Military must avoid killing civilians

If nothing else, the United States' military experience in Iraq has taught us one thing: Urban warfare is the future. The battles of Fallujah, Ramadi, Najaf and other cities in that country have given the United States a sobering reminder that warfare is not as cut and dry as it used to be. Urban war fighting and counterinsurgency are known as the "graduate school" of warfare for good reason. They are the most difficult kinds of campaigns to execute successfully. Urban battles are complicated because they almost always favor the defender and provide him with an almost inexhaustible supply of tricks. Insurgent tactics in Iraq were irregular, utilizing snipers, ambushes and booby traps to kill. In some parts of Fallujah, U.S. forces reported that large holes had been created within the walls of buildings to allow terrorist fighters to move from house to house without stepping outside, something the Russians frequently did at Stalingrad. The presence of civilians and the ineffectiveness of high-tech ordnance is another difficulty. Fighting in cities is different from fighting in the open because there can potentially be thousands of civilians living among and occupying the same real estate as the enemy. As combatants, the Americans soldier's job is to kill and wound enemy insurgents, not civilians. The only way to win urban combat is with light infantry using small-unit tactics. It's a difficult, inch-by-inch task which involves squads and platoons clearing buildings, rooting out snipers and attempting to keep civilian casualties to a minimum, all at the same time. Victory can only be achieved at the small-unit level. Soldiers must be trained to take on enemy forces larger than themselves, just like our enemies are prepared to do. When U.S. troops in Iraq level a house with a 500-pound laser-guided bomb, it doesn't guarantee a direct hit on the enemy. What it can do, however, is indiscriminately kill civilians living there and level their house. Not only is this a senseless waste of life, it will most likely turn people against U.S. forces, making their job more difficult. In 1999, the Russian Army leveled entire neighborhoods in Grozny with air strikes and helicopter gunships in order to root out Chechen guerrillas. What happened? Well, the entire city was demolished and thousands of noncombatants were killed, which gave a wonderful advantage to the insurgents who then had more cover and concealment than they could hope for. When the Russian tanks finally entered the city, they were wiped out. This is not an outcome the U.S. would like. The point? American forces cannot rely on overwhelming firepower to fight their battles. It kills civilians and doesn't get the job done.

Comments

Be the first to comment on this article!

Add comment


I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Enter the characters in the image above:

log out