In Johnson's Mortality and Contemporary Warfare, Chapter 4, he discusses the issue of the possible justifications and (im)morality in attacking noncombatants.
However, upon reading the section about the nondiscriminatory attacks on Tutsi and Hutu refugees, what appears to be severely lacking is a focus on the Hutu fighters usig Hutu refugees as shields. On page 140, the first full paragraph, Johnson alludes to the Hutu fighters using human shields as protection, but focuses more on the immoral nature of the Tutsis killing the Hutu refugees after it was realized that the Hutu fighters were using human shields. However, this mentioning is minimal and not specific. There is greater discussion about the wrongs done by the Tutsi fighters. However, to me the Hutu fighters have the greater blame, if such a word can be utilized, as they introduced the noncombatants into the conflict. Upon not being able to distinguish between combatants and noncombatants, the Tutsi fighters became non-discriminant in their targeting.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Johnson's just being specific to refugees in that section, making the human shields partly tangential. what he's doing w/ them is saying that, nothing can justify attacking refugees, even when their countrymen have (ab)used those refugees; the Tutsis should still have refrained from attacking the refugees. though...there is, I think, a fair question about how logistically practical that is...
Post a Comment