How many civilian deaths are acceptable?

[Forkboy]

IT WAS A CRYPTIC Pentagon answer to Senator John Kerry’s straightforward question, in notes from the Senate hearing on May 21:

Question. According to The New York Times July 20, 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld personally approved over 50 US airstrikes in Iraq which were expected to kill up to 50 innocent Iraqi civilians each. According to Pentagon policy at the time, any strikes expected to result in 50 or more civilian deaths as unavoidable collateral damage were to be approved personally by the Secretary. The media was informed of this policy in July 2003 when the chief US commander disclosed the sign-off policy. Does that policy continue today in Afghanistan, and, if so, in what form? Do White House or Pentagon officials sign off on bombing runs where civilian casualties are expected to be higher than 50? Which officials?

Answer. (DELETED)

Does the Obama administration, specifically the secretary of defense, know in advance how many innocent civilians are expected to die before bombing raids are approved in Afghanistan and Pakistan? This was the case with Donald Rumsfeld during the bombing of Iraq.

Now the administration insists on keeping the answers secret.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/08/02/how_many_civilian_deaths_are_acceptable/

[stray cat]

1. There were alot in World War II - we could have avoided it by giving Germany

and Japan free reign and everything they asked for along with every country they wanted.

[joeybee12]

3. You're confusing justified military action with the strategy of warped,

sick minds who want a war simply because they want a war.

[Mari333]

10. yep

[wtmusic]

4. Yeah firebombing Dresden really taught Hitler a lesson nt

[Fumesucker]

6. In WWII we totally defeated the Wehrmacht, the Kriegsmarine, The Luftwaffe..

The Waffen SS, the Imperial Japanese Navy, the Imperial Japanese Army and the Imperial Japanese Air Force as well as random Italian and other forces in roughly half the time we have been in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But we had a definable goal in WWII, military defeat of the Axis powers.

There is no definable goal in Iraq or Afghanistan, we do not have any real idea what it is to "win".

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. ...or by lots of other ways.

Most noteably, the resources the British devoted to bombing German civilian populations had to be diverted by the RAF away from their efforts to protect Britain from German bombing, protect British shipping, target German shipping and military targets etc, where they would probably have done a lot more good (my source for this is "The Pleasures of Counting" by Tom Korner, who examines the advice given to Churchill by his scientific advisers.

[wtmusic]

2. Um, none?

Maybe instead of dropping bombs from 15,000 ft we should be confirming/engaging targets on the ground with troops.

Unless an Afghani life is worth less than an American one. If so, my bad.

[spanone]

5. ...0

[ixion]

8. exactly. Not one.

:applause:

[Mari333]

9. zero.

[shadowknows69]

11. Zero. War is unhealthy for children and other living things.

[timeforpeace]

12. So why doesn't John Kerry ask that question of the Obama administration? What's changed?