Since ketoprak talked about the other two points let me respond some to this one.2) Many think we entertain the idea of war with no regard to loss of life, because "No matter what, we won't lose many people".
The U.S. has been in enough wars to know what it means to have people die in the effort; because of this, we've improved our ability to protect our soldiers supremely well. So sue us..... To imply that we don't care or empathize about loss of life is incredibly offensive. Those who would disagree with our position regarding the value of life are cynics or merely jealous.
It is certainly true that the US has improved its ability to protect it's soldiers. Unfortunately the way this is done has meant that more civilian casualties are on the ground. Bombing from planes up on high does decrease the chance of US casualties but increases the chance of civilian casualties. We may be shown the "precise accuracy" of the bombs used but this will always be a far greater risk to civilians. There is nothing wrong with wanting to protect your own soldiers but the US had to do this, as there would be minimal support from the US public for war in Irag if this was not the case.
So while it is a noble thing to protect your soldiers, in effect is has made it easier for the US to take military action with public support, and lead to increased civilian casualties.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks