More Bad News From The Brits... We Don't Want Any Part Of US's War Crimes

British Criticize Air Attacks in Afghan Region

Now that Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister for Great Britain, we may see more actions of this type. Clearly the British are responding to international pressure to distance themselves from some of the actions taken by US forces and the Pentagon because they clearly violate international law, treaties signed and ratified by the US, and general decency.

Some of my friends are serving in Afghanistan and they are disgusted with the things that are ongoing in that part of the world. They are seeing the fraud and failures first hand, as well as efforts to minimize the fallout, media attention and revelations by troops vis e-mail and letters sent home.

A senior British commander in southern Afghanistan said in recent weeks that he had asked that American Special Forces leave his area of operations because the high level of civilian casualties they had caused was making it difficult to win over local people.

Other British officers here in Helmand Province, speaking on condition of anonymity, criticized American Special Forces for causing most of the civilian deaths and injuries in their area. They also expressed concerns that the Americans’ extensive use of air power was turning the people against the foreign presence as British forces were trying to solidify recent gains against the Taliban.

It takes a lot for a career military officer--in any nation's military command structure--to speak out in this manner. There is a hell of a lot of inherent pressure to shut up, toe the line, and follow orders. But there is a line that good career officers do not willingly cross because it is a violation of international law, a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), specific military regulations (each branch has its own set of regulations), and constitute crimes against humanity.

So, when senior commanders speak, even under the cloak of anonymity, we should listen carefully... and heed the very idea that they are speaking out as a warning that something is gravely amiss.

An American military spokesman denied that the request for American forces to leave was ever made, either formally or otherwise, or that they had caused most of the casualties. But the episode underlines differences of opinion among NATO and American military forces in Afghanistan on tactics for fighting Taliban insurgents, and concerns among soldiers about the consequences of the high level of civilians being killed in fighting.

It is not surprising that US spokespersons are denying these things. Denial is the first line of defense in the military public relations handbook. But even more significant is the fact that denial is the first and only rule under the Bush administration's fouled up way of proceeding when it comes to the so-called "war on terror," the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the criminality of its military strategy and actions.

Most of us having served honorably in the US military are ashamed of the way Bush has conducted himself and issued orders in regard to these matters. The use of torture to coerce prisoners is a dishonorable act on the part of any soldier. It is inherently evil and we--the United States--have chastised and criminalized such acts on the part of our enemies in Germany during both World Wars, the Koreans and Chinese during the Korean War, the Vietnamese during that subsequent war, and by those regimes that have routinely used such approaches, including North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Argentina, Venezuela, Chile, Iran, and elsewhere. But we have been two-faced and hypocritical in the past by allowing other nations to enjoy our aid and support while enduring such criminal actions.

These are criminal acts... and we helped to define them as such by the treaties and international laws that we have helped to establish.

A precise tally of civilian deaths is difficult to pin down, but one reliable count puts the number killed in Helmand this year at close to 300 civilians, the vast majority of them caused by foreign and Afghan forces, rather than the Taliban.

“Everyone is concerned about civilian casualties,” the senior British commander said. “Of course it is counterproductive if civilians get injured, but we’ve got to pick up the pack of cards that we have got. Other people have been operating in our area before us.”

Of course there isn't a precise tally of the casualties: we haven't bothered to count, or even cared to count. But I can empathize with the senior British commander because I have had to pick up after some other idiot has mucked up the project or campaign. I hate picking up after someone else has already shat upon the works.

It is these American teams that are coming under criticism. They tend to work in small units that rely heavily on air cover because they are vulnerable to large groups of insurgents. Such Special Forces teams have often called in airstrikes in Helmand and other places where civilians have subsequently been found to have suffered casualties.

In just two cases, airstrikes killed 31 nomads west of Kandahar in November last year and another 57 villagers, half of them women and children, in western Afghanistan in April. In both cases, United States Special Forces were responsible for calling in the airstrikes.

The use of air strikes indiscriminately is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. In fact, under these conventions and the UN Charter, aggressor troops are required to use specific caution when operating in areas populated by civilians, especially when calling for artillery and air strikes. Evidently, not only has Bush and company ignored these LAWS, but also his own claim to Christianity, decency and American principles.

But the senior British commander, who spoke on condition of anonymity during an interview in July, said that in Sangin, which has been calm recently, there was no longer a need for United States Special Forces. “There aren’t large bodies of Taliban to fight anymore; we are dealing with small groups and we are trying to kick-start reconstruction and development,” he said.

Orders had just come down from the NATO force’s headquarters in Kabul, which is led by Gen. Dan K. McNeill of the United States, re-emphasizing the need to avoid civilian deaths, he said.

“The phrase is: ‘It may be legal but is it appropriate?’ No one is saying it is illegal to use air power, but is there any other way of doing it if there is a risk of collateral damage?” he said.

People seem to be forgetting that it is only "collateral damage" when it isn't your troops or civilians being killed, wounded or maimed for life. Collateral damage is a euphemism for not really giving a damn who was wounded, maimed or killed, as long as they weren't my friends.