Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The War Drones On
"Complaints
about civilian casualties have also stirred concern among human rights
advocates."
The problem is that a sentence like this - arguably a dead sentence, with a few quasi-facts entombed in an inert moral sensibility - parades as serious news. I mean, it's lifted straight from the New York Times: from a story about drones, the CIA hit list and our cool new PlayStation way of killing bad dudes (and everyone else in the vicinity). Someone with an active conscience could come upon a sentence like that, in the middle of a painfully ill-focused story on the endless war, and think she must be going insane.
As an archeological find, it's worth examining in closer detail, but first let me put it in context. The use of pilotless aircraft in Pakistan and Afghanistan to assassinate Taliban or al-Qaida leaders and other Islamic, America-hating insurgents - with missiles, no less - seems to have hit a snag of legal controversy lately because of the news that one of the people on the list of targets, Anwar al-Awlaki, was born in New Mexico. He's an American citizen.
This is where my moral consternation begins, and immediately radiates in several directions:
A) In the context of the nearly eight-year-old war on terror (with the Afghan war the longest-running in U.S. history), with uncounted thousands or hundreds of thousands of civilians slaughtered in the hostilities, millions more displaced, and the toxic leftovers of battle sending cancer and birth-defect rates soaring in Iraq and Afghanistan, how does the potential assassination of an American citizen deserve singling out as significant in a way that the killing of non-Americans simply isn't? Just asking. This isn't to minimize the issue, but I can't seem to turn off my outrage that the unstated implications of the controversy are that American lives matter in ways that other lives do not.
B) Why is al-Awlaki on the hit list? According to William Fisher of Inter Press Service, he's a former imam who "purportedly inspired Islamic terrorists. His sermons are said to have been attended by three of the 9/11 hijackers." There is nothing the least bit illegal about any of this; the fact that it merits a death sentence from a rogue intelligence agency, the corralling of which is on no one's agenda, bespeaks a post-9/11 value hemorrhage in our society that disturbs me to the core. Our government is infected with what I can only call the Nazi virus.
C) Murder by drone. The use of robot aircraft and target takeout by missile fire is modestly controversial in and of itself, perhaps, though the controversy seems to be counterweighted, at least in mainstream reportage, by the military's enthusiasm for drones. When a potential target is an American who isn't situated in either Iraq or Afghanistan, the controversy inches upward. I'm sorry, but I still haven't gotten around on the concept of robot war or the insanity of stalking enemy prey with missiles, even if there was the least bit of precision in the process.
The fact that we often rely on preposterously bad intelligence and wind up killing large numbers of civilians with our missiles strikes me, quaintly, as wrong. And by "wrong" I mean insane, stupid, counterproductive, criminal - a means of murder guaranteed to inflame hatred toward us, complicate our "mission" and prolong the war. But then again, this is a war against evil, so we already know that it's endless.
All of which brings me back to the New York Times and the helpful, informative sentence quoted above, which I unearthed in a recent Times Online "topics" piece on drones. Mostly the story is from a military point of view and reports on what seems to be the adolescent glee of intelligence and military brass over how disruptive robot air strikes are to enemy operations.
Toward the end of the story, statistics about collateral damage are cited from two sources. The New America Foundation estimated that, since 2006, drones have killed 500 militants and 250 civilians; the ratio was a little better in the Long War Journal, which estimated 885 dead militants, 94 dead civilians. Not cited, for some reason, was a Brookings Institution study, which found that for every militant killed by drones, 10 civilians are taken out. This is a heart-stopping ratio of cruelty that should instantly decommission all future robot assassination missions.
The fact that it won't is due in no small part to the tepid, morally inert reportage of the mainstream media, as typified by that sentence, which entombs the humanity of all who read it: "Complaints about civilian casualties have also stirred concern among human rights advocates."
When we bomb children, we garner "complaints," same as we would if we trample on someone's flower bed. These complaints then "stir concern" - you know, like when the milk goes sour - not among people in general, but specifically among professional do-gooders, "human rights advocates," who monitor and fuss over dead civilians anyway.
Nothing in this language presses on the conscience or interrupts America's daily business. There is no hint of the value of the lives we destroy, no laying of those lives in our laps. There is only fog and numbness, and the war drones on.
31 Comments so far
Show Allrecently, while talking to my favorite amerikan exceptionalist, snot nosed, libertarian; he was going on about how all muslims were crazed killer,religious nut cases. when i added that our military and society at large had plenty of killer, religious nut cases as well, he got literally red in the face and DENIED IT! .....and the stupid drones on and on and on!!!!!.....(ya see, the muslims get their orders from satan and the christians are in a direct link to christ..... i add the further explanation for those of you not familiar with the subtilties of christian thought)
Recently, I was in the supermarket and overheard two guys who appeared to be old enough to have participated in the Korean War. One guy says that Truman was wrong to have fired MacArthur. The other guy says, "Shoulda tol' them Chinese to git back over the Yalu or we'll blow 'em to smithereens."
Smithereens. I love it. This is about the level of intelligence operating in the United States today.
This person was a piss-poor example of a libertarian. A true libertarian sees the basic equality of all people. There is no "exceptionalism". We realized long ago that all authorities, including the government and the religions spew unadulterated sewage. This person is probably either a neo-con or a neo-lib.
I would also like to see an end to ALL wars. Are we better off because of our revolutionary war?
ALL troups should be brought home. As in "this morning". And not just from Iraq or Afghanistan. But also from Germany and South Korea and Uzbeckistan and Italy and Georgia and Japan and Kegeristan. Somalia, Yeman, and Packistan would also be nice. And the other 161 countries where we have troops. Maybe we could save a few bucks and the pols. could wash some of the gore off their hands. (Actully, most of the murdering sons-of-whores have a deep, indelible stain...on their souls.)
In the light of the afternoon, I re-read this comment that I posted while "sitting crosslegged on the floor" at "25 or 6 to 4". A glaring mistake was made. I have compaired "sons-of-whores" to "pols". I deeply regret the error and most meekly apoligise to each and every son-of-a-whore. I will try my best to do better in the future.
Some of us aren't foggy at all, about the complacency surrounding nonAmerican casualties. It's butt Ugly.
It shows to what extent the US is abandoning all pretence of abiding by its national legal system and international law in general. The MSM sources express this "legal irrelevance" on the moral/ethical plane:
"we'll get on with the killing and step it up as we want to".
When will they assert this about a nuclear strike against some proclaimed enemy?
Very soon now. Iran is in the crosshairs.
NPR did a segment a few days ago, based upon some declassified documents unearthed by the National Security Archive, which speaks to the nuke option's actual history.
In April, 1969, North Korean fighter jets shot down a US recognizance plane conducting electronic surveillance over international water, killing 31 members of the American crew. The crew of the US navy spy ship Pueblo was still being held by Pyongyang at the time of this second incident, greatly heightening tensions in northern Asia (the Vietnam war was also raging full bore).
NPR interviewed a US Air Force F-4 fighter jet pilot who had been stationed in South Korea on April 15th, 1969. He was called into his commanding officer's office and shown written authorization to immediately prepare to "execute his standing orders" to attack a predetermined airfield in North Korea - to attack the airfield (where the North Korean fighter jets had been based) with a mid-size nuclear bomb, one having about 30 times greater explosive force than the one dropped on Hiroshima. It was a genuine Dr. Strangelove/Fail Safe moment.
According to the US pilot, he remained on high alert waiting only final orders to take off and go nuke North Korea for about ten hours before the commander told him to stand down, at least until the next day. President Richard Nixon and his national security advisor Henry Kissinger had not yet signed off on the final go ahead. Several days later, Nixon eventually decided that retaliatory military action (nuclear or conventional) would not be undertaken by the United States, despite the flagrant attack by North Korea causing substantial American casualties.
At the time, Nixon was widely praised for his restraint. The logic was that nuking the North Korean airfield(s) would virtually guarantee a massive North Korean assault upon South Korean and American forces stationed along the 38th parallel DMZ.
When I heard that particular "old" news story, I had what NPR sometimes calls a "driveway moment." On April 15, 1969, I had just deployed from Ft. Lewis, Washington to start a 13-month infantry duty tour on the Korean DMZ. Upon landing in Seoul, everybody on our plane was told the whole country was on high alert, all our orders to report to various units were canceled, and us newly arriving troops were slapped together into a new combat company, issued weapons and chemical/biological warfare protective gear.
As a draftee, I had been greatly relieved (to put it mildly) to have gotten orders to go to South Korea rather than to South Vietnam. For about a week, it sure looked like I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The crisis subsided. I ended up in the DMZ unit I was originally assigned to and served my time without ever having to fire a shot.
Forty years later, I learn for the first time that Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger had been toying with the option of dropping a nuke or two or three on North Korea in April, 1969 in retaliation for the shooting down of Uncle Sam's spy plane. Spooky shit, that driveway moment earlier this week.
Nixon made the right decision in April of 1969 based upon realpolitik and realities on the ground, not because he was a Quaker man of peace. If a similar incident took place next week - with substantial US military casualties sustained courtesy of some bizarro sneak attack attributable to North Korea, or attributable to Iran, what do you think Barack Obama would do?
Do you think an exercise of presidential restraint would be lauded by the likes of John McCain, Sarah Palin, Joe Lieberman, John Boehner, top Pentagon brass, national intelligence officials, and Faux News?
Time to take the toys away from the boys. If you stir the 21st Century neocons' concept of "preemptive" military strikes into the mix, the clock ticks even louder.
Bill from Saginaw
Obama would do whatever the military wanted him to do.
"Nothing ... presses on the conscience or interrupts America's daily business. "
That's why we need a draft.
All that warring would stop in an instant.
Or better yet, a gasoline tax that went to pay for the occupation.
Both occupations would be over in a week if that were implemented.
The draft is eventually coming because it's cheaper than paying legions of mercenaries.
I submit the draft is not coming. For at least two reasons.
1. A 'Civilian' army is far harder to maintain and control than a mercenary one.
2. The MIC doesn't give a damn about the cost.
I don't believe the draft will come, because the draft is why America stopped the Vietnam war. With a professional army you do not get the dissent from college students and their parents. Which is the greatest reason behind the longest war in American history.
The only draft I would like to see [which I ended up in during the Vietnam conflict] is the one this button advocates:
"Draft the Rich-It's Their War"
I used to watch "The Big Picture" Saturday mornings on TV, with films of the war in Europe. I remember denunciations of the V1 and V2 rocket attacks by Hitler on Britain as cowardly and inhuman. Americans can't say that anymore. Under 21st-Century American rules of engagement--shoot first, ask questions later--valor is obsolete.
Steve -
Ah, "The Big Picture." How about "Victory at Sea" narrated by Walter Cronkite? How about "Air Power"?
It seems Saturday and Sunday network television back in the 50's black and white era was larded up with World War II combat action footage that was recycled and replayed over and over again. I suspect we are age contemporaries. You and I literally grew up watching real films of real warfare, with a sound track analysis and plot line in which the good guys always prevailed heroically in the end, if they only followed the flag and stayed the course. If you feel the urge for a touch of nostalgia or need a quick fix today, you can always check out The Military Channel on your friendly cable menu.
I agree Americans can't condemn rocket attacks, or air strikes causing mass civilian casualties, anymore as being cowardly or inhuman. If Jimmy Doolittle didn't completely erase that line of moral demarcation, then surely Dresden and Hiroshima finished the job. Post 9/11, as far as I'm concerned no longer can the United States condemn torture or targeted political assassinations either.
For some reason, I suspect the media imagery we unconsciously absorbed from television and Hollywood war movies helped condition the country generally for the bloody mindset that guys like Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz have now translated into official US policy and acceptable strategic doctrine. It takes a lot of concentrated propaganda framing over a sustained period of time to convice ordinary people that militarism actually works and that killing people can produce a moral end result.
Bill from Saginaw
Bill
If you are interested, you may wish to check out The Hollywood War Machine: U.S. Militarism and Popular Culture by Carl Boggs and Tom Pollard which does an excellent and most incisive job of exposing how, with a few exceptions, the American cinema since the turn of the twentieth century has attempted to portray war from an American perspective, often with the blessing of the American military, as a force for good in the world.
I appreciate this conscientious article , however this can be conveyed clearly to people who have not been brain washed by war mongers in our societies.
Even if there are Muslims who want to save us from hell their way. Why have the clever people of Western societies failed to marginalize them without collateral damage. This shows humanity is not in the realm of western societies. Humanity occurs as a political convenience and does not have a seat in consciousness of society.
Who needs draft when you have unlimited tax monies to build drones and have plenty of peanut brains to operate joy sticks with triggers.
The future of drones , our kids will have to negotiate with all societies to stop building and deploying drones. As drones will start wars when they encroach each others borders. They are doomed to similar failures as our generation have experienced in arms control of various types - land mines, guns, missiles, nuclear weapons etc. etc.
The War Drones On........
and indeed it is obvious that it is going to get much worse,
Saudia has just granted Israel free air space.
Most on here know that the Huffington Post is a fascist
newspaper,,, please don't support them at all.
Here are the Congressmen and women with a set of gonads
that voted against the
COMPREHENSIVE IRAN SANCTIONS, ACCOUNTABILITY , AND
DIVESTMENT ACT.
Please reward them with a thankyou fax
I am also going to list the faux progressive lawmakers that
just voted present as they didn't want to upset AIPAC.
Maxine Waters , I have always known to be a phoney bitch.
Barbara Lee, jumps one fence after another, and like Waters
always knows the right thing to say, but her votes most of
the time say something else , same with Sanchez, Kilpactrik
Mutha and Clay.... I have followed these rascals closely
Here are the usual good guys, and a new comer Republican
that I never have had much respect for until this vote FLAKE.
OUR FRIENDS........OUR ONLY ONES.
CONYERS
STARK
LYNCH
HINCHY
KUCINACH
BLUMENAUR
PAUL
DUNCAN (R)
BALDWIN
MOORE
MCDERMOTT...............
call them ,,,,and thank them for doing what they could
to stop the next war.
"Nothing in this language presses on the conscience or interrupts America's daily business."
That's the point, I guess. It's part of the same numbing process that draws the curtain over the facts of the gulf gusher. When the delicate mechanism of "daily business" is isolated so conscientiously from reality, it means the system no longer has resiliency, and a bridge from reality to daily business is likely to be traumatic and destructive. People know it on some level. The power elite knows it. They want to put off the day... Also, the culture of "expertise" is complicit as everything is "measurable" and the idea is to keep the "negatives" down. Going further into values would upset the system and perks of expertise.
The point about interest groups is interesting. Control of the big picture is much easier when everything is a matter of "special interests". The human rights organizations will earnestly work on aspects of their specialization. The "environmentalists" will do their thing and everybody will think something is being done in the only way it can be done in a culture of expertise. (That specialization has been brought to the point of absurdity will escape them.)
Human rights and the environment are, of course, of acute and universal concern, like food and water and life itself. They are not special interests.
"Nothing in this language presses on the conscience or interrupts America's daily business."
'That's the point, I guess.' -- if guessing is where you're at fine, that's where you're at, but for me it's a step past guessing. In stepping forward I wouldn't go the "corporation conspiratorial" route; regardless of what the written law is corporations are not people or persons, people operate under corporate mind-sets which empowers their arms and hands with denial to "draw the curtain over the facts." And THIS IS THE POINT because it's a malady or short coming in general human behavior that, if one wants a peace cultured society, most be confronted with extreme vigilance; as it shows up in Koehler's writing here (and as a redundant tone and theme that runs through CD commentary):
"But then again, this is a war against evil, so we already know that it's endless."
Statements like this sap the energy of the argument from building to any "pressing" force, and consciously or layered with denials, the individual knows what happened to MLK and RFK so America in general shaves the hair from it's body and curls up in front of the tv to watch their singing and dancing and sporting Idols. "But then again..." statements for me have an adolescent tone that easily evokes a "nuh huh" and "because, because" type of response, thus tripping the argument, and making it fall back to a "crawling" stage.
And if that's where the argument is at fine, that's where extreme vigilance is needed: so the argument can be cultured and matured back to the adult level of MLK and RFK, but by so many people that the assassination of some won't club the argument back into it's crib.
Drone warfare is terrorism, which the MIC is counting on. Eventually, it'll be adopted by our enemies, and the MIC will point at our civilian casualties as justification for further funding and bombing.
What's new and what are the latte liberals doing about it? Ask a few asshats out there.
Some enterprising tech-savvy Pakistani should figure out a way to hack into the control module of a drone and program it to boomerang back to the cowards who sent it.
Eagle Bill
Excellent point. Give them a taste of their own medicine.
Errol
Thank you for the compliment. I think you have said that you are a Vietnam Veteran. It's good to see that you have not gone over to the dark side like so many other vets of that era.
"that the unstated implications of the controversy are that American lives matter in ways that other lives do not"
This is America's downfall and I remember back in the Vietnam era when I was against the war I was told by many, "love it or leave it", That same mindless bullshit still exists today and is
taking this great nation to her knees without hesitation. The military mind should never be in charge of foreign policies without a kind heart. The heart that Obama and Clinton does not have!
Alan B.
Very well said. I can still remember, after returning to the States after having been in Vietnam and other parts of Southeast Asia, the bumper sticker that was on the back of a car which read: America: Love It or Leave It. I checked my copy of the U.S. Constitution and, as I suspected, was unable to locate any place in that document which said that one was not allowed to criticize the U.S. government as often as one wishes even during a time of war [even though Congress never bothered to declare war then and has still not declared war against Afghanistan. Iraq or Pakistan].
If you have the stomach for it, you may, just to satisfy your curiosity, check out the reviews of a book called "The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern by noecon Victor Davis Hanson on amazon. The reviews regarding that book are, as expected, what one would find in such a flag waving book especially given the fact that the book was written be a chickenhawk. When I dared to challenge Hanson's views and those who had reviewed his book, I was pilloried with the knee jerk response that I was allegedly un-American. Not exactly critical thinking at its finest.
"When I dared to challenge Hanson's views and those who had reviewed his book, I was pilloried with the knee jerk response that I was allegedly un-American."
Pilloried by a bevy of even more chicken-hawks no doubt.
Erroll
We were all brainwash to some degree or another to believe that our country was comprised of good people with good intentions, but after Vietnam most of us knew better. Today the professional army is payed to kill and with no draft for the
college kids to protest, the mindless warmongers continue on. Let me share something that I was reminded of just this morning, a quote by Robert F. Kennedy; “It is not enough to allow dissent,” RFK said. “We must demand it.”