The media template for writing about Afghan civilian casualties requires that articles include some reference to the extreme care taken by U.S/NATO forces to avoid killing non-combatants. The practice reached a new low in this New York Times story (5/29/10) about a U.S. drone attack that killed 23 civilians:
The attack, in which three vehicles were destroyed, illustrated the extraordinary sensitivity to the inadvertent killing of noncombatants by NATO forces. Since taking command here last June, General McChrystal has made protection of civilians a high priority, and has sharply restricted airstrikes.
The attack on civilians illustrated the sensitivity to the killing of civilians. What?
Given that the report explains that the intelligence gathering was inadequate–including the fact that evidence about the presence of civilians went unheeded–doesn’t this actually show that there isn’t enough sensitivity around the killing of innocents?
Peter, I suspect the reasoning – if you can call it that – is that the mere fact that this war crime has any public visibility at all illustrates “sensitivity”.
Regardless, Newspeak is old hat for the corpress, isn’t it?
Peace … I mean, war … brother.
I’ve followed the NYT for long enough that I have no doubt at all it’s an intentional, systematic policy of theirs, at least where it comes to business and war, to report as fact any intention the government claims, no matter how much actions render those proclaimed intentions dubious or prove them to be lies, as in the case of the cavalier massacre of civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
(As FAIR and others discussed, the jingo NYT actively solicited an op-ed to argue the military isn’t killing enough civilians. That this body count is a metric reflecting proportional US military resolve or something.)
It should be no surprise to anyone that the Times continues to be an apologist for war. One need only check the archives on the Iraq Wars I and II, the Vietnam early coverage…or lack thereof…, etc.
I don’t know who owns and runs the NYT, but I’m sure they are invested, in some other business venture, in the war machine.
Double-speak has been part of the strategy of empirical warfare for time immemorial.
“Freedom”, “protection”, “defense”, “democracy” are the claims from above –
what actually takes place on the ground might appear to be somewhat different.
When a government wants to go to war, the press has no option but to support that effort, or face severe retribution. Look at the Gulf of Tonkin incident – not one paper challenged the utter falsehood of that made-up attack.
On the other hand, more journalists have been killed in Iraq than in any previous war. Coincidence?
What disturbs the foot soldier is that if his unit is fired upon by some who then flee into a house, the foot-soldiers will then open the door to the house (by kicking or otherwise) and expose themselves to gunfire or booby traps. Inside they are likely to find that the door to every room is closed. They can expose themselves to the same danger door to door or they can throw a grenade or fire into the room hoping to disable any combatants inside or at least cause them to return fire, thus locating them. If it turns out that there are a couple or women and maybe a child or two in the room who are dead or seriously wounded then the soldiers will face investigation and likely prosecution. On the other hand, if a jet, a helicopter or a UAV bombs the wrong house killing an entire family it will be considered “collateral damage” if one or more could be combatants or “bad information” if it’s a house full of women, children and old men.
Journalists are very dangerous on the battlefield as they are likely to report things that the military and maybe the government doesn’t want reported. A number of the journalists killed in Iraq were “accidentally” killed by the good guys.
It gets much easier if you just adopt the evidentiary presumption that all governments lie, and that all government officials are liars, unless proven otherwise. With the burden of proof resting on the government.
It would be refreshing to read reports like: Gen. “Pat Tillman & Pvt. What’sHerName Faker” McChrystal lied today that he spent lots of time praying that they wouldn’t kill civilians with Predator Drone attacks today, but officers under his command, promised anonymity so they wouldn’t face the kind of hostile friendly fire that ended Pat Tillman’s life after he complained to the company shrink that he was pretty much convinced the Iraq and Afghan invasions were illegal, and the continued occupations of those countries completely illegal.
“What McChrystal did say, off the record his officers claim, is that “I don’t give a rat’s ass for these third-world, illiterate, opium-sucking wife-beaters. What counts is that we secure an oil and gas pipeline right-of-way from the Caspian basin to the Indian Ocean, to help make Enron’s natural gas electric generating plant make a profit, among other things.
Of a piece, Israeli War Forces (IWF) pronouncements re: the Palestinians. You may recall that Gaza voted in an outfit called Hamas, and the US ignored the election (even “lust in his heart” Jimmy Carter participated in certifying that the elections were fair).
The “four maps” show fairly clearly just what Israel’s “intermediate” solution is for the Palestinians, leading, of course, to the “final solution,” of exterminating and/or driving them out of Palestine.
Here’s one URL where the historic maps (before partition, after partition, after 6-day war, current:
http://www.aaronniequist.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/Palestine-landmap_edit.jpg
The New York Times: “A government spokesman said today…” “We (the US and NATO) are more careful in killing civilians than before…” “Remember, we’re (the US and NATO) the good guys here…” “Blah, blah, blah…” “More and more BS!”
One of the problems is that McChrystal’s Commander in-Chief passed up the chance to fire him after he appointed him and gave him more troops McChrystal said: I need more troops. This is a guy who ran the special assassination forces for the Pentagon and the same guy that was in charge when his unit made a hero out of a football hero and then “discovered” he was killed by friendly fire. Now he’s got the NYTimes pointing out how careful he is about collateral damage when he kills 27 civilians.
This guy is not into running an Army for a Democracy he’s into running the Mafia on St Valentines Day.
The Commander in Chief is in no position to be saying “if he worked for me I’d have fired him”