Shock and Awful: Modern American War Stories (Illustrated--You Have Been Warned)

[McCamy Taylor]

I. The General Westmoreland Syndrome: Civilian Airstrike Deaths in Afghanistan

Gen. William Westmoreland: “The Oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as does the Westerner. Life is cheap in the Orient.”

Hearts and Minds 1974

The numbers are not good. Though the United States and NATO forces claim that they have taken measures to protect the safety of Afghanistan’s civilians from airstrikes aimed at Taliban fighters, the number of civilian casualties due to airstrikes and the percentage of civilians killed by U.S./NATO airstrikes rose in 2008. In 2006, 24% of the 929 civilian deaths were attributable to the “good guys”. In 2007, total numbers were up but the percentage was slightly down at 20% of 1633 total for a share of 321.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/09/07/afghanistan-civilian-deaths-airstrikes

Last year, the total number of innocent civilians---many of them women and children in their own homes---killed during conflict between U.S. and NATO forces and Taliban fighters was up to 2118. Our share increased to 39%.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-02-18-voa34.cfm

Despite the change in administration, just last week there was another incident.

(U.S. officials) have not commented on the reported civilian deaths, but promised to investigate. In a statement, U.S. officials also said it has been a past practice of insurgents to surround themselves with women and children.

Images reportedly from the area show the body of a young boy, dead animals and destroyed tents.

Regional police officials said the attack targeted a group of people living in tents in the remote Afghan countryside.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said civilian deaths are undermining the Afghan people's support for international troops.

Despite the fact that the United States knows that the Taliban typically surrounds their fighters with innocent civilians in towns or in other densely populated areas, apparently we prefer to sacrifice “cheap” Afghan lives rather than risk “important” American lives.

From the Human Rights Watch document above:

Human Rights Watch found that few civilians casualties occurred as the result of planned airstrikes on suspected Taliban targets. Instead, most cases of civilian deaths from airstrikes occurred during the fluid, rapid-response strikes mostly carried out in support of “troops in contact” – ground troops who are under insurgent attack. Such unplanned strikes included situations where US special forces units – normally small in number and lightly armed – came under insurgent attack; in US/NATO attacks in pursuit of insurgent forces who had retreated to populated villages; and in air attacks where US “anticipatory self-defense” rules of engagement applied.

What kind of warfare considers civilians expendable? I thought we were supposed to be in Afghanistan to free the citizens of that country from the domination of the Taliban. All we are really doing is playing the Taliban’s game. They lure us into retaliatory strikes which end up killing civilians, who hate us even more because we are faceless, arrogant rich bastards a thousand miles away. They know that our military will keep ordering these same airstrikes, because the General Westmoreland syndrome still rules in this country. One American life is worth a thousand third world lives.

Quick, how many U.S. troops have died in the U.S conflict in Iraq? Quick, how many Iraqi civilians have died in the U.S. conflict in Iraq?

The New York Times gives a survivor’s account. Syed Mohammed was taken from his home and interrogated by U.S. Special Forces and Afghan troops. After he was released:

When he returned home, Mr. Mohammed said, he went next door to his son’s house, only to find that most of his family had been killed: the son, Nurallah, and his pregnant wife and two of his sons, Abdul Basit, age 1, and Mohammed, 2. Only Mr. Mohammed’s 4-year-old grandson, Zarqawi, survived.
“The soldiers had a right to search our house,” Mr. Mohammed said. “But they didn’t have a right to do this.”
Bullet holes still pockmarked Nurallah’s home more than four months after the attack, and the infant’s cradle still hung from the ceiling.
The day after the attack, a senior Afghan official came to the door and handed Mr. Mohammed $800.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/world/asia/18afghan.html?hp

An Afghan life is worth $200 U.S. dollars. Unless some of that money was intended to compensate the orphan who now has no one to raise him. At prices like those, no wonder the U.S. military acts like there is a bargain sale going on when they send in the fighter jets.

A number of people are questioning the need for more troops in Afghanistan. Their primary concern is that the United States will be bogged down in the country and worsen its financial situation at home. This is a bullshit concern. We should be worrying about the lives of the people in Afghanistan rather than our pocketbooks. Are we actually doing any good in that country with our current strategy? I say no . If we are going to maintain ground troops, we need enough ground troops to send more ground troops in after our other ground troops when they are in trouble. However, given Afghanistan’s geography—

(you can view a topographical map here http://www.afghan-web.com/geography/topography.html )

---I don’t think that there are enough ground troops to make that possible. (As one Russian said “You need a base for every mountain”) So, I suggest that we shower Afghanistan with gold and bring our troops home. Give any developing country enough money and the people will quickly find better things to do with their time than throw their lives away making war on each other and their neighbors. They will be too busy buying and selling stuff from them.

II. War Is Good Business: The Weapons Display in Gaza



The United States demonstrated its latest and best weapons technology in Gaza. Among the items on display in the arsenal show:

DIME Bombs These guys are new and nasty, a creation of the U.S. military which intends to use them to target the Taliban (and their civilian shields). Dropped from unmanned drones, these bombs use tungsten (a known carcinogen) powder as shrapnel. It explodes and dissolves in the body tissue of anyone within a 5 to 10 meter radius, completely destroying limbs but leaving no traces of the tungsten shrapnel behind. Worse yet, it creates wounds that will not stop bleeding, despite emergency, expert medical care. And if you survive the blast, you have a 100% chance of developing cancer within the next three months. It damages your DNA, too, so don’t father a child (you won’t have time to give birth). Doctors in Gaza are only guessing that they are dealing with DIME bomb injuries, since no one in Israel will confirm what caused the strange injuries, but we will know in the months to come if the victims start getting sick with cancer. Gaza’s densely packed urban civilian population is not what the bombs are intended for---way too much risk of collateral damage, but what a great demonstration of the bombs effectiveness! Should help boost sales now that the U.S. is about to get out of the war business and will need to start selling to other countries.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/dime-bombs-leave-israels-victims-with-mystery-wounds-14145665.html

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/dime-israel-turns-gaza-weapon-testing-lab

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002434.html

M825A1 Phosporus shells Also made in the good old U.S. of A. Whether or not they are a weapon depends upon how you use them. They can provide a nice smokescreen for your advancing troops. However, if you lob them just right into a densely crowded urban area, these babies can have the effect of napalm. Oh boy! Legal incendiary weapons! All you have to do is play a little CYA. The U.S. tested them in Fallujah. Did Israel do the same in Gaza?

Nafez Abu Shaban, the head of the burns unit at al-Shifa hospital, said: “I am not familiar with phosphorus but many of the patients wounded in the past weeks have strange burns. They are very deep and not like burns we used to see.”

http://www.flickr.com/photos/illuminating9_11/3184188858/

Human Rights Watch believes that the use of white phosphorus in densely populated areas of Gaza violates the requirement under international humanitarian law to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian injury and loss of life. This concern is amplified given the technique evidenced in media photographs of air-bursting white phosphorus projectiles. Air bursting of white phosphorus artillery spreads 116 burning wafers over an area between 125 and 250 meters in diameter, depending on the altitude of the burst, thereby exposing more civilians and civilian infrastructure to potential harm than a localized ground burst.

http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/politicalwhore/2009/01/14/is-israel-using-two-illegal-weapons-in-gaza-assault/

This is the kind of thing that repressive regimes all over the world will want to stock up on the next time they visit a U.S. arms show, especially since Israel achieved such dramatic results.

The recent attack on Gaza resulted in the death of 1,400 people, the wounding of 5,000, and the uprooting of hundreds of thousands of civilians, with untold damage to the civilian infrastructure, to the economy and to residential neighborhoods.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=99628

Oops! Almost forgot Mystery Missile ! Described by Amnesty International as

a new type of missile, seemingly launched from unmanned drones, which explodes large numbers of tiny sharp-edged metal cubes, each between 2mm and 4mm square in size. These lethal purpose-made shrapnel had penetrated thick metal doors and were embedded deep in concrete walls, and are clearly designed to maximize injury.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/foreign-supplied-weapons-used-against-civilians-israel-and-hamas-20090220

More from Amnesty International here, letting interested buyers know that they can get the very best in weaponry from U.S arms manufacturers, like the phosphorus weapons that were lobbed at the UN from the Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas, a 500 lb Mark 62 fin guided bomb from Raytheon (for all your urban crowd control needs). Then, there are China, Russia and Iran, which have weapons for those on limited budgets, like the Palestinians.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/23/military-aid-israel-amnesty

The United States! Leading the world in weapons technology for over half a century!



Wonder if anyone has calculated how much the weapons demonstration cost the two sides in the conflict just for the arms used (not in loss of life and property and cost to rebuild) and how that money could have been spent. But I forgot! The United States gives the weapons to the Israelis for free, so that they can demonstrate them to the rest of the world. You can’t beat a deal like that.

III Republicans Are Not the Only Ones Who Have Uses For War

Republicans like Dick Nixon and Dick Cheney used the Article II exemption to excuse themselves from having to obey the law. As long as the United States was at war, they argued, the Office of the President could seize whatever special powers it wanted. They were not the first presidents to do this. Some Democrats had broken the laws, too, using war as an excuse to persecute labor unions (Wilson) and Japanese-Americans (FDR). However, no one abused the tactic for monetary and political gain the way that the two Dicks did. They crafted never ending wars to feed their rage for power.

Democrats like war, too, just for different reasons. A whole lot of Democrats believe that war is good for business. This is especially true when it comes to the local defense contractor and the local military base and maybe the local VA hospital. Everyone else’s military base may be pork and their defense contractor may be padding the payroll, but the local fighter jet builder who hires your constituents is doing a damn fine job.

And we all know that the nation did not really emerge from the Great Depression until the United States entered World War II. Damn! Pearl Harbor was a blessing in disguise. If only some modern day Hitler would commit another genocide so that we could go in and clean up, like the one back in the 1990s in the Balkans, a nice, moral, controlled war, one in a region that no one really cares about. Some place where we could keep just enough troops busy so that they would not be back home on the streets looking for jobs that don’t exist. Some conflict that would keep our defense industry turning out weapons for our own use and not to sell to the highest bidder on the black market. Something for KBR to do, because it is written there on the back of the Constitution, one of the secret clauses that no one except the President knows about Thou shalt always provide work for Brown & Root, or else---.

I mention all this, because I sometimes wonder exactly why we have to stay in Afghanistan. The CIA knows how to assassinate foreign leaders. They should be able to locate Bin Laden and inject something in his dialysis solution. Morally, that kind of killing is better than dropping bombs indiscriminately on Afghan civilians in an endless game of pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey.
And I am not even sure that we have to kill any of the Taliban. 9/11 only succeeded because Bush and Co. let it happen. They ignored the warnings. They failed to institute the safety precautions that Al Gore suggested for airports. They failed to address the plight of the Palestinian people, giving the impression that they approved of their economic misery.

We keep hearing that U.S. soldiers killing people in Iraq is making us less safe. Well, doesn’t the fact that we kill civilians in Afghanistan make us hated, too? Or do Muslims say Go right ahead. Those Afghan lives are cheap, cheap, cheap. Kill as many of them as you want.

Somehow, I don’t think so. All the arguments that apply when we discuss the pros and cons of being in Iraq apply to Afghanistan, too. The main difference is 1) the Taliban, which is associated with the folks that really did attack the World Trade Centers, used to run Afghanistan (but not for seven years) and 2) (seven years ago) the Taliban was very unpopular with American Democrats because they blew up a Buddha and oppressed women which made the invasion of that country an easy sell so the phrase U.S. military action in Afghanistan gives liberals a nice, warm smug feeling rather than a queasy sick stomach feeling and 3) and ongoing war in Afghanistan does not interfere with the world's supply of any precious natural resource.

The Bush administration’s war in Afghanistan was clearly never intended to drive the Taliban from that country. They only made a token show of invading Afghanistan, because they knew they had to do it, before the American public would let them take over Iraq. Bush and Cheney needed the Taliban the way that Coyote needs Road Runner. They would have no show without Bin Laden and his scary band of terra-ists (and their Saudi-Sunni funding) loose in the mountains of Afghanistan. That is why the Bush administration waged a war designed to send the hearts and minds of the Afghan people back towards the Taliban.

Now, we are ready to withdraw from Iraq and commit the same troops to Afghanistan, and I have to wonder why? I sure hope it isn’t because someone on the economic end of things has been saying You know, this country just can not stand a post war recession right now, on top of everything else we are going through.

I would think long and hard before buying a used war this ugly from the old administration.

[dipsydoodle]

1. I read an article years ago

which alluded to the reference "life is cheap in the orient" That obviously isn't true but the association maybe should've been specifically with Vietnam whose children had grown up knowing nothing other than war. Apparently under such circumstances the natural fear of death which normally develops age 9 or so never materialises. As such the USA were fighting people with effectively no fear of death which presumably mislead Westmorland into making such a stupid remark. The article also used the same analogy for the youth of the IRA bombers.

BTW - The term Oriental isn't derogatory in Europe where we clearly differentiate between the Orient and Asia. That is unlike the USA which seems to class every in that geographical area as being part of Asia. Orientals here are proud to called such and they appreciate us acknowledging the difference between them amd what they regard as inferior Asians.

[misanthrope]

10. The term "Asian-American"...

...might as well be "earthling" for all the specificity it lacks. That continent is so vast and encompasses such a variety of ethnicities and nationalities that it renders the "Asian" moniker useless.

[McCamy Taylor]

12. As opposed to European-American and African-American it works in the US.

Obviously, people from Korea are not like Japanese are not like people from South China are not like people from Northern China are not like people from Thailand are not like Indians are not like Indonesians.

The same case could be made for not lumping European-Americans or African-Americans. People from Africa's east coast are very different from people from Africa's west coast. People from northern Europe, especially the more landlocked regions have little in common with those from Rome. However, there are some similarities in how the groups have arrived to the U.S., religions etc.

Buddhism served as a unifying cultural influence in Asia. Nondualism is an ideology that is much more common in the east than in the west. You will find nondualistic thinking---and skepticism of western style dualism---more commonly among people from the so called Asian countries. So, there are sound reasons for lumping people from some countries together right now when you are discussing their beliefs, political stance. The more minor differences---say a tendency for one group to be more emotional and another group to be more calculating---that matters slightly less.

Other differences----people from coastal communities are different from people who live inland. People from mountain communities are different from lowlanders. People from extreme latitudes differ from residence of the tropics.

[misanthrope]

15. You forgot about those in the Urals and the sands of Arabia...

...They're Asian, too.

[Christa]

2. K & R nt

[NNN0LHI]

3. Unexploded Bombs Still Taking Toll in Laos

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-02-02-voa34.cfm

By Rory Byrne
Phonsovan, Laos
02 February 2009


More than three decades after the end of the Indochina conflict, millions of unexploded bombs, shells and mines remain scattered throughout Laos. Hundreds of people are killed or injured by unexploded ordinance, known as UXO, every year.

Laos was the site of heavy aerial bombing and concentrated ground fighting, during the Indochina conflict, from 1964 through 1973. Fighting took place mainly over the eastern side of the country, bordering Vietnam, which hosted part of the wartime supply route to South Vietnam.

More than two-million tons of bombs were dropped on Laos during the war, making it the most heavily bombed country in history, on a per-capita basis. Thirty-five years after the end of the war, much of the country remains heavily contaminated by unexploded ordinance, says Jo Pereira, director of aid group COPE.

"In certain areas, the bombing is (was) just incredible. There are parts of Laos where there is literally no free-space. There are no areas that have not been bombed," said Pereira. "And, when you are in the villages now, you still see the evidence of that. You still see bomb craters. You still see an unbelievable amount of metal and wreckage and unexploded ordinance just lying around in villages and it's still injuring and killing people today."

Cluster bombs, or "bombies" as they are known locally, are the most commonly found UXO in Laos. More than 270 million of them were dropped. With an average failure rate of 30 percent, experts say about 80 million unexploded cluster bombs remain scattered throughout the country.

[populistdriven]

4. Watch for a Gaza increase in rhabdomyosarcoma in 3 months

In a study designed to simulate shrapnel injuries, pellets of weapons-grade tungsten alloy were implanted in 92 rats. Within five months all the animals developed a rare cancer called rhabdomyosarcoma, according to John Kalinich's team at the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Maryland.

92 out of 92 - "tumor yield was 100%" - is a significant result. The full report is here.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002434.html
http://www.afrri.usuhs.mil/www/outreach/pdf/tungsten_cancer.pdf

[DaLittle Kitty]

9. Very good point... When Will WE Regain Control OF OUR Government From Corp America?

:think:

[bvar22]

5. K&R

"I would think long and hard before buying a used war this ugly from the old administration."

With the 17,000 troop "surge", Obama and The Democratic Leadership already owns the WAR.

[KG]

6. USA - the worlds leading exporter and outsourcer of death and destruction!

WE'RE NUMBER ONE FUCK YEAH!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. But..but..it's for their own good!! Just ask the politicians and generals. K&R

[balantz]

8. I logged on just to K&R this.

Too many are giving Obama a pass as he surges ahead with more death and destruction in order to search for more of bin Laden's wild band of box-cutter weilding bearded terrorists who have been blamed for knocking down three skyscrapers and also managed to attack the heavily guarded Pentagon.
:eyes:

What a sick joke the war profiteers play on us. Cha-ching! $$$$$$

(edited to add the rolly eyes.)

[planetc]

11. Another fine rant, but I am surprised....

to find you saying:


"I mention all this, because I sometimes wonder exactly why we have to stay in Afghanistan. The CIA knows how to assassinate foreign leaders. They should be able to locate Bin Laden and inject something in his dialysis solution. (snip)

And I am not even sure that we have to kill any of the Taliban. 9/11 only succeeded because Bush and Co. let it happen. They ignored the warnings. They failed to institute the safety precautions that Al Gore suggested for airports. They failed to address the plight of the Palestinian people, giving the impression that they approved of their economic misery."

I am surprised to find you still think that Bush and Cheney "ignored the warnings." They appear to have done a whole lot more than that. Mr. Cheney may have helped orchestrate the attacks. There is just no good reason any longer to accept any part of the official story of who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. So much work has been done by pilots, architects and engineers, patriots in general including one National Academy of Science medal winner, and numerous citizens of all stripes. McCamy, I hope you will bring yourself up to date on what Osama Bin Laden had to do with those attacks.

For openers, the FBI does not list him as being wanted for the 9/11 attacks. This is research anyone can do. You go to the FBI website, you look up most wanted terrorists, and you find Bin Laden on the first page. You find that the FBI wants him for the USS Cole bombing and the African embassies. No mention of 9/11. You call the FBI and speak with a press officer. He tells you that the FBI has no evidence to connect Bin Laden with the WTC. You ask further questions, like, "you do realize that we are now fighting two wars to prevent further attacks by Bin Laden?". You are referred to a higher up, you send that person an email, and the person never replies (or the name I was given hasn't in about two years.) The twin towers were brought down by explosives, and possibly some other weaponry. WTC 7 was brought down by explosives. There's no other way those well-engineered building could have globally collapsed at near freefall speed that morning.

And the FBI! has no evidence against Bin Laden. The awfulness of what's been going on for the last eight years is the tip of an iceberg. I hope you will extend your considerable research skills to the question of what happened on 9/11.

[balantz]

14. Yes, I also wish people would be more willing to venture further down the rabbit hole. n/t

[Mari333]

13. k and r for the truth nt