The American military has been constantly engaged since the end of the Cold War. Washington has initiated conflict against Serbia, Iraq (twice), and Afghanistan. U.S. forces have occupied Haiti, Somalia, and the Balkans. There has been much talk of attacking Iran and North Korea. The Bush administration apparently even considered striking Russian forces during Moscow's battle against the country of Georgia.
Most of these wars, interventions, and potential actions were justified as being in America's security interest. When that argument was implausible to start (Kosovo) or collapsed on the ground (Iraq) U.S. policymakers quickly played the humanitarian card. The U.S. military was killing and destroying to promote moral ends.
Unfortunately, war is rarely humane. It certainly has not been humanitarian in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
In fact, we should be ashamed of the horror that the U.S. government has loosed in our name. In Iraq, for instance, estimates of Iraqi deaths since 2003 start at 100,000 and race upward. The number of maimed or injured almost certainly is far greater. Murders, kidnappings, beatings, and theft reached epidemic proportions.
Millions of Iraqis have fled their homes and many their country. The indigenous Christian community has been devastated. The disruption of lives and families has been pervasive. It behooves American hawks to think carefully before extolling their beatific works from the safety of their offices in Washington.
Afghan casualties are fewer, but rising. Estimates of civilians killed start in the low thousands and approach 10,000. Many more have been wounded and social dislocations are widespread. Coalition commanders and Afghan officials routinely call for greater care in military operations to reduce civilian casualties.
None of this is surprising. By its nature war is horrible. Even the best efforts to limit harm to civilians -- and the U.S. military does a much better job than the armed forces of other nations in past wars -- cannot prevent the innocent from suffering.
And one cannot blame American military personnel. If their government is going to send them into combat, then they must be allowed to protect themselves, even when that means noncombatants will be caught in the crossfire.
But the cost of war, especially for those on whose behalf we supposedly are fighting, requires asking whether the conflict can be justified. Consider Afghanistan, where the president's escalation inevitably will result in more civilian deaths.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, recently made an astonishing admission of civilian deaths, so often euphemistically referred to as "collateral damage." At a meeting with U.S. personnel in Afghanistan, Gen. McChrystal discussed the problem of shootings at checkpoints: "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." He added that he knew of no case when "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."
Just what are we doing in Afghanistan?
Yes, the Taliban are bad news, as was Saddam Hussein. Taliban guerrillas, like Iraqi insurgents, also kill innocents; terrorists have killed indiscriminately in both nations. But it was the U.S. invasions which triggered or spread the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, respectively; it is the continuing American presence which results in shooting "an amazing number of people" in Afghanistan. And that doesn't count the "collateral damage" from bombing missions, drone strikes, and other military actions.
War is sometimes necessary despite its costs. Ousting the Taliban was imperative after the Kabul government provided hospitality to Osama bin-Laden and al-Qaeda as the group trained to attack Americans.
But that is where America's vital interests end. Attempting to build a strong central state allied with the West is a quixotic venture and would offer little value even if achieved. There is no more benefit for the U.S. to wage war, killing partisans and innocents alike, in order to deliver control of Afghanistan to Hamid Karzai and his warlord allies rather than to the Taliban and other warlords.
A resurgent Taliban is unlikely to again host a terrorist organization whose activities could bring down the wrath of the American military. Moreover, anti-American terrorists can operate from anywhere -- not just failed states like Somalia or weak nations like Pakistan and Yemen, but also countries throughout Western Europe.
These days Afghanistan has little to do with U.S. security in any form. If anything, the conflict exacerbates the problem of terrorism by reinforcing the terrorist meme of Washington warring against devout Muslims.
Finally, the war cannot be justified as a form of humanitarian intervention. The conflict is horrid. It will be horrid without the U.S., as fighting likely would continue. But it would be less horrid for America if U.S. personnel no longer were being killed or shooting "an amazing number of people," none of whom had "proven to have been a real threat."
The Obama administration should be withdrawing U.S. troops, not expanding America's force presence in Afghanistan. When considering war, officials should bear in mind the Hippocratic Oath: first do no harm. We are failing to meet that obligation in Afghanistan.
Patrick Sauer: "Marine Wedding" Brings the War Home
No matter what new technologies develop, singular photos always seem to provide the lasting images that sum up wars on the whole. Nina Berman's photo essay "Marine Wedding" is is gut wrenching, and, in parts, heart-breaking almost beyond description.
Michael Thad Allen: Drones and the Laws of War
Drone attacks show that the technology of combat has changed dramatically, but the laws of war have remained remarkably stable.
Alon Ben-Meir: Time to Change the Status Quo
Netanyahu has some serious soul searching to do if he is going to act in Israel's long term interests instead of presumed short term gains. This includes reigning in his coalition ministers and presenting a unified Israeli public voice.
http://www.commondreams.org/video/2010/04/05
I know... lets revive Code Pink... if they aren't too busy protesting Carl Rove's BOOK!!
Here's a more complete list, since we went full-bore for Empire around 1900:
Philippines (colonize) 1901
Puerto Rico (colonize) 1901
Panama (carve off from Colombia for canal) 1905?
WWI (Over there; over here, kill and deport lefties) 1916-18
Nicaragua (United Fruit didn't like the gvmt) 1930's
WWII (They declared war on us) 1941-45
Iran (reinstate Shah) 1953
Bay of Pigs (attempted overthrow of Castro) 1961
Dominican Republic (who knows why) 1965-ish
Vietnam (you know) 1954-1975
Greece (help the junta) 1968
Chile (help overthrow Allende) 1973?
Argentina (help the junta) 1970's
Grenada (stop the fiendish Cuban airstrip builders) 1982?
Nicaragua (Contra war) 1980's
El Salvador (Death Squads) 1980's
Panama (arrest Noriega) 1989?
Iraq 1 (put King of Kuwait back on his throne) 1991
Serbia (punish for Bosnia) 1993?
Afghanistan (overthrow Taliban) 2002
Iraq 2 (blood for oil) 2003
Venezuela (help coup to overthrow Chavez--oops) 2006?
Bomb-bomb Iran? pending?
These were not all full-scale military operations, they vary from the half-million plus troops at the height of Vietnam to CIA involvement behind the scenes in Iran 1954 and Chile. It also leaves out the influence and possible covert activities of our worldwide network of military bases. I'd appreciate learning of any I left out.
Some of the above stated are misinformed interpretations of events.
Some were extremely positive and necessary -- defeat of Imperial Japan; occupation of Japan and Germany; Eviction of Hussein fro Iraq, North Korea, invasion of Afghanistan; defeat of Serbia.
The title, "primum non nocere," refers to the Latin phrase which most hope embodies the education of the medical professions: "First, do no harm." Contrary to popular belief, this phrase is not a part of the Hippocratic Oath. It is often attributed to Hippocrates, but the true origin of the phrase is unknown.
To them a humanitarian catastrophe in Europe has nothing to do with America's strategic interests. Go figure.
Human catastrophe... BTW Dude we are still there TOO.
- General William Tecumseth Sherman
That is my answer to anybody who claims that a "surge", or a surgical strike, or a new strategy, will magically allow violence to accomplish the goals of politics. Smashing Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan became a war on the Taliban and a war on Saddam, and now nation-building. It's as though military occupation and permament war the real goals, because the reasons for being there keep changing.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together" -- Dwight David Eisenhower
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
The enemy lies within and is doing a heckuva job.
How far will it go before the tide changes - or will it?
We are the killers of humans on the planet earth. We elected a man who promised to stop that
We won't get fooled again..
I often think of President/General Eisenhower’s words on war.
"Men acquainted with the battlefield will not be found among the numbers that glibly talk of another war. Many people think I glorify war, but I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity. In fact war is no longer a lively adventure or expedition into romance, matching man against man in the test of the stouthearted. Instead, it is aimed against the cities mankind has built. Its goal is their total destruction and devastation. And although I have lead many into battle I have come to the realization that next to the loss of freedom, war is the ultimate, which can befall a nation. It is so horrible that imagination cannot grasp it in all its hideous aspects"
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children"
-- Dwight David Eisenhower
Altho much of what he points out is obvious to readers, it is not so obvious to our govnt.
War is unfortunately, STILL, the primary MO for resolving political disputes.
However, Obama is far too intelligent to have committed troops to Afghanistan, & surely
had his arm twisted by Gates & the joint chiefs (all of whom could really use a joint !), &
congress.
Now, he has the moral authority of a Nobel Peace Laureate, as well as US Prez, making it
all the more tragic that we are in knee deep, with no real objective except to kick ass & kill.
Most incredibly, is how Obama could REPEAT the well documented mistakes of the Soviets,
who had their asses kicked & their economy destroyed because of Afghan occupation,
defies any form of logic.
The Mid-East nitemare will perpetuate until the US gets out of Iraq & Afghanistan, and puts
all of its $$ and influence into resolving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Without that critical
step, Iran will continue to bluster & go nuclear, regardless of any embargoes.
It took a think tank to come up with that statement? I would love to hear of a single instance when fighting a war (human conflict context) was ever for a purpose considered "humane".
On what planet does the Taliban have ANY role in 9/11? Do you have access to some bit of evidence that is not available on the web? Was the Taliban in come way complicit sort of like how all Catholics are complicit in the abuse of thousands of innocent children at the hand of 'Priests'? Does knowing their is abuse going on make you guilty of the crime?
On what planet does the Taliban have ANY role in 9/11? Do you have access to some bit of evidence that is not available on the web? Was the Taliban in some way complcit even if they DID NOT KNOW that Bin Laden was planning an attack? Without evidence that they knew you are completely wrong to assume they were guilty of anything at all.
There is no reason to beleive nor is there any evidence, that more than a small group of Bin Laden's closest aids knew about and /or planned 9/11.
Of course blaming 9/11 on ALL members of Al Qaeda I have no problem with.