Civilian casualties, the most important figures to consider when discussing the War on Terror, are virtually never reported.
The most authoritative study estimated more than 600,000 dead Iraqi civilians through June of 2006. People often point to the figure of 90,000 dead civilians provided by the Iraq Body Count, which counts a death only if it is reported in two or more newspapers in a country with harsh restrictions on press freedom.
Supporters of the war point to 90,000 dead as a low figure, as if it justifies ousting Saddam. They forget to tell you we supported him while he was committing genocide. The post-Gulf War sanctions, designed to be so brutal that the population would overthrow Saddam, killed more than one million civilians through starvation and disease, according to UNICEF. The lies used to justify our 2003 invasion are well-known and will not be reviewed here.
On September 21, 2001, the Taliban offered to turn over Osama bin Laden to the United States if we provided them with evidence of his guilt. We rejected that offer, as well as later offers to turn him over to a neutral country or an Afghan court. Instead, we opted to bomb Afghanistan.
It is likely that 5,000 to 20,000 Afghan civilians have been killed, in addition to 7,000 American troops, allied troops and contractors and an unknown number of Iraqi, Afghan and other opposition fighters. The War on Terror has likely killed more than one million people. The lives of these men, women, children and millions more who survive them were destroyed.
The Department of Defense defines terrorism in the U.S. Army Field Manual 100-20 as "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
Therefore, by the American government's own definition, the War on Terror is a massive terrorist atrocity, far exceeding Sept. 11 in scale and duration. It shows the level of debate in our country that this simple conclusion elicits hysterical reactions.
The Afghan-Pakistan War is often considered a just war. Noam Chomsky, the world's foremost anti-war critic and author of more than 100 books, provides a moral framework in "Hegemony or Survival": "Those who are seriously interested in understanding the world will adopt the same standards whether they are evaluating their own political and intellectual elites or those of official enemies." In other words, don't be hypocritical.
In August of last year, Russia invaded Georgia, a move that was condemned by virtually all Americans. John McCain wrote an editorial for the Wall Street Journal that argued "a cease-fire that holds is a vital first step, but only one. With our allies, we now must stand in united purpose to persuade the Russian government to end violence permanently and withdraw its troops from Georgia.
"International monitors must gain immediate access to war-torn areas in order to avert an even greater humanitarian disaster, and we should ensure that emergency aid lifted by air and sea is delivered. We should work toward the establishment of an independent, international peacekeeping force," he said.
But why didn't McCain recommend that America should renounce violence, call a cease-fire, immediately withdraw troops and send in aid, UN monitors and peacekeepers to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq?
By McCain's own logic, these solutions are reasonable. But when applied to America they are considered outlandish.
Leave a comment 16 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
oh man I can't wait to see the messages come in on this one. i'm predicting people will latch on to calling our war on terrorism as terrorism itself. everyone is so caught up on words and definitions these days. anyways, i always see that there is a strong conservative presence in this forum. why are there so few articles in the paper with their view?
Reply to this Top
In the war the only sin is failure.
Reply to this Top
why does everyone talk about the US and their policies instead of saying we and our decisions? we elected the policy makers and the US is we the people. lets stop criticizing them and start evaluating ourselves.
Reply to this Top
Sorry, typo, I meant: In war, the only sin is failure
Reply to this Top
"Al-Qaeda should be brought to justice"...that sure does sound nice. But the means necessary to bring them to justice sure are messy aren't they? Maybe they shouldn't be brought to justice since the cost is so high in civilian casualties. Perhaps the means we are taking to bring them to justice are wrong are could be improved. Asking more politely to turn themselves in? Perhaps waiting 30 years or so for them to feel guilty about what they've done and apologize will do the trick. How could they be brought to justice quickly without incurring mass casualties? Hopefully the new administration has some ideas if they find it necessary to bring them to justice.
Reply to this Top
You don't provide a citation for this accusation "On September 21, 2001, the Taliban offered to turn over Osama bin Laden to the United States if we provided them with evidence of his guilt. We rejected that offer, as well as later offers to turn him over to a neutral country or an Afghan court. Instead, we opted to bomb Afghanistan." Yet you use a Pravda on the Hudson reporter as evidence that AfPak is not winnable. Maybe quote someone with experience in both combat operations and policy making...someone who is not trying to sell newspapers perhaps? Oh, first things first, define civilian, because downrange even the guys I saw try to kill me were considered innocent by their village. Statistics on this issue are unreliable at best.
Reply to this Top
Anonymous, bringing Al Qaeda to justice is what the UN is for. Duh!
Reply to this Top
haha that is what the UN is for, that was pretty funny. I think civilian is defined as the reason we carried drop rifles in the back of our HMMWV's. And I am sure those guys trying to kill you were just celebrating the latest soccer game and had their rifles dipped down a little to low, you just didn't understand their culture! And they were wearing a ski mask because...well there was a sand storm coming in. Man, Iraqi civilians have some of the most elaborate stories to explain themselves at a CP or during a search, I'll give them that. I should have kept a logbook of all the great ones I've heard and published it.
Reply to this Top
I don't know if people realize it but we need a Burke for every war hawk out there. If it weren't for Burke, the rest of the world would think we are a bunch of blood thirsty ravages. Of course Burke will lose out to the war hawks since he will just write newspaper articles condemning war crimes but as long as we televise his opinion that is all that matters. Oh I got a question, how long does Obama have to be commander in chief before he can be tried or war crimes?
Reply to this Top
"If it weren't for Burke, the rest of the world would think we are a bunch of blood thirsty ravages". Let them hate us so long as they fear us.
Reply to this Top
Great article, it's sad how many Americans are unaware of our sanctions on Iraq that lead to the death of a million people in the mid-to-late 90's. One thing Burke fails to mention is that under Obama, there has been no "CHANGE" in policy, its exactly the same when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan. On top of that Burke also fails to mention Obama's ordering of bombing in Pakistan which has killed countless, just days into his administration. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5575883.ece Obama is no different than Bush on foreign policy and when it comes to public speaking without a teleprompter is much worse than Bush, which is embarassing.
Reply to this Top
Maybe instead of blaming sanctions you should blame Saddam for starving his people, idiots. He schemed the UN sanctions and aid plans at the expense of his own people. If he had just been killed in 1991, none of this ever would have happened.
Reply to this Top
all humans are conscious beings and naturally hypocritical. only those who seek deep philosophical foundations in their life will not be. disregard his politics/positions for a moment, but ron paul is such an example, and i've learned a lot from his model (despite disagreeing with some of his stuff). for example, he was the only legislator to vote against awarding an honorable man for his service. why? he didn't believe taxpayers should pay for the award, but instead suggested legislators all pitch in $10 and pay it themselves. his philosophy is that if it doesn't benefit taxpayers, they don't pay. anyway, i'm sure you can refute his perfection and such, but my point: unless you have a solid philosophical foundation - which few do - you will be hypocritical. period.
Reply to this Top
What were the sanctions? Was the sanction "Disallow Iraqis the ability to live"? I hear that phrase "US sanctions on Iraq killed hundreds of thousands" all the time. What exactly were the sanctions that did this?
Reply to this Top
Thank you all for your kind comments regarding my above article. A few responses to those who presented contrary viewpoints: Anonymous (Apr 23) argued that killing civilians is a necessary evil. This, of course, is al-Qaeda's argument. Snake Plissken makes similar ones. Bill, for evidence see "Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over," Guardian (UK), October 14, 2001. As to using propagandists as sources, you clearly have not read the book (not newspaper) that I cite. You may like to read the book while remembering that propaganda means lying, not facts. To any troops or former troops who may be reading, I have no doubt that you and millions of others have acted honorably overseas. My personal qualms are with those leaders who did, indeed, orchestrate propaganda campaigns to convince the country to go to war. Hokienomics fails to acknowledge that the sanctions were designed to hurt the Iraqi people, who would theoretically rise up and overthrow Saddam. The sanctions denied the Iraqi people vital food, medicine and sanitation equipment for many years and killed many people. To Anonymous (Apr 24), the former UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Baghdad resigned while calling the sanctions "genocidal:" http://dir.salon.com/story/people/feature/2002/03/20/halliday/index.html. To "human hypocrisy vs...," innate human hypocrisy is not a legitimate argument for supporting terrorism.
Reply to this Top
so UN sanctions not US sanctions...I thought it was our fault for a minute
Reply to this Top