U.S. Once Again Shows Disregard For Civilians

The U.S. is purportedly in a "war on terrorism." In that war George Bush has determined that there is no law either in the U.S. or internationally that applies. In pursuing his "war" Bush has violated so many laws and agreements, but he has also shown a total disregard for life. This policy comes from the supposed "culture of life" president. In yet another example that people don't matter, and the end justifies the means, the CIA bombed a small village of Damadola Burkanday in Pakistan. The three house targeted purportedly housed Ayman Zawahiri; but that was apparently incorrect intelligence. Eighteen civilians were murdered In this bombing. This follows upon another bombing strike by the U.S. on January 7, 2006, that murdered another eight civilians. In that case, a cleric's home in Saidgi, Pakistan was bombed. The U.S. denied they were involved at the time, but it is now tacitly acknowledged they were responsible.

Pakistan, who has been an ally to the United States - particularly in its war on Afghanistan - has consistently denied the U.S. the authority to carry out military operations inside Pakistan. Despite this, the U.S. has consistently crossed the border over the four an a half years of that conflict. The most recent (known) bombing in Damadola Burkanday is being protested by both the government and the people. In fact, the US ambassador summoned over Bajaur air strike and given a formal letter of protest. It is not at all surprising that people are in the streets in outrage.

picture from Ali Imam of Reuters, and included with the NY Times article Airstrike by U.S. Draws Protests From Pakistanis

The targeting of civilians is a human rights violation.

How important is one man? How many innocent lives are worth one man's death? Thousands are dead and maimed in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the pursuit of bin Laden and his lieutenants. Thousands more are dead and maimed in Iraq for ... what? The entire city of Fallujah was brought to the ground to root out suspected terrorists - as was the city of Sammara

When the target is one person, then what we are talking about is assassination. George Bush has apparently felt that using missiles - an indiscriminate weapon to be sure - is appropriate in assassination attempts. Remember the bombing of the restaurant in Baghdad where it was assumed Saddam Hussein would be?

Some would argue that this is just how war is. However, when one is doing assassinations, that is tangential to war. Generally, a "military target" is an installation or collection of forces, or even an infrastructure. Since when is an individual a military target to be taken out with the deadly mass weapons of war? This is not a new policy in some regards. During the Bush Sr. Gulf War, a bomb shelter was targeted with "smart" bombs under the suspicion that Saddam Hussein was there. So I guess that Bush Jr. learned this tactic from his father. How many non-combatants - otherwise known as civilians - are acceptable losses in the pursuit of assassination? Someone had better figure out where that line is.

It is important to note that the two most recent attacks on civilians in Pakistan were CIA operations - apparently operating in cooperation with the U.S. military (or Special Forces). The predator drones, and their deadly payload, were reportedly controlled by the CIA. These were "intelligence" assassination attempts. They were also carried out illegally as Pakistan has denied the U.S. the right to operate inside its borders.

Aside from the legal and moral issues involved in this approach, it does not serve the overall stated ends of the war on terrorism - namely to end terrorism. The targeting of civilians feeds the hatred of the United States and draws more people into the conflict. That is clear in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Iraq, and across the Muslim world. This is ill conceived as well as being illegal and immoral.

The United States suffered 3,000 deaths and the destruction of a few buildings on September 11, 2001. The retaliation for that attack - and it clearly started as retaliation before it morphed into war without end - has cost tens of thousands of lives and the destruction of two entire countries. Each new atrocity simply reinforces the United States as a rogue nation. Ultimately, rogue nations will be brought to heel. This approach does not make the United States, nor any other nation, safer. It does not address the roots of terrorism. It does not lead the world to peace.

Historical note: See Wilipedia's U.S. invasion of Afghanistan to help recall the first stop in the "war on terrorism."

Posted by rowan at January 16, 2006 6:40 AM | [eMail this article!] |