- This topic has 5 voices and 6 replies.
-
Posts
-
NATO refuses to rule out bombing Libyan Roman ruinsBy the CNN Wire StaffJune 14, 2011 8:43 a.m. EDThttp://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/06/14/libya.war/index.html?hpt=hp_t2From the article:(CNN) — NATO refused to say Tuesday whether or not it would bomb ancient Roman ruins in Libya if it knew Moammar Gadhafi was hiding military equipment there.”We will strike military vehicles, military forces, military equipment or military infrastructure that threaten Libyan civilians as necessary,” a NATO official in Naples told CNN, declining to give his name in discussing internal NATO deliberations.But he said the alliance could not verify rebel claims that Libya's leader may be hiding rocket launchers at the UNESCO World Heritage site of Leptis Magna, a Roman city between the capital Tripoli and rebel-held Misrata.Reminds me of the “mutual understanding” that largely existed between the Germans and the Allies in the Italian campaign in 1943-44 — at least up until the Allies needlessly bombed the abbey at Monte Cassino.So, my question to the group – what value should be placed on preserving historic sites in modern conflict? If one side uses the site for “protection” of assets or forces, does that entitle the other side to strike with impunity? Of course, precision strikes from NATO aircraft will cause much less “collateral damage” than did the employment of strategic bombers in a tactical role in early 1944.
First off, why do you say that the bombing of Monte Cassino was “needless”? It was my understanding that it was a prime target and its location was such that it was not easily taken by ground forces.As to the rest of the question, it's a judgment call. Certainly such bombing could not be “ruled out” in certain circumstances, but I would hope that historic sites would be given special consideration by NATO.
“I don't give a damn about the monastery. I have Catholic gunners in this battery and they've asked me for permission to fire on it, but I haven't been able to give it to them. They don't like it.”http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,796392,00.html Needless or not is the kind of debate suitable for “salons”. (no offence intended)The cultural and religious value of the monastry is undoubtly inestimable however in this battle, the context is primordial : what was this war about ? It was a matter of civilization and survival.
We can start a new discussion about the bombing of the Abbey at Monte Cassino in another thread – I offered that as an example. The real debate here should center on the bombing of the Roman ruins in Libya – as well as in a more general sense what needs to be considered when weighing military decisions with preserving culturally important sites.Military expediency call for striking the enemy regardless of where he is – political and moral considerations should address the impact of collateral damage as well as the loss of culturally or historically significant resources. Are there alternatives to be had and at what costs? Should historians and cultural antropologists have input in to target lists?
Would you sacrifice one of your historical sites (the White House, Lincoln memorial, Library of Congress, and few more old stones) in order to save or protect your values ?Your example (Monte Cassino) is a good case-study. That this is happening in Libya or everywhere else doesnt matter. I'm with Omer on this one
I opened a thread specifically for discussion about Monte Cassio here: One thing to keep in mind about Cassino – Italy had already surrendered and made a separate peace with the Allies. Political considerations had to be taken into account concerning the reaction and support of the Italian populace. Likewise, many Allied soldiers were first generation Italian immigrants. Support of the local populace would require fewer troops assigned to occupation duties as the advance pushed northward.To bring the discussion back to Rome and Roman ruins – the Libyan leader obviously thinks that the ruins will offer his forces some additional protection from NATO attacks, or if nothing else, offer some limited propaganda value should NATO destroy or damage the ruins. Could the same propaganda value be gained by placing “dummy” positions amongst the ruins? What damage could be done to the support of hte NATO efforts if the ruins are damaged or destroyed? If ground forces were being employed it would be feasible to bypass and isolate the site, leaving the forces there to “wither on the vine”, so to speak?Clausewitz debated the role of having military strategy subservient to policy aims – obviously destruction of the enemy's forces are consistent with whatever policy aims support going to war, but I guess the question is, should policy aims such as protecting cultural resources – perhaps in hopes of winning the propaganda war of public opinion – subvert purely military aims and objectives?
I think as a general rule, nations should not place areas of historic or cultural significance ahead of innocent human lives. So hiding out in old Roman ruins should not be a deterrent any more than hiding out in a school or some similar location. At least, that's the basic framework I would use in approaching this issue.
I would argue that sites of historical interest should be spared unless military necessity dictates there being targeted. The bigger issue in my mind in Libya is what we are doing there in the first place? What are we hoping to achieve and why are we going after Libya but not the governments in Syria, Bahrain, and Yemen that are also attacking rebels. I guess I am becoming more isolationist in my old age. I also do not see the national interest justification for intervening in Libya, perhaps the European countries have national interests at stake. I think the main reason the US is involved is because the European military's are incapable of prosecuting even a small military campaign on their own, absent US participation they would have to quit. Gates nailed the problem with Europe on the head in his recent farewell speech to the NATO members.
