Children in Afghanistan. (Photo: Flickr/Asian Development Bank/CC)
Reporting on Trump's Afghan Escalation Omits Dead Afghan Civilians
As President Donald Trump tries to make the case for staying indefinitely in Afghanistan, the stakes for those actually living there are rarely broached by US corporate media.
In dozens of write-ups, recaps and reports on Trump's "major" Afghan War speech, almost no outlets took time out to note the plight or condition of the people the US is nominally there to save. The New York Times (8/21/17, 8/22/17), Washington Post (8/21/17), Chicago Tribune (8/22/17), CNN (8/21/17, 8/21/17), NBC News (8/21/17), ABC News (8/21/17) and CBS News (8/21/17), among others, didn't mention the Afghan death toll at all in their summary of events in the region.
Almost all, however, reserved airtime and column inches to mention the number of US soldiers and cost to the US treasury--presumably the only moral metric that matters. One notable exception was Ali Velshi at MSNBC (8/21/17), who did mention live on air how many Afghans were killed in the first half of 2017--a scope curiously limited to the term of the current Republican president, but an improvement on silence nonetheless.
US media also continued their rich tradition of not blaming the US or Trump for the war--instead laying responsibility at the feet of some unknown geopolitical dark matter that has forced the US to occupy Afghanistan permanently. The US isn't waging ongoing war in the Central Asian country; it is simply "stuck," according to the AP (8/21/17) and the Washington Post's Karen Tumulty. Trump isn't continuing the occupation; according to the Sacramento Bee (8/21/17); he "Keeps US Stuck in Afghanistan Quagmire." The US doesn't seek further war and occupation, but to "break free from the quagmire," the Chicago Tribune (8/22/17) spells out.* Bush, Obama and Trump didn't make a deliberate choice to bomb Afghanistan, according to PBS's Judy Woodruff (8/21/17); attacking the country just became "the burden of three presidents." War was consistently depicted as being thrust upon the US government by forces outside of its control.
The number of Afghan civilians killed during the 16-year US military occupation is well over 31,000, according to researchers at Brown University. The average American couldn't possibly know this fact, since it's almost never mentioned when weighing the cost/benefit ratio of further military occupation and bombing.
Just as the thousands killed in Yemen by US-backed Saudi bombing don't inform coverage of the famine there, the causal effect of US military action on poor, faceless brown people is never clearly laid out. The US bombs and, on a totally separate note, people are dying. That the United States may be causing the suffering, and could choose to stop doing so, is never really considered, much less argued in any meaningful way.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
As President Donald Trump tries to make the case for staying indefinitely in Afghanistan, the stakes for those actually living there are rarely broached by US corporate media.
In dozens of write-ups, recaps and reports on Trump's "major" Afghan War speech, almost no outlets took time out to note the plight or condition of the people the US is nominally there to save. The New York Times (8/21/17, 8/22/17), Washington Post (8/21/17), Chicago Tribune (8/22/17), CNN (8/21/17, 8/21/17), NBC News (8/21/17), ABC News (8/21/17) and CBS News (8/21/17), among others, didn't mention the Afghan death toll at all in their summary of events in the region.
Almost all, however, reserved airtime and column inches to mention the number of US soldiers and cost to the US treasury--presumably the only moral metric that matters. One notable exception was Ali Velshi at MSNBC (8/21/17), who did mention live on air how many Afghans were killed in the first half of 2017--a scope curiously limited to the term of the current Republican president, but an improvement on silence nonetheless.
US media also continued their rich tradition of not blaming the US or Trump for the war--instead laying responsibility at the feet of some unknown geopolitical dark matter that has forced the US to occupy Afghanistan permanently. The US isn't waging ongoing war in the Central Asian country; it is simply "stuck," according to the AP (8/21/17) and the Washington Post's Karen Tumulty. Trump isn't continuing the occupation; according to the Sacramento Bee (8/21/17); he "Keeps US Stuck in Afghanistan Quagmire." The US doesn't seek further war and occupation, but to "break free from the quagmire," the Chicago Tribune (8/22/17) spells out.* Bush, Obama and Trump didn't make a deliberate choice to bomb Afghanistan, according to PBS's Judy Woodruff (8/21/17); attacking the country just became "the burden of three presidents." War was consistently depicted as being thrust upon the US government by forces outside of its control.
The number of Afghan civilians killed during the 16-year US military occupation is well over 31,000, according to researchers at Brown University. The average American couldn't possibly know this fact, since it's almost never mentioned when weighing the cost/benefit ratio of further military occupation and bombing.
Just as the thousands killed in Yemen by US-backed Saudi bombing don't inform coverage of the famine there, the causal effect of US military action on poor, faceless brown people is never clearly laid out. The US bombs and, on a totally separate note, people are dying. That the United States may be causing the suffering, and could choose to stop doing so, is never really considered, much less argued in any meaningful way.
As President Donald Trump tries to make the case for staying indefinitely in Afghanistan, the stakes for those actually living there are rarely broached by US corporate media.
In dozens of write-ups, recaps and reports on Trump's "major" Afghan War speech, almost no outlets took time out to note the plight or condition of the people the US is nominally there to save. The New York Times (8/21/17, 8/22/17), Washington Post (8/21/17), Chicago Tribune (8/22/17), CNN (8/21/17, 8/21/17), NBC News (8/21/17), ABC News (8/21/17) and CBS News (8/21/17), among others, didn't mention the Afghan death toll at all in their summary of events in the region.
Almost all, however, reserved airtime and column inches to mention the number of US soldiers and cost to the US treasury--presumably the only moral metric that matters. One notable exception was Ali Velshi at MSNBC (8/21/17), who did mention live on air how many Afghans were killed in the first half of 2017--a scope curiously limited to the term of the current Republican president, but an improvement on silence nonetheless.
US media also continued their rich tradition of not blaming the US or Trump for the war--instead laying responsibility at the feet of some unknown geopolitical dark matter that has forced the US to occupy Afghanistan permanently. The US isn't waging ongoing war in the Central Asian country; it is simply "stuck," according to the AP (8/21/17) and the Washington Post's Karen Tumulty. Trump isn't continuing the occupation; according to the Sacramento Bee (8/21/17); he "Keeps US Stuck in Afghanistan Quagmire." The US doesn't seek further war and occupation, but to "break free from the quagmire," the Chicago Tribune (8/22/17) spells out.* Bush, Obama and Trump didn't make a deliberate choice to bomb Afghanistan, according to PBS's Judy Woodruff (8/21/17); attacking the country just became "the burden of three presidents." War was consistently depicted as being thrust upon the US government by forces outside of its control.
The number of Afghan civilians killed during the 16-year US military occupation is well over 31,000, according to researchers at Brown University. The average American couldn't possibly know this fact, since it's almost never mentioned when weighing the cost/benefit ratio of further military occupation and bombing.
Just as the thousands killed in Yemen by US-backed Saudi bombing don't inform coverage of the famine there, the causal effect of US military action on poor, faceless brown people is never clearly laid out. The US bombs and, on a totally separate note, people are dying. That the United States may be causing the suffering, and could choose to stop doing so, is never really considered, much less argued in any meaningful way.