Well, I don’t agree that our military does everything in its power to avoid civilian casualties, and I think the underlying premise itself (that the fact our military uses targeting technology means we are trying to avoid civilian casualties and are not intentionally incurring them) is deeply flawed. Immoral is a subjective values call, I suppose, but illegal is objectively measurable, and this war is illegal according to the international protocols the U.S. itself helped create. Those who argue that it is not illegal are basically engaging in a ‘might makes right’ argument, not an argument based in standing legal principles.

If U.S. national security had truly been threatened by Saddam Hussein’s regime, I might have supported war (and I say “might” because I also am not a believer in war as a solution to human conflict), but our national security was not threatened. And the national security arguments that are being made now, by war supporters such as yourself, are arguing from conditions that are actually the *result* of the invasion and occupation, and that would not have existed without it. In other words, war supporters are using the very harmful, dangerous conditions that the U.S. invasion/occupation created to argue that our national security interests are threatened. If our national security interests are threatened, it’s U.S. policy in Iraq for the past five years that led to that result, so the argument that we have to stay in Iraq to protect those interests makes no sense.

And of course, you have not explained why civilian casualties, a massive refugee problem, and increased terrorism are indicators of a failed U.S. military pollicy in Somalia, and simultaneously are indicators of a successful (or necessary) U.S. military policy in Iraq.

When you write, “[War] remains a human tragedy when, even accidentally, war brings death to innocents,” I don’t at all or for one moment doubt your sincerity, but I think you are making a very fundamental error in logic: The death of innocents (and innocents being made homeless and suffering and dying from lack of basic necessities of life such as food and clean water) is not, as you imply here, an accidental or incidental side effect of war — it IS war. War IS the violent death and maiming and displacement of massive numbers of innocent civilians. In that sense, when one supports war, one IS supporting all these terrible outcomes, because that is what war is.

Yeah, actually I do. I don’t like it anymore in Iraq than I liked it in Vietnam or my father liked it in Italy or France. I understand that it happens and I also know why - first hand. That doesn’t mean it is acceptable as a routine occurrence.

I think we should do everything in our power to avoid it if humanly possible. And, for the most part we do avoid it better than any military in history. That’s why we have strict ROI, a stepped escalation of the level of violence used based on the threat, and use precision guided munitions.

While I don’t have an opportunity to acknowledge every bomb or missile that might have killed innocent people elsewhere, this particular editorial gave me the opportunity to note the point and speak out about it.

Same with torture. There is no reason or excuse any agency of the United States should ever engage in torture. Period. And that is precisely what our blog has said (and taken enormous flak for it).

That said, no, I don’t think the war in Iraq is either immoral or illegal to answer your next question. I think it is a legitimate exercise of our war powers in connection with a national security issue. And yes, that makes me a war supporter - but with no “lapse in logic” or ducking the hard fact about what war is and its effect. It remains a human tragedy when, even accidentally, war brings death to innocents.

What circumstances do they count under ?
A couple of years ago, the Centre for American Progress was promoting a Iraq redeployment strategy which suggested the civil war violence could be addressed by the Navy monitoring it from over the horizon, once all the troops were withdrawn.

Now they may still be advocating this in their updated strategy papers, but I wouldn’t know because enshrining tacit approval of a genocide campaign in one policy document prevents me reading the next one you produce.