Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCivilian Casualties in Afghanistan No Coincidence
NATO bombs killed at least 45 civilians in Afghanistan the other day. If you get your news from the front pages of the U.S. mainstream media, you wouldn't know it. The New York Times did run news from Afghanistan on its front page the next day -- a rather ghoulish piece about Muslims refusing to give Taliban suicide bombers a religious burial, because suicide bombing is morally reprehensible. And so it is.
But what about pushing a button in an airplane to drop bombs that fall on people's homes? Not so reprehensible, apparently. The Times buried its report on the slaughter in Helmand province back on an inside page, as did the Washington Post. The LA Times relegated to a "World in Brief" notice.
If you take the time to read those back-page articles, they all tell you that NATO faces a dilemma: not a moral dilemma -- when Westerners kill Afghans, the moral issue does not seem to arise -- but a strategic dilemma. On the one hand, "our boys" have to kill Taliban. That's a given. On the other hand, if we kill too many civilians in the process, we'll alienate the locals and send them over to the Taliban side. All the mainstream reports agree that the string of recent bombings, killing sizeable numbers of civilians, is already creating a growing problem for NATO's effort to win hearts and minds.
So what's a poor NATO commander to do? American General Dan McNeill, who took control of all NATO forces in Afghanistan this spring, seems to have an answer: Bombs away, and let hearts and minds fall where they may. The spike in civilian deaths from NATO bombs is no coincidence. It reflects a major change in strategy, which has gone totally unreported in the American media.
The British public knows about it. Journalists Jason Burke and Robert Fox think it's a story the Brits need to know, because it could well put the lives of British -- as well as American -- NATO troops in greater danger. And it will put British -- as well as American -- tax dollars to work paying for more bombs that kill more innocent civilians.
Senior British officers told these journalists that Gen. McNeill, with too few troops on the ground to hold off the Taliban offensive, plans to rely on massive aerial bombing to do the job. "Bomber McNeill," the Brits call him bitterly, because they know that his heavy-handed strategy will be counter-productive in the long run. "Every civilian dead means five new Taliban," a British officer recently returned from southern Afghanistan told Jason Burke. "This could lose the entire south of the country to the Taliban, alienating them permanently from the Karzai government and its international supporters," Robert Fox adds. "In that case, the future of Hamid Karzai and his nemesis in Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, looks dim."
The British are unhappy because they are losing too -- losing control of the Afghan war effort. Before McNeill took command of NATO forces, they were headed by a British General, David Richards. He focused more on economic reconstruction and building good relations with the Afghan people. But the Americans and Karzai criticized him for being too soft. Now they've got the tough guy they want in charge.
The British saw it coming long ago. Back in December Robert Fox reported that Karzai had removed Gen. Richards' local protégé in Helmand, provincial governor Mohammed Daud. British intelligence officers and military commanders "blamed pressure from the CIA. ... The Americans knew Daud was a main British ally, yet they deliberately undermined him and told Karzai to sack him." Gen. Richards had also come in for American criticism as "too political," Fox added. "The American supreme commander of NATO, General Jim Jones, has let it be known, according to sources, that General Richards 'would have been sacked if he had been an American officer.'"
Now he's been sacked. So now our tax dollars, and the Brits', will be used not to win hearts and minds, but to drop bombs that destroy hearts and minds and lives.
In the U.S., the mainstream media agree that it's all the fault of those evil Taliban, who attack NATO forces then scurry for cover inside local villages. The Taliban actually want to get more civilians kill, we are told, because it helps turn the locals against NATO and its puppet government in Kabul. It may be true. There is plenty about the Taliban that is reprehensible. It would be tragic if they returned to power.
But "Bomber McNeill" would be the first to tell you that, when you are at war, you use whatever tactics work best. The Taliban are guerilla fighters. Of course they live and hide among the people. Do we expect them to fight only in open fields, far away from villages, where NATO bombers can pick them off effortlessly?
If we want to keep the Taliban out of power, Gen. Richards' "soft" strategy is the only one that has a chance. Richards and his supporters say that his strategy was working, that the Taliban made few real gains last year. Perhaps the Americans, who call the shots, are afraid of appearing (or feeling) too "soft." Perhaps they are impatient.
Or perhaps something else is going on, too. This week Robert Fox reported that, in addition to stepped up bombing, "there is also to be a US-led campaign of indiscriminate aerial spraying of poppy fields, triggered by the UN report that last year's poppy yield was 60 per cent higher than the year before.." But back in December, when Mohammed Daud was sacked, he wrote: "Governor Daud was appointed to replace a man the British accused of involvement in opium trafficking ... Mr. Daud, who had survived several Taliban assassination attempts, was seen as a key player in Britain's anti-drugs campaign in Helmand." Will the poppy spraying really be "indiscriminate"? The CIA's notorious record in poppy-growing regions should make us wonder.
Helmand is Afghanistan's richest opium-producing province. Opium is at the heart of its economy, and its tangled politics. To get just a taste of how tangled, check out this long analysis by "Zmarial," a resident of Helmand -- not necessarily a very objective observer, but an insider who knows how many different interests are playing against, and with, each other in the province.
Though Daud was supposedly a key player in the British anti-drug campaign, this writer notes, "poppy production hit a record level in 2006 while Daud was governor of the province and enjoyed the full support of Britain." What's more, he cites one source claiming that "260 million dollars have been exchanged as bribery between locals and governmental officials. This is the figure which is tracked, but the untracked amount is unclear. The survey shows 58% of people who are anti-government are so because of domestic corruption." All that money goes mainly to cover up and protect the opium trade. Can we really believe that the CIA, so determined to take control from the British in Helmand, is uninvolved?
It's unlikely that even the best journalist can see the whole picture in Helmand, much less in all of Afghanistan. It's way too complex. But NATO bombardiers thousands of feet above the ground certainly don't know anything about the reality of the towns and villages -- and human lives -- they are destroying. They are just following "Bomber McNeill's" simplistic "good guys" versus "bad guys" script, which the British find so typically American -- with good reason. It's the only story we are told in our mainstream media.
If we ever have journalists who tell the story in a more complex realistic way, we'll see that it's the same old story: the more we take sides in a civil war, the more harm we do, especially when we rely on massive aerial bombing as our main weapon. A heavy-handed U.S. intervention in the 1980s helped to create the Taliban. Now another heavy-handed intervention seems likely to help bring them back to power -- and kill countless civilians along the way. All that (and perhaps opium too) paid for with our tax dollars.
And as the Afghans bury their dead, the whole story is buried in the back pages of our newspapers, as if the people our tax dollars killed just didn't matter very much. While we rightly denounce the immorality of the Taliban, let's take a moment to look in the mirror.
Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin. Email: chernus@colorado.edu
21 Comments so far
Show AllAs an integral part of troop removal, the US should abandon all claims to Iraqi oil field development profits. Just as Iraq needs all proceeds to rebuild, so too does Afghanistan. The US must turn Iraq over to regional goverments and the UN. The only defeat needed to be declared is from the fascist Neo-cons. The threat to US democracy is from within. The neo-cons are plotting genocide upon the United States; no more their welfare for the underclass state
The artist Beatrice Wood who lived to be 100 had a documentary were she stated that the modern art movement called Dada was in part a reaction against being bombed in WW1 from the sky. Before that the air above a house was secure.
Now, many countries have experienced bombing. Not so the USA. I am an immigrant from Europe and we had 5 bombs in our backyard and the close of Word War 2 ( large ponds were created) and the USA has no idea what an terror can be created from bombing from above.
Instead of "Hating us for our freedoms," Ira Chernus seems to be arguing that, "They hate us for the bombs we are dropping on them."
Is it possible that we were misinformed by our pResident?
It seems to me that all members of this discussion group have missed the major point: the revenge killings by NATO soldiers.
It is not about the collateral damage, it is about collective punishment, revenge killing, and the joy of human killing per se. For those interested in investigating this crimes need to look at the local publications that were pro Karzai, but now seem to have rebelled against him due to these revenge killings.
I see it this way: A Taliban may hide in a village, that dose not justify killing all in the village. In this case, a Taliban should be blamed, but NATO should be doubly blamed because its officers know very well that they will kill non-Talibs too. Yet, the story told by Afghans indicate that Westerners kill indiscriminately even if the victims are not linked to Taliban in any imagined way except being Afghans. It is said that the HydarAbad, Helmand victims were killed after three hours the Taliban hit NATO Caravan.
A US bomb kills a man's family and is told, ooops, collateral damage. The man hunts for his family's killers - he's called a terrorist.
We're such a "compassionate" country, we're using our Air Force against TWO countries that DO NOT HAVE AN AIR FORCE. Even I'd stand a chance at beating Mike Tyson if I were allowed to bring an Uzi into the ring. Or not - cause if I miss, or just wound him, he's gonna be really, really unhappy.
How many thousands of tons of bombs do we have to drop before our "brains" behind our "brawn" realize it ain't never, ever gonna deliver positive results? Surely they already realize this - hell, they read the same stuff we do, right? So the question is: assuming they are, in fact, aware that their strategy is inherently flawed, WHY ARE THEY STILL CONTINUING THE STRATEGY???
Master Sun Tzu: "The Art of War is Winning Without Fighting."
As anyone who peruses my Afghan Victim Memorial Project data base (at http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mwherold/memorial.htm) can see, "smart" bombs kill large numbers of innocent civilians (and for many number of reasons). The massacre at Haydarabad, Helmand, is just the latest case. Between January 1 -June 29, 2007, some 420-618 Aghan civilians died as a result of US/NATO actions (not the ridiculous figures put out by the A.P. based upon official US/NATO or UNAMA reports, please!). Also contrary to numbers bandied about in the mainstream, the massacre at Haydarabad killed some 60-80 civilians (see my forthcoming article at www.cursor.org to be posted on the 4th of July).
Sincerely,
Marc W. Herold, Univ. of New Hampshire
I don't know if the US military is where one goes when looking for a guidebook to acts that are morally sound. What I hear more of are the ethics of warriors, which tend to be self-fulfilling prattle typically drawing historical examples to Rome's Legions. Grandiose, and broad sweeping- much like the use of hundreds of tons of bombs. I just don't buy the idea that people join the professional military because they are interested in the other countries the US is subjecting to its foreign policy.
Nonetheless, a reality of modern day warfare is 80%+ of the dead and injured will be civilian. I sometimes wonder if that is why the war makers give so much lip service to the struggle to protect the "innocents". Ultimately and fundamentally, they must know when they draw up their war plans, the greatest number of people they are going to kill are non-combatives.
For once a member of the British establishment seems to have let his conscience get the better of him. To little avail though , for he was immediately steamrolled by the Yanqui chariot.
Poo-tee-weet.
Say it ain't so - we use smart bombs - they follow bad guys around until they get evidence on them and turn them over to Andy Hardy's father for a man to man talk.
This is not complex. Indiscriminate killing all around. While Bu$h the inferior's corporate masters get what they want. Then they leave.
Christ isn't Coming Back, is right about one thing, there are thousands if not millions of Christians who believe that we must support Israel because this is the end of times and believe Christ is about to return and (believe it or not) this is what must be done to please God. (Protect Israel at ALL cost.)
I think they should follow what the Bible teaches about wealth and power and following the path to peace.
bud tugly, it's the pipeline that was the first order of business when karzi was placed by bush..... another red herring?
The lice at the head of our government and the avaricious money lovers who own them don't believe for and instant that Christ is going to return. That is just another excuse to wreak havoc on the innocent; which is what they get their jollies from. There is not a True Believer in the whole bunch.
The entire mess is about a pipeline.
fd32 is right on target (to use a military metaphor)...the military industrial complex has a VER-R-R-Y big appetite, and there's nothing like contin-ed bombing of innocent civilians to ramp up the reqirement for more bomobs and more bombing missions...who gives a hang about morality? It's the $$, stupid, and the establishment of the empire that count.
fd32:
Complicit is to weak of a word to describe this system. Homework: Read the book 1984.
Bud Tugly:
Where's the oil?
In my book, oil is a fantastically created red herring. The real purpose of the neocons game is to force the return of Christ. They literally believe they can do so by fulfilling every dark prophecy in Revelations.
Never mind that Christ isn't coming back.
Mr. Chermus really can't expect star billing for a mere 45 Afghan civilian victims of U.S. bombers, what with Paris out of jail and all. And why distract from the far more important business of periodically reporting upon the efforts to eradicate our creation, the Taliban, an "organization" born of standardized myopic U.S. foreign policy. One might justifiably ask oneself just how many houses these geniuses at Central Intelligence have burned down in their efforts to remove hornet's nests from under the eaves? But one man's apparent failure is another man's business expansion. One wonders how many of our "failed" operations were failures at all. Perhaps, in each instance, CIA deliberately ignited the kindling in order to create conflagrations of self-affirming activity for an otherwise moribund and useless bureaucracy. Our massive spy apparatus does, indeed, feature quite a complement of war loving juveniles whose arrested emotional development has produced a virtually perpetual holocaust beginning right after the Second World War. It seems that nobody could get it wrong as many times as they have with such perfect consistency. Patterns begin to appear in the consciousness of even the most credulous of observers which indicate a system of endless breakage followed by more damaging efforts to repair. Maybe their true genius is in keeping this self-sustaining game plan hidden for these many years. On the other hand, it is, perhaps, not that great an accomplishment when taking into account the considerable assistance of the ever courteous, compliant and, dare I say, complicit, mainstream media.
NATO's use of airpower in an asymetrical conflict such as this is self defeating. It kills potential friends and creates certain enemies.
So Tonto says: "Kemosabe, I wonder how many Afghan and Iraqi 'terrorists' are simply natives seeking revenge for the white man's collateral deaths."
The Lone Ranger (Bush) explains: "Creating more enemies is an easy way to extend the war and justify the occupations. Besides, they're just distractions while I steal their oil and build permanent bases."
Coincidence defined: An accidental occurrence of an event.
You can't just accidentally kill civilians all the time. "Accidentally" and "all the time" is an oxymoron. To do something all the time needs planning and pre-meditation, i.e. intent to commit, in this case MURDER.
Do we expect them to fight only in open fields, far away from villages, where NATO bombers can pick them off effortlessly Yes!
Thanks to MSM the public does believe the above!
Of course when the U.S. Calvary went after Native Americans and their families, you have to ask, why didn't the NA's leave their family's at home?