Posted on 12/20/2001 9:11:09 AM PST by afuturegovernor
The innocent dead in a coward's war
Estimates suggest US bombs have killed at least 3,767 civilians
Seumas Milne
Thursday December 20, 2001
The Guardian
The price in blood that has already been paid for America's war against terror is only now starting to become clear. Not by Britain or the US, nor even so far by the al-Qaida and Taliban leaders held responsible for the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington. It has instead been paid by ordinary Afghans, who had nothing whatever to do with the atrocities, didn't elect the Taliban theocrats who ruled over them and had no say in the decision to give house room to Bin Laden and his friends.
The Pentagon has been characteristically coy about how many people it believes have died under the missiles it has showered on Afghanistan. Acutely sensitive to the impact on international support for the war, spokespeople have usually batted away reports of civilian casualties with a casual "these cannot be independently confirmed", or sometimes simply denied the deaths occurred at all. The US media have been particularly helpful. Seven weeks into the bombing campaign, the Los Angeles Times only felt able to hazard the guess that "at least dozens of civilians" had been killed.
Now, for the first time, a systematic independent study has been carried out into civilian casualties in Afghanistan by Marc Herold, a US economics professor at the University of New Hampshire. Based on corroborated reports from aid agencies, the UN, eyewitnesses, TV stations, newspapers and news agencies around the world, Herold estimates that at least 3,767 civilians were killed by US bombs between October 7 and December 10. That is an average of 62 innocent deaths a day - and an even higher figure than the 3,234 now thought to have been killed in New York and Washington on September 11.
Of course, Herold's total is only an estimate. But what is impressive about his work is not only the meticulous cross-checking, but the conservative assumptions he applies to each reported incident. The figure does not include those who died later of bomb injuries; nor those killed in the past 10 days; nor those who have died from cold and hunger because of the interruption of aid supplies or because they were forced to become refugees by the bombardment. It does not include military deaths (estimated by some analysts, partly on the basis of previous experience of the effects of carpet-bombing, to be upwards of 10,000), or those prisoners who were slaughtered in Mazar-i-Sharif, Qala-i-Janghi, Kandahar airport and elsewhere.
Champions of the war insist that such casualties are an unfortunate, but necessary, byproduct of a just campaign to root out global terror networks. They are a world apart, they argue, from the civilian victims of the attacks on the World Trade Centre because, in the case of the Afghan civilians, the US did not intend to kill them.
In fact, the moral distinction is far fuzzier, to put it at its most generous. As Herold argues, the high Afghan civilian death rate flows directly from US (and British) tactics and targeting. The decision to rely heavily on high-altitude air power, target urban infrastructure and repeatedly attack heavily populated towns and villages has reflected a deliberate trade-off of the lives of American pilots and soldiers, not with those of their declared Taliban enemies, but with Afghan civilians.
Thousands of innocents have died over the past two months, not mainly as an accidental byproduct of the decision to overthrow the Taliban regime, but because of the low value put on Afghan civilian lives by US military planners.
Raids on targets such as the Kajakai dam power station, Kabul's telephone exchange, the al-Jazeera TV station office, lorries and buses filled with refugees and civilian fuel trucks were not mistakes. Nor were the deaths that they caused. The same goes for the use of anti-personnel cluster bombs in urban areas. But western public opinion has become increasingly desensitised to what has been done in its name. After US AC-130 gunships strafed the farming village of Chowkar-Karez in October, killing at least 93 civilians, a Pentagon official felt able to remark: "the people there are dead because we wanted them dead", while US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld commented: "I cannot deal with that particular village."
Yesterday, Rumsfeld inadvertently conceded what little impact the Afghan campaign (yet to achieve its primary aim of bringing Bin Laden and the al-Qaida leadership to justice) has had on the terrorist threat, by speculating about ever more cataclysmic attacks, including on London. There will be no official two-minute silence for the Afghan dead, no newspaper obituaries or memorial services attended by the prime minister, as there were for the victims of the twin towers. But what has been cruelly demonstrated is that the US and its camp followers are prepared to sacrifice thousands of innocents in a coward's war.
s.milne@guardian.co.uk
3,767 times! Just ask Un-PC. He read the report! LOL!!!!
If you live in a war zone, a country under siege, you can vamoose or you can stay and take your chances. If you don't want to die you have plenty of time to vacate the premises.
I'm just guessing here, but I doubt my buddies, as they plummeted from the 105th floor, felt like they had been given an opportunity to vacate and survive. Do you?
'Y dogies, ol' Buddy, I truly like the way you think. You expressed my sentiments exactly. These "innocents" are the same as the "innocents" who died in Nazi Germany and at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
When war comes, everybody suffers, including "innocents".
As I recall, it was only a little over 300 B-29s. You are right, though, about the hundred-thousand casualties.
Burned 14.7 square miles of downtown Tokyo to the ground.
Yes, there is. What the terrorists did on 9/11 was a blatant and open act of terror in OUR civilians. What is going on in Afghanistan is our necessary response. We couldn't just sit back and do nothing. We had to attack. Actually, we aren't really attacking. We are defending what our country stands for from those who want to take it away. Just look at what the Taliban does to its people. It's clear that they would think of our Constitution as something to fear. And, yes, I say the Taliban because it is clear that they are hiding Bin Laden. So to get Bin Laden we have to cripple the Taliban. And to cripple the Taliban we have to attack Afghanistan. And in attacking people will die. I knew this beforehand. Everyone knew beforehand that Afghani civilians would die. Civilians die in all wars. What matters overall is the end result. If innocent people die then too bad. No, it's not a good thing. Yes, it's tragic. But it is unavoidable in war and right now war is necessary.
Based on the same criteria, 10,000 died at WTC which later turned out to be a grossly inflated figure.
This number of 3,767 is now being quoted by the Left and, as it is repeated again and again, will eventually become The Truth.
If it comes to that, these poor folks could be rich if they just turned obl in . . .
But seriously, the idea of labeling military volunteers as "coward" is a bit wierd; military uniforms are after all symbolic body bags. But nobody wages war by making sure they don't have any advantage over the opposition; rather they reckon that "all's fair in love and war." And try to pick on people who they can defeat.
The declining cost of electronics means that "dumb" bombs are becoming passe; if you think you can actually hit the spot you're aiming for you can be relatively aggressive using your bombs in an effort to defeat your foe. Trouble is, sometimes your weapon proves to be pretty stupid, and sometimes you just are going to be wrong about where you should want the bomb to hit.
But the idea of standing and fighting in line of battle went out with the musket; if the other guy doesn't stand up and fight you're a fool not to duck yourself--and the guy in the fortress took advantage of the cover he had to shoot at people who couldn't easily shoot back, and that traces all the way back to Jerico, at least.
Even caves now offer only superficial protection if your position is accurately reported to the USAF and you are considered a significant target. It is well known by now that our aversion to inflicting civilian casualties is the primary defense against our Air Force and Naval air arm, so use of civilians as human shields is a primary defensive measure if you cannot defeat the Air Force itself.
I think of the cry of the Greek defender when he saw that the Roman catapault made it impossible to man a critical post without being killed--"human valor no longer avails!" The whole complaint boils down to the fact that the Taliban was outgunned. Everything else follows.
Then why didn't they oust the unwanted, foreign Taliban government?
I believe that every good citizen of Afghanastan who has lost their lives through friendly fire or otherwise in the war against the terrorist who have held their country in captive abuse for many years, if able to speak for themselves, would tell us that if there had been a smidgen of hope of defeating the taliban and al-qaida before now, they would have already put their lives on the line.
This war is not about an eye for an eye, or killing as many terrorist as they kill of ours, or about revenge and/or pay back, it is about ridding the world of all who threaten the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happines of peace loving people. Good people are forced to kill certain agressors from time to time, just for survival's sake. Would life be worth living in a world where, fleas, ticks, bacteria, virus, mosquitos, mice, roaches, rabid animals, and fungus were declared to be endangered species and protected by law? Only for those belonging to the listed catagories. I didn't list terrorists among those other pests, even pestilence deserves more respect than that.
The world that pleases Marc Herold, would be hell-your world already exists, Marc, Bon Voyage.
There is not one human being in Afghanastan or any other war zone that may come, that is any more innocent than America's youth in uniform who are not just fighting for us but for the good people in whatever country they are serving in. Our boys and girls in uniform around this planet, risking their lives for what is right and just, are just as innocent as the chicken shit cowards who see only civilians as innocent. I cannot speak for other countries, but I do know that non but the best of the volunteers who apply, are allowed to serve in our Armed Forces.
At Hamburg, they dropped HE first to damage the water mains and make fighting the fires more difficult, then followed up with Incendiary. See The Night Hamburg Died by Martin Caidin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.