An important story is happening right now that’s not getting a whole lot of media attention. A military court is investigating claims that members of a U.S. Army Stryker unit randomly killed Afghan civilians. Some of the soldiers say they were pressured by a commanding officer into participating in the crimes. There are also reports that soldiers took photos of the dead Afghans, along with body parts. One of earliest accounts I’d read of the story appeared in the British media (Guardian, 9/9/10).
The basic outline of the story was recounted in a New York Times story on September 27. But the headline of the piece in some editions (it’s still here) was striking: “Drug Use Cited in Unit Tied to Civilian Deaths.”
That is a reference to the brief mention near the bottom of the piece from one lawyer who suggested there was widespread drug use in the unit. That would hardly seem like the most important revelation in the article.
Or consider how NBC Nightly News covered the same story on September 28, courtesy of anchor Brian Williams:
An interrogation video is providing chilling details about how a group of American soldiers allegedly murdered Afghan civilians, and what we’re learning is from the soldiers themselves. It’s all part of a case that could have an impact on the war in Afghanistan and perhaps put American troops at greater risk of retaliation.
Is it really necessary to justify coverage of the random murder of Afghan civilians by pointing to the hypothetical deaths of U.S. soldiers in response?
The focus on how war crimes will impact US troops often is a main focus of “progressive” commentary, as well, isn’t it?
Perhaps it’s considered a “pragmatic” way to reach a larger audience with an anti-war message, but I think it diminishes the hell Afghans face from our tax dollars at work to frame their tormentors as “victims”.
But while justice demands that these rank and file soldiers be held responsible for these atrocities, it also requires that those who make policy bear the greatest punishment for this horror.
And history teaches us that this is the rarest of occurrences, doesn’t it?
Being an empiricist, I have to feel that it won’t happen.
Being a moralist, I have to try to see that it will.
Imagine that, joining up with a killing force undermines your morality…who knew.
That MSM whitewashes it speaks to a more pervasive morality problem and one that will only perpetuate our ever increasing bloodthirstiness.
Obviously the only threat the paper was interested in is retaliatory strikes against occupation troops both NATO and especially USA. Nothing else was important to them and it shows in the reporting too.
Well this story is written by Peter Hart(loved his telling Dems they should not talk about healthcare if they want to win…imagine their seminal achievement,and they must hide from it.)He is very left as is the British guardian-the New york crimes– that he references.So this article sounds a bit in that corner.And that “corner” is damn unreliable.Especially when dealing with the military.So all with a huge grain of salt please.IF…If murderers were killing people while in the uniform of a United states soldier- while in country,than of course prosecute them.The number is probably small.Then get out of the way so they can do what they have been trained and ordered to do.
Who knew that training troops to rush in and kill as many “others” as they can could make it more dangerous for the soldiers that come in behind them. These individuals have to be held responsible for their crimes but so do the policy makers and the people that chose them and trained them and looked the other way while it happened.
I do feel sorry for the troops that really are attempting to win hearts and minds over there. These incidents hurt their mission. But mostly I cry when I think of how much good could have been done for Afghanistan, and Iraq, with the money that has been spent to destroy them. We could have won a lot more hearts and minds that way.