In April of this year, the international coalition forces led by the United States issued a statement acknowledging that since the annihilation of Islamic State Organization in August 2014, nearly 1,300 civilians have been mistakenly killed.Severely dilutes the severity of the killing of innocent civilians.
In 2017 alone, the coalition forces expelled the Iraqi organization to Oka City, which had killed nearly 1,600 Syrian civilians; overall, the total number of civilians by the coalition forces was more likely to be 10 times higher than claimed by the coalition forces.Essence
The words of the coalition forces and the human rights group have their own words on the number of civilian casualties in Syrian, which may stem from the differences in statistical methods, or the consideration of seizing the battle of moral public opinion, and the two are closely related.For example, Ayelet Malinsky, a Middle East researcher at Georgetown University, published a paper in the academic journal Critical Studies on Terrorism in 2015 that the Israeli non -governmental organization BRSQUO (TSELEM) and the Palestinian Human Rights Center (Palestine Human Rights Center (Palestinian Center for Human Rights, when counting the Palestinian civilian casualties during the Palestinian conflict in 2014, a very different calculation method was used. In the preliminary investigation reportCivilians, the latter also calculated the category of civilian casualties during the recuperation period.The intention of the two sides is to help the party they support compete for the upper hand of moral public opinion.
Although the outside world cannot learn from the claims that they count the statistics of civilian casualties in Syrian (International Amnesty Organization and Airwars claim to use open information, field interviews, and satellite images to estimate the number of casualties), they are similar to their respective intentions.
In fact, coalition forces and International Amnesty Organization and Airwars are also very different from the qualitative of the event.The coalition emphasized that they had used precise guidance weapons to attack Iraqi tissue terrorists. However, the latter used civilians as a meat shield, which caused more than a thousand civilians to be killed.In other words, they believe that they are just caused unsatisfactory damage to civilians.The International Territory and Airwars believe that even though Iraqi tissue terrorists do use civilians as meat shields, overall, the coalition operations are tantamount to launching indiscriminate Attacks.
The qualitative differences between the coalition forces and the International Amnesty Organization and AirWars reflect serious differences in the moral judgment of the two.Military ethics scholar Uwe Steinhoff believes that most war involves attachment damage, but if you do not ask for righteousness, and the party with the incidental injury will launch a self -defense war, you will conclude that the enemy who launches racial extinction will also have justiceThe reason is to launch the absurd conclusion of the self -defense war.At this point, the claims of the coalition seem to be very similar to Shi Lefan's view.
However, Shi Lefan added that even though one of them had the legitimacy of warning to the other side in principle, his process of actual operation could be unreasonable.If the coalition army hurts and innocent civilians, it is more convenient rather than the only means that can annihilate the Iraqi organization. According to Shi Lefan's view, they do not have the reason for justice to launch relevant military operations.
It is true that the boundary between the Syrian civilians and the Iranian organization terrorists is not as clear as imagined: the former is suspected of providing food and hiding habitats for the latter, and there are also cases of direct attacks on the coalition forces.However, these criticisms not only have not deepened whether the Syrian civilians are coerced by terrorists, so they have done something helpless, and at least ignore two ethical disputes: if the innocent civilians are attacked by the coalition, they are at the personal levelIs there a moral legitimacy of self -defense attack?
In addition, is the damage caused by the coalition forces to be foreseeable or unpredictable?NOAM Chomsky, a well -known left -wing scholar in the United States, explicitly condemned the US military for more than half a century. He has launched crimes in many ways in the world. He is more difficult to book. Compared with the targets they claim, they are more like a terrorist organization.Even if the civilian casualties caused by the coalition forces in Syria are only the nature of damage, but if those attached damage are foreseeable beforehand, the distance between the coalition forces and evil is very close.
It is worth mentioning that the outside world may never really know that the total number of Syrian civilians who died due to the war is that in the process of recovering Mosar, thousandsFrying the civilian district, causing civilians to lack water, electricity, food, and lack of medical services to die indirect death.What is even more worrying is that the larger the scale of the Syrian civilians being killed by the coalition forces, the welcoming the coalition forces is not welcomed by the Syrian civilian survivors, and it has become the source of a new round of extreme hatred.
(The author is a researcher at the Institute of International Issues in Hong Kong)
