Over last weekend, reports emerged about a US coalition airstrike in Afghanistan that killed a two-year-old boy. I read about it in the Washington Post (11/29/13), but couldn’t help but find some of the language in the report puzzling.
Right in the lead, the boy’s death was called “the latest crisis to confront American officials” who are trying to finalize a security deal with the Afghan government. The Post‘s Tim Craig went on to say that the “civilian casualties could not have come at a worse time for US diplomats,” and that the “death of the child further complicates the already strained relationship” between the US and Afghan governments.
Yes, poorly timed kid-killing really complicates things.
Much of the journalism about Afghanistan right now is about the “strain” between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the United States, expressing bafflement and irritation at Karzai’s criticism of US military attacks that kill civilians. The New York Times got into the act on December 1, when reporter Rod Nordland wrote a piece on this topic.
Under the headline “Afghans Assail Karzai’s Disparate Views on Killings,” Nordland explained that Karzai was getting outraged by US attacks on civilians, but staying mum when the attackers are the Taliban: “The attack he complained about was carried out by the American-led coalition and used a drone. The attack he ignored was by the Taliban and used a suicide bomber.”
Nordland explains that the “disparity in the Afghan president’s reaction has been rued by American officials here”–no surprise there–but that it also “has started to draw criticism among many Afghans.” Given that this is the message of the headline, you have to assume it’s the most important point of the article. Nordland writes:
In short, many Afghans have begun asking, Who exactly are our enemies here? The Americans, who underwrite our government and military but now say they will be forced to withdraw in 2015 without a security deal? Or the Taliban, who have a history of killing officials even remotely connected with the government–a policy that has apparently begun to claim the lives even of some independent relief workers?
That’s a New York Times reporter’s criticism of Karzai; which Afghans are saying this? That’s hard to say, because Nordland quotes just one person saying this: Atiqullah Baryalai, who used to work for Karzai. There are plenty of other Afghans in the piece, but they’re mostly concerned with the debate over signing the security arrangement with the United States.
It’s not unheard of for journalists to express strong opinions about how the United States should conduct its wars. ABC Pentagon correspondent Martha Raddatz (FAIR Blog, 6/6/11) once declared this about the US war in Afghanistan: “The airstrikes and these night raids just simply have to continue if they’re going to go after the enemy.” That’s the kind of opinion you’re allowed to express.
But sometimes reporters express their opinions by attributing them to others–New York Times reporter John Burns (Extra!, 11/08) did this when he would say things like, “In my experience, the great majority of Iraqis are…very loathe to see those American troops leave now.” Actually, surveys showed most Iraqis wanted US troops to leave their country.
It’s not clear what Afghans think about how long US troops should stay. But it seems clear that it’s more the case that a New York Times reporter–and not “many Afghans”–are mad at Karzai for being mad at US attacks on civilians. The headline “US Government, Reporters Assail Karzai’s Disparate Views on Killings” would have been more accurate.
American Viceroy in Kabul, Hamid Karzai, is not fool to understand that the so-called “Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA)” is not good for him and the country, because the presence of 8,000 US-NATO soldiers will keep the region unstable for decades to come.
Afghanistan’s immediate neighors (Pakistan, Iran, India, China and former Russian Republics, are all against US-NATO forces being in Afghanistan.
On Tuesday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Marziyeh Afkham stressed that the proposed BSA between Kabul and Washington will not serve the government of Afghanistan, its people or the region.
“Long ago, US commanders had said the Afghan War was unwinnable on the battlefield and that a negotiated settlement was required. The problem is, because of plummeting support for the war at home, President Barack Obama pledged to withdraw US forces by the end of 2014. As the British learned in Yemen during the 1960s, when the occupying power announces when it is exiting, guerrillas just stay in the field and wait for the stronger party’s departure. In other words, the Taliban has no incentive to negotiate for lesser results when they can get most of what they want just by waiting. Also, many Afghans, knowing that the Taliban will remain long after US forces withdraw, will begin cooperating with the insurgents even though some may not want to,” wrote Ivan Eland PhD in October 2013.
http://rehmat1.com/2013/12/04/tehran-wants-us-nato-out-of-afghanistan/
Thanks Peter for doing a piece on this. The NYT article was one of those where the journalist so obviously went out of his way to find the Afghan that agreed with him. And then of course that becomes the basis of the article. As you said, the article hardly backs up this bold headline.
That’s right, Rehmat. During the Vietnam war, the Viet Cong new that, sooner or later, the Americans would leave and the killing would finally stop. We never belonged there, and should never have gone there; the same is true in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Viet Cong and the Taliban are not even remotely alike, but for the US, the results of our imbecile and deadly war-making are always the same. It’s too bad about what is (and was) happening to Afghanis (especially women) but we always do way more harm than good, and the waste and mayhem and murder we cause and countenance are sickening and appalling. What we’re doing to our own soldiers we drop into the grinder (Ann Jones: read her new book, “They Were Soldiers”) is a massive and untold crime in and of itself, never mind the carnage we inflict on indigenous people in the dozen or so war zones we’ve created in the last twenty years across the world.
In short, the US has learned nothing since Vietnam; incredibly, we seem to have filled with even more hubris and ignorance and lust for violence. (As long as it’s some young and un-famous and un-rich person from Edmund, Oklahoma, or Helmand Province doing the dying.)
Thank god for Peter Hart and his diligence.
Yes, and such propaganda prevails not only in US press, but also trickles down to the European one and European ‘experts’ on Afghanistan, who usually have no clue about wat is happening over there. When a few years ago the US withdrew its army the Pech valley on the border of Kunar and Nuristan -after having created mahem there for long years-, some US army official was quoted as saying that lo and behold “they had discovered, that the population there actually wasn’t anti-American and all it wanted was to live in peace. That the problems actually had been caused by the US army itself.” I paraphrase, but that is the core of the problem. The ‘taliban’ suicide attacks, would not occur if our armies were not there …
As a matter of fact, they did not occur until they were invented in the war in Iraq -also our doing- and were exported to Afghanistan. This apart from the fact that the president of a supposedly ‘sovereign’ country, elected in -according to our own propaganda- democratic elections made possible by NATO, is entitled to have opinions about whose carnage he deems more criminal.
Karzai certainly is not a paragon of virtue, but I challenge anyone to perform much better while being held hostage time and again by the US government. It’s like having to drive a car through a minefield with your hands cuffed behind your back and a hood over your head.
Can we please STOP saying “attacks on civilians”Not that it makes one childs life less……but this country is not setting out to attack civilians OR children.They are being killed in spight of our best efforts not to kill them in a war zone.The terrorist factions are setting out TO kill those same people.It may not matter to the dead.But it sure as hell should matter to the living in deciding who is the enemy.
Afghans killing Afghans is a domestic matter, like Americans killing Americans—-to be dealt with domestically. Americans killing Afghans is like Al-Qaeda killing Americans, and naturally arouses more anger and is more relevant to international relations.
Indeed to the revised headline! Jaded journalists and power-mad pols should never call themselves “proLIFE” while killing, maiming, torturing, imprisoning and destroying the lands of others, ostensibly to bring democracy to the survivors. What a farce! Were the parents of that two year old incipient insurgent also killed as responders or the mourners at his funeral (as other victims’ have succumbed as “collateral damage”)? A President with a “kill list” makes all of us taxpayers who pay for these ever more diabolical weapons accessories to murder. At the very least, once we assassinated Osama bin Laden, we should have left since he was the supposed reason our military invaded. Defund endless war and use those trillions to save life and our planet should be the Must Send Message from the MSM!
Amanda Mark and Frank…You want us to stop bringing the fight to our enemies ,and disengage from the war zone.Ok there are some real reasons why that may make sense.What do you think would be the result?as it is Obama doubled the troops this year in the afghan theater.While casualties have tripled.Want to know why?Because Obama changed the rules of engagement.Now we cant literally do much, until we have been attacked.So see your ideas of how to conduct a war seems to of reached all the way upstairs.And Afghan deaths have been trending down due to that.Though ours are trending up.It seems our adversaries learn quick that we are slow to shoot.They are not.