War, Civilians, HRW and Hypocrisy
Loise at CiF Watch in her recent column about Antony Lerman has a link to a fascinating report on 60 Minutes from 2007. The video report is here, the text is here.
It's a report about American bombing in Afghanistan. It focuses on a case where American bombs killed 9 civilians while missing their intended target. No one in the report denies the facts.
The villagers tell how they hate the Americans, and think they're worse than the Soviets. You can see their perspective. The American airforce colonel who commands the hi-tech control center from which all air strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan are directed tells about the major efforts his experts make to limit innocent casualties, including aborting most potential attacks for fear of hitting civilians. He comes across as sincere, and I have no doubt he's telling the truth. Afghanistani President Karzai tells that he understands the Americans have no intention of killing civilians, and he's convinced that when they do so it is always by mistake; yet he insists the American way of waging war is totally counterproductive. He has me convinced. (The report was in 2007, and this year the Americans have begun making a strong effort to reduce civilian casualties - with limited success, if the stories of this week are any indication).
So far, so banal. War is hell, and it's complicated hell, and sometimes the alternatives are far worse, and you have to work unceasingly on making it a bit less hellish, and you'll never fully succeed. I've covered this ground umpteen times, and you've got my message already. The true gem-aspect of the report is when they talk to Marc Garlasco.
Yes, that Marc Garlasco. He of Human Rights Watch; he of the Nazi memorabilia fetish. The Marc Garlasco who worked for the Pentagon until 2003.
Well, apparently he wasn't merely an employee of the Pentagon, the one who distributed tea to all the more important folks. He was one of the top experts who determined who got bombed from the air and under what conditions. If we believe him - and I don't see why not to - the Americans have (or at any rate, had) a scale of acceptable collateral damage: 29 dead civilians for one important enemy is acceptable; for 30 or more you need authorization from the Secretary of Defense or even the President.
These are of course estimates. It might happen that an attack would be undertaken with the expectation of 25 dead civilians, but then something would go awry and there would be 50; things like that can happen at war.
So the 60-minutes fellow, Scott Pelley, asks Garlasco how many such attacks he set in motion, and what were the resulting numbers. 50 attacks, says Garlasco. How many targets achieved? None. None of the top Iraqis were actually killed. How many Iraqi civilains died in the attacks you set in motion? "A couple of hundred civilians at least", says Garlasco.
Not 213, say, or 304. Garlasco has no accurate number, and anyway, it's only numbers for him, not people. Pelley looks shocked, so Garlasco defends himself and the military he was part of:
It's a report about American bombing in Afghanistan. It focuses on a case where American bombs killed 9 civilians while missing their intended target. No one in the report denies the facts.
The villagers tell how they hate the Americans, and think they're worse than the Soviets. You can see their perspective. The American airforce colonel who commands the hi-tech control center from which all air strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan are directed tells about the major efforts his experts make to limit innocent casualties, including aborting most potential attacks for fear of hitting civilians. He comes across as sincere, and I have no doubt he's telling the truth. Afghanistani President Karzai tells that he understands the Americans have no intention of killing civilians, and he's convinced that when they do so it is always by mistake; yet he insists the American way of waging war is totally counterproductive. He has me convinced. (The report was in 2007, and this year the Americans have begun making a strong effort to reduce civilian casualties - with limited success, if the stories of this week are any indication).
So far, so banal. War is hell, and it's complicated hell, and sometimes the alternatives are far worse, and you have to work unceasingly on making it a bit less hellish, and you'll never fully succeed. I've covered this ground umpteen times, and you've got my message already. The true gem-aspect of the report is when they talk to Marc Garlasco.
Yes, that Marc Garlasco. He of Human Rights Watch; he of the Nazi memorabilia fetish. The Marc Garlasco who worked for the Pentagon until 2003.
Well, apparently he wasn't merely an employee of the Pentagon, the one who distributed tea to all the more important folks. He was one of the top experts who determined who got bombed from the air and under what conditions. If we believe him - and I don't see why not to - the Americans have (or at any rate, had) a scale of acceptable collateral damage: 29 dead civilians for one important enemy is acceptable; for 30 or more you need authorization from the Secretary of Defense or even the President.
These are of course estimates. It might happen that an attack would be undertaken with the expectation of 25 dead civilians, but then something would go awry and there would be 50; things like that can happen at war.
So the 60-minutes fellow, Scott Pelley, asks Garlasco how many such attacks he set in motion, and what were the resulting numbers. 50 attacks, says Garlasco. How many targets achieved? None. None of the top Iraqis were actually killed. How many Iraqi civilains died in the attacks you set in motion? "A couple of hundred civilians at least", says Garlasco.
Not 213, say, or 304. Garlasco has no accurate number, and anyway, it's only numbers for him, not people. Pelley looks shocked, so Garlasco defends himself and the military he was part of:
"I don't think people really appreciate the gymnastics that the U.S. military
goes through in order to make sure that they're not killing civilians," Garlasco
points out."If so much care is being taken why are so many civilians getting
killed?" Pelley asks."Because the Taliban are violating international law,” says
Garlasco, “and because the U.S. just doesn't have enough troops on the ground.
You have the Taliban shielding in people's homes. And you have this small number
of troops on the ground. And sometimes the only thing they can do is drop
bombs.”
As I've said repeatedly, I think the American war in Afghanistan is just, and I think the Germans are hypocrites for participating only on the edge and only where it's percieved (falsely) to be safe. I also think no-one in ISAF is thinking enough about keeping civilian casualties to their utmost minimum, though General McChrystal seems to be trying, and this is important. I've also repeatedly said the American (and UK, and German, and other) public is not thinking this through to the degree I think they should be, and nothing remotely like what we do in our wars.
Having said all that, I've never seen a degree of hypocrisy as extreme at that of Marc Garlaso, he who pontificates for HRW on Israel. It is truly breathtaking.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment