Civilian Deaths in Airstrike: A Catholic Response

[Michaeljc4]

Hello. While the details of this particular instance are still sketchy, it is well-known that the US policy in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Africa has resulted in many civilian deaths over the past years and decades. I am curious about how we, as Catholics, should respond to such things.

cnn.com/2015/05/03/middleeast/syria-massacre-accused-us/

 

[DaveBj]

I don’t pretend to give a Catholic response; this is my own thinking.

In military circles, what you are talking about is called “collateral damage.” It is regrettable, but unavoidable that civilians will be harmed, even when military installations are targeted with precision weapons. The mission of any legitimate military action is to maximize the damage to the enemy’s military capabilities while minimizing “collateral damage,” because harming civilians is at least a waste of military resources, and at worst a cause of increased animosity among the civilian population.

There is a parallel of sorts. Catholic teaching is that all sexual activity must be between married partners and must be ordered to at least the possibility of conception, and that the product of conception is from the first moment a human being. However, 10-20% of pregnancies end is miscarriage and the death of the fetus/human being. Collateral damage?

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

The Church is not pacifist, and recourse to arms is not only a right, but sometimes a duty, in order to protect innocent life.(2263 and 2265 of the Catechism).

Still, the killing of innocent civilians during war is an intrinsic evil that cannot be justified.

Turning the other cheek to terrorist aggression is not a duty or even an option, but then again rationalizing “acceptable losses” isn’t either.

Balancing the need for legitimate defence of innocent lives and preventing civilian casualties is probably on of the biggest ethical dilemmas that has plagued political and military leaders in modern times.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hello. While the details of this particular instance are still sketchy, it is well-known that the US policy in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Africa has resulted in many civilian deaths over the past years and decades. I am curious about how we, as Catholics, should respond to such things.

cnn.com/2015/05/03/middleeast/syria-massacre-accused-us/

Ever hear about the Korean War, the Vietnam War, WW 2, WW1? These had real civilian casualties. But since the end of the Vietnam War civilian casualties in police actions and the Middle East and African conflicts have been minimal and not intentional. But our adversaries around the world do not share our concern for innocent civilians. What is evil in the current crisis is that the current American administration is responsible for it. It began with our support of the " Arab Sping " uprising in Egyort, then in Lybia, then in Syria, and ignoring what was going on in Iraq. So in that sense, the U.S. is responsible for thousands of civilian deaths, not from our bombs but because we allowed Isis to get established.

Linus2nd

 

[Tomdstone]

Still, the killing of innocent civilians during war is an intrinsic evil that cannot be justified.

I agree. IMHO, the US involvement in the mideast, Vietnam, Ukraine, Afghanistan, has only made things worse. The right thing to do would be for the US to bring all its weapons and soldiers home and to stop the killing of innocent civilians in those countries. The Americans need to clean up house in the USA and stop the poverty, disorder and rioting by Americans in the USA before they venture to solve problems in foreign countries. What are Americans doing about all the decent people whose businesses have been burned to the ground last week in Baltimore? Why don’t Americans help the poor people in Baltimore with their problems instead of causing misery and death to civilians in Iraq and Syria?

 

[DaveBj]

I agree. IMHO, the US involvement in the mideast, Vietnam, Ukraine, Afghanistan, has only made things worse. The right thing to do would be for the US to bring all its weapons and soldiers home and to stop the killing of innocent civilians in those countries. The Americans need to clean up house in the USA and stop the poverty, disorder and rioting by Americans in the USA before they venture to solve problems in foreign countries. What are Americans doing about all the decent people whose businesses have been burned to the ground last week in Baltimore? Why don’t Americans help the poor people in Baltimore with their problems instead of causing misery and death to civilians in Iraq and Syria?

The naïvity of the above bolded statement beggars description. Our bringing all our weapons and military personnel home will stop the killing of innocent civilians? If anything, our decamping and returning to our own borders will result in an increase in the killing of civilians.

 

[Robyn_p]

I don’t pretend to give a Catholic response; this is my own thinking.

In military circles, what you are talking about is called “collateral damage.” It is regrettable, but unavoidable that civilians will be harmed, even when military installations are targeted with precision weapons. The mission of any legitimate military action is to maximize the damage to the enemy’s military capabilities while minimizing “collateral damage,” because harming civilians is at least a waste of military resources, and at worst a cause of increased animosity among the civilian population.

There is a parallel of sorts. Catholic teaching is that all sexual activity must be between married partners and must be ordered to at least the possibility of conception, and that the product of conception is from the first moment a human being. However, 10-20% of pregnancies end is miscarriage and the death of the fetus/human being. Collateral damage?

I’m not really sure that’s a good parallel, since the death of civilians is an indirect result of an action - bombing. A miscarriage on the other hand isn’t a result from sex, either directly or indirectly. Pregnancy is. There’s no action on the part of the parents that could cause a miscarriage, it’s completely out of their control.

Bombing a target full of civilians is really nothing like that at all, since it’s not out of our control. They died precisely because we dropped bombs. It might not have been our intent, but it was still caused by our bombs. A baby doesn’t die in miscarriage because his parents had sex and conceived him. Other unrelated factors are the cause of it.

A better parallel I think would be an ectopic pregnancy. We can NOT directly terminate the baby, but under the principle of double effect, we can treat the ailment and take out the Fallopian tube, though doing so would tragically result in the death of the baby. But since the action itself isn’t directed towards killing the baby, it is permissible. If there were some way that the problem could be dealt with that didn’t involve the baby’s death, then we would be obligated to use that method. But since modern medicine has no way to do that yet, it’s not a sin to operate and save the mother’s life.

With bombing then, we can never directly target civilians. Ever. Under the principle of double effect though, we can bomb military targets that may tragically result in civilian deaths, as long as this isn’t the intent and as long as there isn’t any other way to achieve the objective.

We should still be doing everything in our power to avoid civilian casualties however.

 

[Tomdstone]

The naïvity of the above bolded statement beggars description.

So you know more about this than the governor of Alaska who ran for vice President of the United States? The Republican party chose Sarah Palin as their candidate for vice President of the USA and do you say that the Republicans chose someone who does not know what she is talking about? A vice President is only a heartbeat away from being the American President. Here’s what she said on U.S. Decision on Syria: ‘Let Allah Sort It Out’. June 15, 2013
Why would the great American Republican party choose someone who is naive (according to you) to run for vice President of the USA? Shouldn’t the American Republicans choose someone who knows the situation in the mideast and elsewhere, or is it better to choose someone only a heartbeat away from being President who says that Allah should sort these things out?

 

[DaveBj]

So you know more about this than the governor of Alaska who ran for vice President of the United States? The Republican party chose Sarah Palin as their candidate for vice President of the USA and do you say that the Republicans chose someone who does not know what she is talking about? A vice President is only a heartbeat away from being the American President. Here’s what she said on U.S. Decision on Syria: ‘Let Allah Sort It Out’. June 15, 2013
Why would the great American Republican party choose someone who is naive (according to you) to run for vice President of the USA? Shouldn’t the American Republicans choose someone who knows the situation in the mideast and elsewhere, or is it better to choose someone only a heartbeat away from being President who says that Allah should sort these things out?

Sarah Palin does not reflect my position on this topic, which is that that civilian casualties are unavoidable even when strictly military targets are attacked (especially when the enemy places military installations in the middle of civilian areas), but that civilians should not be intentionally targeted.

The naïvity that I was referring to was your thinking that the removal of the U.S. from the equation would eliminate civilian deaths. In fact, they would multiply, perhaps exponentially.

 

[PolarGuy]

Sigh. Another day, another series of inane, naïve posts by people who want to blame the USA for numerous ills in the world…

…despite the fact that they sleep in their warm beds at night under the safety of the United States military – whose protections extend to Europe and much of the rest of the world…

…while never, for example, chastising muslims for killing Christians on a grand scale (other than to falsely say that anti-Christian violence is the USA’s fault).

That’s pearls before swine.

And, BTW, Tomstone, I will never, ever let you or anyone else forget that you were the one who abjectly refused, in a hypothetical some weeks ago on this board, to use violence to prevent a terrorist from raping your hypothetical virgin daughter.

Just so people know who we’re dealing with.

 

[Tomdstone]

Sigh. Another day, another series of inane, naïve posts by people who want to blame the USA for numerous ills in the world…

…despite the fact that they sleep in their warm beds at night under the safety of the United States military – whose protections extend to Europe and much of the rest of the world…

…while never, for example, chastising muslims for killing Christians on a grand scale (other than to falsely say that anti-Christian violence is the USA’s fault).

That’s pearls before swine.

And, BTW, Tomstone, I will never, ever let you or anyone else forget that you were the one who abjectly refused, in a hypothetical some weeks ago on this board, to use violence to prevent a terrorist from raping your hypothetical virgin daughter.

Just so people know who we’re dealing with.

You are not commenting on the statement of the Republican vice President candidate who said that the USA should ‘Let Allah Sort It Out’. June 15, 2013

 

[PolarGuy]

Tomstone, I can comment on whatever I want. It’s an anonymous internet forum.

I choose to comment on the fact that you would not use violence against a terrorist who you caught in the act of raping your virgin daughter.

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

You are not commenting on the statement of the Republican vice President candidate who said that the USA should ‘Let Allah Sort It Out’. June 15, 2013

Sarah Palin is not in the mainstream of political though and is not an expert on the Middle East or security matters. She doesn’t speak for the Republican Party or the political and military leaders of the US.

A a non-american, I believe that despite the USA’s faults (and there are many), it is still the greatest force for democracy and freedom in the world today, and if it withdrew from participation in the world it would be a disaster for the rest of us.

Without US intervention, Fascism and Communism would still be running amok.

Without US intervention, South Korea would have been overrun by the communist north and would not be the vibrant democracy it is today.

Without US intervention, the genocide in the Balkans would have been far worse.

Without US intervention, the Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan.

Without US intervention, terrorist leaders like Osama Bin Laden and Anwar Al Aliki would still be alive and running amok.

Without US sanctions, Apartheid would have lasted longer in my native South Africa, Nelson Mandela would have died in prison and we would be in the middle of a racial civil war right now.

 

[Tomdstone]

Without US intervention, the Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan.

I heard on the news today that the current government of Afghanistan is currently in negotiations with the Taliban and is willing to give them some power.

 

[Tomdstone]

Sarah Palin is not in the mainstream of political though and is not an expert on the Middle East or security matters.

I suspect that a governor of Alaska and a Republican vice Presidential nominee would know a bit more about these things than many of the posters here. The Republican party is one of the two main parties in the USA and I’m sure that they are very careful and cautious about who they have running as a vice President with their presidential candidate. After all, if the president dies, it is the vice President who takes over the office. My point is that it is not all that “naive” as claimed by another poster for the USA to withdraw its forces from the mideast and let Allah decide the outcome. After all, this is what Sarah Palin had recommended.

 

[Tomdstone]

Without US intervention, Fascism and Communism would still be running amok.

The US did not intervene in Russia and communism fell of its own accord.

 

[PolarGuy]

Bunk, tomstone, and you know it. Communism in Russia fell largely because the USA under Ronald Reagan killed it. Reagan increased defense spending to such an extent that the USSR, in trying to match it, couldn’t and it collapsed economically.

I notice of course that you won’t answer anything else in the prior post, which has become your wont.

Please answer the following questions:

1. Has the USAs military actions done good for the world in panama, Grenada, Libya, or anywhere else in the past 35 years? and
2. Do you believe violence is acceptable to stop the imminent rape of one’s own virgin daughter?

 

[edwest2]

The correct response is the ever-increasing precision of bombs and rockets/missiles.

World War II: If you were bombing an area, you were lucky if your bombs hit within 1,000 yards of your target. On D-Day, Allied bombers were sent to bomb German troops and equipment in the rear that were ready to reinforce the defenders. Due to intermittent cloud cover, the bombs fell two miles behind their intended strike point/area. The result was “a lot of dead French cows” and property damage. Accuracy gradually improved but “thousand bomber” raids also occurred.

Korea: Due to a failure to secure their communications system properly, and better air reconnaissance by Allied aircraft, we pretty much knew where everybody was and their strength. By the time the Russians intervened and improved their communications security, we were doing well. The entry of the Chinese had General Douglas MacArthur suggesting the use of atomic bombs. When President Truman heard of this, he was relieved of command.

Then there was the issue of civilians fleeing to safer areas. As it happened, North Korean troops mixed in with the civilians. Due to a lack of sufficient Allied personnel to check who was who, there was at least one firefight where both enemy troops and civilians were killed. The war technically did not end. There is an armistice in place, that’s it.

Vietnam: Despite our strength of numbers, B-52 bombers, and helicopter gunships (which kept getting upgraded), the civilians were aiding the military. Someone, I don’t know who, ordered a nuclear bomb to be mounted on a fighter-bomber for a strike on Hanoi, the capital of North Vietnam. Again, this did not happen.

However, due to ongoing negotiations, politicians sometimes hindered US military forces. Bombers conducted “rolling thunder” raids to kill concentrations of the “enemy.” The definition of who was the enemy varied. Regular North Vietnamese Army troops wore uniforms, the Vietcong wore “black pajamas.” Civilian deaths were inevitable. The very sad truth is that a defoliant called Agent Orange was dropped on areas the enemy might use as cover, but that substance ended up in the drinking water the civilians used as well. Birth defects followed. A friend of mine who was out in the field told me an Agent Orange drop fell directly on their position.

Today. We have laser-guided bombs and missiles. We also have conversion kits to turn a regular bomb into one that can be controlled on the way down. Keep in mind, depending on the target, these bombs are dropped from around 5 miles altitude. We also have missiles with cameras mounted in the nose that can relay images until impact. Drones are stealthy and filled with optical and electronic equipment, and carry rockets. They can be sent on missions that - mostly - cause zero or minimal civilian deaths.

But we are in an era of Low-Intensity Conflict and the enemy does not wear uniforms in many cases. The Republican Guard in Iraq was decimated, but anyone pointing a weapon at Allied troops, even if dressed as a civilian, is the enemy. Fortunately, surveillance has increased in effectiveness greatly, which is good and bad. All civilian and military communications systems can be monitored, globally. The US military has boasted that we now have a “24 hour, global strike capability.” That kind of rapid response is quite new. What is involved exactly is unclear to me. I pray that everyone involved can go to bed each night knowing that he or she had no other choice to defend this country, and our Allies, by doing what they do.

Ed