The Bomb and the Drone: Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan

Joshua Brollier — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:48:14 -0500

Short Information Teaser

By Ed Kinane

Excerpt

The Bomb and the Drone: Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan

Even though August 6th and 9th are past, the lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki belong always before us. The agony of those two cities must remain our dark beacon.

Hiroshima/Nagasaki wasn’t so much about targets as about audiences. We sacrificed a couple hundred thousand harmless, unarmed, undefended human beings to make a point. That spectacle wasn’t so much for Japan as for the Soviet Union and the world at large.

Thanks to the U.S. head start on nuclear technology – vividly showcased at Hiroshima/Nagasaki – for 65 years the U.S. has been able to hold the planet hostage. It’s been able to deploy nuclear blackmail to further its hegemonic design.

Body

The Bomb and the Drone: Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan

Even though August 6th and 9th are past, the lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki belong always before us. The agony of those two cities must remain our dark beacon.

But the Bomb didn’t long remain the lone superpower’s monopoly. Hiroshima/Nagasaki was the spark of nuclear proliferation. Our god-challenging weapon made us no safer.

Every August 6th letters to editors perpetuate the 20th century’s most pernicious myth: thanks to Hiroshima/Nagasaki, World War II ended. The fanatic, loathsome Japs were forced to surrender and would not have to be invaded. Thousands of G.I. lives were thereby saved. Thank God for the Bomb!

Never mind that by summer 1945 the U.S. air force ruled Japanese skies. Never mind that Japan’s major cities lay in ashes. Never mind that the U.S. navy ruled the sea; nothing could get through its blockade. Never mind that Japan was totally depleted. Never mind that Japan had already been seeking surrender.

The U.S. might have simply let Japan dangle for as long as it took and then swept in to feed the emaciated and bury the dead. It could have let Japan surrender with a remnant of honor intact and without the atomic terrorism.

There are parallels between Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan. Once again we are embarking on a menacing new era – that of robotic warfare. (Note to self: reread P.W. Singer, Wired for War: the Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century, Penguin, 2009).

Atomic-bomb-as-life-saver was a Big Lie. Now in the 21st century the Pentagon is pedaling the exact same myth: that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) like the MQ9 Reaper drone – maintained at our local Hancock Air Base — are all about “saving our boys.”

For several years now the Pentagon has used high-tech robots like the Reaper built by General Atomics, Inc., not only for surveillance, but to kill and blow up things in Iraq and Afghanistan. Defying international law, the CIA uses the Reaper to assassinate and blow up things in Pakistan.

The “beauty” of it is that technicians, wielding joysticks at satellite-linked computers thousands of miles from any battleground, can “pilot” these drones. They can deliver – with laser accuracy – their hellfire missiles and 500-pound bombs. And they can do so with no physical risk.

The Reaper has become the Pentagon’s and the CIA’s darling. With no onboard pilot or crew, no one dies or is captured when the Reaper crashes or is shot down. That means no embarrassing body bags being shipped back home. So, few ask: what are we doing over there anyway?

Such distancing and such unaccountability almost guarantee mission creep. Mission creep means an easy slide into perpetual warfare. How juicy for General Atomics and the other corporate war profiteers!

Just as the Hiroshima/Nagasaki civilian casualties failed to matter, so too the drone’s Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan civilian casualties – numbering in the thousands. We forget that many victims will have survivors nursing enduring hatred for the U.S.

Who knows? One day drone missiles may be aimed at us. Thanks to the Pentagon’s love affair with death — and despite the trillions we squander on “defense” — the Pentagon is only making the world safe…for corporate profit.

Already 40 nations are said to be either importing or manufacturing their own drones. Like nuclear proliferation, drone proliferation could haunt us till the end of our days.

But only if we fail to act. ###

VCNV Author

Ed Kinane

Put Drone Warfare on Trial: Support the Creech 14!

Joshua Brollier — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:09:56 -0500

Start: Sep 14 2010 - 9:00am

End: Sep 19 2010 - 9:05pm

Check this if your event does not have a known end date or time

Do Not Display End Date and Time

Event Description

Put Drone Warfare on Trial: Support the Creech 14!

Join us in Las Vegas, Nevada

September 14th, 2010

Contact: Voices for Creative Nonviolence at 773.878.3815 or for more information on how to be involved.

The Creech 14 are preparing for trial in LasVegas on September 14th for an action they participated in last April. After a week of demonstrations and vigils in April of 2009, the activists entered Creech Air Force Base to highlight the injustice of the military’s use of drones, or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Members of the US Air Force based at Creech Air Force Base control the drones used in these expanding wars. After a night in jail, the protesters were fined and given a trespassing charge.

Those arrested included John Dear, S.J.; Dennis DuVall; Renee Espeland; Judy Homanich; Kathy Kelly; Fr. Steve Kelly; Mariah Klusmire; Brad Lyttle; Libby Pappalardo; Megan Rice, SHCJ; Brian Terrell; Eve Tetaz; Fr. Louie Vitale; and Fr. Jerry Zawada.

Sponsors of the vigil included Voices for Creative Nonviolence, Nevada Desert Experience, Des Moines Catholic Worker, Strangers & Guests Catholic Worker Farm, Catholic Peace Ministry, Iowa Peace Network, and Pace e Bene Nonviolence Service.

Download Flyer

Atrocities in Afghanistan: A Troubling Timetable Updated

Joshua Brollier — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:25:27 -0500

Short Information Teaser

a partial list of tragic events in Afghanistan dating back to April 2009

Excerpt

By Voices co-coordinators

Since April of 2010, Voices activists have maintained a partial listing of unarmed civilians killed by U.S. led ISAF/NATO troops in Afghanistan. All of the information we’ve assembled is available in the mainstream news. We realized that we ourselves were not paying close enough attention, - we weren’t pausing to ask questions and absorb the details, and so we’ve tried in the past several months to carefully update the “Afghan Atrocities” timetable. We invite others to join us in considering ways to express remorse and condolence to the people whose loved ones have been killed.

It’s important to note that President Obama has set “a clear and achievable mission-to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies and prevent their return to either country.” Yet, the U.S. director of the National Security Agency, Jim Jones, has acknowledged that there are only 50 – 100 Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan and 300 to 400 members of the group in Pakistan.

Body

By Voices Co-coordinators

We invite others to join us in considering ways to express remorse and condolence to the people whose loved ones have been killed. It’s important to note that President Obama has set “a clear and achievable mission-to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies and prevent their return to either country.” Yet, the U.S. director of the National Security Agency, Jim Jones, has acknowledged that there are only 50 – 100 Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan and 300 to 400 members of the group in Pakistan.

Before he was fired for insubordination, General McChrystal acknowledged that U.S. forces have killed civilians who meant them no harm. During a biweekly video conference with US soldiers in Afghanistan, he was quite candid. “We’ve shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force,” said General McChrystal. “To my knowledge, in the nine-plus months I’ve been here, not a single case where we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it and, in many cases, had families in it.”

Those families and individuals that General McChrystal referred to should be our primary concern. We should try to imagine the sorrow and horror afflicting each individual whose tragic story is told in the “timetable” of atrocities committed against innocent people. How can we compensate people who have endured three decades of warfare, whose land has been so ravaged that, according to noted researcher Alfred McCoy, it would cost $34 billion dollars to restore their agricultural infrastructure. The $33 billion dollar supplemental funding bill passed by the U.S. Congress to pay for U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq could have been directed toward helping Afghanistan replant its orchards, replenish its flocks, and rebuild its irrigation systems.

The list below describes, in part, the suffering and agony that people in Afghanistan have endured since April, 2009. To focus on this list doesn’t excuse atrocities committed by Taliban fighters. It does indicate our own responsibility to urgently educate others and ourselves about a deeply disturbing pattern: U.S./NATO officials first distribute misleading information about victims of an attack and later acknowledge that the victims were unarmed civilians.

Date: August 26, 2010
Place: Manogi District of Kunar province
Circumstances: Afghan authorities accused international forces of killing six children during an air assault on Taliban positions. In eastern Kunar province, provincial police chief Khalilullah Ziayee said a group of children were collecting scrap metal on the mountain when NATO aircraft dropped bombs to disperse Taliban fighters attacking a nearby base. “In the bombardment six children, aged six to 12, were killed. Another child was injured,” the police commander said.
Initial U.S./NATO response: August 27, 2010 ISAF said in a statement that “officials are aware of civilian casualty allegations as a result of the engagement and are conducting an investigation.”
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100827/wl_sthasia_afp/afghanistanunrestl)
________________________________________________________

Date: August 23, 2010
Place: Talah wa Barfak district of Baghlan Province
Circumstances: Officials and residents of Baghlan Province, in northern Afghanistan, accused NATO troops Monday of killing eight civilians during an early morning raid. Mohammed Ismail, governor of the Talah wa Barfak District, said troops entered a district house at 2 a.m. and killed eight civilians, wounded 12 and took nine prisoners.
Initial U.S./NATO response: Maj. Michael Johnson, a spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force, as the NATO force is known, said NATO authorities were unaware of any such attack.
(www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/world/asia/24afghan.html)
________________________________________________________

Date: August 20, 2010
Place: Pusht Rod district of Farah province
Circumstances: According to an ISAF Joint Command report, issued on August 21, 2010, a woman and two children were accidentally killed by an air attack. The report states that six insurgents were killed as they got out of a vehicle and several other suspected militants were detained during an operation in the Pusht Rod district of Farah province. “Also during the operation,” the report states, “a civilian woman and two children were accidentally killed when a coalition force air weapons team engaged the insurgents.”
U.S./NATO acknowledgment that Coalition forces killed unarmed civilians: Coalition forces plan to meet with local elders about the incident, which remains under investigation.
(www.isaf.nato.int/article/isaf-releases/security-force-targets-taliban-foreign-fighter-facilitator-in-farah.html)
________________________________________________________

Date: August 17, 2010
Place: Arghandab district of Kandahar province
Circumstances: During a fire fight, a civilian irrigating a field was shot and killed when a joint force being attacked by insurgents returned fire.
Initial U.S./NATO response: Coalition forces plan to meet with local elders about the incident, which remains under investigation. (RAHIM FAIEZAP NewsAug 18, 2010 03:23 EDT)
________________________________________________________

Date: August 12, 2010
Place: Lashkar Gah district, Loyadera area of Helmand Province
Circumstances: ISAF (International Security Assistance Forces) said they were investigating a report that NATO airstrikes killed civilians during a NATO/ISAF operation. Four wounded and three dead Afghan civilians were brought to a nearby checkpoint. They had been in a building which was attacked by aerial bombardment. Two of the wounded civilians later died. In a separate report, ISAF said Afghan and coalition forces had come under fire in an area of Helmand and that an Afghan woman had been shot by ISAF troops during the engagement. The woman later died.
U.S./NATO acknowledgment that Coalition forces killed unarmed civilians: On August 15, the ISAF said it believes there is evidence civilians were in the compound targeted by coalition forces during the operation. “
http://www.dvidshub.net/news/54620/lashkar-gar-evidence-points-isaf-caused-civilian-casualties)
________________________________________________________

Date: August 12, 2010
Place: Musa Qal’ ah district of Helmand province
Circumstances: According to an ISAF Joint Command report, issued on August 12, 2010, Afghan and coalition forces were attacked by Taliban fighters with small arms. They returned fire and “an Afghan civilian woman was shot by International Security Assistance Force soldiers. The woman was given immediate medical attention by coalition forces, but subsequently died of her wounds”
U.S. /NATO acknowledgement that the person killed was an unarmed civilian: ISAF officials deeply regret this unfortunate loss of life and express their sincerest apologies to the family. (www.isaf.nato.int/…/isaf…/afghan-woman-killed-during-fire-fight-in-helmand.html)
________________________________________________________

Date: August 11, 2010
Place: Sayed Abad district of Wardak Province,
Circumstances: Provincial spokesman Shahedullah Shahed told AFP that NATO “Coalition and Afghan forces went to a house to capture a Taliban commander,” provincial spokesman Shahedullah Shahed told AFP. “During the attack unfortunately three civilians were killed." On Thursday, Aug. 12, 2010, an AP photo showed a crowd of about 300 villagers who yelled ‘Death to the United States’ and blocked a main road in eastern Afghanistan on Thursday as they swore that U.S. forces had killed three innocent villagers, officials said.
Initial U.S./NATO response: August 12, 2010 ISAF spokesman Captain Ryan Donald said three "insurgents" had been killed in the raid. U.S. /NATO acknowledgement that the person killed was an unarmed civilian: None, as yet. The case is still under investigation.
________________________________________________________

Date: August 5, 2010
Place: Nangarhar province eastern Afghanistan
Circumstances: According to The Pak Tribune a vehicle carrying a coffin and a dead man’s relatives was bombed and eleven civilians, including women and children, were killed
Initial U.S./NATO response: August 5, 2010—As sited in The Jakarta Globe, NATO’s International Security Assistance Force said it had operated in the area on Wednesday and was "aware of civilian casualty allegations as a result of these operations and is conducting an investigation.”
U.S. /NATO acknowledgement that Coalition forces killed unarmed civilians: August 5, 2010 — "Coalition forces deeply regret that our joint operation appears to have resulted in civilian loss of life and we express our sincerest condolences to the families," said Rear Admiral Greg Smith, ISAF Director of Communication. "We will partner with the Government of Afghanistan to conduct a thorough investigation of this incident, and to provide solatia to the families of the civilians killed during the engagement."
________________________________________________________

Date: July 23, 2010
Place: Sangin district in Helmand province
Circumstances: On July 26, the Afghan National Directorate of Security stated that on July 23rd the American-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) killed “52 civilians…including women and children” in a “rocket attack.” The Kabul government later revised the number of people killed to 39.
U.S. /NATO initial response: July 27, 2010— “Any speculation at this point of an alleged civilian casualty in Rigi village is completely unfounded,” said Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith, director of communications for the American and NATO military coalition. “We are conducting a thorough joint investigation with our Afghan partners and will report any and all findings when known.”
U.S./NATO acknowledgement that Coalition forces killed unarmed civilians: August 5, 2010—“A senior intelligence official told the New York Times (see paragraphs 9 – 15) that six civilians died with eight Taliban fighters when a troop fired a Javelin rocket into a structure from which U.S. Marines took fire. When asked to explain the discrepancy between his tally and that of the Afghan government, the unnamed official cited “political challenges.”
________________________________________________________

Date: July 8, 2010
Place: Jani Khel district of Paktia Province
Circumstances: According to Reuters’ Rob Taylor in Kabul, 10 Jul 2010 , a joint Afghan and NATO investigation team found six civilians died on Thursday, (July 8), when artillery shells went astray in Paktia Province.
Initial U.S./NATO Response: Initially, the coalition reported that eight Afghan civilians had been injured and taken to a nearby NATO outpost for treatment, and that one subsequently died. Later, it was determined that the bodies of those killed had been removed before NATO units arrived on the scene following the errant rounds, NATO said in a statement.
U.S. /NATO Acknowledgement: On July 10, 2010 NATO admitted killing six people with stray artillery on Thursday, (July 8). “ISAF officials offer sincere condolences to those affected,” the statement said, “and accept full responsibility for the actions that led to this tragic incident."
________________________________________________________

Date: July 7, 2010
Place: Northern Balkh province on the outskirts of Mazar-I Sharif
Circumstances: Professor Juan R. I. Cole wrote, on July 11th, that Afghans alleged that on Wednesday, July 7th, US forces wrongly killed two Afghan security guards in a raid on a market in the northern Balkh province on the outskirts of Mazar-i Sharif. According to an Afghan newspaper, about 1,000 demonstrators marched from the shrine of Ali to the offices of UNAMI, a UN organization, chanting and walking for 3 hours in protest against the wrongful killing.
Initial U.S./NATO Response: NATO said that the two security guards declined to lower their weapons, which is why they were shot, and that NATO forces were pursuing elements of the Haqqani Network in the area.
U.S./NATO Acknowledgment: No comment.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: June 19, 2010
Place: Khost Province Circumstances: According to the New York Times, NATO airstrikes killed ten civilians, including at least five women and children.
Initial U.S./NATO response: June 19, 2010, coalition forces issue a statement saying that “Precision airstrikes were used in self defense against a large number of armed insurgents.” And that “We are aware of conflicting reports of civilian casualties made by local officials and are therefore reviewing the operational details of the engagement.”
U.S. /NATO acknowledgement that the people killed were unarmed civilians: The June 19th NATO statement also says, “Our mission is to protect the population, and we will accept full responsibility if civilians were unintentionally harmed in this intense fight against insurgents.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: April 28, 2010
Place: Surkh Rod district, near Jalalabad
Circumstances: According to Safiya Sidiqi, a member of the Afghan parliament, dozens of Afghan and U.S. soldiers entered her family home, blindfolded and handcuffed men and women, and killed her brother-in-law, Amanullah, a 30 year old car mechanic with five children. “They shot him six times. In his heart, in his face, in his head,” Sidiqi said on Thursday, April 29th. Both legs were broken.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/29/AR2010042900331pf.html)
Initial U.S./NATO response: April 29, 2010—An Afghan-international security force killed one armed individual while pursuing a Taliban facilitator in Nangarhar last night.
(http://www.isaf.nato.int/en/article/isaf-releases/afghan-isaf-operations-in-nangarhar.html)
U.S. /NATO acknowledgement that the person killed was an unarmed civilian: None, as yet. The case is still under investigation.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: April 20, 2010
Place: Khost Province
Circumstances: A NATO military convoy attacked a car approaching a checkpoint, claiming that the car sped up after being warned to stop. Four young men were killed. According to the New York Times, “The shooting Monday night in Khost province sparked an immediate outcry from the victims’ family, who insisted that all four were civilians driving home from a volleyball game. ‘The youngest boy was just 13,’said Rahmatullah Mansour, whose two sons and two nephews were killed in the shooting. Mansour said that the victims in Monday’s shooting were his sons Faizullah, 13, and Nasratullah, 17; and nephews Maiwand and Amirullah, both 18. He said all were students except Amirullah, who was a police officer.”
Initial U.S. / NATO response: April 21, 2010—From the New York Times: “Without offering proof, NATO described the dead as two insurgents and their “associates.” In a statement on Tuesday, NATO said the vehicle ignored warning shots and accelerated toward the military convoy. But the statement did not challenge the Afghan account that no weapons were found in the vehicle.”
(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/world/asia/21khost.html)
U.S. /NATO acknowledgement that the people killed were unarmed civilians:
April 22, 2010—NATO acknowledges that four unarmed Afghans who were killed this week when a military convoy opened fire on their vehicle were all civilians, correcting an earlier claim that two of the dead were “known insurgents.”
(http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/04/21/world/AP-AS-Afghanistan.html)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: April 12, 2010
Place: Kandahar
Circumstances: According to the New York Times, “American troops raked a large passenger bus with gunfire near Kandahar on Monday morning, (April 12).” The attack killed five civilians and wounded 18.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/world/asia/13afghan.html)
Initial U.S./NATO response: A statement issued by the American-led military command in Kabul said that four people were killed. It said “an unknown, large vehicle” drove “at a high rate of speed” toward a slow-moving NATO convoy that was clearing mines.
U.S. /NATO acknowledgement that the people killed were unarmed civilians: April 12, 2010—“ISAF deeply regrets the tragic loss of life in Zhari district this morning. According to ISAF operational reporting, four civilians were killed, including one female, and five others were treated for injuries at the scene of the incident today. Upon inspection, NATO forces discovered the vehicle to be a passenger bus.”
(http://www.isaf.nato.int/en/article/isaf-releases/joint-team-assessing-civilian-casualty-incident-in-zhari.html)

April 13, 2010—The New York Times reported that “a military spokeswoman confirmed that a convoy traveling west, in front of the bus, opened fire, but said the second convoy was traveling east toward the passenger bus. She also said the driver of the bus was killed. A survivor, however, identified himself as the driver and said he did not violate any signal from the troops. ‘I was going to take the bus off the road,’ said the man, Mohammed Nabi. ‘Then the convoy ahead opened fire from 60 to 70 yards away,’ he said.”
(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/world/asia/13afghan.html)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: February 21, 2010
Place: Convoy en route to Kandehar
Circumstances: U.S. aerial forces attacked a three-car convoy traveling to a market in Kandehar. The convoy had planned on continuing to Kabul so that some of the passengers could get medical treatment. At least three dozen people were passengers in the three cars. The front car was an SUV type vehicle, and the last was a Land Cruiser. When the first car was hit by U.S. air fire, women in the second car jumped out and waved their scarves to indicate that they were civilians. U.S. helicopters continued to fire rockets and machine guns, killing 21 people and wounding 13.
U.S./NATO initial response: February 22, 2010—The day after the attack, the U.S.-led military coalition said that NATO forces had fired on a group of “suspected insurgents” who were thought to be on their way to attack Afghan and coalition soldiers a few miles away. When troops arrived after the helicopter strike, they discovered women and children among the dead and wounded.
(http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/03/89795/afghan-survivors-describe-nato.html#ixzz0mGErxQSL)
U.S. /NATO acknowledgement that the people killed were unarmed civilians:
Feb 24, 2010—General Stanley McChrystal delivered a videotaped apology.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: February 12, 2010
Place: Paktika Province
Circumstances: In a night raid, U.S. forces attacked a home where 25 people, 3 of them musicians, had gathered for a naming celebration. A newborn was being named that night. One of the musicians went outside to relieve himself. A flashlight shone in his face. Panicked, he ran inside and announced that the Taliban were outside. A police commander, Dawoud, the father of the newborn, ran outside with his weapon. U.S. forces opened fire, killing Officer Dawoud, a pregnant mother, an eighteen year old, Gulaila, and two others.
U.S. / NATO initial response: February 12, 2010—U.S. forces claimed that the women had been killed earlier, in an honor killing. Nato’s initial press release bore the headline: “Joint Force Operating in Gardez Makes Gruesome Discovery.” The release said that after “intelligence confirmed militant activity” in a compound near a village in Paktika province, an international security force entered the compound and engaged “several insurgents” in a firefight. Two “insurgents” were killed, the report said, and after the joint forces entered the compound, they “found the bodies of three women who had been tied up, gagged and killed.”

March 16, 2010—The UN issued a scathing report, stating that the U.S. had killed the women. Villagers told Jerome Starkey, reporting for the Independent, that U.S. troops tried to tamper with evidence by digging bullets out of the womens’ bodies and out of the walls.

U.S. /NATO acknowledgement that the people killed were unarmed civilians:
April 6, 2010—Almost two months later, the Pentagon was finally forced to admit that international forces had badly bungled the raid that night in Paktika, and that U.S. troops had, in fact, killed the women during their assault on the residence. One of the women was a pregnant mother of ten, and the other was a pregnant mother of six children.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/asia/06afghan.html?hp)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: February 2010
Place: Helmand Province
During this month, U.S./NATO forces launched a military offensive against three hamlets in the Marja district. Researcher Prof. Marc Herold presents a detailed summary and analysis of Afghan civilians killed directly by U.S/NATO forces during this particular month.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: December 26, 2009
Place: Kunar Province
Circumstances: In a night raid, U.S. forces, claiming to attack a bomb-making factory, attacked a house where eight youth, aged 11–18, were sleeping. They pulled the youngsters out of their beds, handcuffed them, and executed them. Villagers said that seven of those killed were students and one was a neighboring shepherd.
U.S. /NATO acknowledgement that the people killed were unarmed civilians: February 24, 2010—U.S. forces issued an apology, admitting that the U.S. had killed seven schoolboys and a neighboring shepherd.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: May 4, 2009
Place: Farah Province near the town of Granai
Circumstances: Mainstream media reports estimate that between 86 and 140 people, mostly children, died in a US air attack. According to Reuters, only 22 of the victims were adult males.
Initial U.S./NATO response: The following chronology indicates multiple attempts on the part of US officials to avoid blame.
May 6, 2009—U.S. officials plea ignorance and state that an investigation is under way. (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=54224)
May 6, 2009—According to The Guardian, a spokesperson for US forces in Afghanistan, Captain Elizabeth Mathias says, “This was not coalition forces. This was Afghan national security forces who called in close air support, a decision that was vetted by the Afghan leadership.”
May 7, 2009—An Armed Service Press Service report announces that a team is “investigating differing accounts of the events leading up to the casualties. Those accounts include allegations that the Taliban tossed grenades into homes to ‘frame’ Afghan and coalition forces.” U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates states that “The United States and coalition partners do everything we can to avoid civilian casualties.” He went on to say that “While there have been civilian casualties caused by American and NATO troops, they have been accidental. When the Taliban cause casualties, they are on purpose.”
May 8, 2009—Pentagon spokesperson Col. Greg Julian insists that earlier estimates of the death toll were “grossly exaggerated”.
May 10, 2009—In an interview with Mike Wallace, General David Petraeus suggests that the Taliban forced people “to remain in houses from which the Taliban was engaging our forces”.
May 15, 2009—Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway again blames the Taliban for civilian casualties. “We believe that there were families who were killed by the Taliban with grenades and rifle fire,” he said, “that were then paraded about and shown as casualties from the airstrike.”
U.S. /NATO acknowledgement that the people killed were unarmed civilians:
May 13, 2009—Referring to the May 4th raids in an Afghan press interview, Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry admits that “there were a number of civilians killed, a number of civilians wounded. We don’t know the exact amount. You are aware that our President of the United States and our Secretary of State and our Secretary of Defense have all very explicitly expressed their condolences for what happened.”
June 2, 2009—According to The New York Times “A military investigation has concluded that American personnel made significant errors in carrying out some of the airstrikes in western Afghanistan on May 4 that killed dozens of Afghan civilians, according to a senior American military official.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Date: April 9, 2009
Place: Khost Province, Ali Daya
Circumstances: U.S. forces were positioned on the rooftop opposite the home of Brigadier Artillery officer Awal Khan. In a night raid, U.S. forces burst into Awal Khan’s home. Awal Khan was away from home. His family members ran to the rooftop, believing that robbers had entered the home. When they emerged on their rooftop, U.S. forces on the opposite roof opened fire, killing Awal Khan’s wife, his brother, his 17 year-old daughter Nadia, and his fifteen year-old son, Aimal and his infant son, born just a week earlier.
U.S. /NATO initial response: April 9, 2010, coalition forces issue a statement that the four people killed by troops were “armed militants.” Later that same day another statement admits that further inquiries “suggest that the people killed and wounded were not enemy combatants as previously reported.”
U.S. /NATO acknowledgement that the people killed were unarmed civilians: The Times of London reported the following, on April 11, 2009:
The US military conceded that its forces killed the civilians in error during the night-time raid that targeted the neighbouring compound of a suspected militant. The father of the dead family is a lieutenant-colonel in the Afghan Army fighting the Taleban in the restive province of Ghazni.
The US military reported that two males, two females and an infant were believed to have died in the incident, and two other women were wounded. A relative of the dead family told reporters that the dead infant was a boy born last week. “This was a terrible tragedy,” a US spokesman, Colonel Greg Julian, told The Times.

Video of Kathy Kelly Speaking in Des Moines, Iowa

Gerald — Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:43:13 -0500

Short Information Teaser

In advance of the Creech 14 trial, Kathy speaks against the use of drone warfare.

Excerpt

Kathy Kelly of Voices for Creative Nonviolence spoke in Des Moines Friday July 31st about the use of drone warfare in Pakistan and Afghanistan. KELLY is one of the “ Creech 14” who will stand trial for protesting the use of drones April 9, 2009 at Creech air force base.

Body

The above two short videosclips from Kathy’s talk in Des Moines, Iowa. If you would like a DVD of the entire talk, Rodger Routh would be happy to send you a copy for $5.00 to cover mailing and dubbing. Just e-mail him your mailing address.

Peace

Rodger Routh, videographer

On September 14, 14 activists from around the country will stand trial in Las Vegas for trespassing at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada in April 2009. Creech is headquarters for the Air Force’s drone warfare program, from where unmanned planes (called “Predators” and “Reapers”) do surveillance and fire (“Hellfire”) missiles at targets on the other side of the globe. As this results from one of the first public protests of this insidious new technology, a spirited defense, including an appeal to international law, is being prepared.

Serving Time for Peace in Sweden

Gerald — Tue, 3 Aug 2010 14:01:19 -0500

Short Information Teaser

Martin Smedjeback writes from Skenäs Prison outside of Norrköping Sweden

Excerpt

I tell them about how we went into Saab Bofors Dynamics in Eskilstuna in October 2008. There we hammered on the bazookas as a part of a campaign within our antimilitaristic network called “Mischief” (Ofog). “Did you really call the police and waited for them at the scene of the crime?” the young guy asks in disbelief. “Yep, it is a part of civil disobedience. To take responsibility for your actions” I say. Is he also a part of your network” asks the young man and point at the picture of St Francis of Assisi on my t-shirt. “No” I answer “but it is fair to say that the shared our conviction of nonviolence.”

Body

Martin Smedjeback
June 17, 2010

I am led into the central office of the prison Skenäs outside of Norrköping. Two guards help me to carry my stuff. “It looks like you are moving in here!” says one guard. “That’s exactly what I am doing, temporary any way”, says I. “Do you have your sentence papers with you?” asks another guard. “Yes” I answer and hands them the papers which says that I was convicted to four months in prison. I am asked to step out and wait while they handle some of my paperwork. I take a seat on the stairs. The sun is shining. I start reading yesterdays paper. Two inmates come out from their dorms. Sitting on a bench on the other side of the yard one of them shouts to me ”Are you new here?” “Yes” I shout back. “What are you in for?” he continues. ”Criminal damage” I answer. “What have you destroyed?” “Bazookas” I answer. ”Really!” he says. I walk over the yard and sit down next to them to avoid screaming. The older man sits quiet smoking on his cigarette. The younger one continues to ask about our disarmament action. I tell them about how we went into Saab Bofors Dynamics in Eskilstuna in October 2008. There we hammered on the bazookas as a part of a campaign within our antimilitaristic network called “Mischief” (Ofog). “Did you really call the police and waited for them at the scene of the crime?” the young guy asks in disbelief. “Yep, it is a part of civil disobedience. To take responsibility for your actions” I say. Is he also a part of your network” asks the young man and point at the picture of St Francis of Assisi on my t-shirt. “No” I answer “but it is fair to say that the shared our conviction of nonviolence.”

I get called back in to the guards’ office. A middle aged guard smiles when he sees me. “Hi Martin! Do you remember where we met the first time?” ”Sure I do,” I answer. ”Last year at the ’Drags prison’ when I was newly employed.” He puts on an electronic tag on my leg – a small plastic box. The young attractive guard, who registers me in their computer, tells me that I am not allowed to go outside of the designated area of the prison. “You can tell where the line goes by the small signs put up along the perimeter of the prison. If you pass this there will go off an alarm and we will know that you have escaped.” she says. I am asked to stand up against a wall for a “photo op” with a compact camera. I don’t get to hold a sign with a number, like I have seen it been done in American movies. Instead my inmate number, 10-174, is added with a layout program in the computer. But my number plays an insignificant role here. I am always referred to as “Martin” by the guards, and by other inmates.

“Do you have any special food requirements?” asks the male guard. “Vegan” I say. “Vegetarian?” he asks. ”No, vegan” says the female guard. ”It is spelled as it sounds,” she adds. The prison kitchen provides me with excellent vegan food from day one.

“If you come here again I don’t want you to bring this much with you” said the guard sternly when I came to this prison last year. So I was a bit nervous when the guards looked through everything I brought with me: 20 books, magazines, lots of printed papers, envelopes, stamps, table tennis racket, badminton racket, ergonomic keyboard, computer mouse, pillow, a framed picture of Martin Luther King, pens, jogging shoes, etc. This time I don’t even hear a grunt from the guards when they search my things and I get to bring in everything to my cell except a tablecloth and a pillow. Sweet!

Two guards drive me the very short distance to my dorm. They take me to room 64. Here I will live until the 6th of September when I am released (you always serve two thirds of your sentence in Sweden). A foam madras, a night stand, a desk, a wardrobe, a bookshelf on the wall, a small TV – that’s the furniture in my room. I am very happy to have my own room. That is not the case in every prison in Sweden. I put down my stuff on the bed and go to the cleaning cabinet out in the hall. After a while with a dust rag, a vacuum cleaner and a mop my room starts to shape up. At some hard to get to places the dust seems to have been there for years. Tired after cleaning I lie down on my new bed. The pillow is unexpectedly soft. Resting on the bed I look out of my window. The view is not blocked by any bars – nice! I see many beautiful trees. If you look a bit further you can even see a body of water. The birds are chipping cheerfully in the sun outside. I can open the window but only a few inches. A big padlock and a chain prevent it to go any further.

In the corridor I meet some of my new neighbors. They seem nice. One of them says, “Skenäs is not a prison. It is a daycare center for adults.” Another one asks if I want coffee. ”That would be lovely” I answer. Over a cup of java we stand and chat in the corridor. When a female guard passes we stop talking. When she is out of sight we continue. “Why didn’t you put dynamite around the whole weapon factory?” asks a young inmate with Middle Eastern looks. I answer him that it would be too big of a risk for both us and anyone who possibly would be present at the factory. And even if nobody would get hurt it would still send the wrong signals, that we are willing to risk lives during our actions. “If I would have blown up a weapon factory I would been called a terrorist, but if you had done the same thing you would have been called a rebel. Because, we look differently,” says the young man with dark complexion and black eyebrows. “But why didn’t you steal the bazookas?” he asks. “But we are opposed to any violence” I try to explain. “Could you do a disarmament action on your own?” he asks. “Yes, maybe” I say “but it would be difficult. We discovered that it would have been much easier to break into the factory with two crowbars. We only had one.” ”Isn’t it better to kidnap a guard and to force him to open the door? Then you don’t have to use violence” he says. “But don’t you have to have some kind of weapon to force him with?” I ask. “Yeah, maybe a small knife” he admits.

That was some memories of my first day in prison this year. When writing this I have been here a month. My days are spent sitting in the prison school at a computer writing on what I hope can become a book (in Swedish) on how we can create a better and happier world with activism. I also spend a better part of the day reading, mainly books that can give me information and inspiration for my own book. In my “free time” I call friends and family, write letters, work out and watch TV. I feel very happy here. Sometimes actually happier than on the outside. I don’t have any pressing dead lines. I am not expected to earn money and I don’t have to do boring stuff like washing, cleaning (except my small room) and cooking. I really enjoy having the time to read and write on a bigger project. And, perhaps the biggest perk of them all, I get to have interesting conversations almost every day. The other inmates introduce me to a world before unknown to me, with a different set of rules and ideas to which I am not familiar. Another great thing about doing disarmament actions is that many people appreciate what we are doing. My inmates are greatly envious of all the mail I get from supporters and I greatly appreciate it. The best time of the day is defiantly when I pick up my mail.

Prison address: Martin Smedjeback Fack 11 610 31 Vikbolandet Sweden

Flying Blind

Gerald — Mon, 2 Aug 2010 15:15:08 -0500

Short Information Teaser

U.S. combat drones operate outside international law.

Excerpt

On Dec. 30, 2009, a trusted Central Intelligence Agency informant walked into a base in Khost, Afghanistan, which borders Pakistan, and blew up himself and seven others working for the agency. In the weeks that followed, the United States, possibly for revenge, dramatically increased the number of attacks into Western Pakistan using unmanned aerial combat vehicles, better known as drones.

Body

MARY ELLEN O’CONNELL
MARCH 15, 2010
America Magazine

The attacks in response to the Khost bombing are rekindling the controversy surrounding this new technology of war. The C.I.A., which runs the drone operations in Pakistan, has called them “lawful, aggressive, precise and effective” (New York Times, 1/23), and its director, Leon Panetta, has said that when it comes to disrupting Al Qaeda, drones are “the only game in town.” The C.I.A. began using drones in Pakistan in 2004, even though the United States was not engaged in a war with that country. Under President Obama the use of drones in Pakistan has escalated dramatically. Following the attacks in Khost, the C.I.A. increased the attacks to every other day, up from about once a week.

Drones are indeed “aggressive,” but whether they are precise and effective is open to dispute. The C.I.A. uses drones to target enemy leaders on its “watch list,” but the attacks inevitably kill many people who are not on the list, including innocent women and children. According to David Kilcullen and Andrew McDonald Exum (New York Times, 5/19/09), the United States kills 50 unintended targets for each intended target of a drone attack. As one intelligence source told The Nation: “If there’s one person they’re going after and there’s thirty-four people in the building, thirty-five people are going to die. That’s the mentality.… They’re not accountable to anybody and they know that.”

Even killing the few on the C.I.A. list, however, raises concerns under international law. Neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration has been persuasive about its legal right to launch attacks in Pakistan. Even with the legal right to use military force, drone attacks must also conform to the traditional principles governing the rules of warfare, including those of distinction, necessity, proportionality and humanity.

The Rise of the Drones

Drones were invented not long after the Second World War. The United States began using drones equipped with cameras to gather intelligence during the Vietnam War. By 2001, the U.S. military had modified them to fire missiles and drop bombs. Today drones have the ability to remain in the air for long periods, record data and respond immediately with lethal force when a target is detected. The U.S. Air Force first deployed weaponized drones in Afghanistan in November 2001. Drones were used by the Air Force in 2003 during the invasion of Iraq; they have been used in Pakistan since 2004; and since 2006 the United States has used drones in Somalia.

Killing with drones is made easy for operators, who often work at great distances from the scene of attack. An Air Force “pilot” may be in Nevada, while C.I.A. operatives are in Langley, Va., and others, including private contractors, are in Florida, Pakistan or Afghanistan. An operator may launch an attack from a trailer in Nevada viewing a computer monitor and using a joystick. The operators never see the persons they have killed. The pilot of a fighter jet flies over the place where the attack will occur and risks being shot down; a drone pilot never experiences the place where the attack occurs and knows he or she is in no personal danger. The operator can go home at the end of the shift [see sidebar].

In his 1996 book, On Killing, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman describes factors that can overcome the average individual’s resistance to killing, such as “the distance from the victim.” For Grossman, this includes many kinds of distance, like social distance, perceiving someone to be of a different social class; cultural difference, identifying racial and ethnic differences that permit “dehumanizing” the victim; and mechanical distance, engaging in combat through the intervention of “a TV screen, a thermal sight, a sniper sight, or some other kind of mechanical buffer.” All of these features characterize killing by drone in Pakistan. They help explain why so many are dying in the U.S. government’s attempt to kill a few.

As to the right to kill by drone in Pakistan: Under the United Nations Charter, resort to military force on the territory of another state is permitted when the attacking state is 1) acting in self-defense to an armed attack, 2) acts with U.N. Security Council authorization or 3) is invited to aid another state in the lawful use of force.

The only recent attack on the United States that could give rise to the right of self-defense occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. The Security Council stated in Resolution 1368 that those attacks permitted force in self-defense, but it did not determine who was responsible for the attacks or whether a response in self-defense would meet the other limits in general international law on the resort to force—in particular, the principles of necessity and proportionality. Pakistan did not attack the United States and is not responsible for those who did. The United States has no basis, therefore, for attacking in self-defense on Pakistani territory.

Fighting Al Qaeda

Some argue that the United States is engaged in armed conflict with Al Qaeda and other militant groups outside the combat zone of Afghanistan. The United States is not, however, fighting with Al Qaeda anywhere but in Afghanistan. An armed conflict, as defined by international law, requires the presence of organized armed groups engaged in intense fighting. Once or twice in 2009, the United States aided Pakistan in its attempt to use armed force against militant groups in that country. Otherwise, the United States has not engaged in intense fighting with Al Qaeda in Pakistan. Al Qaeda remains a violent terrorist group, but it should be treated as a criminal organization to which law enforcement rules apply. To do otherwise is to violate fundamental human rights principles. Outside of war, the full body of human rights applies, including the prohibition on killing without warning.

Another attempt to justify drone attacks is based on “hot pursuit.” In Afghanistan militants are killing U.S. soldiers, then retreating to Pakistan. There is, however, no right of hot pursuit on land. Hot pursuit at sea requires law enforcement agents to have jurisdiction and to remain in visual contact with the suspect until the arrest.

The only basis for the United States to lawfully use force in Pakistan is with the consent of that country’s political leaders. Attacks into Afghanistan by Pakistani militants, even if they target U.S. soldiers, are still attacks on Afghanistan. Afghanistan, not the United States, has a right to respond, but it has no right to use major force for low-level cross-border incursions. The International Court of Justice has ruled in several cases that measures short of military force must be used.

In May 2009, the United States pressed Pakistan to begin a military campaign against various Taliban groups in the western provinces. With an invitation from the Pakistan government to aid in its campaign, the United States would have the right to resort to drones. Yet it remains unclear whether our government has a valid invitation. What is clear is that many of the ongoing drone attacks by the United States are not part of Pakistan’s campaign. Pakistan’s president has told U.S. leaders not to attack certain groups that have cooperated with Islamabad. The United States has done so anyway, insisting that Pakistan use more military force and threatening to carry out attacks itself if the government refuses. None of this can be squared with international law.

The elected government of Pakistan is, to be sure, weak; the military and intelligence services sometimes pursue their own agendas separate from elected officials. Yet these agencies cannot give the United States permission to use military force. The United States has a major interest in a stable, democratic Pakistan, a goal it undermines by sending drones over the government’s protests. The United States needs to respect the government and defer to its authority in Pakistan.

Conduct of Force

Under the international rules regulating the use of force (jus in bello), four fundamental principles must guide the use of lethal action: distinction, necessity, proportionality and humanity. The most important is distinction. Under international law, civilians may never be intentionally targeted. The International Committee of the Red Cross puts distinction first in its study of the customary law of war, and the Geneva Conventions, in Additional Protocol I of 1977, also strongly emphasize the need to distinguish between combatants and civilians.

Persons with a right to take direct part in hostilities are lawful combatants; those without a right to do so are unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants may not be charged with a crime for using force. Incidentally, C.I.A. operatives, like the militants challenging authority in Pakistan, have no right to participate in hostilities and are unlawful combatants. C.I.A. operatives do not wear uniforms, are not subject to the military chain of command and may be charged with a crime for killing with drones.

Attacks even on lawful targets must respect the principles of necessity and proportionality. Necessity refers to military necessity: Force is to be used only if necessary to accomplish a reasonable military objective. Proportionality prohibits that “which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.” These limitations on permissible force extend to both the quantity of force used and the geographic scope of its use. At a ratio of 50 to 1, the disproportionate impact of drone attacks in Pakistan represents a serious violation of the traditional rules of war. (Since Kilcullen and Exum reported their findings, U.S. authorities have issued a series of responses disputing their calculations. Yet the authorities have little information about who is being killed, other than that many victims are not on the C.I.A. lists.)

The situation in Pakistan is not like the invasion of Iraq, where U.S. forces met large, organized units of the Iraqi Army on the road to Baghdad. Before the United States reached Baghdad, its use of drones to launch missile attacks might have protected civilians from bombs dropped from airplanes. (Recall the hundreds killed in high-altitude bombing during the Kosovo conflict.) But can drones ever be precise enough to comply with the rules of distinction and proportionality?

The case of western Pakistan presents particular challenges. There suspected militant leaders wear civilian clothes, and even the sophisticated cameras of a drone cannot reveal with certainty that a suspect is a militant. In such a situation international humanitarian law gives a presumption to civilian status (see the Red Cross’s “Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities”). Even when a drone operator is reasonably certain that his or her target is a militant, the United States is obligated to do all it can to minimize injury to civilians. Little information is available as to whether the United States takes such precautions. In close cases, the dictates of humanitarian law support decisions in favor of sparing life and avoiding destruction.

The use of drones is also difficult to justify under the terms of military necessity, which holds that force should only be used when there is a reasonable prospect of success. In Congressional testimony in March 2009, David Kilcullen said drone attacks give “rise to a feeling of anger that coalesces the population around the extremists and leads to spikes of extremism well outside the parts of the country where we are mounting those attacks.”

Officials in Washington state again and again that the use of drones in Pakistan is imperative. Kilcullen is one of many independent observers who argue that drones are, in fact, exacerbating the problems of terrorism, violence and instability in Pakistan. The United States has other options besides launching missiles. The alternatives, generally law enforcement, do take more time and patience. And law enforcement is working with increasing arrests of high-ranking Taliban leaders in Pakistan. Law enforcement is not as fast-acting as drones, but it is lawful, ethical and effective—a real place to put our faith.

Bombs cannot solve Pakistan’s complex problems

Joshua Brollier — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:42:11 -0500

Short Information Teaser

by G. Simon Harak, S.J.

Excerpt

by G. Simon Harak, S.J.
July 15, 2010

“In other countries, the country has a military. In Pakistan, the military has a country.”

I arrived in Pakistan on May 4th, traveling with Kathy Kelly and Josh Brollier from Voices for Creative Nonviolence, based in Chicago. After traveling through Pakistan for about two weeks, I surely can’t claim to fully understand the country, but these words from I.A Rehman, Secretary General of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, seemed to summarize what I learned.

I learned that most of the combat troops in the pre-1948 Indian Army were Muslims. So the army “got a country” when East and West Pakistan were formed in 1947 from the former British colony of India.

One difficulty is that democracy and the military don’t mix well: the military is not a democratic institution. When it comes to running a country, this mis-fit becomes even more problematic. Kathy and Josh had been to Pakistan last year, and this year, as we went from place to place and interviewed person after person, we kept hearing about how the government was not representative of the people. Instead, we learned that a small ruling elite runs the country for its own benefit.

Body

by G. Simon Harak, S.J.
July 15, 2010

“In other countries, the country has a military. In Pakistan, the military has a country.”

Here in the US, corporations are increasingly influencing US warmaking policy to fuel their consumption of resources. In Pakistan, however, the military actually owns profit-making corporations. As Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa, writes in her book Military Inc.: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy: “The military’s two business groups – the Fauji Foundation and the Army Welfare Trust – are the largest business conglomerates in the country.” And the military’s investment in their own corporations leads them to use more and more government influence so as to stifle, or even take over, rival corporations. That, in turn, entails an increasingly militarized and hence an increasingly undemocratic state.

Modeled by the federal government, this non-representation of the people’s interests extends down even to local police and courts, creating an “enfranchisement gap” between the people and their “leaders,” with the people of Afghanistan feeling more like subjects than citizens, as one professor told us.

When the people realize that the government is not guaranteeing their civil rights, sooner or later they will begin to act to secure those rights.

In Pakistan, that action by the people takes several forms. The first is in the growing number of civil rights demonstrations scattered across the country. Dr. Mubashar Hassan, a long-time and astute political activist and observer told us he believed that a some point, those isolated demonstrations will coalesce and form a national movement that will compel the ruling elite to change.

We can get glimpses of that movement toward unity among the demonstrators from the social media. For example, check out the newly formed Amn Tehrik (Peace Movement) out of Peshawar, or Voice for Peace out of Khar.

Another dimension of the resistance is the rise of armed resistance groups, in general called “the Taliban” by the people, or “militants” by the government. I’m sure someone knows, but everyone to whom I spoke said that no one knows where they come from. What is known is that they are well armed and very well financed. That leads people to believe that they are financed by a country with “deep pockets,” such as the US, or Iran, or perhaps Saudi Arabia.

In general, the strategy of these groups seems to be that they first approach a town or village or urban area, presenting themselves as the “true Islam.” There is a prima facie appeal to that. “True Islam” would not allow such injustice and inequity to exist among the believers. Care and uplift of the poor is a pillar of the Islamic faith. That fundamental religious appeal is bolstered by an economic and political appeal. “Someone,” the Taliban seems to say to the people, “has to represent your rights. The government isn’t. WE will.” That message gains an audience among the poor and disenfranchised, but also among young middle- and upper-class youth, appealing to their ideal of a more just world.

Once the local Taliban become entrenched, tremendous difficulties surface. Their claims of having the “truth” morph into “if you’re not with us, you’re against us.” Then, despite the Qur’an’s clear injunction against compulsion in religion, the Taliban begin to attack those who disagree with them. They also attack rich landowners and destroy or seize their properties. The reign of fear deepens. Claiming all the while to “protect the people,” they demand “tribute” for their “services.” And if, for example, a family cannot afford the 40,000 rupees in tribute, “Then, give us one of your sons to serve with us.” An extremely complex situation ensues: the people perceive a political and economic need for the Taliban, and yet experience a growing fear of their methods and control. Even those families who have turned against the Taliban and their tactics may be in deep conflict because their sons have been conscripted into their number. How can you call for the Taliban’s destruction when it would mean the killing of your own child? Further, both the Pakistani military and the Taliban claim to be fighting for the true Islam.

The Pakistani government’s schizophrenic response to the Taliban puzzled me for most of my visit. One response was to pursue, destroy and drive them out, a policy that the government pursued remorselessly in the Swat Valley where we visited. Though I stand opposed to violence, I at least could understand that this would be the “natural response” of a militaristic government’s perception of a threat to its power. But the other course of action puzzled me the more I learned of it. The Pakistani government also seemed at the same time to be siding with, even promoting the Taliban. A certain Pakistani General Imam boasted that he had “raised up” that Taliban. Retired generals were known to go to the Taliban camps and train the Taliban in warfare.

What was going on? When I spoke to several Pakistanis, their usual response was, “We know there’s double-dealing going on.” But why?

I found what seemed to me to be a satisfactory answer in my discussions with Jesuits. (Yes, we’re there, too.) The reasons are geopolitical, rather than local. First, Pakistan is quite aware of history. No country, no empire has EVER conquered Afghanistan. It is, as the saying goes, “where empires go to die.” So the Pakistan government knows that inevitably, the US will lose in Afghanistan and when it does, the Taliban will move right back in. So the Pakistani government wants to keep at least some degree of “good relations” with the Taliban so that when they re-take Afghanistan, the Pakistani military/government will have bona fides with the ruling authority of Afghanistan. Second, the Pakistani military has to be concerned about the Kashmir, an area over which it is in conflict with India for control. Pakistan knows that the Indian army far outnumbers its own, so they wish to “keep” the Taliban as a sort of “Pakistani militia” in case of an Indian military incursion into Kashmir.

The US government’s solution to these complex internal and geopolitical problems is to bomb the Pakistani people, mostly in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Northwest Pakistan. As of this writing, these strikes have caused over 1,500 casualties among the Pakistani people. A lot of these casualties are “first responders” to the initial strike. That is, it is customary for the US to send a second missile, minutes after the first missile, so that family members, neighbors, and medical and clergy personnel who seek to help – or even to observe – are also wounded or killed.

We asked some of the surviving medical personnel about the efficacy of the strikes, whether they were eliminating the Taliban leadership and therefore removing a threat. They answered our questions with some of their own: “How does the US determine who is a ‘leader?’ Who gives them this information? Could it not be a man who simply wants his rival removed?” “If the US had good intelligence and they hit their targets with the first strike, why would the second one be necessary? If you already hit the supposed militant target, then why fire again?” “Even if you had reliable information, that is still not proof: who has given the license to kill and in what court? Who has declared that they can hit anyone they like?” “After so many strikes, how many ‘high level targets’ could there possibly be?” And a man named Safdar concluded: “What kind of democracy is America, where people do not ask these questions?”

It is important, too, to recognize that families and tribes straddle both sides of the Pakistan – Afghanistan border, and that the family bonds transcend nationalities. Whatever benefit the US government thinks it might be gaining from these strikes (figures show that about 3 “leaders” are killed for every 100 casualties in an air strike), they must be far outweighed by the growing antipathy as family members, friends and neighbors are maimed, crippled or killed.

I asked every Pakistani I met to tell me the one thing they would want me to say to Americans when I returned. And every single one of them said the same thing. “Tell them to leave us alone. We can work out our own problems if you just leave us alone.” “If you continue, these attacks,” said Dr. Mubashar Hassan, “you are only prolonging our agony.”

The Bomb and the Drone: Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan

Short Information Teaser

Excerpt

Body

VCNV Author

Put Drone Warfare on Trial: Support the Creech 14!

Check this if your event does not have a known end date or time

Event Description

Atrocities in Afghanistan: A Troubling Timetable *Updated*

Short Information Teaser

Excerpt

Body

Video of Kathy Kelly Speaking in Des Moines, Iowa

Short Information Teaser

Excerpt

Body

Serving Time for Peace in Sweden

Short Information Teaser

Excerpt

Body

Flying Blind

Short Information Teaser

Excerpt

Body

Bombs cannot solve Pakistan’s complex problems

Short Information Teaser

Excerpt

Body

Atrocities in Afghanistan: A Troubling Timetable Updated