New Army Doctrine Seeks to Minimize Civilian Casualties
Both as a matter of humanitarian principle and as sound military strategy, U.S. military forces should strive to minimize civilian casualties in military operations, according to new U.S. Army doctrine published on Wednesday.
“In their efforts to defeat enemies, Army units and their partners must ensure that they are not creating even more adversaries in the process,” the new publication states.
“Focused attention on CIVCAS [civilian casualty] mitigation is an important investment to maintain legitimacy and ensure eventual success. Failure to prevent CIVCASs will undermine national policy objectives as well as the mission of Army units, while assisting adversaries.”
So, for example, “When Army units are establishing and maintaining wide area security, it may be more important to minimize CIVCAS than to defeat a particular enemy.”
However, “While CIVCAS mitigation efforts can greatly reduce CIVCASs, it is unreasonable to expect that CIVCASs can be completely eliminated in all instances. When CIVCASs occur, the most important part of the response is to determine the facts of the incident, including the numbers and severity of CIVCASs.”
“Recognizing that they are in a constant information battle with their adversaries regarding CIVCASs and other issues, Army units should maintain a consistent pattern of truthfulness and timeliness.”
“Army investigations [of civilian casualty incidents] should strive for integrity, credibility, and inclusion of external perspectives…. Immediate and broad denial of reports without complete and accurate information in hand can undermine credibility, especially if the investigation finds reports [of civilian casualties] were correct.”
See “Civilian Casualty Mitigation,” ATTP 3-37.31, July 2012.
“One thing became increasingly clear: AI doesn’t simply introduce a new category of risk. It changes the speed, scale, complexity, and interaction of risks that already exist.”
In an ideal world, we would not have state or federal climate intervention research bans. We would have researchers and institutions that would not shy away from revealing the good, the bad, and the ugly of these technologies and doing so responsibly.
“What excites me is that it’s very tempting to be very discouraged, and say, ‘Oh, we’ve got these archaic institutions that are calcified and you could never change them.’ But I think we’re in the middle of a technological revolution that will upend lots of things, and does provide a window.”
Ask people what worries them most right now, and they’ll say the cost of living and their livelihoods, not climate change. But those concerns are not separate.