Afghan Civilians Suffer from Roadside Bomb

            On Sunday an Afghan family bore the brunt of a roadside bomb that exploded in Khost province of Afghanistan. The family was returning from the hospital after the mother had given birth. On their way home a roadside bomb struck them and the mother and newborn baby were killed. Four other civilians within the vicinity were also killed, as a result of this strike. According to AFP reports, “Two more women and two men were also among those kill in Sunday’s attack.” Apparently main roads within Afghanistan are often rigged with roadside bombs, and because civilians are the most frequent travelers of these roads, they inevitably become the victims.
At this point the source of the murderers has not been located, but many officials are pointing to the frequent insurgent attacks. ABC News reports, “In the first six months of the year, some 1,145 civilians were killed in Afghanistan, It blames 80 percent of these deaths on insurgents, with more than half caused by roadside bombs.” However, the Taliban could be responsible according to another news source. Voice of America  stated, “Roadside bombs are the weapons of choice for Taliban insurgents.” Whoever is response a serious act of crimes is at hand here.

Khost province, the location of the roadside bombing attack.    

            The killing of these six people can be a direct example of the Doctrine of Double Effect. The Doctrine of Double Effect gives four principle ideas that justify the actions of civilian deaths. The four principles are as follows: 1. The action is not intrinsically wrong. 2. The effect is the intended effect. 3. The effect is the direct effect. 4. The effect is sufficient to compensate for the indirect effect. When dealing with the Doctrine of Double Effect the hardest distinction is weighing the justification weather the attack was intended. However, lets go through and address the four principles to the roadside bombing. This bombing attack would fail the first principle because the attack was indeed intrinsically wrong. For principle number two there exists a grey area, because the insurgents who planted the bombs intention was to kill government officials as well as soldiers of the oppression. But their efforts of planting bombs on roads that many civilians travel more frequently then these targeted persons, must be put into consideration. Thus, is condition number two morally permissible? Condition number three would fail because the direct effect was not successful and resulted in multiple civilian causalities. Last, condition number four in my opinion would also fail because the effect was not a sufficient compensation. No targeted persons were killed only civilians. Ultimately, the bombing fails the Doctrine of Double Effect and the insurgents should be rightfully brought to justice. They need to pay for the atrocities they have committed.