SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Team America Kills Five Kids in Marja
Feb 15, 2010
"Civilian
casualties are inevitable," said U.S. officials before launching
their weekend military assault on Marja in southern Afghanistan, and
in this case, they were telling the truth. Yesterday, the New York
Times reports,
a U.S. rocket strike "hit a compound crowded with Afghan civilians...
killing at least 10 people, including 5 children."
What justification has been provided by the government of the United
States for its decision to kill these five children?
It will be argued that the government of the United States did not
decide to kill these five children
specifically, and that's absolutely true.
The U.S. government did not decide to kill these particular children;
it only decided to kill some Afghan civilians, chosen randomly from
Marja's civilian population, when it decided to launch its military
assault. These five children simply had the misfortune of holding
losing tickets in a lottery in which they did not choose to
participate.
Recall the U.S. government's instructions
to Marja's residents before the assault:
Afghan villagers should stay inside and "keep their heads
down" when thousands of U.S. Marines launch a massive assault on a
densely-populated district in coming days, NATO's civilian
representative to Afghanistan said Tuesday.
[...]
NATO forces have decided to advise civilians in Marjah not
to leave their homes, although they say they do not know whether the
assault will lead to heavy fighting.
These five kids were staying inside, as instructed. It didn't save
them from U.S. rockets. Perhaps they weren't keeping their heads down.
Having advised civilians to stay - helping ensure the area remained
heavily populated during the offensive - U.S. forces bore an extra
responsibility to control their fire and avoid tactics that endanger
civilians, Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch told
Reuters:
"I suspect that they believe they have the ability to
generally distinguish between combatants and civilians. I would call
that into question, given their long history of mistakes, particularly
when using air power," Adams said.
"Whatever they do, they have an obligation to protect
civilians and make adequate provision to alleviate any crisis that
arises," he said. "It is very much their responsibility.... They are
going to be carrying the can if this goes badly."
"Avoiding such civilian deaths...has been a cornerstone of the war
strategy" by General McChrystal, the Times informs us. If
that's literally true, then McChrystal's strategy has failed
spectacularly. But perhaps we're not meant to understand this
statement literally. Perhaps what this statement means is that
McChystal's strategy is to undertake the same military actions as
before, and even to escalate them, but to change the rhetoric about
them, in an effort to tamp down the outrage that might result from
U.S. actions.
It's not too late for the United States to change course. These five
children are gone forever, but other children in Marja can still be
spared. Tell
President Obama and Congress to protect civilians in Marja, as the
United States is required to do by the laws of war.
If the United States cannot protect civilians from its military
operations - as it is apparently either unable or unwilling to do -
then the war should end. According to the repeated statements of
senior U.S. officials, the way that the war is going to end is through
negotiations with the Afghan Taliban, so those negotiations should commence
immediately.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
"Civilian
casualties are inevitable," said U.S. officials before launching
their weekend military assault on Marja in southern Afghanistan, and
in this case, they were telling the truth. Yesterday, the New York
Times reports,
a U.S. rocket strike "hit a compound crowded with Afghan civilians...
killing at least 10 people, including 5 children."
What justification has been provided by the government of the United
States for its decision to kill these five children?
It will be argued that the government of the United States did not
decide to kill these five children
specifically, and that's absolutely true.
The U.S. government did not decide to kill these particular children;
it only decided to kill some Afghan civilians, chosen randomly from
Marja's civilian population, when it decided to launch its military
assault. These five children simply had the misfortune of holding
losing tickets in a lottery in which they did not choose to
participate.
Recall the U.S. government's instructions
to Marja's residents before the assault:
Afghan villagers should stay inside and "keep their heads
down" when thousands of U.S. Marines launch a massive assault on a
densely-populated district in coming days, NATO's civilian
representative to Afghanistan said Tuesday.
[...]
NATO forces have decided to advise civilians in Marjah not
to leave their homes, although they say they do not know whether the
assault will lead to heavy fighting.
These five kids were staying inside, as instructed. It didn't save
them from U.S. rockets. Perhaps they weren't keeping their heads down.
Having advised civilians to stay - helping ensure the area remained
heavily populated during the offensive - U.S. forces bore an extra
responsibility to control their fire and avoid tactics that endanger
civilians, Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch told
Reuters:
"I suspect that they believe they have the ability to
generally distinguish between combatants and civilians. I would call
that into question, given their long history of mistakes, particularly
when using air power," Adams said.
"Whatever they do, they have an obligation to protect
civilians and make adequate provision to alleviate any crisis that
arises," he said. "It is very much their responsibility.... They are
going to be carrying the can if this goes badly."
"Avoiding such civilian deaths...has been a cornerstone of the war
strategy" by General McChrystal, the Times informs us. If
that's literally true, then McChrystal's strategy has failed
spectacularly. But perhaps we're not meant to understand this
statement literally. Perhaps what this statement means is that
McChystal's strategy is to undertake the same military actions as
before, and even to escalate them, but to change the rhetoric about
them, in an effort to tamp down the outrage that might result from
U.S. actions.
It's not too late for the United States to change course. These five
children are gone forever, but other children in Marja can still be
spared. Tell
President Obama and Congress to protect civilians in Marja, as the
United States is required to do by the laws of war.
If the United States cannot protect civilians from its military
operations - as it is apparently either unable or unwilling to do -
then the war should end. According to the repeated statements of
senior U.S. officials, the way that the war is going to end is through
negotiations with the Afghan Taliban, so those negotiations should commence
immediately.
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
"Civilian
casualties are inevitable," said U.S. officials before launching
their weekend military assault on Marja in southern Afghanistan, and
in this case, they were telling the truth. Yesterday, the New York
Times reports,
a U.S. rocket strike "hit a compound crowded with Afghan civilians...
killing at least 10 people, including 5 children."
What justification has been provided by the government of the United
States for its decision to kill these five children?
It will be argued that the government of the United States did not
decide to kill these five children
specifically, and that's absolutely true.
The U.S. government did not decide to kill these particular children;
it only decided to kill some Afghan civilians, chosen randomly from
Marja's civilian population, when it decided to launch its military
assault. These five children simply had the misfortune of holding
losing tickets in a lottery in which they did not choose to
participate.
Recall the U.S. government's instructions
to Marja's residents before the assault:
Afghan villagers should stay inside and "keep their heads
down" when thousands of U.S. Marines launch a massive assault on a
densely-populated district in coming days, NATO's civilian
representative to Afghanistan said Tuesday.
[...]
NATO forces have decided to advise civilians in Marjah not
to leave their homes, although they say they do not know whether the
assault will lead to heavy fighting.
These five kids were staying inside, as instructed. It didn't save
them from U.S. rockets. Perhaps they weren't keeping their heads down.
Having advised civilians to stay - helping ensure the area remained
heavily populated during the offensive - U.S. forces bore an extra
responsibility to control their fire and avoid tactics that endanger
civilians, Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch told
Reuters:
"I suspect that they believe they have the ability to
generally distinguish between combatants and civilians. I would call
that into question, given their long history of mistakes, particularly
when using air power," Adams said.
"Whatever they do, they have an obligation to protect
civilians and make adequate provision to alleviate any crisis that
arises," he said. "It is very much their responsibility.... They are
going to be carrying the can if this goes badly."
"Avoiding such civilian deaths...has been a cornerstone of the war
strategy" by General McChrystal, the Times informs us. If
that's literally true, then McChrystal's strategy has failed
spectacularly. But perhaps we're not meant to understand this
statement literally. Perhaps what this statement means is that
McChystal's strategy is to undertake the same military actions as
before, and even to escalate them, but to change the rhetoric about
them, in an effort to tamp down the outrage that might result from
U.S. actions.
It's not too late for the United States to change course. These five
children are gone forever, but other children in Marja can still be
spared. Tell
President Obama and Congress to protect civilians in Marja, as the
United States is required to do by the laws of war.
If the United States cannot protect civilians from its military
operations - as it is apparently either unable or unwilling to do -
then the war should end. According to the repeated statements of
senior U.S. officials, the way that the war is going to end is through
negotiations with the Afghan Taliban, so those negotiations should commence
immediately.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.