Quote:
Originally Posted by tater
Bottom line is that this happens, even when the air assets have to call in and get permission for every single engagement. In WW2, a P-47 would simply have gunned down anything that moved on the other side of Allied lines. Anything that moved. So sad as this might be, the % of "collateral" (called "spillage" in WW2) casualties is FAR lower than in previous conflicts, and becomes lower every year.
|
I don't think that's a problem. The problem is a) dealing with it when it is avoidable, and some of it here absolutely was; b) cover-ups. There was a pretty blatant cover-up in this case, and in general the military puts out very misleading presentations of what they actually do out there and how it all works. From where I sit, at least - I think if the public was better-aware of the real risks and issues of 'spillage', there might be a lot less chance that these air assets - or any military assets - would have been where they were. And if it is the Mehdi army we're talking about - any strategic gains from killing those guys are definitely extremely dubious and have nothing to do with the initial war aims as it is.