| Number 425 | April 15, 2009 |
|
This Week: "Af-Pak" and the Killing of Innocents
|
|
Greetings, Last week I talked about U.S. goals in Afghanistan and the Obama administration's reluctance or inability to take a different approach to terror than that of the previous administration. This week I follow up with a piece on the forgotten cost of the Afghan occupation, the deaths of the unknown numbers of innocents caused by the misguided militarization of the Global War on Terror as it plays out in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or "Af-Pak," as it's now known within the military establishment. Next week I hope to have a feature on the larger—and really forgotten!—violence that needs challenging if the United States is ever to break away from our endless wars of Empire. I hope to talk about the size, scope, and shape of the U.S. military establishment, as well as the effect it has on employment, its corrupting influence on foreign relations, and whatever else I can think of. Send in your ideas if you want, and I'll try to research and report on them. That's all for now. See you next week, Nygaard |
|
This is from an Associated Press report filed on March 2, 2009 under the headline, "Afghan Civilians Could Bear Brunt of Increased War": "Afghan civilians will bear the brunt of an escalation in the Afghan war this year as thousands more U.S. troops deploy unless more is done by NATO forces and Taliban militants to protect them, a top Red Cross official said Monday. ‘Unless more is done in different ways by the different parties to the conflict ... to respect their obligations under international humanitarian law, the ICRC fears that the Afghan population will bear the brunt of the announced escalation and that consequences for many will be dire in the extreme,' said Pierre Krahenbuhl, the director of operations for the International Committee of the Red Cross." |
|
In the last Notes I said that one of the factors that makes the world a less secure place is the insistence of U.S. leaders on pursuing a "war" against people whom we call "terrorists." I said that the U.S. is often perceived as a bully by countries weaker than itself. (Pretty much every country, that is.) Reinforcing the impression of the U.S. as a bully is the killing of civilians in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan—in military circles they are calling it "Af-Pak"—and the callous attitude in the U.S. toward that killing, to which I now turn. On March 27th, in a major address on his Afghanistan strategy, President Obama said, "The situation [in Afghanistan] is increasingly perilous... Attacks against our troops, our NATO allies, and the Afghan government have risen steadily. Most painfully, 2008 was the deadliest year of the war for American forces." The "most painful" thing about our military operation in Afghanistan, says Mr. Obama, is the death of "American forces." Maybe it's the "most painful" in part because no one knows how many Afghans and Pakistanis have died as a result of the U.S. invasion and attempted occupation of that country. Still, there's little excuse for not knowing, at least roughly, since reports are in the news in this country at least weekly of Afghans and their neighbors killed by U.S. and allied forces. Have a look at a few recent headlines. Those are just a few of the tragedies that we know about (if we do
know; most of the headlines above appeared in papers outside the U.S.)
In addition, the media periodically report on various "covert"
and "secret" operations by the U.S. They're not really "secret,"
since they're well-known to the victims, but they are virtually secret
as far as the U.S. electorate is concerned. And, again, we likely never
hear about most "secret" and "covert" operations—they're
secret, after all—so how many more people are dying as a result
of their efforts we don't know, and may never know. Who's Counting? Last week I quoted a March 1st Associated Press (AP) report that "in the first two months of [2009] U.S., NATO or Afghan forces have killed 100 civilians [in Afghanistan], while militants have killed 60." I didn't mention last week a number of reports on last year, 2008. A couple of weeks before the report just cited, the AP gave us their tally for last year, saying that "The number of Afghan civilians killed in armed conflict rose 40 percent [in 2008] to a record 2,118 people as the Afghan war turned increasingly bloody, the U.N. said in a new report Tuesday [Feb 17]." Who killed them? "The report said insurgents were responsible for 55 percent of the deaths, but that U.S., NATO and Afghan forces killed 829 civilians, or 39 percent. Of those, 552 deaths were blamed on airstrikes," said the news service. At the end of January (the 28th) NATO spokesman James Appathurai, speaking at the NATO weekly press briefing, told reporters that "According to our military assessment... NATO-ISAF was responsible for 97—let's say around 100—civilian casualties [in 2008]. What they call opposing militant forces—that is the Taleban and other extremist groups—were responsible for 973. In other words, 10 times as many... the militant forces are responsible for about 80 percent of the civilian casualties in 2008 in Afghanistan..." This statement was never reported—let alone discussed or disputed—in the United States, as far as I can tell. It was only two days before the NATO statement was made that the New York Times reported on the "increasingly complex environment" of Afghanistan, into which "the Obama administration is preparing to send as many as 30,000 more troops this year. As the plan moves forward, Afghan officials and some Western coalition partners are voicing concern that the additional troops will only increase the levels of violence and civilian casualties, after a year in which as many as 4,000 Afghan civilians were killed." That figure of 4,000 was a reference to a report that the Times didn't bother to cover when it came out. It wasn't just the Times; nobody in this country covered the report, which was released by the group Afghanistan Rights Monitor. I found it in a January 21st filing by the French news agency Agence France Presse. That report said that "Military operations conducted by [US-led NATO and coalition forces] in 2008 caused at least 1,100 civilian deaths..." The original report doesn't appear to be available in English, so we have to take AFP's word for this one. Here, then, in chronological order, are the reports I just mentioned on the killings of innocents by U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan in 2008: January 21st: Afghanistan Rights Monitor says that "Military operations conducted by [US-led NATO and coalition forces] in 2008 caused at least 1,100 civilian deaths..." January 28th: NATO says "97—let's say around 100—civilian casualties." February 17th: A U.N. report says "U.S., NATO and Afghan forces killed 829 civilians." In an indication of the importance attached to these numbers, two of the three reports never appeared in the corporate media in the United States. (By the way, for those who think that National Public Radio is somehow different, I did a little search of the transcripts of all NPR news since Obama's inauguration, and found not a single news report about U.S. killings of civilians in Afghanistan.) Meanwhile, nearly 900 stories about Somali pirates have appeared in the past week alone in the U.S. media (30 on NPR). And how many people—let alone USAmericans—have been killed by Somali "pirates"? Zero. "We Don't Drop When We're Unsure." Perhaps Mr. Obama's startling omission of any mention of U.S. violence wasn't startling to most USAmericans, as we are treated to a steady diet of rationales, excuses and, most commonly, denials of our killing. Typical was an article that appeared in the February 24th New York Times, headlined "From a Carrier, Another View of America's Air War in Afghanistan." ("Another view"?!) The "carrier" to which the reporter, Elizabeth Bumiller, refers is the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt, which is working "on the Arabian Sea ... off the coast of Pakistan." Here's what the U.S. Air Force is doing in Afghanistan, according to the Times: "From 15,000 feet up, the pilots protect supply lines under increasing attack, fly reconnaissance missions to find what they call ‘bad guys' over the next hill, and go ‘kinetic' with bombs that kill three, four or five Taliban fighters at a time." Somehow, someone besides "Taliban fighters" must be dying, since Afghan President Hamid Karzai "has so angrily condemned the strikes that in December he was invited to visit the Roosevelt, so that officers could try to persuade him that they took care where they aimed their bombs." Bumiller sums up the message given to Karzai by quoting Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, the commander of United States naval forces in the region, who stated that: "We don't drop when we're unsure." Bombs, that is. Yet, somehow, in some mysterious way, "552 deaths were blamed on airstrikes" by the U.S. and its partners in 2008. Or maybe "around 100." Or maybe 16, or one thousand, or... well, who cares, anyway? On January 26th another Times reporter in Afghanistan, Carlotta Gall, authored an article headlined "From Hospital, Afghans Rebut U.S. Account." Here are the first three paragraphs: "The American military declared the nighttime raid this month a success, saying it killed 32 people, all Taliban insurgents—the fruit of an emphasis on intelligence-driven use of Special Operations forces. "But the two young men who lay wincing in a hospital ward here told a different story a few days later, one backed up by the pro-American provincial governor and a central government delegation. "They agreed that 13 civilians had been killed and 9 wounded when American commandos broke down doors and unleashed dogs without warning on Jan. 7 in the hunt for a known insurgent in Masamut, in Laghman Province in eastern Afghanistan. The residents were so enraged that they threatened to march on the American military base here." (Some may go further and join the "terrorists," as well, although it's unlikely that they would mention any such plans to the reporter from the leading newspaper of the occupying country.) And there you have it. The U.S. military says those they killed were "all Taliban." Witnesses—and victims in their hospital beds—say different. The U.N. says that 552 deaths of Afghan civilians last year were blamed on airstrikes by the "good guys." And a spokesman for the "good guys" says "We don't drop when we're unsure." In effect, U.S. warmakers are asking the famous question first asked by Groucho Marx: "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own eyes?" It's clear which answer is desired by U.S. propagandists: Me. I've quoted social scientist Harold Lasswell before in these pages, and it's time to do so again. In his classic 1927 book "Propaganda Technique in the World War," he reminds would-be war propagandists of a cardinal rule: "The justification of war can proceed more smoothly if the hideous aspects of the war business are screened from public gaze." It's the job of you and me and other people of conscience to turn our gaze directly upon the hideous aspects of the war business so that we can make the justification of war less smooth, until we stop it entirely. |
|
Rachel's News has ceased publication. For those who aren't familiar with Rachel's News, I first recommended this amazing newsletter ‘way back in 1998, in Nygaard Notes #17. At that time it was called "Rachel's Environmental and Health Weekly." Here's what I said at the time, and it stayed true until the end: The "Rachel" in the title is in honor of Rachel Carson, and it's put out by a place called the Environmental Research Foundation, and is usually written by a man named Peter Montague. Some of you may not consider yourselves "environmentalists," and you in particular I encourage to look at this rag. Mr. Montague writes about the environment in the broadest possible sense of the word, to the point that calling it "environmental" is almost misleading. He writes with an activist, anti-oppression agenda, and his writing is very entertaining and clear. Each issue is a quick (5-10 minute) read, but often gives me a fresh perspective on an issue that I thought I had already sorted out. Issue Number 1,000 of Rachel's News came out on February 26 of this year, and with that Mr. Montague and the rest pulled the plug on the regular publication. They'll still be publishing things on their website, and the 70-year-old Montague wants to get on to publishing and doing other things, some of which I hope to read and support. But I'll miss Rachel's a lot. Don't Mourn, Organize! The reason I'm telling you all this is actually not to mourn the loss of Rachel's, but to encourage you to read one particular piece that appeared in the final issue and is now available on the web. Starting in 1988 Rachel's began what turned out to be a 17-part series called "What We Must Do." In the final issue Montague publishes what he calls the "Final Part" of the 17 parts, but it really is a fairly amazing and comprehensive summary of the parts. As he puts it, "They are not ranked in order of importance because I think we have to try to do all of them." Here is a list of them, and the titles alone give a hint of how broadly Montague thinks about "the environment." What We Must Do, in 17 Parts: The whole 15-page article is available at the Environmental Research Foundation website. Read it and get to work. Goodbye, Rachel's. I'll miss you! |
