The U.S. Military's Approach To Collateral Damage
The U.S. military follows a technology based process for estimating and mitigating collateral damage. The software used is known as “FAST-CD” or “Fast Assessment Strike Tool—Collateral Damage." When followed, this process dramatically reduces the amount of collateral damage in U.S. military operations, and also ensures high levels of political accountability. However, due to the realities of combat operations, the process is not always followed. The U.S. military’s collateral damage estimation process is intended to ensure that there will be a less than 10 percent probability of serious or lethal wounds to non-combatants. Less than 1% of pre-planned operations which followed the collateral damage estimation process resulted in collateral damage. When collateral damage has occurred, 70% of the time it was due to failed “positive identification” of a target, 22% of the time it was attributable to weapons malfunction, and a mere 8% of the time it was attributable to proportionality balancing - e.g. a conscious decision that anticipated military advantage outweighed collateral damage. According to public statements made by U.S. government officials the President of the United States or the Secretary of Defense must approve any pre-planned ISAF strike where 1 civilian casualty or greater is expected.
Read more about this topic: Collateral Damage
Famous quotes containing the words military, approach and/or damage:
“Stately as a galleon, I sail across the floor,
Doing the military two-step, as in the days of yore.”
—Joyce Grenfell (1910–1979)
“So live that when thy summons comes to join
The innumerable caravan that moves
To that mysterious realm, where each shall take
His chamber in the silent halls of death,
Thou go not, like the quarry-slave at night,
Scourged to his dungeon, but, sustained and soothed
By an unfaltering trust, approach thy grave
Like one who wraps the drapery of his couch
About him and lies down to pleasant dreams.”
—William Cullen Bryant (1794–1878)
“The relationship between mother and professional has not been a partnership in which both work together on behalf of the child, in which the expert helps the mother achieve her own goals for her child. Instead, professionals often behave as if they alone are advocates for the child; as if they are the guardians of the child’s needs; as if the mother left to her own devices will surely damage the child and only the professional can rescue him.”
—Elaine Heffner (20th century)