Russia accused of war crimes in Syria. AP.

A Russian SU-34 dropping bombs in Syria. Russian Defense Ministry photo

Amnesty International is claiming that Russia has committed possible war crimes in their military operations in Syria.  AP. Their new report focuses on six airstrikes that have killed up to 200 people. They are also accusing Russia of using cluster munitions and unguided bombs in their attacks on Syria militants. Russia rejected the claims and pointed out that there was no way to tell who was responsible for the airstrikes because the Syrian government also uses the same equipment and weapons. Russia also claimed a double standard due to the fact that US, Turkish and other members of the coalition have undoubtedly caused civilian casualties as well. In one attack, human rights officials on the ground in the city of Ariha, a city taken by al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra and their allies, said that there were no militants on the ground when the bombing run occurred. 

My Comment:

Quite a double standard here. The United States has killed thousands of civilians in many different wars since 9/11. Though there was always complaints about it, there was never this level of condemnation. Indeed, the United States has been accused of killing around 680 civilians in Iraq and Syria at the low end, though nobody seems to have reliable numbers. And I am sure the other members of the coalition has killed civilians as well. To argue that Russia isn't doing enough to avoid civilian deaths is to argue that they should be treated differently then anyone else involved in Syria.

That's the dirty little secret of air warfare. It's just as bloody and violent as ground combat, and civilians die all the time during airstrikes.  Though you can take steps to reduce civilian casualties, it is very difficult and if you do you risk not having an effective air campaign. Sometimes you just have to kill the innocent in order to kill your enemy. Nobody wants to do so, but it's probably one of the most obvious and universal rules of warfare. Rule number one is civilians always die in large numbers during war. To claim it isn't happening is foolish and in some cases trying to reduce civilian casualties can make things worse for everyone.

Indeed, that has been a major criticism of Obama's war in Syria. He has been criminally gun shy when it comes to his air campaign and has done a lot to try and avoid casualties. To the point that he has not been accomplishing his goals. Presumably, Obama wants to win the war against ISIS, but his obsession with reducing casualties is in direct opposition to winning the war. 

A great example of this is the recent airstrikes against ISIS oil trucks. For a very long time Obama did not want to hit the oil trucks that were being used to take oil out of the country. Oil is a huge source of income for ISIS but Obama was reluctant to hit them because the drivers of those trucks were technically civilians. I'd argue that anyone driving trucks for ISIS deserves whatever that comes their way, including airstrikes, but the Obama administration disagreed. The airstrikes didn't happen until after Russia joined the war but even then he sent down leaflets saying that trucks would be bombed. The trucks were destroyed in the end but ISIS could have been hurt a lot more if Obama had just bombed them right away. The Russians had no such reservations and due to that, I think their air campaign has been much more effective then ours.

Russia's use of cluster munitions are a bit more controversial. They do tend to kill people long after they have been dropped and can kill indiscriminately. But I am not 100% convinced that Russia is the one that dropped them. Syria also uses these munitions and it's possible that they are the ones responsible. Of course it's very possible that Russia used them as well, but no matter who is responsible for it, I am not going to lose any sleep over it. Compared to everything else that has happened in the Syrian war, from the use of chemical weapons, to the treatment of prisoners, to the executions of downed pilots, complaining about cluster munitions is almost quaint. Though not using them could reduce civilian casualties, it could also reduce enemy casualties. The whole point of the war is to kill ISIS and other Jihadists, so I am not too upset if Russia is using these weapons.

And no one side has clean hands in this war. Syria is the very definition of a dirty war. Pretty much every side in the conflict has killed civilians and most of them have conducted war crimes as well. Though ISIS is the most obvious candidate, almost every other group has done terrible things in the conflict. Obviously, the other Jihadists have used ISIS's tactics of murders and suicide bombings, but they aren't the only offenders. The regime has it's share of war crimes as well and even the few secular rebels left in the country have committed war crimes. Remember, it was the secular rebels on the ground that shot the Russian pilot as he was bailing out of his plane... There is plenty of blame to go around, and nobody is immune to accusations of war crimes. But it seems to me that Russia, Syria and ISIS are the only ones that get called out on it, even though the crimes are pretty much universal. That isn't to say that we shouldn't call out when those groups do something wrong, and believe me, there is a lot to call out, just that there is a double standard. 

Still, Russia does seem to be taking civilian casualties a lot less seriously then the United States. Though that doesn't play well in the international press, I find it refreshing. Nobody should try to inflict atrocities on purpose but I also think it is wrong to extend the length of a war just because civilians could die if you try to win. Nobody should ever go to war without a clear plan to victory, and half measures like the ones the Obama administration takes, more often then not prolongs the war  and leads to more deaths overall..

EDIT: Here's video of Russia bombing what appears to be ISIS oil trucks. You can clearly see people running away from the bombing and none of them appeared to be armed. I'll let you interpret that anyway you want.