Summations Only

These two examples are notably different. In 1943, countries around the globe were immersed in World War II. During WWII (and similarly in other large international conflicts, beginning with the First World War), many of the belligerent countries adopted the strategy of "total war." In effect, these countries' civilian populations became active in the war effort in addition to their military populations. Citizens worked in vehicle and munitions factories, governments issued propaganda, families bought war bonds, militaries targeted and invaded cities and towns, and sometimes citizens even mounted active resistance efforts in war zones. WWII, more than most other conflicts, was a war of all against all.The war on terrorist groups in and around the Middle East, however, is not a war of all against all. It is a war of the American military against select militant groups such as al-Qaeda. Countries like Pakistan and Yemen, much less their civilian populations, have by no means declared themselves as part of the conflict. Thus, it is indeed "unwarlike" for the US to conduct drone strikes in non-belligerent countries with significant collateral damage to innocent bystanders and then to pass that damage off as a necessary cost of war. Especially when the strikes are aimed at funerals and groups trying to rescue the dead.

I have seen this too, and I definitely agree with you that it is futile to fiddle with the definitions of "war" and "murder" and expect that this will lead to different conclusions on the issue at hand. America is at war, and the civilian deaths from drone strikes in the Middle East are a result of that war. But what I was trying to get across is that some civilian deaths are much less "necessary" than others.Take this recent example of an airstrike in Afghanistan. The NATO officials who called the strike were under fire from insurgents while on patrol in a combat zone, and the target of the airstrike was the insurgents in question, not the three shopkeepers who died during the bombardment. This example seems to me to exemplify what you are referring to as necessary civilian deaths during war.Now take this example of another airstrike by the US, this time in Yemen. Nine people were killed, one of them a 16-year-old American citizen. None of the victims seem to have been major militant targets (the fact that the 16-year-old boy was the son of an al-Qaeda member does not qualify); furthermore, they were killed in a country with which the US is not at war, in a situation that did not involve any active combat. To me, this case seems to be one in which the civilian deaths were markedly NOT necessary.Of course, these two cases are far from representative from the majority of civilian casualties due to drone strikes, but they reveal that not every civilian casualty is alike. I simply wanted to show how "accidentally killing civilians whilst at war" is a broad description for an action that cannot be quickly justified without deeper investigation. Thanks for pointing that out; the website does look slightly unreliable. Here is a more reliable source that gives the same information.Edited by Domino, : No reason given.

How about the "non-conventional" techniques the United States used to interrogate suspected terrorists in Guantnamo Bay? Do you condone those as well?To speak more directly, any expansion of the techniques the US uses to apprehend its enemies sends the country further down a slippery slope. Just a couple of weeks ago, Obama adjusted the definition of "combatant" to "all military-age males in a strike zone." From here, it wouldn't be so difficult for the administration to once again redefine the term as all males in a strike zone, military-age or not. Or all people in a strike zone, regardless of age or gender.Not to mention the aforementioned example of the United States's use of torture on suspected terrorists. If waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and stress positions aren't enough to draw any strong international censure against the United States, why couldn't the US try even more forceful tactics? Perhaps a "shoot first and ask questions later" policy?Some of these examples may be extreme, but my point is that the use of tactics such as drone strikes constitutes a slippery slope. The question of whether the US has committed murder is not one of simple definition - it is one of degree.

If civilian deaths are an "unavoidable consequence" of war, and the United States is fighting a necessary war (as some in this thread seem to suggest), then the civilian deaths are by extension also necessary.However, if the war is not necessary, then neither are the civilian deaths...and that hardly helps the case for America, does it?Regardless, I see your point - that the discussion of whether America's actions constitute murder is not necessarily related to the discussion of whether America's actions are justified. After further research I've found that I was incorrect: at least one of the other people killed, Ibrahim al-Banna, was a senior al-Qaeda media operative. As such, it's tough to argue that the death of Abdul-Rahman al-Awlaki, the American citizen killed in the same strike, was anything but accidental.That being the case, let me briefly venture into the hypothetical. Suppose the US government originally launched the strike with the intent to kill the 16-year-old as well, thinking he was an al-Qaeda operative, but later found out that he was an innocent American citizen. Would this change the picture at all? It would certainly qualify the killing of the civilian as somewhat premeditated. Although the particular case of al-Banna and al-Awlaki does not resemble this hypothetical scenario, I imagine that other civilians may have been mistaken for militants and subsequently killed in this way before. The New York Times has high journalistic standards and I trust that they know their sources well. Besides, I can't go into much more detail about the original report, as it was apparently assembled from "witness reports and files from reporters on the ground" that likely have not been documented on the Internet. Edited by Domino, : No reason given.

From Mark Thompson, Pulitzer Prize-winning writer for Time Magazine (link):

quote:

---

No one — at least no one with any chance of living in the White House in the foreseeable future — wants to find out precisely how the U.S. public would react to a second 9/11. So Obama is — under the post-9/11 authorization for the use of military force — methodically whittling away at those who would do American harm as well as those the CIA and President believe might do the nation harm. 9/11 showed that suicidal zealots, no matter where they are today, can attack the U.S. tomorrow. That broadens the President’s rifle scope to include the entire world.

​

It’s a slippery slope.

---

Don't be so quick to label things "bumper sticker reasoning."

Not exactly...that's why we have judges and juries and criminal courts! But I see your point. Now that is a true statement...and perhaps the reason why the stated topic of this thread is slightly dead-ended. An objective truth such as whether a certain term such as "murder" applies to a certain action is not always very enlightening. A convincing reason why said action is unjust or unnecessary is much more enlightening. Unfortunately, though, mistakes are mistakes. I'm sure that soldier who committed the mercy killing on the battlefield wished in hindsight that he hadn't, and maybe even saw in hindsight why what he did was wrong, but his penalty stood nonetheless. So should the accusations against those who target civilians, regardless of how they explain their actions afterwards.