always one of the first considerations in any action which might involve a non-combatant population. Yes, they are sometimes the second consideration after the Commander's own troops. But many times the choice is made to sacrifice troops in order to reduce the civilian casualties.

In Vietnam, our planes came over Hanoi at treetop level to get the bridges near Hanoi, to avoid the dikes and reduce the civilian deaths. They got shot down and received beatings when ever Liberal Left peaceniks came to Hanoi to cheer the enemy on. Later on, we used carpet bombing to get them back to the peace talks. Same population different tactics.

Whatever you feel about the Israelis, they are clearly trying to reduce the civilian casualties in their current actions. No commander would utilize combat in a built-up area to obtain his objectives, unless it was a political goal to reduce civilian casualties. They clearly want to smoke the terrorists out, instead of simply bombing the place into rubble. The elder Bush made what I believe was the correct choice in not sending troops into Bagdad, as our losses at the time were light (128) and we would have go house to house for Saddam, with heavy looses to both sides, including civilians.

Civilian losses are in nobodies best interest, even the victors, and most responsible people know this.

Folks, when some twit starts presenting specious percentages to justify some vagrant thought passing through his Air and Space museum, don't let me be the first to put his dogs on the porch...