Another massacre courtesy of the u.s. military
Image from AFP
Yesterday a u.s. air raid in Afghanistan killed as many as 150 people and in its wake, the “peace president” Obama is preparing to send 21,000 more reckless troops to Afghanistan to fill more tractor trailers with pieces of human bodies.
According the report cited above, the Pentagon is preparing to put its spin on the event by blaming the Taliban for “staging” the massacre. The Red Cross as well as the local population insist that u.s. air strikes were the cause. What is your gut reaction? Who are you immediately inclined to believe? Take this to prayer. Attention to your gut reaction might indicate what kind of preferential options lie at the heart of your spirituality.
We’re already hearing “apologies” from Obama and Clinton. We’ve heard them before. The u.s. never really means to kill anyone with the bombs that it drops. 150 people an accident? I’m with Yifat Susskind who writes:
Soon enough we’ll be hearing the official “regrets.” I don’t want to hear them. I’m sick of the twisted logic that allows the US military to drop bombs on people and then claim it was a mistake when the bombs land on people. You don’t deliberately do something with a known outcome and then get to call the result a mistake.
A massacre is a large-scale, indiscriminate killing; which is precisely the known outcome of the US air strikes in Afghanistan. So let’s call this a massacre. And let’s work to end the air strikes before another Afghan family has to hear how sorry the US military is. (Empahasis added)
It’s time pro-life Catholics in the united states made a consistent preferential option for all victimized human life and begin to unambiguously oppose the terrorism actively committed by their government. And it’s time for President Obama — who has made some significant moves against torture — to end the blatant and disgusting disregard for human life that is continually committed by “our boys,” now under his command.
Get u.s. soldiers out of (insert country here) now, before they kill again.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
So if we left, would things be better – or worse? From what I hear, more death, more oppresion would occur. From those crazy neo-cons on NPR I heard reported the growing strength of the Taliban and the population’s fear of them. I’ve only recently come upon your site. I hate that we allowed torture and think our military has the duty to avoid civilian causalties. I respect those who oppose war regardless of the circumstance. I can see how you could argue that this was not self-defense, but I do not think it is as black and white as you are representing, especially when dealing with those who hide among children. If the consequence of our leaving is the the return of the Taliban and its attendant represssion, are you
Now, that’s a reason not to invite Obama to Notre Dame.
As Commander in Chief, the buck for the direct killing of these innocents stops on Obama’s desk.
This is a way more direct threat to innocent human life than anything we’ve seen to date from the Obama administration.
God Bless
Michael I,
As you know, I come at this from a different perspective than you. But we agree that the commitment of US military in Afghanistan is a mistake of the highest order. Indeed, events such as you described in your post — the killing of innocent civilians (150 people) — marks the beginning of what may well be a strategic catastrophe in the making.
The outcome the U.S. seeks in Afghanistan is a political solution. But military power can NEVER decide a political outcome. Period. Indeed, a military strategy makes a viable political outcome impossible precisely because it inevitably leads to the killing of innocent civilians. Before long the entire population suffers and suffers dearly. When this happens, they will direct their enmity towards those who did the killing.
Multiply yesterday’s 150 dead by a factor of 20 (family and friends) and already you have 3000 people directly impacted by this mistake. What happens when civilian deaths climb to 10,000 or 25,000, or higher? Already you are talking about a half million or more people directly effected. It doesn’t take long before the entire populations coalesces into a single body of hatred directed against the United States. Could this be described as anything other than a strategic disaster? Absolutely not.
The real question is not whether we should commit U.S. military forces in Afghanistan. We definitely should not. Rather the question is whether we have the intelligence and fortitude to design a strategy that is 99% civic action and political. To be successful in Afghanistan, we must win the “hearts and minds” of the people. It is they that will decide the outcome. Not us. If we can’t exercise our power to that end, we should pack up and go home.
To be successful in Afghanistan, we must win the “hearts and minds” of the people.
Win their “hearts and minds” for what purpose? What would it mean to be “successful” in Afghanistan?
Michael, thank you for this.
Um, no I’m not for killing innocent civilians, and no, I’m not for indiscriminate bombing either. I just thought I would get that out of the way.
I could sympathize with your moral outrage, Michael, if only I didn’t feel like you were trying to jab me in the eye with it. I assume by what you wrote that if I don’t feel as a gut reaction that the U.S. military not only caused the deaths of innocents but actually *intended* it through malice or negligence, well then my fundamental option must not be for the poor victims but for the evil policies of the new Obama administration and for a military that chooses to “deliberately do something with a known outcome,” i.e. innocent deaths.
I cannot, according to you, begin to consider the possibility that the Taliban, whom we know has a systemic disregard for human life at practically any and all levels as a result of a blinding hatred of all things non-Muslim, that the Taliban actually did stage the event, i.e. either kill the innocents themselves or create a situation so that innocent civilians would be killed by the U.S. for the very purpose of shaming the U.S. military and creating more hatred and thus possible recruits. No, that cannot be a valid interpretation here. This cannot be the explanation because…well… because people have died?
As tragic and horrific as that is, and the image you have posted up is a grippingly disturbing means of bringing that horror before our very souls, it does not mean that we can somehow now defenestrate reason, ignore the historical behavior of the Taliban, and pretend that the clear answer to these issues is for the U.S to pull out so as to allow the Taliban to again subjugate the population all over again, to convert soccer stadiums into arenas of public execution where women are frog-marched to center field and shot in the back of the head for the crime of merely being seen with a man to which they are not related.
You ask what “successful” in Afghanistan means? It might begin to mean keeping the death squads of the Taliban away from the little girls who would be forever subject to the cruel inhumanity of Islamic misogyny for starters.
The article you link to states that the U.S. military’s self-policing on these issues is “pathetic” since last year’s investigation into a bombing incident resulted in the admission of 30 deaths instead of the 90 that everyone else assumed. So, what, from this we can glean that the U.S. military generally lies, obfuscates, and misleads so as to only have to admit the murder of 30 innocent civilians?
My gut check in this, my preferential option is not a choice between the innocent civilians on the U.S. military. It is a choice between the Taliban and the U.S. military. I would rather not remove an entire moral agent responsible for this tragedy from the mix, thank you, and I don’t believe anyone else should.
Why are we even still in Afghanistan? Seems like it’s more for reasons of PR than anything else.
I think this is the video from the aftermath. Sad state indeed. Did we not learn anything from the war Russia had in Afghanistan. Sad on so many fronts
here is the link
Enjoy Easter
peace to all
Of course, sending more troops actually should mean fewer airstrikes, and fewer massacres, because airstrikes generally take place (as in this case) when there aren’t sufficient ground forces to fight off an attack (as was this case, where the airstrike was in support of a small ANA unit).
“Win their “hearts and minds” for what purpose? What would it mean to be “successful” in Afghanistan?”
The full quote is: “To be successful in Afghanistan, we must win the “hearts and minds” of the people. It is they that [sic: who] will decide the outcome. Not us.”
There are plenty of things aside from war-making that the U.S. can do to help return order to Afghanistan and strengthen the indigenous population. The problem is we are not thinking in those terms. We are once again tilting to the military side of the equation.
The current Afghan predicament is not a consequence of too much U.S. involvement. Rather it follows from a decade of U.S. indifference to the plight of the Afghan population (notice I’m not talking States here). Had we lent support to the people following the Soviet retreat, the country would not have been left in a chaotic situation. The people themselves would have been emboldened and made sufficiently strong to determine their own future.
Zak – Ground troops (including the mercenary, privatized military unit Blackwater/Xe who have thankfully just ended their “work” in Iraq) have committed massacres as well.
Gerald – I agree that the united states could have some non-military involvement in Afghanistan.
I have a feeling the continued presence in Afghanistan is less about Afghanistan and more about staying close to Pakistan in case they get overrun by the Taliban. If the Taliban gets close to obtaining Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, I fully expect an invasion by US (and probably coalition) forces.
It is a little odd though. I seem to remember Obama’s foreign policy and his care for foreign innocents being an area in which he was an exemplar of Catholic teaching. Something like…
They are the ones who will be on the receiving end of u.s. bombs, not us. I’m voting on their behalf to help keep John McCain out of the White House. He’s bombed human beings before and he’ll do it again.
Now Obama is bombing human beings AND funding abortions. Congratulations, Catholic Obama vote: you you’ve saved no lives and given us nothing more death.
“f the Taliban gets close to obtaining Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, I fully expect an invasion by US (and probably coalition) forces.”
What would be the consequences of implementing your game plan in a highly nationalistic country that has 166 million people?
Lots of dead brown people who “hate America.” Someone get Weigel to write a defense of it.
Campbell:
It’s not my gameplan. I didn’t say I approved of the measure. I’m not going to take a position on a vague future abstract scenario. I just think that that’s what would likely occur.
I would say that it would likely be a very difficult fight and one that I sure hope we manage to avoid. However, given the skill Obama has shown in foreign policy (see Russian rest button), that’s not a promising scenario.
“However, given the skill Obama has shown in foreign policy (see Russian rest button), that’s not a promising scenario.”
I’m not sure what you basing your judgment on. But most would agree that Obama has dramatically improved the U.S. strategic position by his very presence on the world scene.
Even the botched “reset” button incident was used to good advantage (humor).
The one area that is extremely troubling is Afghanistan & Pakistan. I seriously doubt he will get good advice from Petraeus & Co. The predicament in that region is not military in nature. It is political. Petraeus is too much weighted towards a military solution. Even his view of counterinsurgency relies on a 10 to 1 ratio of counterinsurgency forces to insurgents. This is a failed view. Successful counterinsurgency is 99% political, not 90% military.
I’m not sure what you basing your judgment on. But most would agree that Obama has dramatically improved the U.S. strategic position by his very presence on the world scene.
I just threw up in my mouth. “his very presence?” You sound like teenage girl chasing after a Jonas brother.
I don’t know how a blatantly obvious and egregious mistake is good. Humorous perhaps, but humor the expense of the dignity of the United States is not advantageous. The uncalled for cold reception of Gordon Brown (with DVDs that don’t work in the UK), Clinton’s thinking Our Lady of Guadalupe was a painting, giving the Queen of England an Ipod, suggest that Obama simply has not put the effort into composing a serious and effective diplomatic team. These kinds of goof-ups are funny but also suggest he lacks the ability to do the difficult maneuvering that requires attention to detail that would be necessary in dealing with the Afghanistan/Pakistan issues.
I have a feeling the continued presence in Afghanistan is less about Afghanistan and more about staying close to Pakistan in case they get overrun by the Taliban.
I’m assuming, then, that you oppose the war on Afghanistan? Because if it doesn’t have much to do with Afghanistan, then there is no possibility of the war being just according to just war teaching.
Michael,
Let me say it again so there is no confusion. Obama’s very presence on the world stage has shifted the dynamics of international politics. If you can’t see that from a simple survey of international reporting you’re lost in irrelevant details.
A further demonstration of what I say is reflected in the absolute impotence of the opposition party. If what you say were significant, Republicans would be all over Obama like pollen on a bees nose. But they are not because there is nothing they can get their arms around.
I doubt that what you say here would be helpful to Republican leaders in any way whatsoever. They know the formidable nature of their foe. iPods and Reset Buttons are just not going to diminish Obama’s presence on the world stage.
Oh, and yes, that is what Obama is to them. He is not their President; he is their foe. Good old-fashion American patriotism, right?
Michael I,
It is true that troops have committed atrocities and killed non-combatents. Nevertheless, a large majority of the civilian deaths in both Iraq and Afghanistan have come from bombing. And individual incidents of civilian casualties no more render a war unjust than an incident of police brutality makes policing unjust.
We are in Afghanistan in attempt to provide security to enough of the country so that the government can institute sufficient development to be able to defend itself against the forces that attacked the United States and their allies. Those forces are also in Pakistan, which is why this isn’t just about Afghanistan.
I think it would be instructive to see how Catholic just war theory has been applied to brigands/pirates, etc. in the past. That seems to be the best parallel to the current situation, since this isn’t a war against another country.
And individual incidents of civilian casualties no more render a war unjust than an incident of police brutality makes policing unjust.
At least three problems with this:
1) The conduct of soldiers in war CAN render a war unjust. Just war teaching discusses the justness of wars in relation to the conditions for going to war (jus ad bellum) as well as the conduct of the war (jus in bello).
2) In your comparison you are holding up a particular use of military force (“a war”) with a generalized category (“policing”). Right, a case of police brutality does not mean policing as a whole is unjust. But it could mean that a particular use of police force was unjust. Incidents of civilian casualties might not necessarily make war in general unjust, but it might render a particular war unjust.
3) “Individual instances” of civilian “casualties” are one thing, but those of us interested in Christian ethics and discipleship are interested in looking at patterns of behavior and practice. Instances of collateral damage — for those who are paying attention and not in a state of denial — are so frequent and systemic that it is right to call these “casualties” a matter of policy: indeed, a policy of state-sponsored terrorism. To think otherwise is to ignore the obvious.
“We are in Afghanistan in attempt to provide security to enough of the country so that the government can institute sufficient development to be able to defend itself against the forces that attacked the United States and their allies. ”
Bingo, Zak! You nailed it. What you have described is the enclave strategy from the Vietnam War era. Lots of success that will bring.
The just war theory cannot have much relevance to a concrete situation if it is merely artiulated in the abstract. This is why there was so much foolishness in the writings of Neuhaus, Weigel, and Novak leading up to the Iraq war. Unless you understand the full range of American power, the nation’s intentions as reflected in classified decision-making, and the circumstances to which a strategy is applied, all talk of a just war analysis is so much wind.
The just war theory cannot have much relevance to a concrete situation if it is merely artiulated in the abstract.
YES. Just war theory is meant to be rigorously applied, not used as an excuse.
It may not be “unjust” to remain in Afghanistan as a principally military presence, but it is STUPID beyond words. It is STUPID to attempt to fight jihadist insurgency in central Asia without treating the regional issue which is at the heart of Pakistan’s failure as a state.
I find that Gerald Campbell’s analyses here of international political situations is not only merciful and humane, but also remarkably shrewd and, indeed, prescient, considering that we’re seeing the increasing “failure” of Pakistan as a state—and PAKISTAN is where the problem is. The problem is that almost NOBODY in the West understands what is the CAUSE of the failure of Pakistan as a state.
The cause of the failure of Pakistan as a state lies in the way in which Pakistan was founded—in reaction to the hegemonic behemoth that is modern India.
India STOLE Kashmir from Pakistan—Kashmir the jewel of all the historic Muslim empires of central Asia. Krishna Menon, who flew to Shrinagar to take the Hindu Maharajah’s accession statement, whereby he gave his Muslim nation to India, is reputed to have said, on the tarmac, as he arrived back in Delhi, “We took it, we have no right to it and we will never give it up!”
In light of the real problem that is bedeviling the region, statements like this amount to nothing but throwing gas on a fire; they are INCENDIARY, and they are INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS:
You ask what “successful” in Afghanistan means? It might begin to mean keeping the death squads of the Taliban away from the little girls who would be forever subject to the cruel inhumanity of Islamic misogyny for starters.
Why is this such a statement dangerous? Because it is shortsighted and dangerous; it represents an attitude that utterly refuses to take cognizance of the fact that EVERY SINGLE DAY that India’s military is occupying Kashmir, there are genocides, crimes against humanity, rapes by the javans–INDIAN “death squads” of Muslim village girls. Unbeknownst to Americans and completely and thoroughly ignored in the West, the hearts of Pakistani Pathans and Sindhis bleed for these people, and they find it absolutely impossible to make peace with the Western countries that refuse to acknowledge this situation and who treat India as if she were some paragon of civilised, Western-style democratic behaviour.
Gerald is right when he writes this:
The predicament in that region is not military in nature. It is political. Petraeus is too much weighted towards a military solution. Even his view of counterinsurgency relies on a 10 to 1 ratio of counterinsurgency forces to insurgents. This is a failed view. Successful counterinsurgency is 99% political, not 90% military.
Interestingly enough, however, the political problem is mostly with our hypocritical, pompous, self-righteous, more “developed” ally, which refuses to acknowledge its OCCUPATION of Kashmir or to allow the Kashmiris the self-determination they promised them when they annexed their country.
There will be no solution to the problems on Pakistan’s western border until the glaring, and central one on her eastern side is solved.
” a case of police brutality does not mean policing as a whole is unjust. But it could mean that a particular use of police force was unjust.”
Michael I,
Police brutality could mean much more than a “bad apple.”
If one reviews police training manuals you will find a close correlation between incidents of police brutality and the procedures that law enforcement officers are trained to use. I think a good case could be made that there would be more incidents of police brutality were it not for the reluctance of police officers to act like they were trained. This correlation cries out to be studied in depth.
Collateral damage is a function of policy. No question.
Michael – While I am in broad agreement with your assessments of the situation in Afghanistan, I’m not sure “state-sponsored terrorism” is quite the right term for what we have there.
If the United States were deliberately killing civilians to instill fear in the local population, that’s one thing; I suspect the situation is more that there are insurgents hiding amongst civilians, and the commanders on the ground make a decision that regardless of the collateral effects, they would rather call in an airstrike than have troops go in and take casualties while killing the insurgents one by one. That is still wrong, obviously, and yes, the innocent are just as dead – but that’s not the same thing as the military actually using terror as a weapon, is it?
Matt,
There is a distinction, as you suggest.
But, rewrite your paragraph from the POV of a person whose house has just been bombed or whose cousin was killed yesterday. Such a person is consumed with fear and their fear and anger is directed towards Americans. This is terrorism from their perspective, regardless how we may judge it.
A good countersurgency leader will view events primarily within the context of the indigenous population. They will protect the lives of those people as though they too were Americans. If this is not done, there will be no possibility of success. The people will turn against you and all will be lost.
I fear we are already on the road to defeat.
You’re right, of course, Gerald, on all counts.
Police brutality could mean much more than a “bad apple.”
Oh, absolutely. The sentence of mine was poorly worded, especially if it suggested anything like a “bad apples” view of police brutality. My anarchism prevents me from having a rosy view of policing. I think the distinction between the police and the military is often problematic — the police are often Military Lite.™
Matt – I don’t see it as being a matter of one or the other. I think that the willingness to make the “decision that regardless of the collateral effects, they would rather call in an airstrike” in order to take out insurgents is itself a way of instilling fear.
Digby,
It makes sense that the issue of Kashmir needs to be resolved to get the Pakistani army to actually resolve to fight the Taliban; that’s what I used to think. I wonder if the threat to Islamabad recently posed by the Islamists might change their calculus though.
Gerald,
You say we’re using the strategy from Vietnam, so it won’t work. But there are considerable differences with Vietnam; namely that there isn’t a state backing the insurgents the same way the North Vietnamese backed the Viet Cong. Yes, it does take a political solution, but Obama’s team is working on it. Now I’m not convinced they’ll succeed – they seem woefully unconcerned with the US image in Pakistan (like Bush was in the Arab world), but I think they need to try, and that requires troops in Afghanistan. I agree too that the US model of warfare too often treats civilian casualties as unimportant warfare – but that’s why more troops on the ground are needed, because, since WWII, airstrikes have been the predominant cause of civilian casualties in every conflict we’ve fought in. Troops defending individual population centers throughout south and east Afghanistan are far less likely to cause the kind of casualties that prompted this post.
If your goal is to minimize the death and suffering among Afghan civilians, then you should welcome Obama’s decision to send more ground forces to Afghanistan.
Zak,
There are those differences you mention. There was a State backing the Viet Cong. But that only changes the situation at the margins. We never lost because of the North Vietnamese army. We lost because the South Vietnamese regime was corrupt and the people turned against us. We had to bomb hamlets to save them.
Have you ever studied the Huk Rebellion in the Philippines from 1948-1952? It’s worthy of considerable attention.
The U.S. strategy there was put together by Ed Lansdale (my mentor). In essence, it was 99% civic action. Lansdale’s use of a 99% political/civic action strategy managed to defeat a heavily armed, countrywide insurgency in the Philippines within 18 months of its inception. The Lansdale team used no US military forces whatsoever. The success of the operation still stands as a singular event in U.S. counterinsurgency history. The success achieved in the 1950s still stands 60 years later. You’ve heard of the phrase “hearts and minds”? Well, now you know its origins.
Lansdale, once told me: “If an insurgency is fought with weapons more lethal than a rifle, defeat is inevitable. As casualties mount, the people will quickly judge you to be their enemy.” This statement describes perfectly the American predicament in Vietnam and Iraq. I pray we won’t make the same mistake in Afghanistan. But I’m becoming pessimistic because of the influence of Patraeus & Co.
The Church has asked us to take another look at war. And all I see are burned children.