There is a report today that president Obama has relaxed the restrictions on American air strikes in Syria against ISIS and al Qaeda so as to allow those strikes to proceed even when there is no certainty that civilian casualties will not result from the attack. The news came out because in the village of Kafr Daryan, an attack by American missiles against al Nusra terrorists allegedly resulted in the deaths of a dozen Syrian civilians.
It certainly is not surprising that president Obama relaxed the standards that must be met before launching an attack in an area where civilians might be located. Both ISIS and al Qaeda (al Nusra) often put their military posts in the center of civilian areas in the hope that any attack will result in civilian casualties that can be used for their propaganda value. Without relaxing the standards regarding the likelihood of civilian casualties, Obama would have left the terrorists with the ability to operate free from attack at these locations.
Of course, over the summer, Obama and many others made a big deal out of there being civilian casualties in situations like this during the Israeli battle with the terrorists of Hamas. Day after day, the media treated the civilian casualties as if they were the fault of the Israeli response to the attacks by Hamas rather than of the Hamas attacks that brought the retaliation upon the area. No matter how many missiles Hamas fired into Israel, the Israelis were told by Obama and others that they had to respond in a proportionate way. Israel had to guarantee that there would be no civilian casualties, in essence. The drum beat was constant from the media which continually compared the number of Israeli casualties to the number of "civilians" injured in Gaza.
So where are the reports telling us about the number of casualties among civilians in Syria and Iraq due to American bombing?
There are those who would see the current positions of the USA as being pure hypocrisy. I prefer to think of it as a realization that when a terrorist group hides in the middle of civilians, there are going to be civilian casualties.
It certainly is not surprising that president Obama relaxed the standards that must be met before launching an attack in an area where civilians might be located. Both ISIS and al Qaeda (al Nusra) often put their military posts in the center of civilian areas in the hope that any attack will result in civilian casualties that can be used for their propaganda value. Without relaxing the standards regarding the likelihood of civilian casualties, Obama would have left the terrorists with the ability to operate free from attack at these locations.
Of course, over the summer, Obama and many others made a big deal out of there being civilian casualties in situations like this during the Israeli battle with the terrorists of Hamas. Day after day, the media treated the civilian casualties as if they were the fault of the Israeli response to the attacks by Hamas rather than of the Hamas attacks that brought the retaliation upon the area. No matter how many missiles Hamas fired into Israel, the Israelis were told by Obama and others that they had to respond in a proportionate way. Israel had to guarantee that there would be no civilian casualties, in essence. The drum beat was constant from the media which continually compared the number of Israeli casualties to the number of "civilians" injured in Gaza.
So where are the reports telling us about the number of casualties among civilians in Syria and Iraq due to American bombing?
There are those who would see the current positions of the USA as being pure hypocrisy. I prefer to think of it as a realization that when a terrorist group hides in the middle of civilians, there are going to be civilian casualties.
No comments:
Post a Comment