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
Massacres Expose Another Reason to End Iraq and Afghanistan Wars
The bylaws and directives of this war allow our Army helicopter gunners to shoot at unarmed Reuters photographers, and military convoys to fire on busloads of civilians in Afghanistan, and U.S. Special Forces to murder pregnant women and teenage girls in Iraq.
May 04, 2010
The recent exposes from Iraq and Afghanistan--with their shocking
images, appalling laughter, and video-game ethos--would have shocked
the conscience of the nation in an earlier era. After all, when what
happened at My Lai was exposed during the Vietnam War, it shocked
millions of people who hadn't been thinking very much about the war.
My Lai was hardly the first, and probably not the worst, U.S.
massacre of civilians in Vietnam. Vietnam's casualties were
exponentially higher than Afghanistan's. Still, when the reports came
out, they hit the front pages. In today's wars, exposes are mostly
relegated to page 13 of The New York Times, and there's no
evidence so far that any consciences were particularly shocked. The
Pentagon responded that all the helicopter pilots and gunners had
operated within the official rules of engagement. No rules were broken.
And the Pentagon is probably right. The rules of engagement probably
weren't violated. The bylaws and directives of this war allow our Army
helicopter gunners to shoot at unarmed Reuters photographers, and
military convoys to fire on busloads of civilians in Afghanistan, and
U.S. Special Forces to murder pregnant women and teenage girls in Iraq.
Of course the official rules of engagement don't actually say that's
okay. General Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in
Afghanistan, has been talking a lot about his concern over killing
civilians. He doesn't talk much about the danger to the Afghan
civilians themselves, he talks mostly about how dangerous killing
civilians is to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.
He's apologizing a lot these days, because U.S. troops are killing
so many Afghan civilians. General McChrystal really is sorry.
Protecting civilians really is our top priority. It's the fog of war,
the split-second decisions that our young soldiers have to make.
He's partly right. Most of these young soldiers are from rural areas
and small towns, drafted into the military by the lack-of-jobs draft,
the lack-of-money-for-college draft, the lack-of-any-other-options
draft. They're themselves victims of George W. Bush's, and now
President Obama's, war, sent to kill and sometimes die in a war that
will not make them or their families safer, a war that is impoverishing
their own country even as it devastates the countries in which they
fight.
General McChrystal can apologize all he wants, but
counter-insurgency and the U.S. "global war on terror" are all about
sending U.S. and a few NATO troops to kill Afghans in their own
country. No surprise that sometimes--often--they kill the "wrong"
Afghans. The split-second decisions are dangerous and difficult and
sometimes impossible. But why does the U.S. military get to decide who
are the "right" Afghans to be killed in their own country, anyway?
Does anyone still need to ask, "Why do they hate us?" The only ones
these wars make safer are the war profiteers pocketing billion-dollar
contracts--and the politicians pocketing campaign contributions in
return. These wars don't make Afghan or Iraqi lives better. Their cost
is devastating our economy, and there's no military victory in our
future. The sooner we acknowledge that, and start withdrawing all the
troops, drones, and planes, the sooner we can begin to make good on our
real debt--humanitarian, not military--to the people of Iraq and
Afghanistan.
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 |
This column was distributed by OtherWords.
Phyllis Bennis
Phyllis Bennis is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and serves on the national board of Jewish Voice for Peace. Her most recent book is "Understanding Palestine and Israel" (2025). Her other books include: "Understanding the US-Iran Crisis: A Primer" (2008) and "Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power" (2005).
The recent exposes from Iraq and Afghanistan--with their shocking
images, appalling laughter, and video-game ethos--would have shocked
the conscience of the nation in an earlier era. After all, when what
happened at My Lai was exposed during the Vietnam War, it shocked
millions of people who hadn't been thinking very much about the war.
My Lai was hardly the first, and probably not the worst, U.S.
massacre of civilians in Vietnam. Vietnam's casualties were
exponentially higher than Afghanistan's. Still, when the reports came
out, they hit the front pages. In today's wars, exposes are mostly
relegated to page 13 of The New York Times, and there's no
evidence so far that any consciences were particularly shocked. The
Pentagon responded that all the helicopter pilots and gunners had
operated within the official rules of engagement. No rules were broken.
And the Pentagon is probably right. The rules of engagement probably
weren't violated. The bylaws and directives of this war allow our Army
helicopter gunners to shoot at unarmed Reuters photographers, and
military convoys to fire on busloads of civilians in Afghanistan, and
U.S. Special Forces to murder pregnant women and teenage girls in Iraq.
Of course the official rules of engagement don't actually say that's
okay. General Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in
Afghanistan, has been talking a lot about his concern over killing
civilians. He doesn't talk much about the danger to the Afghan
civilians themselves, he talks mostly about how dangerous killing
civilians is to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.
He's apologizing a lot these days, because U.S. troops are killing
so many Afghan civilians. General McChrystal really is sorry.
Protecting civilians really is our top priority. It's the fog of war,
the split-second decisions that our young soldiers have to make.
He's partly right. Most of these young soldiers are from rural areas
and small towns, drafted into the military by the lack-of-jobs draft,
the lack-of-money-for-college draft, the lack-of-any-other-options
draft. They're themselves victims of George W. Bush's, and now
President Obama's, war, sent to kill and sometimes die in a war that
will not make them or their families safer, a war that is impoverishing
their own country even as it devastates the countries in which they
fight.
General McChrystal can apologize all he wants, but
counter-insurgency and the U.S. "global war on terror" are all about
sending U.S. and a few NATO troops to kill Afghans in their own
country. No surprise that sometimes--often--they kill the "wrong"
Afghans. The split-second decisions are dangerous and difficult and
sometimes impossible. But why does the U.S. military get to decide who
are the "right" Afghans to be killed in their own country, anyway?
Does anyone still need to ask, "Why do they hate us?" The only ones
these wars make safer are the war profiteers pocketing billion-dollar
contracts--and the politicians pocketing campaign contributions in
return. These wars don't make Afghan or Iraqi lives better. Their cost
is devastating our economy, and there's no military victory in our
future. The sooner we acknowledge that, and start withdrawing all the
troops, drones, and planes, the sooner we can begin to make good on our
real debt--humanitarian, not military--to the people of Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Phyllis Bennis
Phyllis Bennis is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and serves on the national board of Jewish Voice for Peace. Her most recent book is "Understanding Palestine and Israel" (2025). Her other books include: "Understanding the US-Iran Crisis: A Primer" (2008) and "Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power" (2005).
The recent exposes from Iraq and Afghanistan--with their shocking
images, appalling laughter, and video-game ethos--would have shocked
the conscience of the nation in an earlier era. After all, when what
happened at My Lai was exposed during the Vietnam War, it shocked
millions of people who hadn't been thinking very much about the war.
My Lai was hardly the first, and probably not the worst, U.S.
massacre of civilians in Vietnam. Vietnam's casualties were
exponentially higher than Afghanistan's. Still, when the reports came
out, they hit the front pages. In today's wars, exposes are mostly
relegated to page 13 of The New York Times, and there's no
evidence so far that any consciences were particularly shocked. The
Pentagon responded that all the helicopter pilots and gunners had
operated within the official rules of engagement. No rules were broken.
And the Pentagon is probably right. The rules of engagement probably
weren't violated. The bylaws and directives of this war allow our Army
helicopter gunners to shoot at unarmed Reuters photographers, and
military convoys to fire on busloads of civilians in Afghanistan, and
U.S. Special Forces to murder pregnant women and teenage girls in Iraq.
Of course the official rules of engagement don't actually say that's
okay. General Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in
Afghanistan, has been talking a lot about his concern over killing
civilians. He doesn't talk much about the danger to the Afghan
civilians themselves, he talks mostly about how dangerous killing
civilians is to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.
He's apologizing a lot these days, because U.S. troops are killing
so many Afghan civilians. General McChrystal really is sorry.
Protecting civilians really is our top priority. It's the fog of war,
the split-second decisions that our young soldiers have to make.
He's partly right. Most of these young soldiers are from rural areas
and small towns, drafted into the military by the lack-of-jobs draft,
the lack-of-money-for-college draft, the lack-of-any-other-options
draft. They're themselves victims of George W. Bush's, and now
President Obama's, war, sent to kill and sometimes die in a war that
will not make them or their families safer, a war that is impoverishing
their own country even as it devastates the countries in which they
fight.
General McChrystal can apologize all he wants, but
counter-insurgency and the U.S. "global war on terror" are all about
sending U.S. and a few NATO troops to kill Afghans in their own
country. No surprise that sometimes--often--they kill the "wrong"
Afghans. The split-second decisions are dangerous and difficult and
sometimes impossible. But why does the U.S. military get to decide who
are the "right" Afghans to be killed in their own country, anyway?
Does anyone still need to ask, "Why do they hate us?" The only ones
these wars make safer are the war profiteers pocketing billion-dollar
contracts--and the politicians pocketing campaign contributions in
return. These wars don't make Afghan or Iraqi lives better. Their cost
is devastating our economy, and there's no military victory in our
future. The sooner we acknowledge that, and start withdrawing all the
troops, drones, and planes, the sooner we can begin to make good on our
real debt--humanitarian, not military--to the people of Iraq and
Afghanistan.
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.