PROPORTIONATE KILLING
INLAP Information and Discussion sheet, published November 2002

Responding to letters about civilian casualties due to US bombing in Afghanistan, Government replies have been claiming that, "Our action has been proportionate and meticulously planned with a determination to avoid civilian casualties".

Recent research by Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire concludes that 3,500 Civilians have been killed in Afghanistan by U.S. Bombs. His argument, based on meticulous research of a wide variety of international media, is persuasive.

If the number of civilian casualties is this high, the attempt to "avoid civilian casualties" has not been very successful. It is difficult to understand how the "meticulous planning" referred to can result in a degree of leth     ality approaching that incurred in the World Trade Centre attack.

Each bombing mission should be planned in the light of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The internationally agreed and legally binding requirements of IHL attempts to protect civilians from the effects of armed conflict. One of the main features of IHL is the Principle of Proportionality. This says that anticipated harm to non-combatants in any given attack may never be disproportionate to the expected military advantage.

In addition, an attack would be indiscriminate and therefore unlawful when its effect cannot be limited to military targets and harms civilians unpredictably. Finally, weapons must not cause "superfluous injury" or "unnecessary suffering." Fighting should disable the enemy with as little suffering as possible.

To take one of many examples mentioned by Professor Herold, U.S warplanes strafed [with AC-130 gunships] the farming village of Chowkar-Karez, 25 miles north of Kandahar on October 22-23rd, killing at least 93 civilians who had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks on the USA. This does not suggest any degree of competence by the legal and military planners and US comments in response to this event reveal little dedication to IHL.

The Government should therefore be pressed to answer the following questions. Although they are prompted by the Afghanistan hostilities, they would be equally relevant to any further extension of the "War against Terrorism" which involves aerial bombardment.

• Is the UK Government given a detailed account of the of the legal analysis of each bombing raid by the USA so that it can assess its compliance with IHL? Or does it just take the Americans’? word for it that each raid is lawful?
• As citizens of a democracy, we are ultimately responsible for our government’s acts and its alliances. How much should we be told about the details of the "meticulous planning" which aims to ensure the legality of each bombing strike?
• If it is argued that disasters like the Chowkar-Karez one are inevitable in a bombing campaign, however meticulously planned, does this not amount to recklessness?
• Are the bombs dropped on Afghan cities and villages really discriminate? Mere assertion on this issue is not sufficient. More detail is required, perhaps showing us how the Principle of Discrimination was applied in the Chowkar-Karez raid.
• The stated aim of fuel-air bombs is to cause terror and kill troops over a huge area. Are fuel-air bombs therefore likely to cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury?
• Finally, and most importantly, how has the Principle of Proportionality been applied during the Afghanistan campaign? How is an equivalence between civilian casualties and military advantage actually arrived at? What qualifies as the degree of military advantage which justifies a single civilian death?

[Home]