Who's Who?

It used to be that we could easily tell the good guys from the bad. Westerns always portrayed the evil-doers in black hats. Other genres in the “reel world” have used assorted physical characteristics so the audience could readily identify the forces of good and evil. The real world, though, is less than cooperative. Much has been made of civilian casualties on the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan, and, as of late, Libya. This disturbs many, including myself, but I can’t help but think my angst is of a different orientation. (What a surprise, huh?)

There was a time when wars were fought by armies clad in an appropriate uniform. This allowed any observer to distinguish friend from foe and civilian from soldier. The World Wars and Korea are probably the most recent examples. Viet Nam, on the other hand, was a guerilla war where our enemies wore no specific uniform and harbored no age or gender bias. Men, women, and children could well be an adversary. Not coincidentally, it became a conflict with no winner. The battles we are currently waging are eerily similar in that Iraqis, Afghans, or Libyan rebels are made up of folks in nondescript clothing. Is it any wonder that civilian casualties mount in such arenas?

And who’s to say the casualties are civilians? Couldn’t they just as easily be combatants? Perhaps it is to the benefit of one side to claim the other is shooting civilians when, in reality, no one may know for sure. I’d say civilian casualty claims in such encounters are made purely for publicity purposes. And, to make it worse, the US usually offers up an apology!

Look, when all hell breaks loose, the civilians hit the road or hunker down. If they choose to walk down Main Street at high noon as a gunfight is brewing, they should not be surprised when a bullet misses the intended target and finds them, instead. I’ll grant you that innocent bystanders sometimes fall prey to a stray bullet, but their choice of location puts them in harms way from the get-go. On the other hand, the individual deemed to be a civilian, i.e. non-combatant, could well have a trick (or weapon) up the sleeve. Can we really blame anyone for shooting first and asking questions later? 

Friendly fire is, unfortunately, a major problem in these current conflicts mainly because of the lack of a front. Everyone is running in every direction so it’s hard to tell an ally from an adversary. Ground fighting is hard enough; just think what it’s like from the air. Last week, Libyan rebels were inadvertently strafed by aircraft who thought they were firing on tanks from the pro-Libyan forces. True, the rebels had never before used tanks and now they are going to display a pink banner on all their vehicles to make identification easier. The unintentional support for breast cancer aside, I’d say Gaddafi’s forces will soon be sporting similar pink banners.

War is more than hell: it is horrific and the thought of innocent civilians getting caught up in the carnage should surprise no one. Likewise, some fighters are destined to be slain at the hand of fellow soldiers. I can think of no way to avoid these events and can think of no reason to gloss over them in the name of “civilized” combat. There is no such thing and the more repulsed the world becomes, the less the chance of future conflict.

Especially ironic is the fact that, once long ago, a rag-tag group of militia men took the fight to a highly organized, superior force. The militia wore nothing of note and hid behind trees and such while the enemy marched down the road. Such was the Revolutionary War and the result could not have been more decisive. Should it come as any surprise that our military forces, in full battle regalia, are being sorely tested by an outmanned, rag-tag bunch of fighters? Are you my friend or my foe? Oh, for the days of the black hat...