Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Report: US-NATO Airstrikes Bring Higher Afghan Civilian Toll
WASHINGTON - Ramped-up U.S. and NATO airstrikes in Afghanistan are causing an increased civilian death toll, raising concerns about the fallout from civilian deaths on the war effort against the Taliban insurgency, according to a major new report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) released here Monday.
An Afghan woman in a hospital in Herat. She was said to have been wounded in an Aug. 22 American air raid on Azizabad. Afghans say more than 90 civilians died in the raid, a figure that the United States has disputed. (Reza Shirmohammadi/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images) The 43-page report, "Troops in Contact: Airstrikes and Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan", warned that the cost in civilian casualties caused by the increase in bombings goes well beyond the loss of human life and could put the nearly seven-year U.S.-NATO war effort at risk.
"The harm caused by airstrikes is not limited to the immediate civilian casualties," said the report, which also cited the destruction of homes and property and the displacement of their civilian occupants caused by the bombing.
"Civilian deaths from airstrikes act as a recruiting tool for the Taliban and risk fatally undermining the international effort to provide basic security to the people of Afghanistan," said Brad Adams, HRW's Asia director of HRW.
Citing HRW statistics, an editorial in Saturday's New York Times went further, asserting that civilian deaths caused by the stepped up bombing played into the hands of the Taliban and other insurgents: "America is fast losing the battle for hearts and minds, and unless the Pentagon comes up with a better strategy, the United States and its allies may well lose the war."
Fuelling a growing controversy here, both the Times and the report said that the increase in air attacks -- and the "collateral damage" they caused -- was due in part to the relative lack of NATO and U.S. troops on the ground whose fire tends to be considerably more discriminating in their impact than aerial attacks.
Both the Pentagon and leading Democrats have been arguing for months for deploying at least 10,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan but have been unable to overcome resistance by military commanders in Iraq who, backed by President George W. Bush, are reluctant to draw down troop levels there below the current 144,000. U.S. ground forces are so stretched globally that deploying additional forces to Afghanistan must await further withdrawals from Iraq.
The increased level of bombing has come as a result of a stepped-up insurgency led by anti-government Taliban fighters and associated groups. Fighting in Afghanistan has intensified dramatically over the past year. At least 540 civilians have been killed in the conflict so far this year, a sharp increase over last year's total. Casualties among the more than 60,000 U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan have also risen sharply this year.
U.S. and NATO forces, according to the report, dropped 362 tonnes of munitions in Afghanistan during the first seven months of this year, including a flurry of bombings in June and July that, by itself, nearly equaled the total amount of bombs, by weight, dropped by the coalition forces on suspected enemy positions in all of 2006.
"[...] While attacks by the Taliban and other insurgent groups continue to account for the majority of civilian casualties," said the report, "civilian deaths from U.S. and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007 (from 116 to 321)."
That increase prompted Afghan President Hamid Karzai to demand changes in targeting tactics, including using smaller munitions, delaying attacks where civilians might be harmed, and turning over house-to-house searches to the Afghan National Army.
Those changes were adopted by the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) with the result that, despite increased bombing during the first seven months of this year, fewer civilians (119) were killed compared to the same period in 2007.
But that figure does not include a controversial air strike Aug 22 on the village of Azizabad in western Afghanistan which, according to the Afghan government and a U.N. investigating team, killed 90 people, the vast majority of whom were women and children. The U.S. military, which carried out the attack, has insisted that 42 people were killed, 35 of them insurgents.
In some incidents, according to the report, U.S.-NATO air strikes may have violated the laws of war, particularly adherence to the principles of proportionality and the requirement that parties take all feasible precautions to prevent non-combatant casualties.
The report suggested that blame for civilian deaths can be focused fairly narrowly. While most foreign troops in Afghanistan operate under the banner of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), a disproportionate number of civilian casualties resulted from air strikes called in by the nearly 20,000 U.S. troops who operate exclusively under U.S. command as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Their rules of engagement, including when they can call for air support, are less strict than NATO's.
The most problematic engagements have come when insurgents take U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) by surprise, and the SOF call in air support. The military term, "troops in contact" (TIC), gave the HRW report its name.
In TIC situations, U.S. forces have often engaged insurgents who then retreat to nearby villages, taking up positions in homes and preventing their civilian residents from leaving.
Faced with a standoff, U.S. troops have called in rapid-response air support to bomb the homes from which they were taking hostile fire. That appears to have been what took place in Azizabad.
While condemning of Taliban "shielding" -- using civilian human shields or putting civilians at unnecessary risk so that when hurt, the story can be used as propaganda -- the report noted that this does not excuse U.S. forces from the laws of war and considerations of civilian populations.
The report outlined several incidents where questionable rapid-response bombings caused civilian deaths. In one of them, two anti-government fighters were seen entering a compound that was then hit with an airstrike that caused nine casualties.
The U.S. claimed to have killed the two insurgents, but a local Afghan authority denied the claim, and journalists at the scene found no evidence supporting it. Moreover, U.S. troops and local villagers said that U.S. forces had visited the home the day before and should have known that civilians were present.
"The available information about the attack -- in particular evidence suggesting that U.S. forces knew the house was inhabited by civilians and that only two lightly armed fighters may have been present -- raises serious concerns that the airstrikes violated the international humanitarian law prohibition against disproportionate attacks," said the report.
- Posted in



39 Comments so far
Show AllApparently a video exists that proves 90 were killed at Azizabad.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2008/09/20089872720610774.html
Yes, it seems that our Congress has decided to use our tax money to drop bombs on men, women and children all over the middle East. The Neo Cons are now murdering, maiming and making illegal war upon the civilian population of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia. After our elected officials have been hanged for this treason do we turn them over to the Hague for further hanging for war crimes or just plant them with wooden stakes in place of their hearts?
Well, you almost got it right. Your error was that NeoCons do not fight. They get others to fight and die in their unnecessary wars for Israel. NeoCons OWN Bush, and run this nation. It has been that way since the deliberate and repeated attacks on the USS Liberty in 1967.......and, of course, McBomb's father was part of that coverup. Only with the reinstatementof a draft will this lunacy STOP. With a draft, there will not be many NeoCons pushing for more wars. They will not put their children at risk, but are more than willing to put YOUR's in harm's way. Off topic....can anyone confirm that recently 16 US military committed suicide in Iraq??
The real disgrace, is that I have not seen any news of Afghanistan or Iraq (apart from when a British soldier gets killed) on our mainstream television for a long time. The "news" is made up mainly of very local items, or just lately the storms in the Caribbean. There was no mention of another earthquake in Szechuan, China, and only a fleeting report of the floods in Bihar, India. Is this just a case of "out of sight, out of mind"? Perhaps our leaders don't want to upset us, after all, we have the "credit crunch" and obesity to worry about, so much more important than us killing civilians thousands of miles away.
Our leaders, neo-con or not, appear to share the delusion of US invincibility. In a 1998 interview, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security advisor and now advisor to Barack Obama, bragged that he gave the Soviets their Vietnam:
"According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention... giving to the USSR its Vietnam war." http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
So Brzezinski and others concluded the Soviets would fail, but that somehow the US and NATO would succeed. But why should the outcome be any different? Granted, the US pumped several billion dollars in aid to the Mujahadeen, including Osama bin Laden. But are our bombs really any smarter than the Soviet's? Do they somehow manage to fall on the evil and not the good?
This article is indicative of the mindset of the entire US establishment, referring to the "anti-government Taliban fighters". But the Taliban WERE the government before the US overthrew them. I expect many of them see things quite differently -- that they are fighting to restore their rightful government and their sovereignty.
I don't see how the US can win this war any more than it won in Vietnam or is winning in Iraq. It's a totally foreign culture and a hostile environment. We can't even "bomb them back to the stone age," since they're pretty much there already, having been on the receiving end of a quarter century of continuous war.
Andy UK says he has not heard any news of Afghanistan of Iraq. Hasn't the UK media joined the US media in spreading the myth of the success of the surge in Iraq ? The McClone/Palin campaign is benefitting immensely from the myth and the Democrats have not disputed the myth.
Hasn't the UK media joined the US media in spreading the myth of the success of the surge in Iraq ?
The Myth?...Less Combat Deaths in Iraq this year than in Chicago...pretty damn good myth I'd say....My Son is right in Baghdad (Patrol Base Thrasher) he emails me a couple times a week and there is NOTHING going on...whatsoever...
Of Course we could always withdraw from Chicago
The myth is that we only count American lives lost. To be an accurate comparison, we would count only the law enforcement officers killed in Chicago, not any of the civilian losses, or the actual criminals, then in addition report accurately on the destruction of property and infrastructure. None of this in done in our media.
Old American saying (used against Native people)
We will Kill their people, including children, destroy their towns, crops and livestock until they learn to behave like civilized people.....
Who was civilized you make that decision....
What in the f*ck are we doing...what? Afghanistan, Pakistan, Georgia/Russia, Russia/Venezuela---I hope we can get to the eelction without W starting another war--what will this be, his 10th or so?
That's ok. Obama will be more than happy to start more wars after the election.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Kill the women, rape the Buffalo...
(geez....I always mix that one up)
Just yesterday SnowWolf wrote,
"These propaganda pieces about bombing weddings and shooting unarmed civilians are becoming WAY Tiresome
Either produce the bodies or SHUT UP...and I say that to every bleeding Heart Journalist in the world...
Show me that they are targeting civilians...or stop buying the enemies propaganda"
Ready to eat your words, SnowWolf?
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/09/08-9
Can we expect an apology?
If investigation reveals that is the genuine article...yes...I will have a big helping of Crow ...and I'll take it like a man
does that satisfy you?
My only stipulation is that it comes from a more reputable source than Al Jizz-ya....because I don't put it past the Taliban to stage something like that
&YYY&
The attitude to the human lives of Afghanistan and elsewhere is a general attitude, which also shows in the attitude to living and financial conditions of people living in the Vampire States. You are all expendable.
SnowWolf, "...and I'll take it like a man"
I'll stop calling you "it".
Some questions:
What news source do you trust?
M$M like CNN/FOX/MSNBC or WaPo/NYT/WSJ etc... ?
Why don't you trust Al Jazeera?
Have you ever watched Al Jazeera?
Do you believe civilians have been targeted in Iraq or Afghanistan at any point?
Do you believe civilians have been targeted by the US in other wars?
What news source do you trust?
could we agree on an official Army report?...or Official Army confirmation of a Major Western News media story?
Why don't you trust Al Jazeera?
Who takes delivery of Al Queda tapes?...CNN?
Have you ever watched Al Jazeera?
No...I have not...not on my Cable Guide
Do you believe civilians have been targeted in Iraq or Afghanistan at any point?
Targeted?...No...I can say with certainty civilians are not Targeted...hit sometimes?...yes
Do you believe civilians have been targeted by the US in other wars?
Yes...I guess Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be the most obvious...and Tokyo, Dresden and Berlin
Official Army Reports had friendly-fire victim Pat Tillman die a hero in a barrage of enemy crossfire, and an unconscious Jessica Lynch blazing away to save her convoy - so cross that "reLIEable source" off your list. With your son in Iraq I realize you must have to believe some amount of bullshit just to keep you sane, but please refrain from spreading it all over here, okay?
You admit "Yes...I guess Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be the most obvious...and Tokyo, Dresden and Berlin." See the obvious connection? All air strikes. Aerial bombardment does not discriminate between raiding parties and wedding parties. If you can only make your noisy support of war palatable by deceiving yourself into thinking no innocents are being killed, grow up - get past it. More civilians die in war than military personnel. Bombings, mines, grenades, house-to-house raids and more guarantee it. Stop trying to convince yourself (and especially the rest of us) that no civilians are dying in the wars you keep telling us are so right and necessary.
INITIAL reports are almost always wrong...thats called "Fog of War"
we'll wait for the investigation and see what really happened...there was an embedded news crew on that raid...and they've turned their film over to the Army
although obviously we wouldn't firebomb cities like they did in WWII doing that actually saved lives in the long run by bringing the war to a close sooner...you can choose to believe that or not but it is accepted as fact by most scholars
I tried to appeal to your intelligence, wolfie, but I guess I'm not good enough to hit such a small target. Those reports I cited weren't initial or interim, they were the Official US Army propaganda.
Your "accepted fact" is bullshit. Almost all military analysts agree that bombing civilian populations has exactly the opposite effect of shortening a war. Rather, it just steels the bombing victim's resolve. It also accomplishes nothing strategically or militarily. Germany had England on its knees in 1940 when they switched from bombing RAF airfields and radar installations to bombing cities. The RAF was able to recover and regroup and keep Britain from being invaded. British carpet bombing of German cities had little effect on war production - in the last months of the European war the Germans were manufacturing warplanes at a rate three times higher than prior peaks. Peddle your propaganda somewhere else.
You are such a dick. Watch Morris's "Fog of War" about McNamara. McNamara states himself that the eleven lessons of the Vietnam war are:
1. We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.
2. We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
3. We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.
4. Our judgments of friend and foe, alike, reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.
5. We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces, and doctrine.
6. We failed, as well, to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
7. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.
8. After the action got under way, and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening, and why we were doing what we did.
9. We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgement of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.
10. We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
11. We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.
Apropos for today. It seems that you and your war-mongering dipshits have learned nothing. Nothing.
The fog of war. My Lai. Abu Gharib. HIroshima. It goes on and on. When the "fog of war" clears--it almost alwasy turns out to be acts that ruin lives on both sides, kill people, destroy cultures--adn none of these neo-cons ever participate. At least in Vietnam etc. they were paying fo rit! This is the first Am. "war" (when are we not at war--somewhere) fought by AND paid for by the poor an middle class alone. The world thinks that we are idiots or cowards.
Yes. Unfortunately , that is precisely the point. I hate to think of this, (who didnt have a dad or GF in WW II?) but, I knew my daddy was a bomber pilot. I asked him if he thought about the "litle kids and women running around down there in Berlin". He said "nope. If I did, I wouldve been shot down or wouldve had to disobey orders. I just looked at my controls and dropped them where instructed".
Wow. But--that IS the military's point. Killing an innocent person (or, maybe even one who is NOT so innocent) is not a normal, human act, for most people. You have to drill it into them and de-personlize the enemy as much as possible. Troops on the ground would be more at risk, but, we'd probably hit the "right targets" more often, Of course, we should not be there at all, but that is a whole other question.
"Yes...I guess Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be the most obvious...and Tokyo, Dresden and Berlin"
And Cologne, Essen, Bremen, Hamburg, Kassel, Darmstadt, Pforzheim, Swinemuende, Caen, Belgrade, Bucharest (all WWII european cities that suffered more than 10,000 civilian deaths in a US single raid).
And Nagoya, Osaka, Kobe, Yokohama, Toyama, Kawasaki, Okayama, Kure, Wakayama, Shiminoseki, Kagoshima, Omuta, Sasebo, Sasago, Imubi, Gifu, Shizouki (all WWII Japanesae cities that were firebombed that destroyed MORE THAN 40% of the total buildings and roads in the city; deaths not recorded because no hospitals were left standing).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#United_States_strategic_bombing_of_Japan
And Wonsan, Iwon, Pyongyang, Inchon, Kaesong (all Korean cities leveled by the USAF).
Hell, I could go on - Vietnam, Gulf War, Kosovo war and every time that an Israeli jet bombs innocent civilians.
Are you that incompetent that your only memory of aerial atrocities is WWII?
The last thing I'd believe would be any official army or US military report. They are the biggest liars in the world.
We see this repeatedly in every one of these events. The US military kills a bunch of civilians. If the US military makes any announcement at all, they say that everyone they killed was a 'terrorist'. Then, the news of what really happened starts to come out. The US military always denies it. Then the news is so confirmed that it can't be denied. Then, the US military makes some sort of statement that says its a legitimate target anyways, but acknowledges that yet again they killed a bunch of innocent civilians.
If that doesn't end the discussion of the US military's war crimes, they then announce an 'investigation'. The main purpose of the 'investigation' is to stall and end discussion. Now, whenever questioned about the war crimes that by now are well documented and confirmed, the US military will only respond that it is being investigated. Eventually, the results of the investigation will be announced and the US military will say it has found itself not quilty. But the whole point is that this is now months if not a year or more after this particular war crime, and that result is usually on page 24 ... if anyone in the world cares at all that the US military has investigated itself and found itself innocent.
But, go back and look at that sequence and look at all the lies the US military tells along the way. That's why I consider the US military some of the biggest liars in the world and their reports or announcements is about the last thing on earth that I'd consider a source I trust.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Why is it we have to have a proof do we have to see a soldier sodomising a boy before we except they do it? All the time Abu graib produced it photos to show Americans don’t give a shit! what snow wolf and all the other bluenose Americans wont except is they are the dark side’ they are the storm troopers’ they are the evil in the world’ take away them and you have relative peace! If you showed them a picture of a million Muslims at their place of worship’ they would consider to bomb them because a praying to god is unconstitutional unless he is a white Aryan gentile with blonde hair and blue eyes’ prejudice is what flows throw their veins they have swallowed the blue pill’ they are happy knowing their army is killing for the American dream’ they love their commodities they love obesity they love that they be pitted as god’s chosen to decide if I eat pizza or raid the freezer’ that’s the freedom feed them and they’ll swallow eat drink piss without a care’ after all it’s the news’s it make good TV.
I know how the Germans felt during WW2. I wonder when the bombs will drop, when we'll be invaded, to stop our crimes against the rest of the world.
USA kills civilians:
Taliban gains recruits and influence:
USA 'government' can continue fooling the citizens that war on terror is necessary:
More tax money flows to the corporations (Iraq: 1 billion a week...)
What part of this do people not understand?
A few weeks ago 90 Afghan civilians were killed, and the Afghanis said 2/3 of them were children. The U.S. claims they only killed 7 people. Who do you believe?
But hey, they're darker skinned than we are, poor, and of a different religion -- so that gives us the right to commit genocide on them, right?
The Army has re-opened the investigation and is sending a team to azizabad to find out what happened...lets see what the facts say before we jump to conclusions....
If I am wrong I am wrong...I will admit it...but remember Haditha, where 10 innocent men almost got railroaded
and to those that smirk at the Military doing their own investigating they WILL hang the guilty...the Military has a 76% approval rating in this Country...they will not allow that to be tarnished...
so wait for the investigation and we'll all see
Not sure I understand your point, isn't concern for their image the exact reason to not trust their own investigating?
ATL
Innocent men? By whose accounting? You'll believe anything the Republican apologists say, won't you? What a sap.
Wait and see seems to be your answer for everything. We've waited too long already and seen enough. It's time to get our troops and cash out of Iraq and Afghanistan and spend some of our taxes on improving the home front.
Note the word "re-opened". The Army has already has already tried to sweep this under the carpet once. But they've gotten caught in their lies by independent evidence. Thus, they have to 're-open' their investigation.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
You are not only a stupid dick, but you represent all that is foul in the US.
"...Military....WILL hang the guilty"
Oh? When did the US Military last hang a war criminal? Only 3 soldiers were ever taken to trial (although 14 were charged) for the Mai Lai massacre. Two were acquitted and the only one sentenced was released from jail 2 days later by order of President Nixon.
The US military has never executed any of its own soldiers. What are you trying to tell us? That the US military has a sense of decency?
"..the Military has a 76% approval rating in this Country."
Reference please. Nevertheless, we have seen the effects of "saluting the flag at bayonet-point" in many other societies. If one criticizes the US military, one is immediately labeled a traitor, being soft on terrorism, unpatriotic, etc. Being added to no-fly lists comes next, followed by jail.
Your stupidity and lack of knowledge is exceeded only by that of George W. Bush. I'm sure you must be very proud.
One more thing; stop drinking the Kool-Aide.
"...remember Haditha, where 10 innocent men almost got railroaded"
You wish. Most of those accused for the Haditha massacre were granted immunity from prosecution in return for information; this does not make these men "innocent". In a normal court, plea-bargaining never grants immunity. Military courts have always operated outside the constitutional judicial system, and are always easy on their own people.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/04/21/news/top_stories/1_02_204_20_07.txt
I'll say it again. You are such a dick.
The whole area from Gerogia, Poland, Afghanistan Iraq , Iran are on the verge of blowing up. I can see the next time America flies into Pakistan, they say enough and level a few American outposts in Afghanistan. This will give more support to the Taliban in Afghanistan and more NATO troops killed.
America will push to hard in Georgia and Russia will just level parts of Georgia and the US is SOL and run away.
Israel if they are stupid and attack Iran , I can see and have heard Russia say Israel will glow if it does. At the same time American war ships will be at the bottom of the Med. The whole area in a very short time will be under the control of Russia and America influence in Europe will be nill.
We constantly hear from the US military that they had legitimate targets, and that they didn't intend to kill civilians.
Ok, maybe the first time or two a moral person could buy that. But, what we've seen is a constant pattern of this dating back to at least 2001. The Us military calls in air strikes and says that the target was legit and that they couldn't foresee the deaths of civilians.
Yet, how many times has this happened? Hundreds? A thousand or more? At some point, it seems like this excuse wears a little thin. If you continually take the same action over and over, and if you continually kill innocent civilians in doing so, then at some point it becomes reasonable to say that a person would know that if they commit this action that they will kill innocent civilians.
At that point, it stops becoming an 'accident' and it becomes deliberate murder. If you take an action that has repeatedly shown that it will kill innocent civilians, then that becomes premeditated murder. People know this will happen. That's murder.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
"The savage in man is never quite eradicated."
-Henry David Thoreau 1817-1862, American Essayist, Poet, Naturalist
"What a country calls its vital economic interests are not the things which
enable its citizens to live, but the things which enable it to make war.
Petrol is more likely than wheat to be a cause of international conflict."
-Simone Weil 1910-1943, French Philosopher, Mystic
"Give me the money that has been spent in war and I will clothe every
man, woman, and child in an attire of which kings and queens will be proud.
I will build a schoolhouse in every valley over the whole earth.
I will crown every hillside with a place of worship consecrated to peace."
-Charles Sumner
"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
-Bertrand Russell
"He who dies with the most toys is, nonetheless, still dead."
-Anonymous
"Never take your own revenge - leave room for the wrath of God
for it is written - vengeance is mine and I will repay, says the Lord."
Rom.12:19 Bible
"Join the Army! Travel to exotic, distant lands. Meet exciting, unusual people, and kill them."
-Anonymous
"A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon."
-Napoleon
"The great masses of the people more easily fall victim to a big lie than a small one."
Adolph Hitler
"People who fly into a rage always make a bad landing."
- Will Rogers
"Authority is never without hate."
- Euripides
There sure is a whole lot of stuff flying around here.
I think McNamara is a complete asshole. But I wouldn't disagree with any of those points too much. I'd never cede control of our military to anyone though.
For my own curiosity, SnowWolf...would you? If so which ones?
Haditha....Murtha was way out of line and wrong. The investigation showed clearly that charges of premeditation were false, that all but one were cleared. That you don't like that conclusion does not make it untrue.
As to who to believe, I tend to wait a bit since first reports are almost always false. Does the military bend the truth, sometimes lie...of course they do. My question would be why you would accept Al Jazeera so readily when they do exactly the same. And yes I have watched it. Some good stuff there. Other viewpoints are always helpful.
Civilian casulties always happen when combat is in a populated area. Its seldom if ever intentional, its just unavoidably going to happen. The worst thing other than the deaths themselves is the fact that those young kids have to carry it with them the rest of their lives.
"ezeflyer September 9th, 2008 3:39 pm" That was pretty good and much of it true, but you left out one..."the people that have a weak or non-existant military are usually dead or called slaves." I believe thats fair comment and there are certainly enough examples to prove that point.
You could counter with the fact that a strong military misused is even worse. We might be somewhat in agreement there.
"If one criticizes the US military, one is immediately labeled a traitor, being soft on terrorism, unpatriotic, etc"
I don't know where this comes from. I have plenty of criticizm for both our political leaders and the military and I'm no traitor. I'm damn sure not unpatriotic.