The systemic atrocity of Afghanistan's occupation

[marmar]

The systemic atrocity of Afghanistan's occupation
Is there a morally significant difference between murder, like the Panjwai massacre, and collateral damage? Ask Afghan civilians

Ross Caputi
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 13 March 2012


The death of innocent civilians is nothing new in Afghanistan, but these 16 victims, nine of whom were children, were allegedly murdered by a rogue soldier, rather than the usual killers – drone attacks, air strikes and stray bullets. This incident has elicited rage among Afghans and westerners alike. But why are westerners not equally outraged when drone attacks kill entire families?

Drone attacks that kill civilians usually fall into our category of "collateral damage", because the dead civilians weren't specifically targeted, and we treat this category as an unfortunate consequence of war, not murder. Afghans see little difference – rightly so, in my opinion, because their loved ones are dead because of the conscious actions of Nato forces.

This distinction between collateral damage and murder seems to come down to the question of intent. Thomas Aquinas was one of the first to hone in on this distinction with his doctrine of double effect, which is still used today to justify collateral damage. It is believed in the west that some innocent death is excusable in war, as long as the deaths are not intended, and even if those deaths are foreseeable. But if civilian deaths are foreseeable in a course of action, and we take that action anyway, did we not intend them? I doubt Afghans would feel much consolation knowing that their family members were not directly targeted; rather, we just expected that our actions would kill a few people and it happened to be their family members – an unfortunate side-effect of war.

Yet, western audiences feel reassured knowing that most of the civilian deaths in Afghanistan were not intended; and they only become outraged when marines and soldiers clearly target civilians and kill women and children, urinate on their bodies, and plunder their body parts as trophies. From Abu Ghraib, to Fallujah, to Haditha, and now to Panjwai, US forces have committed massacres against civilians. These incidents stand out in the western mind, but to Afghans and Iraqis, they are no different from the daily slaughter of civilians by drones, air strikes, depleted uranium and stray bullets. .................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/13/systemic-atrocity-afghanistan-occupation

[kenny blankenship]

1. It's just one war crime wrapped up inside the larger crime of the O ccupation.

Fortunately, we're very good as a people at distinguishing the regrettable "isolated incidents" in retrospect from the general good that we always try to do. In retrospect, we came to see what we did to Vietnam as an isolated incident. There was no connection there to what we had done previously to the Philippines, for example. Likewise, support for genocidal warfare in Guatemala during the Clinton Administration wasn't connected in our minds to support for Salvadoran right wing death squads or support for the terrorist Contra organization in Nicaragua during the Reagan Administration which occurred in the previous decade. These were each isolated incidents and had no relation to each other. Iraq also was an isolated incident. If that war left any bad aftertaste in the public's mouth well, a bad Republican was responsible for all the horrors that ensued from the decision to invade and occupy. But now that we have a Democrat in the White House, he has a clean slate and what he's doing in Afghanistan has no relation whatsoever to what his predecessor was doing there nor in Iraq. None. We know he has the best of intentions, the very best - because they mirror our own. So when Afghan or Pakistani villagers are massacred by our bullets or bombs this is a regrettable occurrence to be sure if it happens ( How can we be sure that Al-Qaeda doesn't fabricate all those rumors!), but it in no way detracts from the general good and pure intentions we are pursuing with our presence there. Nor from the general good we have always pursued in such places. From Mexico to the Philippines to Vietnam, down through Central America, Africa, Lebanon, and on to Iraq and Afghanistan we have only had the best of intentions. And when some things go wrong and the cameras can't be kept away, it is easy enough to remind yourself that it was only an isolated incident.

[indepat]

2. When the UN Charter was being drafted and later approved, it was anticipated that the member of the

Security Council would keep the smaller powers in check, thereby assuring world order. Surely it was not forseen that the United States would be almost continuously involved in the internal affairs of other nations, either through direct military interventions or clandistine CIA operations (see Wikipedia). And with big cannons on the hips, who's gonna give any lip?