Opinion: Our obsession with minimizing civilian deaths makes it impossible to win wars

To the editor: I can only guess that Nick McDonell has never taken a basic ROTC course or has not extensively studied military history. If he had done so, he would know that civilians are, unfortunately, victims during even successful military missions. (“Civilian casualties are not inevitable. The military sets an acceptable number in advance,” Opinion, March 31)

The reasons modern wars go on for an unnecessarily long time without much success is that they are fought with the condition that the combatants minimize so-called collateral damage. This is nonsense. We might still be fighting World War II had we not fire bombed Dresden or Tokyo and if Harry Truman had not ordered the atomic bombing of two cities in Japan.

Wars are, by their very nature, gruesome undertakings. If we hamper the efforts of our military by making the rules of engagement too restrictive, wars will continue to be unwinnable.

Bill Young, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: The losses suffered by the families hit by an apparent U.S. airstrike in Mosul, Iraq, are unimaginable, and the callousness of our government in not following up with survivors is unacceptable.

Collateral damage is a crime and should not be simply jargon to gloss over the murder of civilians. The idea that militants are somehow herding civilians into imminent targets seems unlikely and, based on witness reports, unfounded.

This is clearly not the way to win a war.

John Clement, Arleta

..

To the editor: It seems there is one thing about which both Democrats and Republicans agree: The United States can start illegal wars across the globe and bomb thousands of innocent people with no consequence.

President Trump is putting an ugly face on what President Obama’s handsome face carried out as well. Maybe the next million-people march should have an antiwar theme.

Victoria Minetta, Los Angeles

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook