Collateral damage, in a military context, is damage that is unintended or incidental to the intended outcome. It is a term often used to rationalize concomitant civilian casualties during an attack on hostile forces. More often than not, the implicit message is that the loss was either unavoidable, or a small, but necessary price to pay to achieve the intended objective. At some point however, this logic wears thin, when one begins to ask "How much collateral damage is acceptable?"
The extent to which one can reasonably rationalize collateral damage is a matter of conscience. I can’t imagine that any military commander, facing a decision that is likely to result in collateral damage, but essential to achieving a tactical objective, takes that decision lightly. In fact, the U.S. military has invested billions of dollars in the development of precision-guided, and low-collateral-damage weapons to mitigate the consequences of such a decision. Furthermore, the risk of collateral damage in a particular situation, often precludes execution of an attack, even when high-value targets are involved. Despite those good intentions, innocent civilians needlessly perish when the hostile forces living and hiding amongst them are attacked. And yes, unfortunate accidents do happen.
There are many parallels between what is categorized as collateral damage in war, and the ecological destruction wrought by the recent, disastrous occurrence in the Gulf of Mexico. In this instance, vast deposits of petroleum, or rather, the unimaginable wealth that is generated through the recovery, processing, distribution, and sales of its by-products, are the objective. The potential pay-off is so great, that oil companies invest billions of dollars every year in speculative exploration that often fails to yield economically-viable results. Along with the high pay-off come high risks, both to the investors and to the environment.
Proponents of unlimited off-shore oil exploration are feeling the sting of recent events because they know this incident will not help them make their case in the future. The same can be said of those who have fought for de-regulation of polluting industries in general. Deep in their collective conscience, they probably recognize the damage for what it is, but in a pragmatic sense, they view it as collateral damage; a mere set-back. If one listens to the inane comments and conspiracy theories from those on the Right, and reads between the lines, this notion becomes increasingly clear. There is no mourning for the victims (the environment and the missing oil rig workers); instead there is a "circling of the wagons" in defense of the carelessness and economically-driven malfeasance that allowed this disaster to happen.
Maybe they are right. Maybe fouling of the environment is an unavoidable consequence of our society’s addiction to petroleum, and like collateral damage on the battlefield, is acceptable just as long as it doesn’t happen too often or on too large a scale. But who gets to decide what defines "too often?"