Well, the U.S. military finally conceded that the drone strike in Kabul was a “tragic” mistake that killed ten civilians. The dead include a contractor with a non-profit and seven children, who piled into the targeted car when their daddy/uncle pulled into the driveway. In other words, we killed them for being happy and enjoying themselves.
How is it that people like these victims look to our military like some kind of threat? The drone warriors and their superiors apparently thought the drinking water they were loading into their car was some kind of explosive. Just like Amadou Diallo’s wallet became a gun in the eyes of the NYPD Street Crimes Unit, the shooters saw this family’s actions as deserving of annihilation.
Where no one can see
As many know, U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan have been going on for many years, principally out of view of the mostly Kabul-based international press. Anand Gopal’s amazing article in the New Yorker – The Other Afghan Women – reports that the ominous buzzing of drones was an almost constant feature of rural life in Afghanistan. The toll from the retail death-dealing by these unmanned weapon systems is one of the untold stories of our twenty-year war in that unfortunate country.
Frankly, I have zero confidence that the military’s drone war didn’t mainly kill civilians, even if unintentionally. The reason why we know what happened in Kabul a few weeks ago is that there were witnesses and members of the media within eyeshot. Most of our strikes occur in extremely remote sections of Afghanistan, where no such accountability is possible.
Brutality is a feature, not a bug
I don’t want to give the impression that the drone campaign is the only problem with our war in Afghanistan, or elsewhere, for that matter. We have routinely killed significant numbers of civilians in rural Afghanistan, typically a handful or one at a time. Our allies in that country have been remarkably brutal, in addition to their obvious corruption.
Gopal writes about the experience of families in the Sagnin Valley in Helmand Province. One woman he focuses on lost 16 members of her family over to the war over the course of the American occupation. Some were killed by warlord militia groups that the U.S. allied itself with, some by U.S. forces, some by Afghan government forces. Sometimes an individual walked too close to a military installation. Others died in night raids.
This is why the official death toll in Afghanistan is very likely way, way too low. I don’t think those official numbers included any of the members of this woman’s family, and her family’s experience was pretty typical, with the average loss of life running around 10-12 per family.
What is accountability?
The general who acknowledged the civilian deaths told his audience that he is fully responsible for this “tragic” mistake. But what does accountability mean in these cases? Will anyone spend time behind bars? Will anyone appear before a war crimes tribunal at the Hague? Will anyone be demoted or discharged for their actions?
It seems unlikely. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t push for it. We should attach a political cost to these policies – that’s the only reasonable way to roll them back … or, at least, begin to.
luv u,
jp
No fear, right? We won’t see Netanyahu in the dock, because if he lands there, our leaders would be right behind him for their crucial support of his atrocities. The ICC may sound like a good idea, but make no mistake: it’s not for powerful countries; it is for defeated leaders from the developing world who have gotten on the wrong side of the United States in one way or another. You might see a Milosevic or a Sri Lankan general facing justice, but never the George Bushes, Dick Cheneys, Don Rumsfelds, Barack Obamas, Tony Blairs, or BiBi Netanyahus of the world. I know I’ve said it before, but it’s mere victor’s justice, and therefore no justice at all.