

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Years ago, a young man was interviewed by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) at my office. He was flagged for his "anti-Canadian" views for opposing Ottawa's involvement in Afghanistan. He had left Canada as an ardent supporter of Western intervention, but returned a security "threat" for his opposition.
Extended family and friends killed or injured as "collateral damage" was the game changer. Intended or unintended, the dead are no less dead because we meant well, he observed. His story of radicalization is not unique.
"With respect, you cannot continue to behave as if innocent deaths like those in my family are irrelevant," wrote Faisal bin Ali Jabar in a letter addressed to then president Barack Obama in 2014. Jabar, who lost two relatives in a 2012 drone strike in Yemen, hit the target when he concluded, "you will defeat your own counterterrorism aims."
"This bombing of one of the poorest, most unstable and war-ravaged countries in the world, is yet more proof that the US counterterrorism strategy is short-sighted, based on questionable assumptions, and risks escalating conflicts and increasing instability both at home and abroad."
The logic applies to all bombings where civilians inevitably pay a steep price, often with their lives. These sentiments echo across the Muslim world where too often bombs drop more frequently than rain.
Of course, the consequences of Western actions will not stay "there." In fact, the reverberations from the "collateral damage" are and will continue to be felt "here" in the West. Indeed, numerous studies have confirmed that death and destruction in the Muslim world is a major recruiting tool.
Court transcripts from the infamous Toronto 18 case, for instance, show that almost all of the youth charged with "plotting" terrorist attacks in Ontario in 2006 were shaken to the core by the suffering they saw.
As the Star's Michelle Shephard reported last year in a 10-year follow up story on some of the convicted: "They opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, rallying not against the West's rights and freedoms but because they believed those rights weren't applied equally to Muslims."
As clear as this cause and effect calculus is, too many in positions of power just don't get it. Or perhaps they don't want to.
Indeed, last week the U.S. dropped the GBU 43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), dubbed the "mother of all bombs," on Nangarhar province in Afghanistan. In doing so the Trump administration had to drop the "mother of all lies" as well. The bomb, sold as a precise munition that can be surgically placed on the doorsteps of the bad guys, and only the bad guys, is far from this.
Laser- or satellite-guided bombs and weapons systems may hit their intended targets for the most part. But technical glitches and human error often mean civilians and allies also pay dearly.
The sheer size and damage range is another factor. Weighing 21,600 pounds, the MOAB is the largest non-nuclear ordnance, which can kill and damage buildings within a 2.7-km radius. It causes deafness within a 3.2-km area and God only knows what else. Such a device is far from precise.
Media reports claim 96 Daesh fighters were killed but U.S. officials are mum and have not allowed anyone into the area.
How can something with such a broad point of impact be so precisely targeted when the area hit was home to thousands of non-combatants? How can officials be so sure that the bomb avoided children orphaned by previous attacks by the good guys or by Daesh and the Taliban? Will we ever learn the real human and long-term cost?
This bombing of one of the poorest, most unstable and war-ravaged countries in the world, is yet more proof that the US counterterrorism strategy is short-sighted, based on questionable assumptions, and risks escalating conflicts and increasing instability both at home and abroad.
Sadly, a generation of Canadians and Americans have also only known the parallel world view of "us" versus "them." This dichotomous outlook only serves to radicalize many in both camps by dehumanizing the other and fuelling perpetual war. Extreme violence whether by state or non-state actors begets only more violence and fuels the vicious cycle.
Rather than stopping the next lone attacker in the homeland, these bombing runs will motivate many more. Instead of weakening the enemy, it will bring together sworn enemies against a common bigger enemy.
As former U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich wrote: "It is precisely because we have chosen to fight 'them' over there that we will have to fight 'them' over here. If we roam the world looking for dragons to slay, some will follow us home."
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 |
Years ago, a young man was interviewed by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) at my office. He was flagged for his "anti-Canadian" views for opposing Ottawa's involvement in Afghanistan. He had left Canada as an ardent supporter of Western intervention, but returned a security "threat" for his opposition.
Extended family and friends killed or injured as "collateral damage" was the game changer. Intended or unintended, the dead are no less dead because we meant well, he observed. His story of radicalization is not unique.
"With respect, you cannot continue to behave as if innocent deaths like those in my family are irrelevant," wrote Faisal bin Ali Jabar in a letter addressed to then president Barack Obama in 2014. Jabar, who lost two relatives in a 2012 drone strike in Yemen, hit the target when he concluded, "you will defeat your own counterterrorism aims."
"This bombing of one of the poorest, most unstable and war-ravaged countries in the world, is yet more proof that the US counterterrorism strategy is short-sighted, based on questionable assumptions, and risks escalating conflicts and increasing instability both at home and abroad."
The logic applies to all bombings where civilians inevitably pay a steep price, often with their lives. These sentiments echo across the Muslim world where too often bombs drop more frequently than rain.
Of course, the consequences of Western actions will not stay "there." In fact, the reverberations from the "collateral damage" are and will continue to be felt "here" in the West. Indeed, numerous studies have confirmed that death and destruction in the Muslim world is a major recruiting tool.
Court transcripts from the infamous Toronto 18 case, for instance, show that almost all of the youth charged with "plotting" terrorist attacks in Ontario in 2006 were shaken to the core by the suffering they saw.
As the Star's Michelle Shephard reported last year in a 10-year follow up story on some of the convicted: "They opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, rallying not against the West's rights and freedoms but because they believed those rights weren't applied equally to Muslims."
As clear as this cause and effect calculus is, too many in positions of power just don't get it. Or perhaps they don't want to.
Indeed, last week the U.S. dropped the GBU 43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), dubbed the "mother of all bombs," on Nangarhar province in Afghanistan. In doing so the Trump administration had to drop the "mother of all lies" as well. The bomb, sold as a precise munition that can be surgically placed on the doorsteps of the bad guys, and only the bad guys, is far from this.
Laser- or satellite-guided bombs and weapons systems may hit their intended targets for the most part. But technical glitches and human error often mean civilians and allies also pay dearly.
The sheer size and damage range is another factor. Weighing 21,600 pounds, the MOAB is the largest non-nuclear ordnance, which can kill and damage buildings within a 2.7-km radius. It causes deafness within a 3.2-km area and God only knows what else. Such a device is far from precise.
Media reports claim 96 Daesh fighters were killed but U.S. officials are mum and have not allowed anyone into the area.
How can something with such a broad point of impact be so precisely targeted when the area hit was home to thousands of non-combatants? How can officials be so sure that the bomb avoided children orphaned by previous attacks by the good guys or by Daesh and the Taliban? Will we ever learn the real human and long-term cost?
This bombing of one of the poorest, most unstable and war-ravaged countries in the world, is yet more proof that the US counterterrorism strategy is short-sighted, based on questionable assumptions, and risks escalating conflicts and increasing instability both at home and abroad.
Sadly, a generation of Canadians and Americans have also only known the parallel world view of "us" versus "them." This dichotomous outlook only serves to radicalize many in both camps by dehumanizing the other and fuelling perpetual war. Extreme violence whether by state or non-state actors begets only more violence and fuels the vicious cycle.
Rather than stopping the next lone attacker in the homeland, these bombing runs will motivate many more. Instead of weakening the enemy, it will bring together sworn enemies against a common bigger enemy.
As former U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich wrote: "It is precisely because we have chosen to fight 'them' over there that we will have to fight 'them' over here. If we roam the world looking for dragons to slay, some will follow us home."
Years ago, a young man was interviewed by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) at my office. He was flagged for his "anti-Canadian" views for opposing Ottawa's involvement in Afghanistan. He had left Canada as an ardent supporter of Western intervention, but returned a security "threat" for his opposition.
Extended family and friends killed or injured as "collateral damage" was the game changer. Intended or unintended, the dead are no less dead because we meant well, he observed. His story of radicalization is not unique.
"With respect, you cannot continue to behave as if innocent deaths like those in my family are irrelevant," wrote Faisal bin Ali Jabar in a letter addressed to then president Barack Obama in 2014. Jabar, who lost two relatives in a 2012 drone strike in Yemen, hit the target when he concluded, "you will defeat your own counterterrorism aims."
"This bombing of one of the poorest, most unstable and war-ravaged countries in the world, is yet more proof that the US counterterrorism strategy is short-sighted, based on questionable assumptions, and risks escalating conflicts and increasing instability both at home and abroad."
The logic applies to all bombings where civilians inevitably pay a steep price, often with their lives. These sentiments echo across the Muslim world where too often bombs drop more frequently than rain.
Of course, the consequences of Western actions will not stay "there." In fact, the reverberations from the "collateral damage" are and will continue to be felt "here" in the West. Indeed, numerous studies have confirmed that death and destruction in the Muslim world is a major recruiting tool.
Court transcripts from the infamous Toronto 18 case, for instance, show that almost all of the youth charged with "plotting" terrorist attacks in Ontario in 2006 were shaken to the core by the suffering they saw.
As the Star's Michelle Shephard reported last year in a 10-year follow up story on some of the convicted: "They opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, rallying not against the West's rights and freedoms but because they believed those rights weren't applied equally to Muslims."
As clear as this cause and effect calculus is, too many in positions of power just don't get it. Or perhaps they don't want to.
Indeed, last week the U.S. dropped the GBU 43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), dubbed the "mother of all bombs," on Nangarhar province in Afghanistan. In doing so the Trump administration had to drop the "mother of all lies" as well. The bomb, sold as a precise munition that can be surgically placed on the doorsteps of the bad guys, and only the bad guys, is far from this.
Laser- or satellite-guided bombs and weapons systems may hit their intended targets for the most part. But technical glitches and human error often mean civilians and allies also pay dearly.
The sheer size and damage range is another factor. Weighing 21,600 pounds, the MOAB is the largest non-nuclear ordnance, which can kill and damage buildings within a 2.7-km radius. It causes deafness within a 3.2-km area and God only knows what else. Such a device is far from precise.
Media reports claim 96 Daesh fighters were killed but U.S. officials are mum and have not allowed anyone into the area.
How can something with such a broad point of impact be so precisely targeted when the area hit was home to thousands of non-combatants? How can officials be so sure that the bomb avoided children orphaned by previous attacks by the good guys or by Daesh and the Taliban? Will we ever learn the real human and long-term cost?
This bombing of one of the poorest, most unstable and war-ravaged countries in the world, is yet more proof that the US counterterrorism strategy is short-sighted, based on questionable assumptions, and risks escalating conflicts and increasing instability both at home and abroad.
Sadly, a generation of Canadians and Americans have also only known the parallel world view of "us" versus "them." This dichotomous outlook only serves to radicalize many in both camps by dehumanizing the other and fuelling perpetual war. Extreme violence whether by state or non-state actors begets only more violence and fuels the vicious cycle.
Rather than stopping the next lone attacker in the homeland, these bombing runs will motivate many more. Instead of weakening the enemy, it will bring together sworn enemies against a common bigger enemy.
As former U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich wrote: "It is precisely because we have chosen to fight 'them' over there that we will have to fight 'them' over here. If we roam the world looking for dragons to slay, some will follow us home."