This Week: Propaganda from Afghanistan, Series Conclusion

"Quote" of the Week

"Propaganda from Afghanistan Part 3 (continued): The Devil Made Me Do It!

Propaganda from Afghanistan Part 4: Promise To Investigate
Propaganda from Afghanistan Part 5: Hope They Forget OR "Announcement of the Results Was Highly Unusual"

Doing Something About the Occupation of Afghanistan

Greetings,

This week, the editor's note appears before the Pledge Drive sales job. I'm trying everything! Please make your Pledge TODAY!

Due to poor editing on my part, the first essay on Afghanistan this week is really the second part of the final Afghanistan essay from last week. I just couldn't fit it in last week. So, as a result, the third part of this five-part series on Propaganda from Afghanistan is broken in two. Technically, I suppose, this makes it a six-part series. However many parts it is, I hope to get it more widely distributed if I can. Let me know what you think.

I know some of you prefer to print out the Notes onto paper to make it easier to read. I finally figured out (I hope) how to make a PDF copy of the paper version available for you to print. I'll have the link in each issue of the email version from now on. If I remember. I'm sorry it took me so long to figure it out. It's not really that hard to do, I now know. And, of course, those of you who receive the Notes through the postal service already know how nice it looks when it's properly laid out.

Until next week,

Nygaard

PLEDGE DRIVE PLEDGE DRIVE PLEDGE DRIVE PLEDGE DRIVE

The news this week: I still need TWO of you to make a Pledge to Nygaard Notes FOR THE FIRST TIME! This includes people who actually have made a Pledge before, but who have lapsed in the meantime. So, it's NEW or RETURNING-TO-THE-FOLD Pledges.

Many, many thanks to those of you who have taken the time to renew your Pledge during this Pledge Drive! This saves me money, and saves both of us time. BUT...

I really need just TWO more of you who have NOT YET MADE A PLEDGE or whose PLEDGE HAS LAPSED to send in your Pledge before the end of the month. I know that the economy is forcing people to cut back on nearly everything. But Nygaard Notes is filled with insights, information, and entertainment that you have come to rely upon. As one reader said recently in forwarding the Notes to some of his friends: "Nygaard is blessed with rare, remarkably cogent, wisdom." Do you agree? Can you chip in just a bit to help keep it going at the high level of quality we've had up to now?

Whatever Nygaard Notes may be, it all comes your way only due to the generosity and solidarity of the many readers who have come before you and made their Pledge of support to keep this project going. Now it's YOUR TURN. Please send in your pledge today. I'm very much hoping that this Pledge Drive can end SOON, so we don't have to have so many CAPITAL LETTERS. I'd like this to be the last week of this Pledge Drive, and that can only happen if TWO MORE of you make a Pledge this week. Get it in the mail now:

Nygaard Notes
P.O. Box 14354
Minneapolis, MN 55414

Or go to the Nygaard Notes Website at www.nygaardnotes.org

Don't delay! Make your Pledge TODAY!

"Quote" of the Week:

This week the "Quote" is a three-for-one deal, with a set of two paired quotations followed by a longer one.

"Quote" the First:

A visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Gilles Dorronsoro, produced a brief study in January called "Focus and Exit: An Alternative Strategy for the Afghan War." Here are two of his "key conclusions":

"The mere presence of foreign soldiers fighting a war in Afghanistan is probably the single most important factor in the resurgence of the Taliban."

AND

"The best way to weaken, and perhaps divide, the armed opposition is to reduce military confrontations."

The Carnegie Endowment is hardly a bastion of radicalism, but consider the implications of what Mr. Dorronsoro is saying here: It is not that the Obama "surge" in Afghanistan making the problem worse: It IS the problem.

"Quote" the Second:

I'm not convinced that al-Qaida is as much of a threat as Chris Hedges believes, but the main point made by this former New York Times reporter-turned-critic this week in the online journal Truthdig is worth considering. Here is the final paragraph from his July 20th essay called "War Without Purpose:"

"The only way to defeat terrorist groups is to isolate them within their own societies. This requires wooing the population away from radicals. It is a political, economic and cultural war. The terrible algebra of military occupation and violence is always counterproductive to this kind of battle. It always creates more insurgents than it kills. It always legitimizes terrorism. And while we squander resources and lives, the real enemy, al-Qaida, has moved on to build networks in Indonesia, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and Morocco and depressed Muslim communities such as those in France's Lyon and London's Brixton area. There is no shortage of backwaters and broken patches of the Earth where al-Qaida can hide and operate. It does not need Afghanistan, and neither do we."

"Propaganda from Afghanistan Part 3 (continued): The Devil Made Me Do It!

This essay is a continuation of "Propaganda from Afghanistan Part 3: Obscure the Issue, Blame the Enemy," which appeared last week. Due to an editing miscalculation, I ran out of room in last week's issue, which ended with these words: "Another variation on the Blame The Enemy option is to admit that U.S. forces did kill innocent people, but then to insist that the enemy made us do it. We'll pick up there next week." Next week is here, so let's get to it.

Sometimes a report of the U.S. killing of civilians is impossible to completely dismiss. What is a propagandist to do in that case? The tactic in this case becomes what I call the "Devil made me do it!" defense. Consider these two examples:

On January 20th USA Today cited Gen. David McKiernan—at the time the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan—who "said insurgents realize the propaganda value of civilian deaths, so they often attack coalition troops from areas crowded with civilians." McKiernan said, according to USAT, that "When the insurgency creates those casualties, they do it on purpose to create fear and intimidation to support their ambition." In this example, a U.S. official admits that his forces killed people, but the enemy was the one who "created those casualties."

Another example: An AP story of May 6th headlined "Red Cross Says Dozens of Afghans Killed in US Raid" reported that "Taliban militants often take over civilian homes and launch attacks on Afghan and coalition forces. U.S. officials say the militants hope to attract U.S. airstrikes that kill civilians, thereby giving the Taliban a propaganda victory." What, in other words, are those "U.S. officials" saying? The Devil made me do it!

In the world of psychology, "projection" is the term for a defense mechanism in which one's unacceptable behaviors or thoughts are attributed to someone else. I'm not saying that nations have a "psychology," but some propaganda tactics often end up looking eerily similar to this psychological defense.

In the case of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, the unacceptable behavior is to use disproportionate force while occupying a foreign country. Such behavior virtually guarantees that innocent people will be killed, injured, and displaced. Since it is psychologically difficult for a nation that likes to think of itself as moral to come to terms with such behavior, we engage in projection: Look at the disregard the enemy has for civilian life!

A Note on the Morality of All This

There is rarely a reference in the media to the moral or ethical issues involved in the killing of innocent people while occupying a sovereign nation. Instead the problem, as seen through the eyes of the occupiers, is a propaganda problem. Here are three examples, with emphasis added by Nygaard:

A January 21 Associated Press (AP) report ("US Investigates Afghan Civilian Deaths Claim") reported that "Col. Greg Julian, the top U.S. military spokesman in Afghanistan, said the investigation announcement was not related to [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai's request [that the US stop killing innocent Afghans], and that the military was doing all it could to avoid civilian deaths because they harm counterinsurgency operations." No other reason to "avoid civilian deaths" was offered.

The New York Times on February 25th reported on unnamed "Pakistani intelligence and military officials" who "complain that the missile strikes cause too many civilian casualties and that they hand the militants a propaganda windfall." Did they "complain" for any other reason about the killing of innocent civilians? This article didn't say so. At any rate, the article tells us, "American officials defended the strikes..."

On May 14 the conservative Washington Times ran a story headlined "Civilians Bear Brunt of Afghan War; Desperate for Security, They're Dying or Becoming Beggars." This may be a right-wing paper, but the story is fairly typical. After noting that "casualties among civilians are rising across the country" due to the U.S. escalation, and that " NATO-Taliban fighting also is financially crippling displaced civilians," the Times noted that "The issue weighs heavily on U.S. and NATO forces." Why? "because it gives the Taliban a powerful propaganda weapon against foreign intervention." Could the Times reporter come up with any other reason why the deaths and financial ruin of unknown numbers of Afghans might be a problem? He doesn't mention any, despite the length of the article (1,184 words, a long article in the newspaper world).

Apparently the only "weapon" to be feared here is the "powerful propaganda weapon" wielded by the enemy. None of this is meant to deny, and certainly not to endorse, the use of propaganda by the Taliban or anyone else. The point here is that a military occupation causes suffering, and the actions that cause that suffering are never the actions of one side only. Yet this is the impression one might reasonably be left with were one to rely on the U.S. mass media for information on the military activities in Afghanistan.

Propaganda from Afghanistan Part 4: Promise To Investigate

In virtually every case where there are reports of innocents killed by U.S. forces, the U.S. military promises to "investigate." The point of these investigations is not clear, but certainly one of the main points is to calm people down. Or, as the U.S. Defense Secretary said recently, to "defuse tensions" caused by U.S. "mistakes." That's the wording that appeared at the very end of a June 22nd New York Times story headlined "U.S. Toughens Airstrike Policy In Afghanistan." The article contained three very interesting—and, in my opinion, bizarre—paragraphs. They were the final three of the article, and here they are, exactly as they appeared:

"Last September, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates ordered new rules specifically to defuse tensions over Afghan civilian deaths.

"During a recent visit to Kabul, Mr. Gates said the American military would quickly apologize and offer compensation to survivors in cases of civilian deaths, even in advance of formal investigations to determine exactly what had happened.

"‘I think the key for us is, on those rare occasions [sic] when we do make a mistake, when there is an error, to apologize quickly, to compensate the victims quickly, and then carry out the investigation,' Mr. Gates said after a meeting with President Hamid Karzai."

Compensate before investigating? Isn't it possible that the payment of cash to the alleged victims might have some impact on subsequent testimony? What if the "investigation" finds that U.S. forces were not at fault? Will the non-victims be asked to give back the money?

The above illustrates the outright weirdness of the gyrations required to "defuse tensions" caused by the wanton killing of innocents. But the basic tactic of offering up "investigations" into the killing has become standard in Afghanistan, and is nearly meaningless beyond the propaganda function. As witness, consider the following seven examples from the past six months:

January, First Report:
A one-paragraph brief in the January 8 New York Times reported that "Eleven Afghan civilians were killed and nine wounded when an errant artillery shell hit a house . . . the Afghan government said Wednesday. . . A spokesman for NATO said its troops were investigating."

January, Second Report:
A January 21 AP report "US Investigates Afghan Civilian Deaths Claim,"

February:
Voice of American, February 18: "Afghan officials said a U.S. airstrike Monday killed an undetermined number of militants and at least 12 civilians in western Afghanistan. U.S. officials said the strike in the Gozara district of Herat province killed 15 militants and targeted Taliban leader Ghulam Yahya Akbari. They have not commented on the reported civilian deaths, but promised to investigate."

March:
The AP on March 22nd ran a story headlined "US, Disputing Afghans, Says Raid Killed Militants." In it, we read that "U.S.-led coalition and Afghan troops killed five suspected militants during a raid in northern Afghanistan on Sunday, the coalition said in a statement. But the local mayor said his house was targeted and that the dead included his cook and driver." First of all, killing "suspected" militants isn't saying anything in the way of proof of guilt, but in any case "Independent confirmation was impossible Sunday as is often the case because of the remoteness of the area." And, finally, the Afghan Interior Ministry said in a statement that "we are sending a delegation to investigate."

April:
Here's the lead paragraph from the April 14 NYT: "An airstrike by NATO forces early Monday in mountainous eastern Afghanistan killed six civilians, including two children, a local Afghan official said..." NATO's response was that "A [NATO] spokesman said it would investigate whether there were civilian casualties..."

We'll come back to the month of May in a moment.

June:
A June 12 AP report began, "U.S. airstrikes in western Afghanistan [on June 9] missed their target of a militant commander and instead killed 12 other militants and 10 civilians, provincial officials said Thursday." As usual, "The U.S. said it was investigating reports that civilians had been killed."

May:
The example from the month of May stands out for several reasons, so I saved it for last. May was the month of the massacre in Farah province that killed 140+ civilians, one consequence being that a higher-than-usual number of promises of investigations were made. The attack occurred on May 4, and on May 10th the U.S. tried to release a typical whitewash report, but it didn't work so well this time, for some reason.

First of all, the AP story was headlined "US Report Blames Taliban for Civilian Deaths." What the AP called a "preliminary report" from the U.S. military said that the reports of 147 civilian deaths that came from "Afghan officials" was "exaggerated" (Denial, Quibbling) but "The U.S. report did not offer an estimate of the number killed in the battle." Anyhow, the U.S. coalition "did not take responsibility for any deaths." (Trust the Good Guys) Instead, they said that the U.S. investigation team "strongly condemns the brutality of the Taliban extremists deliberately targeting Afghan civilians and using them as human shields." (The Devil Made Me Do It!)

So far, this is all standard stuff but, perhaps due to the scale of the killing in this case, the AP went on to tell its readers some things that may also be fairly standard, but about which we rarely hear. For instance...

"At the U.N. headquarters in Kabul, an official said that some at the world body were uneasy that the ‘very same people who are accused of causing the civilian casualties are being sent back to investigate.' The anonymous official "called for an independent investigation."

"Other groups," said the AP, "expressed concern for the investigative process." Including, apparently, the investigators who supposedly were the investigative partners of the U.S. The AP reported that "The U.S. said the findings came from a joint U.S.-Afghan investigation. But the country's Interior Ministry and [the] police chief [from the province where the killings took place] both said that their delegations were continuing to investigate and that they did not endorse the U.S. report."

What we see here is that the headline on this story—"US Report Blames Taliban for Civilian Deaths"—is accurate, as far as it goes. But why would a respected wire service distribute a "preliminary" report of a self-investigation by a party accused of serious crimes, a report that offers no evidence for claims that, in any case, are disputed by its co-investigators and every other independent group mentioned? Time for a Nygaard Notes Alternative Headline, methinks. How about: "Propaganda Watch: U.S. Tries to Deny Latest War Crime; Denial Rejected by Allies and Enemy Alike."

Propaganda from Afghanistan Part 5: Hope They Forget
OR "Announcement of the Results Was Highly Unusual"

It was on February 22nd of this year that the Washington Post made a point that I had been noticing for years now. In an article headlined "Image Problem in Afghanistan; Growing Public Hostility to Troops May Hurt U.S. Surge Plans," the Post published the following paragraph:

"American military officials here, in an effort to soften public criticism, acknowledged Saturday that U.S. airstrikes in the western province of Herat on Tuesday had killed 13 civilians and three insurgents. A U.S. general traveled to the site to investigate the incident, and the announcement of the results was highly unusual. The United States had initially reported that 15 insurgents were killed, but Afghan officials had disputed the assertion."

Note the key phrase: "Announcement of the results was highly unusual." I'll say. Earlier in this issue I cited seven separate reports of the U.S. killing of civilians. In each case U.S. or Afghan officials were quoted as promising to investigate. What did these investigations reveal? I wondered. So I used the Lexis/Nexis database of U.S. newspapers to look and see if the reports on those investigations were ever made known to the public. (I've already mentioned the "highly unusual" one of February 22nd.) Lexis/Nexis isn't completely comprehensive, but I think it is safe to say that if something has not been mentioned in the hundreds of U.S. newspapers and wire services in this database, it has remained virtually unreported in this country. Here's what I found:

1. In reference to the report that "17 civilians were killed" on January 5th, no results of the promised investigation were found.

2. In reference to the report of "claims an operation killed two dozen Afghan civilians" on January 20th, no results of the promised investigation were found.

3. In reference to the report that "Afghan officials said a U.S. airstrike killed "at least 12 civilians in western Afghanistan" on February 16th, no results of the promised investigation were found.

4. In reference to the report that an April 13th airstrike by NATO forces killed six civilians, including two children, no results of the promised investigation were found.

5. I discussed the May 4th massacre earlier in the previous article. It was the one where the US did release some results, and everyone in the world (basically) "expressed concern for the investigative process."

6. In reference to the June 9th report of "U.S. airstrikes in western Afghanistan [that] killed 12 ... militants and 10 civilians" no results of the promised investigation have been found yet, although it's still a bit early on this one.

The case of the five men in Imam Sahib in Kunduz province who were killed by U.S. forces on March 22nd is a little bit of a different story, so here are a few extra comments about it. On May 6th the McClatchy News Service distributed a commentary by Jean Mackenzie of The Institute for War & Peace Reporting. Mackenzie laid out the March 22nd incident—eyewitnesses galore, plus video—and quoted the U.S. spokesman as denying the whole thing. The commentary concludes by saying that "The mayor and the interior ministry in Kabul have called for an investigation." This implies that no investigation has been done, or at least none have been reported. That's the only reference to the investigation of the March 22nd killings in the media.

Doing Something About the Occupation of Afghanistan

The series on Afghanistan War Propaganda that concludes this week has attempted to explain the a pattern of information that USAmericans receive from our media about US actions in Afghanistan. I have explained how Propagandists for the war employ a combination of five tactics in their attempts to obscure the horrors that our taxes are funding, and to maintain support for the US occupation of that country. Here, again, are the five things that US propagandists typically do, and that the media typically report, when a US atrocity is reported:

1. Deny. Deny that anyone was killed;
2. Quibble. Admit some killing, but minimize the numbers;
3. Obscure the Issue. There's so much propaganda out there that it's impossible to know what's going on. So trust us. (Closely related is the problem of Projection, or The Devil Made Me Do It!)
4. Promise an Investigation that never happens (or that is never reported);
5. Hope People Forget.

For those who will not and cannot forget about the human suffering that is the predictable and virtually unavoidable consequence of this (and every) military occupation, I would like to offer some resources to help you take informed action to turn the US away from the violent course that is being carried out in the name of the Global War on Terror.

Take Action

Lots of people are actively working to end the occupation and violence in Afghanistan, for a variety of reasons. Not a lot of the groups have a high profile on the national level but, for those who want to DO something, I recommend checking out the website of the New York-based group United for Peace and Justice. UFPJ is "committed to ending the illegal and immoral "pre-emptive" wars and on-going occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan" but, more importantly, when you go to their website you will see a button on the left that says "Member Groups." If you click on it, you can check out many of the anti-war groups in YOUR state, whatever it may be. I didn't find a single state without at least one active group. My own state of Minnesota lists 21 groups in nine different communities.

The January 2009 issue of Peacework Magazine (Issue #391) had a focus on Afghanistan, and their article "Ten Ways To End the Occupation of Afghanistan: Inform, Educate, Agitate, Organize" is a good place to start to focus your thinking. Find it here.

Inform Yourself

Since Nygaard Notes is all about informing ourselves so as to be more effective action-takers, here is a short list of places to go for current information about Afghanistan. Not all of it is useful, but if you check out these web sources, I'm sure you'll find a source or two that you will connect with.

* Afghana.com has a list of Afghanistan-related websites.

* The Afghan News Network is an aggregator site of news from a variety of sources that is run, they say, by a group of Afghan students based in Holland.

* I look at the English version of AlJazeera every day, and their "Central/S. Asia" section is a good source of news on Afghanistan.

* For another South Asian perspective on events in the region, the Pakistani newspaper DAWN is a good one (very good reporting on professional cricket, if that's your sport).

* It's always good to check the United Nations News Centre. Look on the right side under "News Focus," and click on Afghanistan.

* The best ongoing coverage of humanitarian issues in the region is IRIN, the UN's Integrated Regional Information Networks, whose role it is "to provide news and analysis about sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia for the humanitarian community." I recommend them all the time. Go to their website and click on "Asia."

* I've cited the work of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission.

* I honor the work of The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA). Check out their news site.

For specific commentators that I like, go to your internet search engine and do a search for:
Afghanistan "Ann Jones" 2009

Afghanistan "Juan Cole" 2009

Afghanistan "Tariq Ali" 2009

Afghanistan "Noam Chomsky" 2009