That dam generates a lot of electricity. In war, power plants are strategic targets. It would be an obvious potential target to weaken the Iraqi military and war machine.
So, the U.S. military studies the potential effects of destroying the dam. In the end, it does not destroy the dam.
Fast forward a few years, and people like you are condemning the U.S. military for...what? Figuring out that doing so would have resulted in many deaths, and not doing so?
You're saying that they shouldn't have even studied the issue? What if the enemy starts using it as a base of operations because they don't think it will be attacked? Like people have said, war is hell, it's unpredictable. Something unexpected could happen, something undesirable could become necessary. Without having information like this already available, sound strategic decisions can't be made. Then people like you would be complaining that they acted rashly without studying the issue first.
If you're saying that the very act of studying the issue is wrong, that's simply thoughtcrime, as well as incredibly naive.
There's a huge difference between "thinking" something and actively assigning resources to study it in depth. And I don't see anyone calling for prosecution in this entire thread. Criticizing, sure, but wouldn't you criticize me if I spent time and resources trying to figure out how to kill tons of people? And GP acknowledges the difference between studying what would happen if the dam failed and how to simply kill massive numbers of civilians. Our point is that you can't just say it's okay to kill 1M civilians because "war is hell", "war is hell" because of stuff like that.
And--perhaps ironically, from your point of view--the data and conclusions from the military study of the dam probably lends weight to the urgency of repairing it, thereby actually contributing to saving lives.
You've also neglected to consider that the dam could be attacked by anyone, including terrorists, competing regional forces, and (perhaps in Desert Storm) the Iraqis themselves. Imagine if Saddam Hussein had threatened to destroy the dam and kill millions of people unless the invading armies left.
Without knowing what would happen, it would not be possible to make a sound strategic decision, prepare for relief and evacuation, etc. It's better for everyone to know what would happen if the dam were attacked.
That dam generates a lot of electricity. In war, power plants are strategic targets. It would be an obvious potential target to weaken the Iraqi military and war machine.
So, the U.S. military studies the potential effects of destroying the dam. In the end, it does not destroy the dam.
Fast forward a few years, and people like you are condemning the U.S. military for...what? Figuring out that doing so would have resulted in many deaths, and not doing so?
You're saying that they shouldn't have even studied the issue? What if the enemy starts using it as a base of operations because they don't think it will be attacked? Like people have said, war is hell, it's unpredictable. Something unexpected could happen, something undesirable could become necessary. Without having information like this already available, sound strategic decisions can't be made. Then people like you would be complaining that they acted rashly without studying the issue first.
If you're saying that the very act of studying the issue is wrong, that's simply thoughtcrime, as well as incredibly naive.