In the most strict logical terms feasible
means "possible". It is possible for the US military to reduce innocent deaths. In this sense, Human Rights Watch is spot on in its analysis
. The more colloquial definition would be something like "under current conditions can it be done, reasonably". It's debatable whether or not our military did everything that, under the circumstances, they could have done reasonably to prevent innocent deaths. This would be a hard debate to have as you would have to understand the specific conditions and circumstances that lead to the "deaths of hundreds of civilians".
The real concern of HRW is to see the human rights agenda is always moving forward. Its moot to observe and report the atrocities of a dead and/or dying regime. America lives on, though, to fight future wars. To further its agenda in the most cost effective way, HRW needs to concentrate on critiquing those that can and will be critiqued.
Besides, everyone should have an agenda of preventing innocent deaths.
My wish list for future wars, listed by least feasible to most feasible:
- no war (e.g. utopia)
- war, but no one dies (e.g. robots fight)
- war, but no innocents die (e.g. really
- war, but fewer innocents die then in previous wars (e.g. we invent innovative urban warfare techniques)