Excellent point about the U.S. moral obligation; however, in the era of modern publication that has been cast asside.
Can you remember there is a certain term for civilian casualties in war?
The whole idea that you avoid civilan casualities at any cost, regardless of their affiliation.
Well, with the advent of fast publication (going from never hearing about it weeks later, newspapers to TV to instant updates on the net) etc...
Countries only care about the casualities of their soldiers, because the political cost those losses will cause them with Willy and Wilhemina Smith back home watching on the evening news.
That whole term of engagement has been throw aside.
Politicians know there is a Large REAL cost politically, for each dead American soldier or support staff. However, Iraqi civilian deaths mean very little.
I think this is true of any war in this era, not just this one.
Quote:
Originally posted by punkworld
Ofcourse, there's also the moral dimension. Liberating Iraq only to slaughter it's inhabitants?! It would mean that a country which didn't pose any threat whatsoever would have been invaded for the sole reason of killing off the people who live there. Hell, even I would side with the terrorists then.
|