Plans made for a narrow purpose can reach much further than intended when they are carried out in crowded places. Reports from a recent war offer one sobering example.

Wikipedia's current-events log for August 20, 2008 recorded that Human Rights Watch claims both Georgia and Russia violated rights of the civilian population during the conflict. The Georgian ground offensive in South Ossetia included shelling of Tskhinvali, capital of South Ossetia. The log notes HRW says "a hospital, apartment buildings, houses, schools, kindergartens, shops, administrative buildings, and the university" in Tskhinvali were "severely damaged". Furthermore, HRW reports the Russian airforce carried out bombardments of the two buildings in a Georgian village in South Ossetia "that could be housing the Georgian military".

The list of damaged buildings is striking. In general terms, when an operation takes place among homes, schools and hospitals, the line between what is aimed at and what is nearby may be hard to keep. The report's wording about buildings that might hold soldiers also raises a broader question: how much certainty should be required before acting on a place?

Questions for Anyone Who Plans an Operation

Outside of war, the same question can apply on a far smaller scale to anyone who plans work that runs through shared surroundings. A plan is carried out among other things that matter. Rules that allow action on a possibility, rather than on something confirmed, may widen what a plan touches. People who design such rules might ask what they would accept as enough evidence, and who bears the cost if that evidence is wrong.

Loose criteria for action may weaken whatever protections a plan is meant to include. One way to think about discipline is to set out not only what a plan is allowed to do, but also where it should stop.

Sources