How many civilian deaths are acceptable?
By Tom Hayden
August 2, 2009
IT WAS A CRYPTIC Pentagon answer to Senator John Kerry’s straightforward question, in notes from the Senate hearing on May 21:
Question. According to The New York Times July 20, 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld personally approved over 50 US airstrikes in Iraq which were expected to kill up to 50 innocent Iraqi civilians each. According to Pentagon policy at the time, any strikes expected to result in 50 or more civilian deaths as unavoidable collateral damage were to be approved personally by the Secretary. The media was informed of this policy in July 2003 when the chief US commander disclosed the sign-off policy. Does that policy continue today in Afghanistan, and, if so, in what form? Do White House or Pentagon officials sign off on bombing runs where civilian casualties are expected to be higher than 50? Which officials?
Answer. (DELETED)
Does the Obama administration, specifically the secretary of defense, know in advance how many innocent civilians are expected to die before bombing raids are approved in Afghanistan and Pakistan? This was the case with Donald Rumsfeld during the bombing of Iraq.
Now the administration insists on keeping the answers secret.
More at the
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/08/02/how_many_civilian_deaths_are_acceptable/">Boston Globe site
I would be very interested to know the answer to this question as well. How many civilian deaths are deemed acceptable before an operation is okayed. Who is in on the decision?
I am fascinated that the SFRC is asking these questions, albeit without any public notice. These are precisely the things that I would expect Sen. Kerry to be probing. Good for him and I hope we hear on this.