Consider this an apology for having not written anything in so long.Following the election I have been feeling something like Beckett’s Estragon.However, the recent explosion of violence in the Middle East should serve as a reminder to us all that the task confronting the incoming Obama administration is a daunting one.I realize that this is a rather obvious statement to make, but I point it out because I, like many people, have felt as though I am living in at state of political limbo.Waiting for Obama has trumped my attention as much as the election drama that preceded it.Never mind that I have been kinda busy.
Regardless of all these distractions, I would like to talk a little about the latest confrontation in the Middle East, and about modern warfare in general, and more specifically about civilian deaths.Civilians die in wars – whether or not they asked to be involved.This has been true since the beginning of time, and as long as men have committed themselves to the act of killing.Modern warfare is different though, because of two relatively recent phenomena.The first of these is obvious: the tremendous destructive potential of modern weaponry.The second involves the increasing concentration of populations into cities.
When Napoleon launched his assault on Europe which so horrified men of his age, the principal actions that affected civilians were assaults upon fortress cities and the scavenging of foodstuffs in the areas that the armies marched through.While these effects were tragic, the damage to the populations were surprisingly negligible when one considers the scale of the conflict.Here was a war that engulfed every European empire and raged across the whole of the continent.Armies met one another in massive set piece battles involving hundreds of thousands of men on both sides, and the death rates were catastrophic; death rates of soldiers that is.
Civilian deaths during the Napoleonic War are difficult to estimate, and the data is far more reliable for the soldiers.The best guess seems to be right around a million people killed throughout the continent and in the various overseas colonies.Compare that number to the estimated 2.5 million military dead and you start to understand that in Napoleon’s day, war was fought by soldiers locked in an effort to kill each other for the honor and aims of their leadership.Today the leaders remain, but the targets have changed.
The trend begins its slide in WW1:9.7 million military deaths vs. 6.8 million civilian.It is WWII wherein the density of cities and the military power to attack them finally shows us the beginnings of a new trend: 25 million military casualties vs. 41.7 million civilians.
When we move into the era of brush wars – beginning with US actions in Korea, its seems that the operational decision was that the wars of the future will ultimately be against people, and not their states.This was true on both sides of the conflict, but nothing illustrates this operational change more than the waging of unrestrained aerial warfare against population centers in order to not just undo the industrial base, but to cripple food production, medical services, and potential reinforcements.This was total mechanized warfare waged entirely against civilian centers; the latest way of attacking supply lines.In Korea, this tactic was so effective, that reliable numbers for civilian deaths don’t seem to actually exist, but the number of US deaths was right around 36,500.
These wildly unbalanced statistics only get more extreme as the century plodded onwards.In Vietnam, most research suggest that while 58,000 US troops dies, some 4 million Vietnamese civilians were killed.During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Soviet losses stand at about 14,000 with an estimated 1.1 million Afghan civilians killed.In Iraq, a military force of some 150,000 has lost about 4,200 men and overseen some 95,000 civilian dead – a figure with doesn’t include injuries (which might be worse in some ways).In light of the death ratio, Iraq has been one of the worst wars for an invading army in modern history.
None of this is new information.While war is inefficient and wasteful, it remains an important element of statecraft and a means by which a nation’s leadership pursues its political objectives.However, modern warfare simply doesn’t work.It ultimately amounts to the mass slaughter of civilians, and increasingly disproportionate responses by countries capable of projecting their might.This is turn helps to even further blur line between regular and so-called irregular fighting.
What is needed is a titanic shift in the way that warfare is conducted:A new Blitzkrieg model; a way to leverage military resources without the massive and needless slaughter of civilian populations.It’s a hard road and it requires making some sacrifices – first and foremost the relative ease with those who are capable of deciding to go to war.
Until September 11th, the United States did not believe that irregular fighters were capable of projecting their might to our shores – despite the repeated experiences of countries around the world.We could confidently fight them with ease at home and assume that they wouldn’t come here.We have since learned that this is not the case, and that there is no military solution to this question – at least not one that is acceptable for any civilized person with even the slightest sense of human decency.So when Israel moves a massive retaliatory force against the Gaza strip, no matter how justified its cause may be; the thousands of people, who are simply trying to live their lives, are still dead.Neither they, nor us can win the fight against extremism this way.They will not love you for killing their families and children – nor will they forget as quickly as you the broken houses and ruined playgrounds.Wars will be better when all sides really understand what is at stake.