The War to Promote Terror

"This is a report on the flawed premise from which ultimate failure
flows - the flawed premise that keeps hell active and guarantees an
endless supply of enemies. And the more of these "enemies," and their
children, that we kill, the less safe we are, and we know this, so we
lie about the numbers of dead. Most of all we lie about what we are,
in fact, doing, which is fighting an irrational war, most accurately
called the war to promote terror

"Not only are the numbers of dead downplayed significantly in official
military statements and the sympathetic (mainstream) media, but those
civilian dead who are acknowledged are instantly rendered
"regrettable, but not our fault" by the circular, all-purpose
justification that they were not deliberately targeted. When you bomb
a village, the dead are random and anonymous - and therefore, thanks
to some legalistic moral loophole, no one's fault...And this is one of
the military advantages of air war, as far as I can tell. However
horrific the results it produces on the ground - "I saw pieces of
bodies scattered around . . . I couldn't even make out which part was
which . . . it was just flesh everywhere" - the perpetrators maintain
an easy moral purity that forestalls self-doubt and revulsion.

= =

Published on Friday, October 3, 2008 by Common Wonders
The War to Promote Terror

by Robert C. Koehler

The "necessary war" in Afghanistan, which both presidential candidates
support - the one, you know, that's really about terrorists and Osama
and all - raises as many troubling questions about who we are as the
other war we're fighting and losing.

Consider the details of this war. The aggregate civilian death toll,
at the hands of the U.S. and NATO - between 6,800 and more than 8,000,
according to economics professor Marc Herold of the University of New
Hampshire - is a start. But Herold's about-to-be-released report on
the bombing campaign in Afghanistan, "The Matrix of Death," is a
disturbing analysis not only of the collateral damage churned up by
our terrorist-hunt in this broken nation, but of the attitude and
rationality that are driving it. The report is subtitled: "The
(Under)Valuation of an Afghan Life."

This is a report on the flawed premise from which ultimate failure
flows - the flawed premise that keeps hell active and guarantees an
endless supply of enemies. And the more of these "enemies," and their
children, that we kill, the less safe we are, and we know this, so we
lie about the numbers of dead. Most of all we lie about what we are,
in fact, doing, which is fighting an irrational war, most accurately
called the war to promote terror. We will not win it unless we revert
to the morality of Ancient Rome: "create a wasteland and call it
peace." But that's not winning, either.

What it is, indeed, is racism, especially the use of what is called
close air support: In order to protect the lives of American and NATO
(mostly white) troops, we do much of our fighting from the air, with
500- and 2,000-pound bombs, lacerating a (non-white) Afghan population
we don't even have to face.

Herold quotes John MacLachlen Gray in the U.K. Globe and Mail: ". . .
the slaughter of innocent people, as a statistical eventuality is not
an accident but a priority - in which Afghan civilian casualties are
substituted for American military casualties." Herold adds: "What I am
saying is that when the 'other' is non-white, the scale of violence
used by the U.S. government to achieve its stated objectives at
minimum cost knows no limits."

This is a description of U.S. policy stripped of the pretense in which
it is usually cloaked. Not only are the numbers of dead downplayed
significantly in official military statements and the sympathetic
(mainstream) media, but those civilian dead who are acknowledged are
instantly rendered "regrettable, but not our fault" by the circular,
all-purpose justification that they were not deliberately targeted.

When you bomb a village, the dead are random and anonymous - and
therefore, thanks to some legalistic moral loophole, no one's fault.
And this is one of the military advantages of air war, as far as I can
tell. However horrific the results it produces on the ground - "I saw
pieces of bodies scattered around . . . I couldn't even make out which
part was which . . . it was just flesh everywhere" - the perpetrators
maintain an easy moral purity that forestalls self-doubt and
revulsion.

Aerial bombardment, therefore, because of the psychological insulation
of distance that it provides - especially when added to the
psychological insulation of racism, which makes non-white deaths
matter little or not at all - is a particularly insidious form of
warfare, and its perfection is in and of itself a dire threat to
humanity's future.

And, as Herold writes: "The recent increasing reliance upon unmanned
drones to dispense death and destruction in the border regions is in a
sense the penultimate disconnect between killing them and saving
ours."

To put this all another way, the simple math of conventional national
security - the zero-sum game of kill or be killed, our lives matter
and theirs don't - is terrifyingly counterproductive in the 21st
century. It always has been, of course, but we used to be protected
from its consequences by distance and ignorance. Humanity is connected
now like never before, and possesses the technology of self-
annihilation. Such technology cannot be contained, and thus true
security has nothing to do with national borders. We cannot afford to
devalue any portion of the human race.

For that reason, the most disturbing part of Herold's report may have
been his discussion of the "condolence" money paid, occasionally, to
the survivors of Afghan civilians killed by our actions. These payouts
have ranged from as low as $400 per dead civilian to several thousand
dollars.

Herold puts this into perspective: "Approximately $80,000 was spent on
the rehabilitation of every sea otter affected by the Exxon Valdez oil
spill, that is, ten times the condolence amount offered by the U.S.
military to the family of an Afghan killed."

This does not make me feel safe. I can't even fathom the values that
are operating here, even though they are stamped: "U.S.A." We are
already reaping what the Bush legacy has sown, but there's a lot more
that awaits us, and we have no right to be surprised when it comes.

(c) 2008 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

Robert Koehler, an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist, is an
editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally syndicated writer. You
can respond to this column at

or visit his Web site at commonwonders.com.


http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/03-2
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]