Should the DoD publish all investigations into civillian deaths?

[Deranged Rhino]

Ran across an interesting opinion piece today about whether or not the DoD should release non-redacted investigations into civilian deaths in the AO. The drawbacks to this are obvious but the author raises some interesting counters to consider especially in today's era of extremism.

 

"Releasing the investigations promises several benefits. It would contradict the claims that the U.S. isn’t concerned about civilian casualties or holding its service members accountable. It would also counter terrorist propaganda. In the wake of a drone strike, if the military fails to provide its version of events — an accurate and thorough version that it takes great pains to obtain — those hostile to U.S. interests inevitably will. It’s past time for the U.S. to regain the reputation for accountability and transparency that it need not have lost in the first place."

 

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/6/military-investigationstransparencyobamadrones.html

[DC Tom]

Ran across an interesting opinion piece today about whether or not the DoD should release non-redacted investigations into civilian deaths in the AO. The drawbacks to this are obvious but the author raises some interesting counters to consider especially in today's era of extremism.

 

"Releasing the investigations promises several benefits. It would contradict the claims that the U.S. isn’t concerned about civilian casualties or holding its service members accountable. It would also counter terrorist propaganda. In the wake of a drone strike, if the military fails to provide its version of events — an accurate and thorough version that it takes great pains to obtain — those hostile to U.S. interests inevitably will. It’s past time for the U.S. to regain the reputation for accountability and transparency that it need not have lost in the first place."

 

http://america.aljaz...bamadrones.html

 

The problem I have with that is pragmatic: terrorists and insurgents have and will use civilians as human shields (the invasion of Iraq was rife with such behavior), and a full disclosure of investigations into civilian deaths runs the very real risk of providing information that insurgents can use to improve the tactic of "human shields."

 

There are certainly some cases I'd like to see given full publicity (the Stryker Dozen spring to mind most immediately). But a good number should go no farther than a published summary of findings (which I would support). Collateral damage is simply a fact of war. Don't like it? Don't start wars. And if you start a war, it better damn well be worth the collateral damage. Reason #9 why I didn't want to go in to Iraq.

[Deranged Rhino]

The problem I have with that is pragmatic: terrorists and insurgents have and will use civilians as human shields (the invasion of Iraq was rife with such behavior), and a full disclosure of investigations into civilian deaths runs the very real risk of providing information that insurgents can use to improve the tactic of "human shields."

 

There are certainly some cases I'd like to see given full publicity (the Stryker Dozen spring to mind most immediately). But a good number should go no farther than a published summary of findings (which I would support). Collateral damage is simply a fact of war. Don't like it? Don't start wars. And if you start a war, it better damn well be worth the collateral damage. Reason #9 why I didn't want to go in to Iraq.

 

Good stuff. I hadn't considered your first point but it's worth thinking about certainly.

[OCinBuffalo]

The problem here is: this is our longest war.

 

If this was WW2, you'd have the lists/data/detail 6 years ago. And, 6 years ago, with victory, all the points this guy makes would be rendered irrelevant. But, as long as we are still at war, which whether we like it or not, we are, then we can't give up any tactical advantage, or expose our tactics in any way.

 

Transparency is never worth somebody's life.

 

We'll just have to suffer the indignity of the bad things terrorists have to say about us. As if they will sway anyone. The people who are going to be "affected" by terrorist propaganda...are going to find some other reason to support terror/come after us in its absence.

 

Also, remind me:

Who is the audience we are supposed to impress with our transparency then? Europe? Why the F do I care what they think? Their entire ethos on Iraq, Afghanistan, and now, Russia, has been thoroughly debunked. What more can we expect from them than the little bit they do now?

 

The Middle East? now you're just being silly. We know who is on our side, and who isn't, and civilian death transparency doesn't do a thing for them.

 

So whose left? Asia? Aussies? Africans? South Ameriicans? Why do we give a rats ass what any of them have to say about terror/war policy, and/or, what exactly does increased transparency get us from them?

Edited June 6, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[Deranged Rhino]

Also, remind me:

Who is the audience we are supposed to impress with our transparency then?

 

I don't think it's a question of impressing anyone but the main audience wouldn't be Europe or any other nation. It would be US citizens themselves, the ones footing the bill for all those bombs and bullets. As the ones paying for it, I think we have the right to know so long as it doesn't expose our forces or their tactics (which is a good point you raise).

 

I don't think this issue is as much about PR and foreign relations (though those are certainly elements, if for no other reason than to be able to counter claims that hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed unnecessarily) but more about accountability.