On October 3rd, the United States unleashed an airstrike on a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan. Dozens of innocent civilians were either killed or injured. Professor Ohlin posed the question, “Was this a war crime?” The answer, according to international criminal law, would depend on several factors. Was this a blatant attack on unarmed civilians? Was there a military target involved? If there was a military target, what was its value?
The concept of “collateral damage” is one of the most salient tragedies of war. This is why I can come to agree with the statement, “In war, no one ever truly wins.” I am puzzled as to how one assigns value to a military target. Would it not always be in the best interest of the assailant to simply label their military target as one with high value? Are other parties involved in this decision? This issue seems to be far from just black and white. I can not definitively answer Professor Ohlin’s original question, as I would require further information from the investigations at hand. In any case, the United States must be held accountable for any wrongdoing. The U.S should not escape punishment just because we see ourselves as the “force for good in the world.”
This was an interesting post. Thank you for taking the time to engage with the issues and questions surrounding this issue. You really brought into perspective the question of value. I now also question why the ‘value’ makes or breaks the importance of the casualties already noted.
In my opinion, the increasing usage of drones (and similar technology) instead of actual “men on the ground” has greatly contributed to the tragic rises in civilian casualties (i.e.collateral damage). When someone is operating a “weapon” from a distant location, they are much more inclined to pull a trigger and endanger the lives of innocent civilians. Therefore, I believe that military personnel should increase safeguards and reevaluate the way attacks and military undertakings are carried out.