Posts in "Civilian Casualties"

By Jayel Aheram at 12:32PM

Nov 28, 2011

What is War without Limbless Children?

Cluster bomb child victim. Britain unites with smaller countries to block the United States' bid to legalize civilian-maiming cluster bombs:

A coalition of countries including Britain on Friday defeated an attempt by the US, Russia, China and Israel to get an international agreement approving the continued use of cluster bombs. The weapons, which have been used in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon scatter “bomblets” over a wide area, maiming and killing civilians, notably children, long after they have been dropped and are banned under a 2008 convention which was adopted by the UK and in more than 100 countries.

I am glad the White House is sending diplomats to defeat this existential threat to the United States. But war is brutal, right?

The unexploded bomblets have the appearance of yellow drink containers and are attractive, often picked up by children who mistake them for toys. However, the consequences are lethal, often resulting in maiming or even fatalities.

What is a war without limbless children anyway?

How effective are these munitions? “98 percent of victims of cluster bombs over the past three decades have been civilians, a third of them children.”

Posted in:

1 comment

By Andrew Owens at 9:25AM

Jul 8, 2011

Disturbing Trends Continue for NATO Airstrikes

At least 14 civilians have been pronounced dead, including eight children, in yet another round of NATO airstrikes in the Khost Province of Afghanistan this week. This incident follows a similar event on Tuesday, where as many as 11 civilian deaths were attributed to NATO strikes.

For a president who received the Nobel Peace Prize, it is disheartening to see such warrantless aggression take place almost a decade after the September 11th attacks. The concept of 'blowback' is no better epitomized than with the recourse of events like these. As the global financial downturn continues, the American citizenry can be assured that US foreign policy is relentlessly destroying families and villages in the name of fighting terrorism.

As if one bomb-blasted province in one country is not enough, NATO strikes continue to unfold in Libya as well. Despite very little support from the American public regarding US involvement in Libya, President Obama refuses to back down -- addressing the conflict's growing criticism as distracting "noise." One can only hope that the president heeds the warnings of common sense before it is too late. Sooner or later retribution will find itself on the shores of America -- bringing with it a new round of security measures the likes of which Orwell himself would not have dreamed plausible.

To the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and the 2008 US Presidential election I say: With Bin Laden dead and most of the Middle East on its knees, "war is over -- if you want it." It is such a shame that you do not.

Learn more here, here, and here.

Posted in:

1 comment

By Bonnie Kristian at 3:45PM

May 24, 2011

Casualties of Intervention

See more statistics on the human costs of the American government's interventionism in the Middle East here.

(Via)

Posted in:

4 comments

By Elliot Engstrom at 5:14PM

Feb 21, 2011

Arab soldiers doing what's right

Amidst the protesting that is currently occurring across the entire Middle East, Libyan pilots received an order to fire on protesters from their aircraft. At least a few pilots did not follow that order -- the two colonels instead flew their jets to Malta. The LA Times reports:

The pilots of two Libyan military jets that landed in Malta on Monday are "senior colonels" who were ordered to bomb protesters, Al Jazeera satellite network reports.
The colonels say they refused to bomb protesters demonstrating against Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi and instead defected to Malta, according to Al Jazeera reporter Karl Stagno-Novarra in Malta.

Read the rest here.

Posted in:

1 comment

By Elliot Engstrom at 4:56PM

Feb 21, 2011

Drone attacks in Pakistan kill few high ranking militants

Newly published research indicates that US drone attacks are killing very few valuable targets in Pakistan. Considering the amount of blowback against the United States caused by these very attacks, this data should seriously call into question whether these attacks should be continued.

The Washington Post reports:

CIA drone attacks in Pakistan killed at least 581 militants last year, according to independent estimates. The number of those militants noteworthy enough to appear on a U.S. list of most-wanted terrorists: two.
Despite a major escalation in the number of unmanned Predator strikes being carried out under the Obama administration, data from government and independent sources indicate that the number of high-ranking militants being killed as a result has either slipped or barely increased.

In the report, the argument is made that civilian casualties in such attacks are down to six percent. However, based on my research, this claim by the CIA has absolutely no backing, and is based more on CIA guesswork than anything else. We should remember the words of Baitullah Mehsud, founder of the Pakistani Taliban, who said, "I spent three months trying to recruit and only got 10-15 persons. One U.S. [drone] attack and I got 150 volunteers!" (cited article on p. 14)

Along with the cost in human lives of these drone attacks, we also must never forget their economic cost. The amount of money it takes to build, fuel, and maintain an attack drone and its armaments certainly could be put to better use, ideally in the free market, but even in other areas of government as well.

Posted in:

Add new comment

By Bonnie Kristian at 2:44PM

Jan 11, 2011

50 for 1

This is horrifying:

[D]uring the Bush Administration, if a bombing strike was expected to kill more than 29 innocent men, women and children, the White House had to approve it....
In the case of The Obama Administration, the acceptable "collateral damage" kill number has, apparently, been increased to 50 innocent civilians.
On the bright side, if you stay with groups larger than 50, the U.S. militaryindustrialcongressional complex may at least need a presidential order before it can kill you by mistake.

50 to 1! And sometimes we don’t even know who is and isn’t a terrorist.

Posted in:

6 comments

By Bonnie Kristian at 5:40PM

Nov 4, 2010

Worst. Contest. Ever: GOP and Dems vie for "Most Hawkish" title just two days after the election.

Flush with optimism after major victories in yesterday’s Congressional elections, House Republicans have promised one of their first orders of business is to attack President Obama’s July 2011 drawdown date in Afghanistan, despite the comparative handicap that the president already disavowed that date months ago.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...

Upon taking office in 2009, President Obama quickly established Afghanistan as his war, dramatically and repeatedly escalating the US presence despite ever worsening conditions. It seems now that he will face challenges from Republicans looking to make it their war instead, and the race may be on to out-hawk one another on the war, despite poll data showing the war is increasingly unpopular among voters.

I just -- I just don't understand.

I mean, I expected that, once it got some power back, the GOP would quickly make itself as odious as it has been...well, pretty much all the other times it's been in power. Just like the Democratic Party does when it's in control.

But really? Really?! Really?!?

Read more here

Posted in:

By Jeremy Davis at 9:08AM

Aug 13, 2010

Leaving Afghanistan Behind

When it comes to armed conflict, timelines for withdrawal mean nothing if the war is undeclared. Goals are always set in the vaguest of terms with the intention of prolonging the conflict to establish a long-term commitment and remove all possibilities of a total and complete withdraw.

So when we are told by the Obama Administration that the end is near for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s far too easy to be skeptical. The president’s intentionally vague plan to begin removing U.S. troops from Afghanistan in July 2011 is nothing more than a continuance of his campaign rhetoric meant to portray his administration as a sponsor of peace. Surely we haven’t forgotten about the president’s Nobel Peace Prize.

Now we hear calls by U.S. military leaders for the president to stunt his plans for a rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan on the argument that we’re just now getting it right after nine years. Those fearful of a swift withdrawal from Afghanistan can be rest assured that if there can be found a way for the government to drag its feet and reverse its commitments in the removal of U.S. troops, it will be used.

Read more here

Posted in:

By Roy Antoun at 1:32PM

Feb 22, 2010

On a Road to Disaster

Baloch Warriors from the 1800s The New York Times recently reported that a “NATO airstrike on Sunday against what international troops believed to be a group of insurgents ended up killing 27 civilians in the worst episode involving noncombatant deaths in six months, Afghan officials said on Monday.”

NATO, an international organization which is supposed to “safeguard the freedom and security of its member countries,” found it necessary to kill innocent civilians in the name of freedom and security. Understanding that civilian casualties are always and should always be expected, targeting 27 is hardly just a "mistake."

This not only represents the failure of international organizations to promote anything for the common good, but it also shows how the strategy in Afghanistan is inherently flawed and on a road to disaster.

It’s extremely difficult to fight a land war in Afghanistan, let alone win a war on an ideology.

Read more here

Posted in:

By Elliot Engstrom at 3:22PM

Feb 13, 2010

US Forces Launch "Largest Invasion Since the War Began"

The Wall Street Journal reports:

U.S. and Afghan troops invaded this Taliban-held town early Saturday, launching the main thrust of the largest coalition offensive since 2001, a test of whether America's surge strategy can rescue the faltering war effort.
British, Afghan and U.S. troops were poised to begin an even larger thrust to take over one of the last Taliban-controlled bastions in the volatile Helmand River Valley. The offensive in Marjah began with small teams dropping into the town around midnight to kill or capture insurgent leaders.

The invasion has been planned and announced fairly publicly for over a month, according to antiwar.com. Both US and Taliban forces asked civilians to stay put. However, this was certainly not the case.

Read more here

Posted in: