Human Shields and Choice

[WarBlade]

There are reportedly 150 citizens of Western Civ nations who have voluntarily made their way to Iraq for the express purpose of becoming human shields, adding their political implications into the potential of collateral damage from a U.S. offensive against the Iraqi.

Two points that sparked across my mind are the true scope of the "fog of war" concerning civilian vs military objectives, and the validity of volunteering to become a 'hostage' of sorts.

Hostage? WTF?

The United States has not within recent memory, nor in the cultured mindset of the American people, go hell-bent on striking civilian targets.

Ooooh, there lies the can of worms. <_< There is no doubt in my mind that the modus operandi of American armed forces in action is in stark contrast with that of other developed 'free' nations. A kind of MO that some might even describe as reckless. Recent history is full of incidents such as the 400 Iraqi civilian casualties in one bomb shelter in the last Gulf War to the bombing of Canadian troops in Afganistan. Tacit belief or no, it looks statistically more likely that unnecessary casualty will result from American firepower that from most other UN partners.

So America has managed to get on the bad side of the "colateral damage" debate. Not a good position to be IMO. It tends to upset the moral high ground somewhat.

Now I see you were referring to intended targets up there, while I responded with reference to accidental targets. Well, does it really matter what the intended target was to someone who has lost friends/family to American military action? Consider also how emotionally charged some Americans have become after September 11 (particularly evidenced by violence against Arab immigrants shortly after) and consider how one of those people with vengeance in mind, uniform on and gun in hand might be one angry SOB too many.

Increased collateral damage?

Then again, once the shooting war starts, how easy or difficult would it be for the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein to detain these civilians are press them to purposes these human shields did not want in the first place?

I would say "doubtful". To him they are free publicity that helps to keep the demands of other nations firmly directed at Bush his cronies. To upset those other nations by interferring with their citizens is pure stupidity. Do something to incur the wrath of the very thing that might be holding America back? I doubt it.

As to the second point that came across my mind, how far goes the moral responsibility these human shields are trying to impress when they willingly step into the line of fire? Are they honestly believing that they present themselves as wholly innocent bystanders whose death/injury would constitute a grievous human tragedy and a grave injustice? The weight of such tragedy must be offset by the acknowledgement that if any harm befalls them, not all of the responsibility can be borne by the ones doing the shooting! These human shields made their choice, a free decision that cannot exempt themselves from the responsibility of their own fates. How powerful is a hostage when they willingly attach themselves to the front of a shooting gunman?

They are standing up for their convictions. They are making a bold statement that they think Bush & Co. are wrong. And why shouldn't the people doing the shooting take full responsibility? To hit the "Human Shields" they'd have to hit civilian targets in the first place! :angry:

What makes a "Human Shield" any more different than an innocent Iraqi civilian? :angry: