G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
Losing the War in Afghanistan, One Civilian Massacre at a Time
By Brian Cloughley
Created Jun 30 2007 - 9:06am
"One of the problems is sometimes determining who exactly caused the
casualties. It's not always clear if a civilian casualty is caused by an
extremist or coalition forces."
-- Major Chris Belcher, US spokesman, Afghanistan, June 23 2007
So it isn't easy to tell whether civilians are killed by insurgents or
foreign forces in Afghanistan? When they are slaughtered by "precision"
bombing by B52s or rockets from attack helicopters or shells from artillery
or missiles from drones, it is presumably because the Afghan insurgents also
operate all these means of dealing death. Six kids killed by air attacks?
It must have been these hi-tech Afghans who fly B52s at 30,000 feet. Or
maybe some other Afghans who zoom down from the sky and mercilessly rocket
villages.
They don't? Well that's hardly surprising. Because according to Associated
Press, "US-led coalition and NATO forces fighting insurgents in Afghanistan
have killed at least 203 civilians so far this year, surpassing the 178
civilians killed in militant attacks." NATO forces (commanded by a US
general) and US forces operating outside the NATO structure in Afghanistan
say they do not keep count of the number of civilians they kill, and admit
to their slaughter only when it is absolutely impossible to deny that it has
taken place. (The number wiped out by special forces cannot be assessed as
these people are accountable to nobody and obey no laws. They assassinate at
will and with impunity.)
Here is a typical absurdity. It concerns the killing of 25 civilians
including nine women and three children on June 22 :
"ISAF said the target of the strike was a compound "assessed to have been
occupied by up to 30 insurgent fighters, most of whom were killed in the
engagement. ISAF troops are now investigating reports that a small number of
civilians may also have been in the compound," it said in a statement."
(AFP)
Right. Now tell us, you geniuses, exactly how you know that "most" of the
"up to 30" alleged insurgents were killed? If you didn't know that civilians
were in the compound, and if you don't know that civilians were killed, how
do you know that the people you killed were insurgents? Were they wearing
uniforms? Did you send anyone into the compound to identify the bodies?
The usual approach, once it has proved impossible to deny any longer that
civilians have been killed, is for the military to blame the insurgents :
"In choosing to conduct such attacks in this location at this time, the risk
to civilians was probably deliberate," said another spokesman, Colonel
Smith, who then announced that "It is this irresponsible action that may
have led to casualties."
What proof is there for his statement?
The man says the risk to civilians was "probably" deliberate. What is the
basis for that claim, other than wishful thinking? And he declares that this
"may have led to casualties", when it is obvious from the evidence of local
people that there is no "may" about it. The air strikes butchered civilians.
End of message.
On the basis of the way that US/NATO propaganda is presented, the argument
could be made by insurgents that they are fighting in their own country
against foreign invaders and their killing of civilians takes place because
foreigners occupy civilian areas and therefore place civilians at risk. We
all realize that suicide bombings by bloodthirsty lunatics have been
deliberate and merciless and have killed dozens of innocent people -- but it
is morally corrupt to claim that US air strikes are one bit less evil when
they kill women and children. And it is ludicrous that their deaths are laid
at the door of "irresponsible action" by militants.
Then there is the downright lie:
"KABUL (AFP) - Sat Jun 16 : A shot fired by US soldiers at the scene of a
deadly suicide blast in Kabul Saturday was not deliberate but an "accidental
discharge," the US military said. Kabul police said the shooting killed one
Afghan and wounded three others, though US military spokesman Colonel David
Accetta said he was aware of only two [being] wounded. "It appears to have
been an accidental discharge. The US soldiers did not intend to fire on
anyone," he told AFP. "There might have been a weapons malfunction or some
other cause. We don't know, we are investigating," he said."
OK, so the shambles was investigated. Where is the investigation report? Can
we believe for one instant that the killing and wounding were caused by an
accidental discharge? In a pig's valise.
A minor sort of victory for decency followed the murder on March 4 of eight
Afghan civilians by a Marine unit that went berserk in Nangarhar province
after being hit by a suicide car-bomber.
"Injured Afghans said the Americans fired on civilian cars and pedestrians
as they sped away. US military officials said militant gunmen shot at
Marines and may have caused some of the [thirty] civilian casualties." (ABC
News)
And the usual knee-jerk explanation was given by the ever-ready Lt-Colonel
Accetta who announced that
"Once again, the terrorists demonstrated their blatant disregard for human
life by attacking coalition forces in a populated area, knowing full well
that innocent Afghans would be killed and wounded in the attack." He went on
to say that the Marine convoy was attacked by "small-arms fire from several
directions. The coalition forces returned fire in self-defense. It's unclear
whether the casualties were from the car bomb blast or from the small-arms
fire."
There are other views on this, such as those from many witnesses like the
one who said
"They were firing everywhere, and they even opened fire on 14 to 15
vehicles passing on the highway," said Tur Gul, 38, who was standing on the
roadside by a gas station and was shot twice in his right hand. "They opened
fire on everybody, the ones inside the vehicles and the ones on foot."
(Washington Post, March 5)
And afterwards, once the 'elite' marine unit had run away, there were
attempts to cover up the circumstances in which the massacre took place:
"When I went near the four-wheel drive, I saw the Americans taking
pictures of the same car, so I started taking pictures," [the photographer]
said. "Two soldiers with a translator came and said, 'Why are you taking
pictures? You don't have permission."
"The same soldier who took my camera came again and deleted my photos . .
The soldier was very angry ... I told him, 'They gave us permission,' but he
didn't listen."
Lt. Col. David Accetta, a US military spokesman, said he did not have any
confirmed reports that coalition forces "have been involved in confiscating
cameras or deleting images." (AP, March 5)
But neither the lies nor the cover-up worked. Even the US commander had to
admit that the whole thing stank and ordered the unit out of Afghanistan.
The reason given, mind you, was not because they had opened fire
indiscriminately, thereby demonstrating gross professional incompetence. Nor
because they murdered a lot of civilians. No : they were moved because they
were giving a bad impression:
"[Lt-Colonel] Leto, the spokesman at Special Operations Command Central
headquarters, said the Marines, after being ambushed, responded in a way
that created "perceptions (that) have really damaged the relationship
between the local population and this unit." Therefore, he said, "the
general felt it was best to move them out of that area." (Washington Post,
March 23)
There has been the usual investigation, although nobody without a salute
stapled to his forehead will ever be allowed to read it.
But in a way, and unwittingly, the general got something right. It is this
sort of mindless bullet-spraying that has helped destroy efforts to
encourage Afghans to think that foreign forces are on their side. Removal of
one bunch of knuckle-dragging buffoons will not reduce the loathing felt by
millions of Afghans for foreign troops but it does indicate that deep down
in the military mind there might be a stirring of realization that mowing
down civilians doesn't win wars.
Five days after the Nangarhar massacre, seemingly without irony, subprime
George Bush pronounced that "I don't think America gets enough credit for
trying to help improve people's lives".
Tell that to the relatives of the 203 Afghan civilians killed so far this
year.
Ferocious attacks on civilians, be these by ill-trained troops or brave
warriors of the skies who bomb and rocket houses occupied by women and
children, are serving to hasten the spread of distrust and loathing. The
opposition, whether 'Taliban', double-dealing warlords, drug thugs, or
ordinary tribesmen who hate all foreigners, is by its nature disorganized
and incapable of mounting major attacks. But it doesn't need to. The war in
Afghanistan is being lost because the foreign occupiers are killing Afghan
civilians.
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By Brian Cloughley
Created Jun 30 2007 - 9:06am
"One of the problems is sometimes determining who exactly caused the
casualties. It's not always clear if a civilian casualty is caused by an
extremist or coalition forces."
-- Major Chris Belcher, US spokesman, Afghanistan, June 23 2007
So it isn't easy to tell whether civilians are killed by insurgents or
foreign forces in Afghanistan? When they are slaughtered by "precision"
bombing by B52s or rockets from attack helicopters or shells from artillery
or missiles from drones, it is presumably because the Afghan insurgents also
operate all these means of dealing death. Six kids killed by air attacks?
It must have been these hi-tech Afghans who fly B52s at 30,000 feet. Or
maybe some other Afghans who zoom down from the sky and mercilessly rocket
villages.
They don't? Well that's hardly surprising. Because according to Associated
Press, "US-led coalition and NATO forces fighting insurgents in Afghanistan
have killed at least 203 civilians so far this year, surpassing the 178
civilians killed in militant attacks." NATO forces (commanded by a US
general) and US forces operating outside the NATO structure in Afghanistan
say they do not keep count of the number of civilians they kill, and admit
to their slaughter only when it is absolutely impossible to deny that it has
taken place. (The number wiped out by special forces cannot be assessed as
these people are accountable to nobody and obey no laws. They assassinate at
will and with impunity.)
Here is a typical absurdity. It concerns the killing of 25 civilians
including nine women and three children on June 22 :
"ISAF said the target of the strike was a compound "assessed to have been
occupied by up to 30 insurgent fighters, most of whom were killed in the
engagement. ISAF troops are now investigating reports that a small number of
civilians may also have been in the compound," it said in a statement."
(AFP)
Right. Now tell us, you geniuses, exactly how you know that "most" of the
"up to 30" alleged insurgents were killed? If you didn't know that civilians
were in the compound, and if you don't know that civilians were killed, how
do you know that the people you killed were insurgents? Were they wearing
uniforms? Did you send anyone into the compound to identify the bodies?
The usual approach, once it has proved impossible to deny any longer that
civilians have been killed, is for the military to blame the insurgents :
"In choosing to conduct such attacks in this location at this time, the risk
to civilians was probably deliberate," said another spokesman, Colonel
Smith, who then announced that "It is this irresponsible action that may
have led to casualties."
What proof is there for his statement?
The man says the risk to civilians was "probably" deliberate. What is the
basis for that claim, other than wishful thinking? And he declares that this
"may have led to casualties", when it is obvious from the evidence of local
people that there is no "may" about it. The air strikes butchered civilians.
End of message.
On the basis of the way that US/NATO propaganda is presented, the argument
could be made by insurgents that they are fighting in their own country
against foreign invaders and their killing of civilians takes place because
foreigners occupy civilian areas and therefore place civilians at risk. We
all realize that suicide bombings by bloodthirsty lunatics have been
deliberate and merciless and have killed dozens of innocent people -- but it
is morally corrupt to claim that US air strikes are one bit less evil when
they kill women and children. And it is ludicrous that their deaths are laid
at the door of "irresponsible action" by militants.
Then there is the downright lie:
"KABUL (AFP) - Sat Jun 16 : A shot fired by US soldiers at the scene of a
deadly suicide blast in Kabul Saturday was not deliberate but an "accidental
discharge," the US military said. Kabul police said the shooting killed one
Afghan and wounded three others, though US military spokesman Colonel David
Accetta said he was aware of only two [being] wounded. "It appears to have
been an accidental discharge. The US soldiers did not intend to fire on
anyone," he told AFP. "There might have been a weapons malfunction or some
other cause. We don't know, we are investigating," he said."
OK, so the shambles was investigated. Where is the investigation report? Can
we believe for one instant that the killing and wounding were caused by an
accidental discharge? In a pig's valise.
A minor sort of victory for decency followed the murder on March 4 of eight
Afghan civilians by a Marine unit that went berserk in Nangarhar province
after being hit by a suicide car-bomber.
"Injured Afghans said the Americans fired on civilian cars and pedestrians
as they sped away. US military officials said militant gunmen shot at
Marines and may have caused some of the [thirty] civilian casualties." (ABC
News)
And the usual knee-jerk explanation was given by the ever-ready Lt-Colonel
Accetta who announced that
"Once again, the terrorists demonstrated their blatant disregard for human
life by attacking coalition forces in a populated area, knowing full well
that innocent Afghans would be killed and wounded in the attack." He went on
to say that the Marine convoy was attacked by "small-arms fire from several
directions. The coalition forces returned fire in self-defense. It's unclear
whether the casualties were from the car bomb blast or from the small-arms
fire."
There are other views on this, such as those from many witnesses like the
one who said
"They were firing everywhere, and they even opened fire on 14 to 15
vehicles passing on the highway," said Tur Gul, 38, who was standing on the
roadside by a gas station and was shot twice in his right hand. "They opened
fire on everybody, the ones inside the vehicles and the ones on foot."
(Washington Post, March 5)
And afterwards, once the 'elite' marine unit had run away, there were
attempts to cover up the circumstances in which the massacre took place:
"When I went near the four-wheel drive, I saw the Americans taking
pictures of the same car, so I started taking pictures," [the photographer]
said. "Two soldiers with a translator came and said, 'Why are you taking
pictures? You don't have permission."
"The same soldier who took my camera came again and deleted my photos . .
The soldier was very angry ... I told him, 'They gave us permission,' but he
didn't listen."
Lt. Col. David Accetta, a US military spokesman, said he did not have any
confirmed reports that coalition forces "have been involved in confiscating
cameras or deleting images." (AP, March 5)
But neither the lies nor the cover-up worked. Even the US commander had to
admit that the whole thing stank and ordered the unit out of Afghanistan.
The reason given, mind you, was not because they had opened fire
indiscriminately, thereby demonstrating gross professional incompetence. Nor
because they murdered a lot of civilians. No : they were moved because they
were giving a bad impression:
"[Lt-Colonel] Leto, the spokesman at Special Operations Command Central
headquarters, said the Marines, after being ambushed, responded in a way
that created "perceptions (that) have really damaged the relationship
between the local population and this unit." Therefore, he said, "the
general felt it was best to move them out of that area." (Washington Post,
March 23)
There has been the usual investigation, although nobody without a salute
stapled to his forehead will ever be allowed to read it.
But in a way, and unwittingly, the general got something right. It is this
sort of mindless bullet-spraying that has helped destroy efforts to
encourage Afghans to think that foreign forces are on their side. Removal of
one bunch of knuckle-dragging buffoons will not reduce the loathing felt by
millions of Afghans for foreign troops but it does indicate that deep down
in the military mind there might be a stirring of realization that mowing
down civilians doesn't win wars.
Five days after the Nangarhar massacre, seemingly without irony, subprime
George Bush pronounced that "I don't think America gets enough credit for
trying to help improve people's lives".
Tell that to the relatives of the 203 Afghan civilians killed so far this
year.
Ferocious attacks on civilians, be these by ill-trained troops or brave
warriors of the skies who bomb and rocket houses occupied by women and
children, are serving to hasten the spread of distrust and loathing. The
opposition, whether 'Taliban', double-dealing warlords, drug thugs, or
ordinary tribesmen who hate all foreigners, is by its nature disorganized
and incapable of mounting major attacks. But it doesn't need to. The war in
Afghanistan is being lost because the foreign occupiers are killing Afghan
civilians.
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson