Why the face of Western war gives us a false idea of conflict

March 20, 2018 by Sten Rynning, The Conversation

The US-led global coalition fighting Islamic State has, with success, robbed the terrorist movement of its territorial safe havens. But when it comes to facing war's brutal nature, the West fumbles the football. It habitually reports (close to) zero civilian casualties from its actions, which is questionable. It should be a cause of reflection on why Western societies believe war can be painless.

The New York Times reported in late 2017 that the US system intended to minimise civilian casualties from airstrikes is "at least partly, an illusion". A systematic ground-based investigation by the newspaper found the loss of civilian life from air strikes to be 31 times higher than official accounts. The British Royal Air Force had, by this time, dropped more than 3,400 bombs and yet claimed "no evidence" of civilian casualties. Meanwhile, in France, the daily Libération reported that the French Ministry of Defence admitted to at least 1,300 strikes but no civilian casualties. My own ongoing investigation of Coalition strikes releases, casualty reports, and occasional shows how the Coalition's campaign narrative is all about accuracy: that in 2015, 6,052 strikes resulted in just 81 (in both Iraq and Syria).

Evidence of civilian suffering, including casualties resulting from the use of armed force, is not hard to come by. The Human Rights Watch annual of 2018 cites a total death toll of 400,000 civilians, including 2,286 deaths resulting from Western airstrikes. The United Nations Iraq summary of civilians killed and injured depicts a horrendous pace with hundreds of civilians killed and injured every month. The Action on Armed Violence group reported an increase of more than 50% in from explosive weapons in Syria and Iraq in 2017.

Depends how you count

The US-led coalition explains low numbers with reference to extraordinary precautions taken to ensure no or very limited harm to civilians from air strikes. According to international law, armed forces are allowed to pursue "military advantage" as long as the pursuit does not involve any excessive "incidental loss of civilian life", civilian injury or damage to civilian objects. The coalition claims its assets performing "analysis" (intelligence gathering, including regarding the risk of excessive loss of civilian life) outweigh strike assets by a ratio of 5-1 or sometimes 10-1. In other words, the targeting policy is restrictive and carefully thought out and executed.

Admittedly, the Pentagon has conceded that casualty numbers do, on occasion, rise. While observers tend to attribute rising casualties to the more warlike rhetoric emanating from the Trump White House and the leeway president Trump has offered military field commanders in the fight against IS, the Pentagon itself points to the increased complexity of urban battlefields.

And it is true that urban warfare picked up in late 2016 and raged through 2017 when the Coalition took on the two main IS strongholds, first Mosul and then Raqqa. Not coincidentally, but rather in anticipation of the scrutiny under which these urban campaigns would be put, as one centrally placed source told me, the global coalition began issuing monthly civilian casualty reports from November 2016. This was the Coalition admitting that ad hoc press releases covering mostly US strikes did not cut it. Civilian casualties had to be examined in a more forthright manner.

Still, there is no question that coalition authorities approach evidence of casualties in a way that pulls its reporting downwards toward low numbers. The coalition distinguishes between "credible" and "non-credible" reporting of casualties – with most of this reporting coming from the NGO and transparency project Air Wars. Using its own data and imagery, the Coalition either gives credence to these reports or not. So, in November 2017, it found 55 such reports insufficiently credible while it deemed credible another five reports involving the unintentional deaths of 15 civilians.

If certainty is the yard stick, a lot of information from such a violent, complex, and often inaccessible battlefield will necessarily be discarded. And certainty is what the military is looking for, as it reports the bad outcomes of its actions. Preliminary findings from my research also show that while the United States every now and then does report casualties, European and other partners tend to report none at all.

You get what you ask for

The character of war follows the character of society, Carl von Clausewitz, a famed military theorist, once argued. This seems to me to be a fundamental point here: Western militaries pretend to fight the war that Western societies expect – war not as war but armed surgery to deliver us painlessly from evil. Ultimately, of course, this modern, liberal expectation that war can be controlled makes it easier to choose war. And every time the West does choose it, the military will seek to deliver what it expects.

What perhaps especially Europe lacks is a robust politico-strategic understanding of combat as war, not some sort of surgical "intervention" or "crisis operation". War is violent and resists political control, especially from those who fail to recognise the nature of the beast. Regrettably, the point seems lost on Western governments.

Explore further: The first casualty of war: Study finds news reports match misperception of civilian deaths

Related Stories

UN experts call for more US transparency on drones

October 25, 2013

Two U.N. human rights investigators called for more transparency from the United States and other countries about their drone strikes program, saying their secrecy is the biggest obstacle to determining the impact pact on ...

Analysis of violent deaths of Iraqi civilians between 2003-2008

February 15, 2011

A paper published in this week's issue of PLoS Medicine provides the most detailed assessment thus far of civilian deaths in the course of the recent Iraq war. Madelyn Hsiao-Rei Hicks from King's College London, UK and colleagues ...

Recommended for you

Cellular microRNA detection with miRacles

March 26, 2019

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are short noncoding regulatory RNAs that can repress gene expression post-transcriptionally and are therefore increasingly used as biomarkers of disease. Detecting miRNAs can be arduous and expensive as ...

What happened before the Big Bang?

March 26, 2019

A team of scientists has proposed a powerful new test for inflation, the theory that the universe dramatically expanded in size in a fleeting fraction of a second right after the Big Bang. Their goal is to give insight into ...

Probiotic bacteria evolve inside mice's GI tracts

March 26, 2019

Probiotics—which are living bacteria taken to promote digestive health—can evolve once inside the body and have the potential to become less effective and sometimes even harmful, according to a new study from Washington ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

3 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2018
No hesitation, however, to report on civilians killed by Syrian air strikes...
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2018
From the conflicts I have experienced (in the media) over my lifetime (Kosovo-Serbia, Iraq I, Iraq II, Georgia, Russians in Afghanistan) and the research papers I've read years later on casualties about these conflicts it seems rather consistent:

When you hear any news coverage while the conflict is still ongoing:
1) Multiply the reported number of civilian casualties and the number of own combatants killed by 10 to get the real number
2) Divide the number of reported enemy combatant casualties by 10 to get the real number
1 / 5 (1) Mar 21, 2018
It is human nature to deny responsibility and to blame others for the consequences of our actions. "It's the victims fault! She made me do it!"

As the plaque on the CEO's desk reads: "The Buck does NOT stop here! That's what subordinates are for. To take all the blame!"
5 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2018
Isn't modern technology great! It's why the Western militaries are able to reduce civilian casualties to basically nil, due to "smart" weaponry. That why all the casualties must be terrorists. Those neophyte third world countries still using dumb bombs clearly can't aim, the result being civilian casualties.
Sure is great to be an Amerikan, we really are the best ever! If someone has to die for the greatness of our culture, so be it. We're more important than everybody else anyways, so it's justifiable.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Mar 21, 2018
Here's a simple question: how many civilian casualties have there been as a result of intervention compared with the civilian casualties inflicted by the forces they opposed?

And how come it's a major research project no one ever does to find this out?

Here's some facts from the war in the former Yugoslavia:
Total civilians killed in the NATO actions: 500
Civilians killed in Srebrenica: 8000

We done here?
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Mar 21, 2018
And just in case we go sideways, let's also keep in mind the half-million civilians ousted from their homes. We should be counting starvation deaths among those people toward the total killed by the Serbs.

But of course no one does that research.

Now, are we really done here? These are war crimes. Who's willing to step up and oppose war crimes? I don't say that civilian casualties in hot pursuit and interdiction of war crimes should be disregarded, but if the law has no force then the law has no force.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.