"Civilian Casualties in 'Precision Strikes': The Need for the U.S. Military to Reevaluate Target Selection Mechanisms"

Why Couldn't the School Be Protected? The Reason Behind the U.S. Military's "Civilian Casualties" Review Meeting

When a child who left for school in the morning doesn't return, there are things that cannot be explained by terms like "precision strike" or "military target."

The New York Times reported on October 1 that the U.S. Central Command, which directs the war with Iran, is planning a meeting to discuss ways to reduce civilian casualties during combat.

There is no doubt that this is a necessary initiative. However, its value is not determined by the mere act of holding a meeting. How the decision to attack changes, what is explained to those affected, and how the next casualties are prevented—without looking at these aspects, the significance of this news cannot be grasped.

Those Responsible for Target Selection Discuss Civilian Protection

According to the public portion of the article, the meeting is scheduled to be held for a full day in October at the U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Florida. Intelligence analysts and operations personnel involved in target selection and preparation are expected to participate.

Furthermore, former personnel involved in efforts to reduce civilian casualties, which Secretary of Defense Hegseth decided to close early in his tenure, are also expected to participate, according to the paper. Experts who have previously advised the Department of Defense on civilian protection are also scheduled to speak.

The report is based on anonymous testimonies from four former Department of Defense officials and related organization members. The U.S. Central Command explained that the meeting is in the planning stages.

In other words, what can be confirmed at this point is the movement towards discussion, and it has not been decided to introduce new operational rules or rebuild specialized organizations. It is premature to interpret the participation of former personnel as a policy shift.

The Irretrievable Daily Life Behind the Numbers

According to the Human Rights Activists News Agency, an Iranian human rights group cited by the paper, more than 1,700 Iranian civilians have died in the conflict. The paper also reports that in the approximately seven months since the U.S. and Israel started the war, the U.S. military has attacked over 15,000 targets within Iran.

These are figures listed in the public portion of the article and are not independently compiled by this article. Also, the number of civilian deaths cannot be directly equated to deaths caused solely by the U.S. military.

Symbolizing the damage is the attack on a school in Minab on February 28. The original article's photo caption reports that 120 children died in an airstrike on the first day of the war.

In the U.S. Senate, there was also a move to demand explanations regarding the attack on this school. According to a July 13 statement by Senator Jack Reed, 25 senators demanded the disclosure of investigation results and measures to prevent recurrence. The issue raised was a report that information indicating the facility had been converted into a school was not reflected in the database managing attack targets.

This was the explanation from the senators at the time and not the final investigation certification itself. Even so, what needs to be verified is clear. It is questioned not only whether the information existed but also whether it reached those deciding on the attack and could have changed their judgment.

Even if the Missile is Accurate, It's Wrong if the Location Chosen is Incorrect

Discussions to reduce civilian casualties often focus on the precision of weapons. However, accurately hitting a designated point and whether it is permissible to attack that point are separate issues.

For example, what if a building that was once a military facility is now being used as a school? If targets are selected based on outdated information, even high-performance weapons cannot protect civilians.

This leads to the necessity of examining not only the technology but also the decision-making mechanisms. When was the information updated? Who confirmed the presence of schools or residential areas? When conflicting information arises, who can propose delaying or canceling the attack?

The report that target selection personnel will participate in this meeting is noteworthy in this regard. Whether it ends with just listening to expert advice or is incorporated into daily verification procedures makes a significant difference.

"It Wasn't Intentional" Doesn't End the Verification

International humanitarian law fundamentally requires distinguishing between civilians and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives. Even attacks on military targets are prohibited if the expected incidental civilian damage is excessive compared to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage. Feasible precautions must also be taken to avoid and minimize damage.

The International Committee of the Red Cross commentary mentions not only the confirmation of targets and the selection of weapons and attack methods but also stopping or suspending attacks depending on the situation.

The mere result of civilian deaths does not determine the legal evaluation of individual attacks. On the other hand, the explanation that there was no intent to target civilians does not suffice to prove that confirmation obligations and precautions were adequately met.

What is needed is the task of verifying what was known before the attack and what decisions were made.

Criticism Seen on Social Media—However, Distinguish From Reactions to the Meeting

Regarding the attack on the school in Minab, there are critical posts on social media.

The headlines of Reddit posts confirmed through searches criticized the use of outdated coordinate information and AI in target selection, strongly condemning the U.S. side. Excerpts from other posts also pointed out U.S. military involvement and the use of outdated target information, citing reports and investigations by human rights organizations.

These can be read as examples of distrust in why the advancement of weapons and information processing technology did not lead to the protection of children. However, the definitive statements within the posts regarding the role of AI and legal responsibility cannot be adopted as confirmed facts.

Moreover, what was confirmed were only some related posts, and they are not direct reactions to the current meeting. This alone does not mean "all of social media is filled with criticism" or "anger is spreading worldwide."

Nevertheless, in conveying this issue, it is important not to separate the anger over the damage from the verification of its causes. Simply spreading strong words can obscure which procedures need to be changed to prevent the next casualties.

What Should Be Seen from Japan is the Balance Between Alliance and Verification

When reading this news in Japan, it is important to avoid distancing it as an internal issue of the U.S. military or being lenient in evaluation just because it is an ally.

The point to be raised as an argument for Japan is whether, when discussing security, the procedures to protect citizens are being specifically questioned. Not only attack capabilities and deterrence but also the reconfirmation of outdated information, mechanisms to grasp civilian facilities, authority to halt decisions, and systems to verify damage should be subjects of discussion.

Emphasizing Japan-U.S. cooperation and demanding accountability for U.S. military operations can coexist. Rather, whether mistakes can be verified and corrected relates to trust in the cooperating partner.

This is not a story about Japan being involved in a specific attack. It is a perspective for considering what kind of security should be sought from the damage in a distant country.

What Will Measure the Success of the Meeting?

The U.S. military has an action plan formulated in 2022 to improve the reduction and response to civilian casualties. However, the U.S. Government Accountability Office recommended in 2024 the establishment of goals and indicators to evaluate the improvement effects.

The mere existence of systems and meetings does not guarantee effectiveness.

Regarding this discussion, the points to focus on in the future are specific. Will the procedures for updating target information change? Will the necessary personnel for civilian protection be secured? Can damage information received from the field be verified? Will investigation results and corrective measures be published within an explainable range?

These are the evaluation perspectives considered by this article and are not the announced agenda of the meeting.

Lost lives cannot be brought back by a meeting. However, the mechanism to review the next attack and protect the next school can be changed. What is questioned is not the fact that civilian protection was advocated, but the subsequent decisions and actions.

Source URL

1. The New York Times (October 1, 2026)
   Article on the U.S. Central Command's meeting plan, participants, and scale of damage.
   https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/01/us/politics/military-civilian-deaths-in-war.html

2. Official Website of U.S. Senator Jack Reed (July 13, 2026)
   Request for disclosure of investigation and preventive measures regarding the attack on the school in Minab. Material confirming the issues raised by the senators at the time.
   https://www.reed.senate.gov/news/releases/reed-colleagues-demand-pentagon-release-investigation-of-deadly-iran-school-strike-without-further-delay

3. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
   Commentary on international humanitarian law regarding target confirmation, proportionality, precautions, and stopping or suspending attacks.
   https://casebook.icrc.org/highlight/targeting-under-international-humanitarian-law

4. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO, March 14, 2024)
   Recommendations on the implementation status of the civilian casualty reduction and response plan, and the establishment of goals and indicators to evaluate effectiveness.
   https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106257

5. Reddit・r/SECourses
   Related posts criticizing the use of outdated information and AI regarding the attack on the school. Only headlines and excerpts confirmed through searches are referenced. Not used as a basis for fact recognition.
   https://www.reddit.com/r/SECourses/comments/1rz94x7/bbc_confirms_the_us_is_responsible_for_the_minab/

6. Reddit・r/Mogong
   Related posts regarding U.S. military involvement and target information. Only excerpts confirmed through searches are referenced. Not a direct reaction to the meeting.
   https://www.reddit.com/r/Mogong/comments/1uswjtt/