According to Just War Theory's jus in bello, civilians are noncombatants and ought to be protected. This precedent has been established historically by the Geneva Conventions and Protocols.
However, according to the data, roughly 3,500 USA soldiers have died since the war began, but 30,000 to 650,000 Iraqis have died. These Iraqi deaths are a combination of Iraqi soldiers and civilians. If the predominant leader of the system, the USA, does not discriminate between the noncombatants and combatants, how can developing countries mired in conflict be expected to practice jus in bello and protect their civilians? There appears to be a double standard in the application of Just War Theory and the protection of civilians. America's civilians are not more important than Iraqi noncombatants so why this apparent distinction in the value of different nationals' lives?
To access the interactive data table click on: NPR comparative data table.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think this is a good argument that can be difficult to wrap ones head around. I'd never suggest that killing civilians is OK during war and it should be limited whenever possible. I think, however, that it is one of those unfortunate facts about war that need to be accepted. Especially when you are taking part in a war where it is some times extremely difficult to distinguish between combatants and noncombatants.
I agree - noncombatant deaths are associated with war and unavoidable. However, when comparing combatant and noncombatant deaths (using the lowest estimate) Iraqi deaths are roughly 10 times greater than those of the US. The motivation behind the comment is that the US is the primary economic and political power in the world, and is often expected to set standards. However, in this situation, how can international norms and laws be practiced if so many Iraqi noncombatants are killed? How can internal conflicts in Africa be expected to stem human rights violations of noncombatants, if the leading power does not appear to be enforcing the respect of civilian rights and lives? Perhaps if less noncombatants were killed by US troops (and other forces), they would be more willing to help the US distinguish between the combatants and themselves?
Post a Comment