Civilian Casualties: Theirs and Ours

marco R cuito61 at hotmail.com
Thu Dec 20 14:31:12 MST 2001


Civilian Casualties: Theirs and Ours
By William Blum

The question is now upon us.
Who killed more innocent, defenseless people? The terrorists in the United
States on September 11 with their crashing airplanes? Or the American
government in Afghanistan the past ten weeks with their AGM-86D cruise
missiles, their AGM-130 missiles, their 15,000 pound "daisy cutter" bombs,
their depleted uranium, and their cluster bombs?

The count in New York and Washington is now a little over 3,000 and going
down steadily. The total count of civilian dead in Afghanistan has been
essentially ignored by American officials and the domestic media, but a
painstaking compilation of domestic and international press reports by
University of New Hampshire professor Marc Herold
(http://www.media-alliance.org/mediafile/20-5/casualties12-10.html), hunting
down the many incidents of 100-plus counts of the dead, the scores of dead,
the dozens, and the smaller numbers, arrived at 3,767 through December 6,
and still counting.

Ah, people say, but the terrorists purposely aimed to kill civilians
(actually, many of the victims were military or military employees), while
any non-combatant victims of the American bombings were completely
accidental.

Whenever the United States goes into one of its periodic bombing frenzies
and its missiles take the lives of numerous civilians, this is called
"collateral damage" -- inflicted by the Fates of War -- for the real
targets, we are invariably told, were military. But if day after day, in one
country after another, the same scenario takes place -- dropping lethal
ordnance with the knowledge that large numbers of civilians will perish or
be maimed, even without missiles going "astray" -- what can one say about
the intentions of the American military?

The best, the most charitable, thing that can be said is that they simply
don't care. They want to bomb and destroy for certain political ends and
they don't particularly care if the civilian population suffers grievously.
Often, the US actually does want to cause the suffering, hoping that it will
lead the people to turn against the government. This was a recurrent feature
of the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. US/NATO officials freely admitted this
again and again (http://members.aol.com/superogue/warcrime.htm).

Now let's look at the September 11 terrorist hijackers. They also had a
political purpose: retaliation for decades of military, economic and
political oppression imposed upon the Middle East by The American Empire.
The buildings targeted by them were clearly not chosen at random. The
Pentagon and World Trade Center represented the military and economic might
of the United States, while the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania may well
have been aiming for the political wing, the White House. Destruction of
these institutions -- powerful both symbolically and in actuality -- was the
purpose of the operation. And the resulting casualties? In the hijackers'
view, these people could be seen as collateral damage. The best, the most
charitable, thing that can be said is that the hijackers simply didn't care.

In reaction to some awful photos of Afghan victims of US bombing that
appeared in the US media, the host of Fox News Channel's "Special Report
with Brit Hume", in a November program, wondered why journalists should
bother covering civilian deaths at all. "The question I have," said Hume,
"is civilian casualties are historically, by definition, a part of war,
really. Should they be as big news as they've been?"

Mara Liasson from National Public Radio was direct: "No. Look, war is about
killing people. Civilian casualties are unavoidable."

Fox pundit and U.S. News & World Report columnist Michael Barone had no
argument. "I think the real problem here is that this is poor news judgment
on the part of some of these news organizations. Civilian casualties are
not, as Mara says, news. The fact is that they accompany wars."

But, if in fact the September 11 attacks were an act of war, as we're told
repeatedly, then the casualties of the World Trade Center were clearly
civilian war casualties. Why then has the media devoted so much time to
their deaths?

William Blum is the author of Killing Hope: US Military and CIA
Interventions Since World War II and Rogue State: A Guide to the World's
Only Superpower.
Portions of the books can be read at:
http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm (with a link to Killing Hope)


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list