'Human
shields' pay the price: Is there a limit to acceptable
'collateral
damage' and the use of euphemisms to describe
the
killing of innocent bystanders?
Le Quotidien d'Oran, Algeria
U.S. Inflicts 'Simply Massive' Collateral Damage on Afghans
"To speak of a 'blunder' or
'collateral damage' is to decide to think little of Afghan lives and above
all use a lexicon that erases the responsibility of the Western military. … Some
in the West say: the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan is part of the
problem, not the solution. As in all tragedies, this idea will not take hold
until after the people have paid in blood."
U.S. air strikes in Afghanistan's Farah Province have killed dozens, including women and children, the International Committee of the Red Cross said last week.
At the very moment that
Barack Obama met with presidents Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and Asif Ali
Zardari of Pakistan to coordinate the war against the Taliban in both of their
nations, an American raid described as a "blunder," resulted in at
least a hundred civilian deaths in eastern Afghanistan. The two villages that
were bombed have drawn up a list of 147 people killed.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
[Editor's Note: While apologizing, American officials said that reports of a death toll exceeding 100 were exaggerated and that Taliban militants might have forced civilians to serve as human shields].
This type of operation, with
the civilian death toll growing increasingly heavy, is repeated all too
regularly and is now part of routine operations for the American military.
To speak of a "blunder" or "collateral damage" is quite
simply to decide to think little of Afghan lives and above all to use a lexicon
that erases the responsibility of the Western military. In 2008, the number of
civilians killed was over 2000. The "collateral damage" is, to say
the least, quite simply massive. Even Hamid Karzai, liege to the Americans,
complains of how little thought there seems to be given to the civilian
population.
The political meeting in
Washington occurred practically at the same moment as the "blunder," providing
a summary of the bloody imbroglio now taking place in the region.The Afghan Taliban, who are waging guerilla
war against the foreign forces, haven't hesitated to demand an investigation by
the International Criminal Court of the bombings of Farah Province. It's hardly
a secret - the more civilians fall, the stronger the Taliban become.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai warns that the United States
is undermining its own efforts by harming civilians.
Barack Obama, seeking to
extricate himself from Iraq, has chosen to take on the war in Afghanistan and
send more troops there. His proclaimed goal is to "disrupt, dismantle and
defeat al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to
either country in the future." The problem is that such a result is hardly
assured in a region where al-Qaeda is neither the only nor the principal actor.
And above all, the actions of Western troops tend to be as ineffective as they
are counterproductive. Engaged in an asymmetrical war, regular armies choose
not to distinguish between guerillas and the civilians who shelter them, willingly
or not. All the elements of a "quagmire" are present.
If Iraq is not Obama’s war,
Afghanistan - and by extension Pakistan - will be the theater of Obama’s war. And
the troops who are indiscriminately bombing will not help him win. The logic of
this type of conflict is that it has no end. The Taliban are unlikely to take
Kabul, but will remain omnipresent, while the expanding expeditionary force
heightens the resentment of the people. Neither Karzai nor, for that matter,
Pakistan’s Asif Zardari, who has blithely passed from an arrangement with the
Taliban to a state of war with them, constitute a serious obstacle to this.
Some in the West say: the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan is part of the
problem, not the solution. As in all tragedies, this idea will not take hold
until after the people have paid in blood.
