Targeting Civilians in WarAccidental harm to civilians in warfare often becomes an occasion for public outrage, from citizens of both the victimized and the victimizing nation. In this vitally important book on a topic of acute concern for anyone interested in military strategy, international security, or human rights, Alexander B. Downes reminds readers that democratic and authoritarian governments alike will sometimes deliberately kill large numbers of civilians as a matter of military strategy. What leads governments to make such a choice? Downes examines several historical cases: British counterinsurgency tactics during the Boer War, the starvation blockade used by the Allies against Germany in World War I, Axis and Allied bombing campaigns in World War II, and ethnic cleansing in the Palestine War. He concludes that governments decide to target civilian populations for two main reasons—desperation to reduce their own military casualties or avert defeat, or a desire to seize and annex enemy territory. When a state's military fortunes take a turn for the worse, he finds, civilians are more likely to be declared legitimate targets to coerce the enemy state to give up. When territorial conquest and annexation are the aims of warfare, the population of the disputed land is viewed as a threat and the aggressor state may target those civilians to remove them. Democracies historically have proven especially likely to target civilians in desperate circumstances. In Targeting Civilians in War, Downes explores several major recent conflicts, including the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Civilian casualties occurred in each campaign, but they were not the aim of military action. In these cases, Downes maintains, the achievement of quick and decisive victories against overmatched foes allowed democracies to win without abandoning their normative beliefs by intentionally targeting civilians. Whether such "restraint" can be guaranteed in future conflicts against more powerful adversaries is, however, uncertain. During times of war, democratic societies suffer tension between norms of humane conduct and pressures to win at the lowest possible costs. The painful lesson of Targeting Civilians in War is that when these two concerns clash, the latter usually prevails. |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 84
... costs on the battlefield for fear of losing support at home.10 This fear could compel democratic elites to target noncombatants to avoid costs or win the war quickly. A second explanation emphasizes the “barbaric” identity of the ...
... cost it can afford to pay, leaders may rationally take that chance. Once states become committed to victory, therefore, if the costs of fighting increase or the war begins to appear unwinnable, they tend to victimize civilians first ...
... cost tolerance and high ability to affect state policy.” Moreover, democracies are perceived to be relatively restrained in the level of force they will employ in response to terrorist attacks.28 By contrast, I find little support for ...
... cost, while fighting terrorism gives the United States a compelling reason to intervene abroad: to oust regimes that sponsor or harbor terrorists and to prevent the development of weapons of mass destruction by regimes that might pass ...
... cost-sensitive and needful of victory. Democracy: Restraint or Propellant? Scholars who invoke democracy to explain civilian victimization disagree over the effect that it has, and this dispute reflects the norms versus institutions ...
Contents
1 | |
13 | |
3050153Final pass002pdf | 42 |
3050153Final pass003pdf | 83 |
3050153Final pass004pdf | 115 |
3050153Final pass005pdf | 156 |
3050153Final pass006pdf | 178 |
3050153Final pass007pdf | 210 |
3050153Final passBM1pdf | 243 |
3050153Final passBM2pdf | 259 |
3050153Final passBM3pdf | 309 |