If watching M.A.S.H. has taught me anything, it is that war is hell. Occasionally, something funny happens, but mostly Frank Burns is a jerk.

But seriously, bad things happen in wars, especially when you are overwhelmed by a powerful and elusive enemy as we were during the Korean Conflict.

More than a week ago, the Associated Press released a story describing how American soldiers shot fleeing South Korean civilians during the Korean War. Now, relatives and survivors of the alleged massacre are demanding not only the truth about the incident, but also the punishment of the soldiers responsible as well as compensation from the U.S. government.

Though the matter should undoubtedly be investigated for the sake of historical accuracy, by considering the situation in its historical context the claims of the survivors should be dismissed. Civilians die in war, and the idea of trials or monetary compensation for events committed more than four decades ago is wrong. Also, criticism for our handling of the war ignores our contribution to the freedom of the South Korean people.

Anything that happened on that peninsula during a time of war should be written off as an unfortunate occurrence. The truth is war is a bloody affair in which a multitude of things happen over which we have no control and innocent people sometimes die. The very nature of war precludes the ideas of fairness and justice, and many times compassion must be sacrificed for expediency.

Although CNN reported that the civilians were shot while trying to cross a bridge at No Gun Ri, the AP account claims the refugees were hiding under the bridge in a huddled clump and the American soldiers shot the entire group, firing indiscriminately. That is hard to believe, and given the differing versions of the same story, we should be skeptical of which account is accurate.

The AP report claims that soldiers received orders from the 1st Cavalry Division headquarters that read, “No refugees to cross the front line. Fire on everyone trying to cross lines. Use discretion in case of women and children.”

That order, while in apparent violation of the utopian idea of rules of war, ignores reality. Army veterans who took part in the shooting note the day before “several U.S. soldiers were killed while trying to search a group of refugees, as North Korean troops hiding among the refugees attacked with guns and hand grenades (AP).”

Given that situation, no military commander would have allowed the free flow of unidentified civilians across the front line. The risk of sappers engaging in guerrilla warfare behind the lines is one that should not be taken, and in this case, the orders given reflected the needs of the situation. The lives of U.S. soldiers were at risk, and the only way to minimize that risk was to eliminate the source. The orders said to use discretion on women and children, and at that point the decision to fire becomes the responsibility of the individual soldier.

That soldiers may have fired, under orders, on civilians crossing the bridge is sobering but to be expected. In war, the ultimate goal is to defeat the enemy. Considering the very nature of guerrilla warfare, the orders to fire on those crossing the lines were rational and reasonable to minimize risk.

No matter what happened, the cries of survivors ignore the very nature of war and the situation under which all of this happened. In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes wrote on the natural condition of mankind and said that in a war nothing is unjust. He views justice and injustice as qualities that relate to men in society, and not in the solitude of war. Warfare is a separate situation unlike any other, and events that happen then are not subject to the rules of men.

The demands for punishment and compensation reflect an unfortunate attitude that is not at all commensurate with our actions. American forces were deployed in the region as a response to a North Korean incursion, and we acted under the direction of the recently formed United Nations. In the early stages of the war our forces suffered a number of appalling defeats and it was not until sufficient military might was brought to bear that American forces were able to repel the North Korean invaders.

It is almost certain that without our intervention the nation of South Korea would not exist today, instead having been swallowed up by communist forces in 1950. Given that assumption, it is unfair to criticize our handling of the war considering the alternative. The communist regime of North Korea is totalitarian and grossly mismanaged, unable to even care for its own citizens. Between 1995 and 1998 it is estimated that roughly two million people died of famine.

Perhaps those few hundred people would still be alive if we had done nothing. Perhaps they would have been a part of those two million. Nevertheless, our soldiers acted in our nation’s best interests and tried to maintain their composure despite the situation, and for that they should be remembered. Any finger pointing should be directed to the instigators of the war, North Korea.

Aaron Woell is a senior in political science from Bolingbrook, Ill.