Civilian & Wars

"Since the end of the Thirty Years' War [1618-1648], the conception has become prevalent that war is not a contest between whole populations, but only between the armies of the belligerent states. In consequence, the distinction between combatants and noncombatants has become one of the fundamental legal and moral principles governing the actions of belligerents. War is considered to be a contest between the armed forces of the belligerent states, and, since the civilian populations do not participate actively in the armed contest, they are not to be made its object.

Consequently, it is considered to be a moral and legal duty not to attack, wound, or kill noncombatant civilians purposely. Injuries and death suffered by them as incidents of military operations, such as the bombardment of a town or a battle taking place in an inhabited area, are regretted as sometimes unavoidable concomitants of war. However, to avoid them to the utmost is again considered a moral and legal duty. " (Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations.)

"Civilian casualty figures for most wars are impossible to verify. Most historians and governments guessed at them. Some guess due in part that the records of the people living in an area were themselves destroyed, and sometimes they were never counted to hide the true losses from their own people as to the number killed as well as to keep those numbers from enemy." (http://taphilo.com)

The Iraq war and the Afghanistan action brought a lot of civiliaan casualties discussion.

[T]he number of Iraqi civilians killed since the U.S. invasion may number as many as 98,000 rated hardly a mention even in news outlets that had been relatively critical of the war. The Lancet study, of course, was a scientific guesstimate based on incomplete data — the U.S. and its coalition partners have never kept a record of Iraqi civilian deaths. The Economist recently provided its own, more conservative estimate: 40,000 civilians dead. (Time magazine)

# Casualties in Afghanistan:
Afghan troops killed: 8,587
Afghan civilians killed: 3,485
U.S. troops killed: 556
Other coalition troops killed: 399
Contractors killed: 75
Journalists killed: 6
Total killed in Afghanistan: 13,108

Afghan troops seriously injured: 25,761
Afghan civilians seriously injured: 6,273
U.S. troops seriously injured: 1,668
Other coalition troops seriously injured: 1,197
Contractors seriously injured: 2,428
Journalists seriously injured: unknown
Total injured in Afghanistan: 37,327
(Unknown News)

Civilian deaths in Afghanistan from US and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007, with recent deadly airstrikes exacerbating the problem and fuelling a public backlash, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. The report also condemns the Taliban’s use of “human shields” in violation of the laws of war. (Afghanistan: Civilian Deaths From Airstrikes)

"Many of the people were not moving. The children were not playing, not even crying, and many were too weak to walk. Some sucked at their clothes and hair, seeking nutrition anywhere. Others lay in bundles on the ground. Old women stretched out hands, fingers blackened and eaten away by frostbite...I have been to most of the big Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan as well as many refugee camps in Africa but I have never seen people in such harrowing conditions."
Why? The Herat, Helmand, and Kandahar provinces were subjected to intense U.S. bombing as of the middle of October, preventing relief supplies from reaching Maslakh, a fact quietly glossed over by the Western journalist, but explicitly underscored by Farnaz Fassihi.10 Farnaz describes similar scenes of agony and desperation in Maslakh—also reporting on 42 refugees who had died of the cold overnight in late November. He comments on how relief agencies evacuated their foreign workers in early October and "then U.S. and British airstrikes put an end to all relief efforts." In November, Caritas reported Afghan refugees in Quetta [Pakistan] were dying of hypothermia, starvation and disease. The ferocious bombing of Kandahar as of late November drove tens of thousands towards the border zones.11 In just three weeks, a new refugee camp comprising 1,500 tents and 9,000 persons was established near Spin Boldak by a charity linked to the royal house of the United Arab Emirates. Those in tents were the lucky ones. (Rubble Rousers:
U.S. Bombing and the Afghan Refugee Crisis)

Helicopter-borne American Special Operations forces attacked Qaeda militants in a Pakistani village near the border with Afghanistan early Wednesday in the first publicly acknowledged case of United States forces conducting a ground raid on Pakistani soil, American officials said.

...

There were conflicting reports about civilian casualties in the operation. American officials said one child had been killed in the strike; a Pakistani military spokesman said the American troops had opened fire on villagers, killing seven people. (New York Times, 9/4/2008)

Pakistan: US Must Investigate Claims of Civilian Casualties
War victim advocates say Pakistani civilians deserve respect of investigations and immediate amends if harmed by US airstrike. (CommonDreams.org News Center 1/10/2009)

These quote and similar ones can fill out several book volumes.

This track record indicates clearly that recently war and civilian death are strongly correlated. The more powerful the weapons are, the more preevalent sophisticated weapons become, civilian casualties do not disappear, rather the persist and avoiding them is aiomatically impossible.

The tank battle between Romel and Montgomery tool place in an empty desert. The 67 and 73 wars between Israel and Egypt took place in the Sinai desert were there simply are no civilians. It's not that both side went out of their way to avoid civilian casualties.

Typically, in wars between countries, civilians are hit by accident. I don't believe that the US or NATO want to harm civilians. Nevertheless they do.

Sadly, without peace civilian causalties are here to stay.