Civilian Causalities in Afghanistan Firefight

            On Tuesday a firefight broke out between the Taliban and international forces. The fight broke out in the southern province of Kabul, in the “Baraki Barak District. The Baraki Barak District is considered one of the more troubled areas within Afghanistan” (Dangerous District ). The Taliban insurgent forces were trying to hold their control on a direct route to Kabul. When the Taliban forces spotting an International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) foot patrol they opened fire. Eventually the few shots escalated into a firefight between the Taliban and other international forces that were also patrolling in the area. Unfortunately, four children had been attending to their livestock at the same time in an area field. These four children got caught up in the mix of the gunfire. The four children did not survive and perished in the firefight. The point of blame is unknown since ammunition was sporadically discharged in all directions. However, the international forces have since come out with an official statement of apology. The international forces claimed an investigation is underway and condolences have been forwarded to the families of these children. The international forces are going to try and properly compensate these families directly impacted by these tragic losses.

            

Noncombatant Children Effected by War

This tragic event has been placed under criticism. Many people are outraged that a mere conflict and destructive exchange has led to civilian causalities, and children no less. Many people have claimed that the rules of engagement between opposing forces should be more carefully executed when civilians are located in the premises. I understand when caught up in the moment of a firefight it may be hard to focus on civilians within in the area. However, soldiers should be better trained with versatile skills sets to better distinguish between civilians and combatants.

            

I think since we are on the topic of civilian causalities we should focus our attention to what Michael Walzer claims is the war convention. Under the rules governing the war convention, Walzer addresses the issue of whom soldiers may kill. Walzer points out that under no circumstances should noncombatants be attacked. He calls this idea noncombatant immunity. In this specific case Walzer would condemn the actions carried out by those men who are responsible for the death of those four children. In fact, many people are outraged. Afghan President Hamid Karzai stated, “Despite repeated pledges by NATO to avoid civilian causalities, innocent lives, including children, are still being lost” (Innocent Lives). International forces have been saying they will try in their best efforts to avoid noncombatant causalities, but they have still been occurring. When will civil causalities come to a halt?

            

Now, this firefight is only one example of the horrors civilians experience from war. Another general engagement of civilian causalities that comes to the top of my head is aerial bombing warfare. In aerial bombing combatants usually don’t worry about the destruction they inflict on people and frequently these attacks have massive civilian causalities. The war convention condemns noncombatant causalities and there should be an established international rule governing that all militaries avoid civilian attacks at all cost. The ethics and morals of war should be upheld to a higher standard.