Richard WarnickOllie North Helped Cover Up Afghanistan Atrocity
While the Presidential campaigners make their rounds talking about victory in “eye-rack,” they are careful to say nothing whatsoever about Afghanistan. Unlike the unbelievably costly and pointless Iraq fiasco, the Afghanistan/Pakistan war matters greatly to U.S. national security.
Fraidoon Pooyaa/Associated Press
In Azizabad, an Afghan boy carried his belongings amid the ruins of his home, which was destroyed in an Aug. 22 attack by American forces.
The news from Afghanistan is not good. In fact, the news is terrible, which may be why politicians won’t dare mention it. On August 22, more than 90 civilians, the majority of them women and children, were killed in a U.S. air strike on the tiny Afghan village of Azizabad.
Residential compounds were leveled by US attack helicopters, armed drones and a cannon-armed AC-130H Spectre gunship.
The U.S. military, anxious to avoid responsibility, has dismissed the evidence presented by the surviving villagers as Taliban propaganda. The villagers and the relatives of some of the people killed in the raid insisted that none of them were Taliban and that there were no Taliban present in the village. They blame business rivals for taking false accusations to the Americans.
I’ve been waiting to see if more information comes out. Today, via Think Progress and Firedoglake, we learned that none other than Oliver North, LTC Marines retired, helped author the cover-up. As you may know, North now works for the Faux News Channel. The London Times has the full story, with video, and also gives us the big picture:
Taking what it says are the most conservative figures available, Human Rights Watch has calculated that civilian deaths as a result of Western air strikes tripled between 2006 and 2007 to 321. In the first seven months of this year the figure was 119. In the same period, 367 civilian deaths were attributed to Taliban attacks. It accuses US officials of routinely denying reports of civilian deaths.
Bottom line: Human Rights Watch reports civilian deaths from US and NATO air strikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007.
Human Rights Watch criticized the poor response by US officials when civilian deaths occur. Prior to conducting investigations into airstrikes causing civilian loss, US officials often immediately deny responsibility for civilian deaths or place all blame on the Taliban. US investigations conducted have been unilateral, ponderous, and lacking in transparency, undercutting rather than improving relations with local populations and the Afghan government. A faulty condolence payment system has not provided timely and adequate compensation to assist civilians harmed by US actions.
In case you are still wondering, this is a huge deal. It’s why the U.S. and NATO are losing the war against the Taliban. We ought to be having a vigorous national debate about this, not silence from both of the major political parties.
UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald has more, including the prominent role of the Fox News Channel in the cover-up.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Richard,
Can you name any other nation in the history of the world that has worked as hard as America to minimize civilian casualties?
I am not making light of this in any regard, but this is a war we are fighting. I think people loose sight of the extremely low civilian casualty rate due to our military.
I also think that if the military is denying or mis-reporting the casualty rate that is a problem. At the same time, any independent confirmation that it was the American military’s fault? It wouldn’t be the first time that terrorist have sacrificed innocent villagers to make it look like the other side’s fault.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Bob S.– Good intentions don’t count. When I was an Army officer, I was judged on results only, and I was expected to make truthful reports. That’s how I judge what’s happening in Afghanistan. In case you missed it, Human Rights Watch estimates that our side is killing civilians at a higher rate than the bad guys.
[Note: this assertion is incorrect, now corrected in the original post and in comment below]
You can’t commit war crimes and get away with it, not when everybody has a video camera.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Ollie can’t recall…and this is surprising, why, how?
Richard, oh they’ll be plenty of gettin’ away with it, cameras or not…
September 8th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Richard,
Bullpucky, intentions do count. Our criminal system is based on intentions. Murder in the first degree, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, etc.
Or are you saying that American military personnel don’t care who they kill?
You also missed my point entirely, name another nation in the world that has worked as hard to minimize civilian casualties? We don’t always succeed, but we do try. Can you say the same for the other side?
Perhaps part of the problem is the nature of the enemy that sees nothing wrong with using civilians for shields, recruiting suicide bombers from the poor by paying parents, etc. Do you have any doubt in your mind that the Taliban deliberately work to maximize casualties credited to the military?
September 8th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Bob S.– Your argument is based on American exceptionalism, which is not accepted anywhere outside the USA. We are being judged on the results of our actions, and you need to understand that.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Richard,
I always find it humorous that people like you and Cliff tell me that I have to understand or know.
My argument is based on the absolute truth, can you deny it? I recognize it’s not just the American forces that try to minimize casualties, but it without a doubt primarily a western civilization value to do it. Do the American and Allied forces try to minimize civilian casualties or not?
Can you also deny that it is within the realm of possibility and probability that the Taliban would murder multiple innocents to set up the military?
I get sick and tired of the “blame America” diatribes,first, foremost and constantly, on this site. America isn’t perfect nor are our soldiers but given the choice between America and the Taliban, I choose America.
I choose to believe that our side is trying hard to do the right thing. When and if mistakes happen, I want people held accountable. But I want it done in such a way that it doesn’t give aid, comfort and public relation wins to the enemy.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Bob S.– Not only do you not get it, but you seem really, really committed to not getting it. When I was on a tank and we missed the target, our company commander would never have said, “that’s OK guys, you had every intention of hitting it.” No, he chewed us out. Why? Because on the battlefield, it’s not “win or go home.” It’s “win or die.”
Results matter. Intentions are bullshit.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Richard,
Training is one thing and practice is a matter of doing until you can’t get it wrong. Battlefield conditions are another altogether.
It isn’t that I’m saying that intentions don’t matter, but what intentions does the military have.
Are you claiming it is their intention to deliberately target civilians?
Were you, at the end of your training cycle, perfect at hitting the target every time?
That is what I’m talking about. From your article and argument, that is the expectation you have of the military- perfection.
If intentions are bullshit, why are Bush’s intentions so often reviled here? Bush’s results should be the only thing that matter, right? You can’t have it both ways. Either his intentions were bad–oil for his buddies- whatever else lies you want to make up or the results matter and a democratic government has been formed in the place of tyranny.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Politics has none of the near term expiration dates that the battlefield does. Hence the willy nilly see what happens chain of command we see from our political leaders.
If they were leading from the field, a goodly portion of our political leaders would be shot by their own troops.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Bob S.– Actually, yeah, we hit the target every time– and we were given two seconds from the time of seeing the target to having the round on the target, which was usually a more than a mile away. The same brigade I was in later fought Saddam’s Republican Guard in 1991, and it was a pretty one-sided engagement.
I accept that the intention at the highest levels is to avoid targeting non-combatants. However, as a practical matter in Afghanistan our forces are deliberately killing civilians all the time. Did you watch “60 Minutes” Sunday before last? If not, check this out.
Key quote:
Before, they had the Taliban and the warlords, making people suffer. Now the U.S. Air Force is overhead, acting as a force multiplier for the Taliban. That’s crazy. There’s a better way to do this.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
So yes Bob, our policy at war, is decidered 2000 pounds at a time.
If you are innocent you should not be anywhere within a two block radius of the “bad guys”.
September 8th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Intentions certainly matter in a court of law. What will matter over there is what the civilian population feels. As I said elsewhere on this blog, I have been to two wedding parties lately. If either of them had been bombed from the air, I would be very mad. Actually, outraged may be a better term, even if the pilot had good intentions.
September 8th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
It could be that Bob S. is practicing for the role of defense attorney at The Hague, but realistically U.S. war crimes will probably never be tried except in an American court.
The Haditha example is before us: yes, the court ruled, Marines killed unarmed civilians– but they did it without violating the (secret) rules of engagement! There was a similar case involving other Marines in Afghanistan not long ago, and they weren’t even charged with a crime.
No, the issue is whether we win or lose in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Right now our side is losing, because we are making too many attacks on innocent civilians.
September 8th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Richard,
It could be that I”m tired of seeing the military accused of murder, of deliberately targeting civilians.
I”m tired of seeing people accusing the military of atrocities without admitting that the enemy deliberately uses tactics that maximize the possibility of the civilian casualties.
I’m tired of having to argue with people like you, dragging out a seemingly grudging admission that the American military tries harder than any other military in the world to minimize those civilian casualties.
I’m tired of people like Murtha smearing the military. And if you feel I”m attacking you and anyone else on this site, so be it.
I don’t understand your purpose on posting things like this. While it doesn’t give aid and comfort to the enemy, it comes too close.
Dissent is patriotic but it can be carried too far. When the military screws up, it should be studied and learned from….without giving the world the spectacle of tearing the military apart for that mistake.
September 8th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Bob, your concern is duly registered, now get some rest.
Don;t like the messy part of war? Make a better effort to see that it doesn’t happen! We certainly could have done without this one. Agreed? Or would that be unAmerican?
September 8th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Bob,
The enemy has certainly committed atrocities. The more they commit, the greater the chances they will lose popular support and the war. But they have the advantage that they look like the local population. Hence our job is more difficult. Not impossible, but difficult. Aerial warfare reduces our casualties, but has the potential for considerable collateral damage. That damage, in turn, could turn the populace against us. To point that out is not to oppose America, but rather to point out practical difficulties. To not recognize these problems is to increase the danger of our losing. To not be able to discuss these problems is to curtail democracy at home.
Cav, we could in principle have avoided the war in Afghanistan, but the case that this, as opposed Iraq. is a war of necessity is much stronger. Of course, if we could have overthrown the Taliban by some other means, so much the better, but they were pretty well entrenched.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:52 am
We can’t be fightin any of them over here, that’s for sure. Their ‘dustmobiles’ disintegrate when they try to cross the ocean. Given their crimes, it’s only right that we take it to them where our oil is buried.
September 9th, 2008 at 6:30 am
Whoa, I see that my snarky response falls preposterously short of addressing the threat the U.S. faces.
Imagine if you will the implications af a single brown man with only a small vial of a refined biological agent at say, the Unitated Nations building. We’re much more vulnerable than I supposed.
I need to get Serious.
September 9th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Bob S. says–
Bob– Obviously this is not about me, as I’ve said above it’s about whether the USA wins or loses in Afghanistan/Pakistan. A matter of great concern. If you want to accuse me of treason (that’s what it means to give aid and comfort to the enemy, it’s the definition of treason), go right ahead– it doesn’t bother me because I know it’s imperative to address what’s happening and how it impacts our national security.
Amazing that you accuse Rep. John Murtha, a career Marine officer, of “smearing the military.” Rep. Murtha originally voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, but in November 2005 he had the courage to stand up and say what no one else in Washington dared to say: “The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home.”
Murtha is in close contact with senior officers, who could not go public with the truth because the Bush administration doesn’t ever admit error– Karl Rove’s first rule of politics. We have to throw away Rove’s rules if we’re going to get our country back on track.
September 9th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Richard W.
You are not going to believe this but I agree with at least some of what you said. It is vital that we do as much as we can to reduce civilian casualties. Not only is it inherently wrong to kill civilians it only aids the Taliban in recruiting more fighters.
Now for the disagreement.
You suppose in the story that there is a cover-up, implying that the U.S. knew it wasn’t a Taliban hideout. By evidenced in your post the villagers believed that the American’s were misled by a competing group. No doubt that the Taliban themselves might use the tactic of having people falsely report Taliban activity to cause more civilian deaths and turn public sentiment against us. For certain this means that the US military needs to be far more diligent in collecting additional intelligence before initiating such a raid.
It likely would have been more beneficial anyway to use a large contingent of ground forces to cut off the village and force surrender. Not only do you then get the opportunity to capture Taliban fighters but you can more easily identify if a village is truly hostile. A non-hostile village will not put up a fight.
Of course the downfall of this strategy is in the fact that this puts far more soldiers at risk. Commanders have learned quickly how the media and certain political groups love to use any escalating body counts of US soldiers.
(I hope I haven’t repeated someone else’s post. I only had time to read the original essay.)
September 9th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Richard,
I’m talking about Murtha’s smear of the Marines involved in the “Haditha Incident”.
Of course the story came out later that he was wrong.
I want to highlight a portion of that again, so you’ll know where I’m coming from.
Shouldn’t we wait for the investigations to be completed before we start jumping on the bandwagon and claiming our military is responsible. This wouldn’t be the first time someone tried to stage a “massacre” to “achieve negative publicity”.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; if there were errors or deliberate targeting of civilians that needs to be addressed. But let’s stop giving the people who hate us ammunition to use against us. The enemy is technology savor and aware of psychological warfare; posts like this, ones at Daily Kos & Huffington Post, comments by Murtha are used by the enemy to show that America is wrong.
Murtha said that on November17, 2005, right?
So, have there been any military successes since then?
September 9th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Bob S.– Are you claiming that the findings of the court-martial, that say Marines killed unarmed noncombatants in Haditha, are not correct? You have better information?
Incidentally, we would not be talking about Haditha except for the fact that journalists uncovered it after an initially successful cover-up by the military. Many similar incidents in Iraq have not been brought to light by our news media, but the Iraqis know about them!
Rather than post about the horrific Afghanistan air attack right after it happened, I waited until there was a thorough investigation to establish the facts. I did the same thing before I posted about Haditha.
Bottom line, these cover-ups don’t prevent billions of people around the world from learning of U.S. war crimes. They only inhibit the ability of Americans to understand what’s really being done in our name in time to effect political accountability on our leaders. That’s a bad situation all around.
Murtha was right– the U.S. has not accomplished anything good by force of arms since we became an occupation force. Every additional day in Iraq detracts from our national security. This is widely recognized in military circles, but seldom mentioned by politicians and the media.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Human Rights Watch claims that
How does this square with Richard’s assertion
Bad at math?
September 9th, 2008 at 10:18 am
jd:
You forgot to include deaths not a result of civilian air strikes.
Please don’t forget your logic capabilities while trying your best to prop up the current administration and doing your best to ensure four more years.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:56 am
I added 321 + 119 = 440, which is more than the 367 deaths attributed to Taliban attacks “in the same period.”
I should have checked the Human Rights Watch website. Here’s what they came up with:
2006: at least 929 Afghan civilians killed, 699 by Taliban and 230 by US or NATO.
(at least 116 were killed by US or NATO airstrikes)
2007: at least 1,633 civilians killed, 950 by Taliban and 683 by US or NATO.
(at least 321 were killed by US or NATO airstrikes)
First 7 months of 2008: at least 540 civilians killed, at least 367 by Taliban amd 173 by US or NATO.
(at least 119 were killed by US or NATO airstrikes)
Their conclusion:
September 9th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Richard, Thank you for your correction. I figured that you just read the word problem incorrectly. (that’s why I wasn’t so snarky)
Albert - FAIL
September 11th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald has more about the role of Fox News Channel in the Afghanistan cover-up.