Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Trivializing War
Beautiful, that is, if you don't consider Captain Ferguson's omission. While sitting in front of his computer, he was directing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), also known as drones, carrying powerful bombs to land in distant countries. He presumes, but he is not totally sure, that he has hit the right target. After the bombs exploded four suspected terrorists were killed. Four fewer criminals the U.S. will have to deal with.
A later investigation will later reveal that they were not terrorists but rather they were parents and children on a birthday party. As a result of the attack, four adults and eight children were killed, and several more seriously injured.
Captain Ferguson, of course, was unaware of the consequences of his actions. He only thinks that he has a somewhat tedious but rewarding job, since he is an important piece in the fight against terror. Only later he will know the truth, when the outcry of the victims' relatives cannot be silenced any longer. The predictable apologies will not bring back the dead to life, nor heal those injured.
Let's compare this made-up scenario with reality.
During the first year of the Obama administration, there were 51 drone attacks, compared to 45 drone attacks during President Bush's two terms in office, according to The Year of the Drone, a report by the Washington-based New America Foundation. The report also states that the civilian fatality rate has been 32 percent in drone attacks since 2004.
"Drones are currently killing people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. It should be noted that the United States is not at war with any of those countries, which should mean in a sane world that the killing is illegal under both international law and the US Constitution," states Philip Girald, a former CIA officer and fellow of the American Conservative Defense Alliance.
Girald's observation is confirmed by Mary Ellen O'Connell, a Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School. In a research paper entitled "Unlawful Killing with Combat Drones" Professor O'Connell says, "The CIA's intention in using drones is to target and kill individual leaders of al-Qaeda or Taliban militant groups. Drones have rarely, if ever, killed just the intended target. By October 2009, the ratio has been about 20 leaders killed for 750-1000 unintended victims. Drones are having a counter-productive impact in Pakistan's attempt to repress militancy and violence. The use of the drone is, therefore, violating the war-fighting principles of distinction, necessity, proportionality, humanity."
In the meantime, the U.S. military plans to more than triple its inventory of high-altitude drones capable of 24-hour patrols by 2020. General David Petraeus, head of the U.S. Central Command, which includes both Afghanistan and Iraq, declared in a speech last January, "We can't get enough drones."
War, we should sadly acknowledge, is not a Nintendo game. And innocent people's lives are not expendable. If we don't admit the tragic dimension of war we will be cursed by its consequences.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
21 Comments so far
Show All"If we don't admit the tragic dimension of war we will be cursed by its consequences."
The great majority of Americans have lost all interest in the two ongoing occupations.
Draw whatever conclusions you like.
I'm not so sure that we have lost interest so much as that the average citizen has NO CONTROL WHATSOEVER over what the MIC does. It is a law unto itself. Furthermore, most of the activities of this "engine of destruction" are never disclosed.
Thank you Cesar Chelala. This is important information for those of us who are peace activists. My local group is planning a showing of the powerful film Why We Fight.
"If we don't admit the tragic dimension of war we will be cursed by its consequences." We're already cursed by the consequences of other previous and ongoing atrocities. We don't need no more stinkin' consequences.
This in incredible. Upon the word of our "Fearless Leader" anyone in the world can be summarily murdered. Hitler, Stalin and Mao didn't have this power. This is totalitarianism in the guise of a "WAR ON TERROR". How about a "WAR ON FASCIST PIGS".
- "WAR ON TERROR" -
This term comes from the MIC. You use their term, why?
DAFT, the Defense against Future Terrorism.
Time Magazine invented the term "World War 1" in 1939 (according to Wikip).
If I sold magazines (and made personal profit, the only way to convince Americans of one's sincerity), would DAFT be acceptable?
This DAFT war has gone on for over 8 years. Do we have to wait another 13 before giving this insanity the name it deserves?
- WAR ON FASCIST PIGS" -
If this would succeed, I would support the use of this term. But what is your plan to end it?
The DAFT war can be ended. This year.
Strategy lesson #32:
- "WAR ON TERROR" - Using an MIC term means that we fight the linguistic battle on a battleground of the MIC's choosing.
DAFT goes on the offensive. I don't know about you guys and gals, but I'M tired of playing defense.
Let's make the war-mongers defend their being DAFT. I suggest that as a more useful strategy than protesting the 'war on terror'.
Nobody wants terror. How can Progressives protest against a war meant to stop that?
Stop arguing on MIC terms.
Sign me up.
- NO CONTROL WHATSOEVER over what the MIC does -
Problem - how to pierce the media blanket that smothers all things Progressives.
Instead of protesting (which the MIC will ignore), I suggest entertaining.
Such a strategy to get people's attention would be DAFT, yes?
Convince Americans that this insanity is DAFT.
There is no victory in a war to prevent future terrorism. Our military families will be destroyed, because our soldiers cannot fight 'future terrorists', they can only be targets to draw fire, allowing the war machines to kill the now-identified enemy.
The only way out of our immense problem is a full-spectrum, general public support for America's rescue plan.
That means, whatever you propose, it won't succeed unless you get Rachel Maddow and Bill O'Reilly to agree on something.
That can only be by agreeing that the system is broken and needs fixing or we're all doooooooomed.
Public Law 107-40 must be addressed and canceled! (let's go postal!)
I suggest again that Progressives focus on ONE small achievable target, and cease protesting 195 separate wars ('drone wars' - that would be war #195, the War in space against future terrorists, the same enemies as all the other wars).
Democratic-controlled Congress, 2009-10:
Over a year on this healthcare charade.
3 hours 'debate' on war.
Progressives, 2010: Do you want to end a war this year?
I am sure people have noticed the recent articles about Iran in the press. This coupled with a perceived "falling out " between Israel and the USA.
British and American newspapers have issued a stream of reports indicating that the Taliban are being trained and armed by Iran. These coming form "Government sources" and those same lying generals that used the same tactics previously until they were exposed as frauds.
One reporter in the British press even suggests Iran directly responsible for the deaths of British troops in Afghanistan and claims the Government must DO something.
Iran will be another "target rich" enviroment for these murderers.
- Iran -
When someone convincingly provides evidence of the following, we will attack:
Iranian nukes --> terrorists.
Will that be the 'War in Iran against future terrorists'?
Or,
The War in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and the Taliban that we fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan 'and elsewhere' against al-Qaeda and the Taliban and future terrorists, and in Iraq against al-Qaeda and future terrorists, and now in Iran against future terrorists, as well.
I want to know, so I show up at the correct futile demonstration.
It's all DAFT. Stop one war so we don't have to stop 195.
End the DAFT war, and you stop the Iranian conflict before it can begin (not to mention, all the other future wars waiting to erupt), by eliminating the mechanism that inexorably drags us into another insanity.
Please, someone, argue that we mention the MIC's term "Global War on Terror" or their other term "War on Terror", so that we can protest against them and show how, uh, daft and insane they are (especially since some MIC hack made the acronyms up).
Why not call it as it is? I know, you're waiting for a leader from above to tell you to (or for a magazine to sell you the words to use). Sorry, this idea comes from far, far below, from the common dreams of folks from commondreams.
I offer this idea (that occurred to me in a dream) as a substitute for the failed strategies of the last 8 years.
Instead of protesting, let's celebrate that we've found the path to peace.
People want to join celebrations, not protests, yes?
Any American 8 years old or younger has never lived in America, a nation at peace. That youngster has only lived in America AT WAR.
Once again, I apologize to any and all who have to see these same words for the umpteenth time, like someone stuck on a desert island with only a dictionary.
I offer these, in repentance:
2010: RE-elect the Democratic majority.
There's no need for change.
Re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re elect Nancy Pelosi
for re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-real change.
She re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-really means it this time.
Vote Republican to prove that reptiles don't evolve.
Democrats In Power = Dependable Inch of Progress.
The "WAR ON FASCIST PIGS" unfortunately is a war waged by relentlessly opposing verbal diahrrea whenever it is heard.
It cannot be a physical war beacause the PIGS have a monopoly on both physical force and the MSM propaganda machine. This war will turn physical when the PIGS move to arrest or murder the free thinkers that they have been monitoring on the internet and other media. Don't go down without a fight. Take one PIG with you.
Why must we always FIGHT? Let's take the human race a gigantic step further in evolution by concentrating on PEACE
Why must we always FIGHT? Let's take the human race a gigantic step further in evolution by concentrating on PEACE
It's the economy! Any uneducated fool can pull a trigger. It takes training and Real Education to make peace.
ie. it's cheaper this way.
from the article:
"In the meantime, the U.S. military plans to more than triple its inventory of high-altitude drones capable of 24-hour patrols by 2020."
patrolling where? why? under the control of...what?
are we about to surround our precious planet with legions of self-powered and self-directed automated flying weaponed platforms?
who could we fear more than this scenario?
"The report also states that the civilian fatality rate has been 32 percent in drone attacks since 2004."
Does anyone else believe only 32 per cent?
Hmm, I thought not.
Although it would still be a disgusting figure even if it were true.
But I wonder how they knew... Did someone go along and identify all the pieces? But even then, how did they know?
Seems to me they could have found out easier beforehand.
And even then, even if they could single out the alleged terrorists, it is still extra-judicial murder.
The all to easy acceptance of drones and their collateral damage is an ongoing symptom of the blind glamorized warrior virus, that infects the american psyche.
World of DroneCraft! I only wonder how long till it's outsourced to a KillCenter in India. Now what are our poor kids to do, No more Army, just Drones
The drones and all other war toys should be scrapped to make room for paying for social programs which actually do something constructive and help people rather than destroy them.
Like the Nazi blitzkrieg in the Second World War, those engaged in the use of these drones are war criminals.
AD