Afghani Feelings.

Remove all ads!

@Yago:I'm not implying that there is a difference in how the two papers report the same incident. That isn't what I was comparing/contrasting. They are from different dates because they are reports of different incidents.

@BOC
Nope. The Algeria stuff came from a report covering 1992-2001. The Balkans stuff is recent - Kosovo et al. The Pakistan/India stuff is also recent - within the last few years. I didn't link anything since I came back and Shralp had already done it. The Pakistan/India report was pdf and the France/Algeria stuff was a Guardian report taken from Le Monde. The German stuff was from the bbc I think. If you want links you can try google, which is how I found them, or I'll see if I can find them sometime when I've got a chance - I'm off to work.

@Chandos: I think you totally missed the point of his post. I think your entire post kind of misses the point. I'm not sure anyone has said the military isn't responsible for its screwups. What I think has been said is that being responsible for screwups/accidents doesn't = being terrorists (see the first post of this thread) and that the US soldiers aren't callous/evil for the accidents (see Manus' post for example) and that these accidents are unavoidable when you are engaged in wide scale combat and that is little comfort to the victims and doesn't mean the US isn't responsible for an individual incident (see BTA's post).

The discussion is generated because individual incidents are being taken and used to paint folks with an exceedingly broad brush. In responding to that broad brush stroke other folks may want to point out that it is sadly happening with lots of other folks and since it isn't reasonable to paint everyone in the world perhaps it isn't reasonable to choose to paint just one group. And of course there is the implication that certain folks are evil which is highly ironic coming from folks that argue elsewhere that evil is relative or doesn't exist - go figure.

You can either figure that is what we are talking about or that we're just callous and cruel and don't care about killing children. It's your choice.

[ December 11, 2003, 14:26: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

This is a horrible tragedy. My prayers go out to the families of the victims.

 

@Laches

Very well said.

I have to make it a point to check in here more often after I post

 

Laches - Evidently you missed the meaning of my post entirely, so let's get basic. What BOC, Manus and others have observed is a pattern of blunders by the US military in recent years, mostly during attempts at "nation building." These patterns of blunders can be attributed to two things - either incompetence or disregard for the lives of the civilian population. The former is my take on the matter. That is why I keep hoping that the people in charge may rethink how they conduct their operations while engaged in the policy of nation building. The mistaken bombing of the guy they placed in power in Afghanistan is an example of this kind of incompetence. They almost killed him, and did manage to kill his body guards and several American soldiers. This pattern can be "painted" as you suggest as "evil intent," since if you or I make a huge blunder of this magnitude we would try to correct our mistakes, learn from them and move on with life. So, when blunders are repeated in this manner it is understandable that some may reach the conclusion that it is blantant disregard for the civilian population that we are supposedly there to help.

But apologists for the military and adminstration are giving them a free pass by the smoke and mirror games they play with feeble attempts at drawing the attention to the examples I cited in my post - it's a smoke screen, and because this is a pattern that needs scrutiny, I refuse to be drawn into a debate over the conduct of India, or WWI, or anything else other than the series of blunders made by our guys over and over again as a part of recent policy decisions. Either the execution needs to improve, or the policy needs to be reconsidered if the execution results are not what is intended. It's that simple.

[ December 11, 2003, 20:37: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Oops. Oops. You're right. I've only read the headlines and the date from the Guardian.

 

Captain Insano, I hope you're not claiming that those of us on the boards who advocate freedom for Iraq are the ones who are using some sort of smoke and mirror approach in this thread. A remark was made claiming that the US makes more mistakes than other militaries. It was then refuted. If you need to see more beating of breasts over the loss of innocent lives, then start another topic about it.

 

Well, I see they also engage in name calling as part of the dog-and-pony show. Iraqi freedom? Take a gander at this:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1003831.asp?0dm=C14LN

The return of the old regime - under new management of course.

 

I find it so funny/sad/ironic that the US doesn't learn from their mistakes. I mean, sure, they saved the world in both WW, but get over it!

They're always hiring "Freedom Fighters" to do their dirty work.
* Contras in Nicaragua
* Taliban (and then the NA to fight them when they turned)
* Laotian troops were supported by Nixon, even though his whole campaign was based around stopping Vietnam war.
* Chili
* Panama
...and too many more to list.

Are they doing more good or harm with their constant international interventions?

 

Individual incidents are always sad. They aren't a good reason to determine the entire policy of a nation imo, but put that aside.

There is an implication though that things are getting worse and nobody cares. That's not true. Things are actually getting safer but as there are fewer deaths in actual engagement with the enemy it seems like there is more friendly fire incidents and accidents because, well, what else is there to report on? An accident where 3 are killed for example isn't news if there is a battle of thousands one town over. If there is a rout and a slow news day though the accident that kills 3 may be front page news. It doesn't mean that things are getting worse - it means we are focusing on these things more and more than we had in the past.

For example, friendly fire incidents are now widely reported as the reporting above and the previous threads on the Canadian soldiers killed show. The death of the 4 Canadian soldiers was very sad but compared to the 400+ soldiers killed in a single incident in WWII... I think it is safe to say things ARE getting better whether we choose to appreciate that or not. Historically, these type of things happen. Stonewall Jackson died from friendly fire. Incidents during WWI resulted in hundreds dead and thousands injured. Unfortunately, these types of incidents and accidents have historically occurred. At least the consequences are being reduced.

Does that mean that individual incidents shouldn't be looked at? No. And they are. But I don't think it is inappropriate to hope that things are kept in context. And I also don't think it wrong to hope to avoid this silly blame game whereby certain groups are branded as callous or cruel or evil or stupid or some combination of the above.

The ugly irony is that many of the reasons there are today's friendly fire incidents and accidental attacks on innocents are the same reasons why modern wars kill far fewer civilians and result in far fewer deaths of combatants than at any so many other points (any?) point in history.

 

Imagine the guilt the family of the victims of 9/11 must be feeling. All those years they allowed the government to rule. All those years the government to support the military (sic). If only we hadn't been a nation that harbored attacked other countries that were capable of retaliation. Then this ACCIDENT would have never happened. Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

@Blackhawk

Sorry it took so long to reply, but I just wanted to say that I didn't mean would the US target a child, I mean if the US had a goal, and a child stood in the way, would that child be killed?

As for the rest of the statistics above, just comlete the old saying.

"The first casualty in war is _______."

 

Absolutely. It goes further than that. When it comes to "Force Protection", the policy is shoot first, ask questions later.

 

@Baezlebub

Are you insinuating that the 9/11 attacks were ACCIDENTS?

To compare an accident in a war zone with an act of mass murder is preposterous.

The only other thing I can think of is, that you are implying that American foreign policy is causing people to turn into terrorists. If that was the case all of our terrorist problems would be with Soviet Bloc nations.

From what I can see the world's terrorist problem is from people who have bastardized a peaceful religion and turned their followers into fanatics.

I'm still waiting to hear a workable solution for that problem. The only ones I've heard so far are to kill them all. Being civilized I have a fundamental problem with that one.

 

So it doesn't get buried, the first casualty of wr is the truth. Do you really think that anything happening in Afganistan will reach the sensitive ears of American voters? I doubt it.

 

Laches - I'm glad you brought Stonewall into the debate. He was a rare kind of bird, but his actions at Chancellorsville while brilliant(as usual)were also reckless. He was shot by one of his own men while returning from a night raid near the end of the Battle of Chancellorsville(perhaps Lee's greatest victory). The risks he took were, for the most part, unnecessary, and probably cost him his life. I don't think we could find a general like him today. Risk taking is certainly part of the dynamic of this debate, only we are talking about civilians instead.

Trying to find an acceptable threshold for these kinds of tragedies is difficult. Weighing military necessity against civilian lives is problematic for not only the military planners but the policy makers as well. A degree of risk must be built into the planning. But your feeling is that we have not even come close to that threshold. Let me ask you this, Laches, given what we know about the controversy surrounding some of the pentagon directed "media reporting" (I'm talking Jessica here) are you satisfied that every instance of this is reported by the media? and accurately? I'm not satisfied. But I think it comes down to how much faith you have in the system: media vs administration control of the flow of information. Looking at Al-Jeezera, could they be trusted? Much of the media has been taken over by advocates and I think we are only getting only half the story from our side as well. All of us have to be skeptics now. And there must be a certain threshold, and once it is approached, we have to hold those who are involved in these tragedies accountable.

I did not want it to be my own children whose bodies had to pulled from a pile of rubble. That is one of the reasons I supported the war in Afghanistan. We owed it to the victims of 9/11 and their families to bring those responsible to justice, and swiftly. I pray that I never have to stand in the shoes of that father at the top of the post, and I see his words as an expression of the overwelming grief he must be feeling.

But now the objectives for Afghanistan are becoming less clearly defined and must be seen in the context of other endeavers in the region. The objective seems to be becoming that of nation building. If the cost is a set of tragedies such as this, then I think the cost in civilian life and suffering may be too high a price, including the cost of American blood and treasure. A good part of that treasure could be used in "nation building" here. But America doesn't seem to appear on Bush's list of countries designated for nation building anyway (sorry, I couldn't resist that one).

As reasonable people we are both aware that the administration has an over-arching plan for the entire region, with Afghanistan as just a piece of a larger scheme. I guess it comes down to how much faith one has in that scheme and the people who are engineering and administering that scheme. I really agree with those on this thread who see our role in nation building in the region as misguided, if not heavy-handed arrogance.

[ December 13, 2003, 06:25: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

@ Beelzebub/The Great Snook

FYI: AfganiSTAN was a soviet bloc nation (of sorts) until America (apparently with the help of Rambo) kicked out the Soviets and put the Taliban in power. This is one of countless examples of dictators propped up by the US that come back to bite them in the ass.

It seem that the US is quite skilled at deposing leaders, but inept at selecting new ones.

 

Are you kidding? Do you know how extensive and time consuming the process of searching for the right maniacial dictator or asinine cover-boy can be?

The entire world domination scheme focuses completely on systematically placing fanatical yet somehow inept targets in head positions of every country within the specificially orientated occult and esoterically-geometrically aligned seven-pointed stars in order to rain forth the allotted litres of bloodshed to stain the world-psyche designed to summon the great dark lord of chaos himself- Saureorge Shrublor, or as I know him, Mr. Snuffle-upagus -and usher forth a new era of coca-cola and hatch-back automobiles; while simultaneously befuddling the unsuspecting inhabitants by reducing any thoughts of fear or awe of this new regime through it's enplacement of a leader so ridiculous, so literally unaware of the world around him, it's natural laws -or that unbreacheable law of pronounciaion- so amusing in his child-like attempts to grasp at anything resembling a rational thought, or any thought rooted in a universe of any kind, rational or no, so mind-boggingly non-seriously-atakeableable that they are all left as unsuspecting putty for the hands of the true leaders, THE FRENCH!

My many thanks to Hacken Slash for corroborating on this, and for his inspirational advice. The French are definately to blame, they are still sore that the US tries to steal all the credit for WWII, which the rest of us all know was won by the French and the French alone. Peace Brutha's. We love ya.

No but seriously folks, the Horse$hit aside this is no laughing matter. Whatever the reasons or however this may seem justified to some of the people out there, people are dead, that's all there is too it, that's all there ever is. Life or Death, Spirit or Matter. In the long run, it doesn't matter, nothing does- but here and now I have to ask myself why it keeps happening, again and again, and again? We don't seem to be learning from our mistakes, we don't seem to be approaching some sort of solution- all I can see on the horizon is some world event so horrendous that people are forced to listen to the tiny voice out there telling them to stop. If anyone could answer me that, and is able to convince me that there is not something intrinsically wrong with this, I'll give you a dollar. A whole shiny dollar

 

Yes, I do keep asking why people keep dying in traffic accidents, I know why, but that doesn't mean I think it's any less stupid, or any less avoidable. You don't drive cars, none of this happens. You don't enter into war, none of this happens. I know why it happens, I'm saying that it is both unexcusable, and totally avoidable. I'm not laying the blame on any one party here, but on everyone, everyone that contributes to this entire mess. We can learn from each other's mistakes, and we can learn from our own. People stop making weapons, people stop buying weapons, people stop mining, people stop trying to achieve political power or material gain- we know the root reasons behind these things, but, like cars, they seem too valuable to people to want to give them up. People don't care if it's right or wrong, they don't want to know. It takes two to tango so to speak- if someone *just someone* starts leading by example, and not taking any part of this whatsoever, they cannot be included in any of it. But I don't think enough people will do the same until it's too late, until the damage is done.

Are you going to honestly sit there and say none of this bothers you? I know it's the situation the world is in, I know it takes time for people to get things right, and I know that not everyone is going to see things the same way- but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

You haven't convinced me, no dollar for you

Edit: I hope that didn't come across as depressing or despondant. I can't say that I am surprised or baffled by the world around us, it's a hard word to explain. Like knowing the course someone is going to take, that they will learn it the hard way, and being able to understand why they have gone down that route, but still almost amazed that they will- and being powerless to stop it, if not from a physical or authoritarian sense then from a moral one.

Well, one last thought;

[ December 14, 2003, 02:45: Message edited by: Manus ]