Tweet
A few days ago a commenter on my blog took issue with my post, "Fallujah, New Orleans and Marjah." Part of our disagreement focused on whether the Marines could precisely target their munitions. The commenter said in part:
What do you know about Marine Corps military operations? What do you know about the accuracy of any of the weapons in their arsenal? We are not talking about the CIA lobbing missiles at some Taliban bad guys from a UAV. We are talking about precision guided weapons.
I don’t often call out commenters like this, but at least 10 people including 5 children were butchered today because someone bought this kind of thinking in Marjah, Afghanistan:
An errant American rocket strike on Sunday hit a compound crowded with Afghan civilians in the last Taliban stronghold in Helmand Province, killing at least 10 people, including 5 children, military officials said.
…Officers said the barrage had been fired from Camp Bastion, a large British and American base to the northeast, by a weapons system known as Himars, an acronym for High Mobility Artillery Rocket System. Its munitions are GPS-guided and advertised as being accurate enough to strike within a yard of their intended targets.
The hype surrounding so-called "smart bombs" and "precision guided munitions" is one of the reasons Americans feel so free to go to war in civilian areas, and it’s one of the most pernicious pieces of misinformation spread by the pro-war crowd. These devices may be more precise than, say, a World-War-II-era blockbuster, but, as February 14th’s outrage shows, they are anything but foolproof. In fact, of the first 50 "precision" air strikes launched at the opening of the Iraq War, "All were unsuccessful."
The public’s mistaken perception that the U.S. military can fire munitions into a civilian area without harming noncombatants makes many Americans much more willing to back the use of military force. For example, this war-industry hype helped convince the Society of Christian Ethics to declare the Afghanistan war a "just war" in 2002.
There is no such thing as a humane war, and our inability to admit this to ourselves just butchered more than 10 noncombatants, including 5 children.
If you want to do something about it, join us on Facebook.
23 Comments
It’s interesting to see the differing statements coming out about this event. The NYTimes article you link has this:
The fact that McChrystal has already apologized and suspended use of HIMARS suggests that it really was a very bad shot. However, a current AP story has this (after first suggesting the rocket was 600 meters off target):
It seems as though there are some folks who just can’t accept that our “precision weapons” could miss.
There’s also the question of intelligence on the ground; what exactly are they using as criteria for targeting? If they don’t have adequate intelligence, they cannot rule out civilians mixed in with insurgents.
So we do not have adequate intelligence, but we guess that insurgents are mixed in with civilians, so we send a dumbbomb to slaughter whoever is there.
Excellent reasoning, prime example of an ignorant war monger.
There is also the question of why the eFF are we there at all?
Followed by why aren’t we prosecuting our own war criminals?
I am reminded of an IR video of a “hit” on some structures in Iraq.
The voice of the spotter, in the background, sighted some ten “dots” move out of the structure into the street prior to release. He solicited and received permission to re-target the “dots”. The dots were people and were grouped together on one side of the street. Insurgents spread out. Parents and children group together.
After the inevitable “shock and awe”, I stated that we had just seen a group of families being blown up. One starred individual said that they found weapons. I said, yes, every family owns at least one gun. That proves nothing. Good show, grossly over-rated military.
“Smart weapons” is simply a marketing tool, the efficient use of which can be no “smarter” than the weakest targeting link.
Our military has not “won” a major conflict since WWII, some sixty-five years, beating up on little fiefdoms like Grenada and Panama does not count. Forcing Israel to stop their “settlements” would go a long way to bringing peace in this world.
I think some people on the previous thread made the point that the HIMARS weapon is probably very, very accurate, but the targeted coordinates have to be determined by people. Obviously the weapon’s operators were given coordinates to fire on that turned out to be some kids huddling in a building.
For my part, I cannot distinguish in the Afghanistan/Pakistan conflict at this point between “OK people to kill” and “People not to kill”. The occupation and escalation in the Central Asia region is being driven by the US national political “leadership” and they have not articulated why it is that Afghanistan is such a threat to us, or what it is that the US is intending to win and is capable of winning in the continued destruction there. The people of Afghanistan are simply subjects of a illegitimate and wrongful US military occupation being kept alive because American politicians fear an end to their careers and power if they end the conflict.
Placing that aside, though, all of the “smart” weapons are no doubt brilliant but require target coordinates determined by American military personnel. A military exists to kill people and destroy property, that is its function. Deploying it against an insurgency in Afghanistan will result in many people (including people without guns, or just kids) being killed and the continued devastation of Afghanistan. For so long as the US chooses to remain.
We never hear the accumlulative numbers of dead in Afghanistan due to our invasion. Never hear about the numbers of injured.
No we need to hear about the latest teabagging event on our MSM. Pathetic
that was one whole family. Can you imagine the uproar in the states if an American family had been taken out by the Taliban.
Another incredibly important issue that is not getting airplay in mass media is the singular fact that the American people do not want this conflict to continue. What this means is that the national political “leadership” is continuing a conflict in effect against the will of the people here, and it is our money that is funding the warfare. The public here is already largely alienated from the national government which does not seem to serve our interests but taxes us and regulates us. A political ruling class should not seek to be in this position.
an equally incredibly important fact is that, not in surveys, but through balloting, the American people elected a president who clearly said that he would continue the war.
That’s really the problem, isn’t it? We like 90 percent of someone’s agenda, and they claim our mandate for the other 10.
well Derrick, you marry the whole person. you get the kisses and try to endure the snores.
it’s a great big and very diverse country and it’s about impossible for one person to be more than 90% likable to more than half of it.
Hopefully my wife’s not bombing civilians while I’m snoring.
and if she is, let’s hope it’s only cause she missed the intended target. *g*
if she were 100% perfect she might not have been married to a fine, flawed fella
Here’s an excellent analysis of what probably went wrong…! 8-(
excellent link
You are personally aware that both presidential candidates said that they would continue the war, which at that point was by majority disapproved of by the American people, and at this point, is by majority disapproved of?
You are personally aware that the public didn’t have a choice in the matter, right? Were you aware of that? Did you pay attention to election 2008, to issues like this? That neither McCain nor Obama offered the people an alternative?
No, your “fact” (your straw man, really) is not “equally important” as you put it. You just personally favor wars in Central Asia and the Middle East, and so you will conjure up phantom arguments or straw men like you just did.
No, you don’t “marry the whole person”. Electing the president is not a marriage. It is a choice currently of two candidates, one from of each of the parties, and frequently these two candidates will offer little to no alternative in terms of their approach to addressing the issues of the day, such as the occupation and warfare in Afghanistan. The people were not given any choice by the Democrats or the Republicans as to what would proceed in Afghanistan. Both of the candidates available to the people to choose between had functionally identical views on Afghanistan, and frequently agreed with each other in their public appearances and debates on Afghanistan more than they disagreed. President Obama has drawn warm praise from many Republicans and rightists who supported McCain during the election for the choices that President Obama has made on Afghanistan.
Can you comprehend this fact: “The people have had no choice. Neither candidate represents the people on Afghanistan. Polling has consistently shown that the people do not believe or accept that Afghanistan remains a threat to the US, and do not want to see the US warfare in Afghanistan continue.”
Really, chew on that fact. It’s reality.
You can do better than that, macaquer.
That is only part of the truth.
Which candidate stood opposed to the war?
Which fact, if it were so, would be the ONLY situation where your assertion could stand any test of reason.
This is not up to your usual standard (and in my eyes, respected) willingness to advocate for broader, more nuanced understanding.
DW
it is false to say there was no choice. there is always the choice to stay home, as so many Democrats did in massachusetts recently.
that way, you do not become complicit with war crimes by lending support to a politician who promised to perpetrate them, and who had no trouble voting for funding of them while a senator.
it is a good feeling, actually. the guilt and cognitive dissonance from contriving justifications for why one warmongering neo-conservative candidate is marginally preferable to another is exhausting, and demoralizing. we see it every day here in the threads – lots of folks are done with just voting (D) no matter what.
think of the poor families obliterated in their homes – do their surviving relatives care that you voted for war criminal #2 from the Donkey Team because he will approve a few more lines of stem cells for research?
Yes there is always that choice, sporkovat.
And many more will avail themselves of it, in future.
Yet that choice does not stop the mayhem.
It is a bit like the “spiritual” saying they forgive Bush and Obama, so they don’t have to think about unpleasant stuff like torture and killing, at least for a while.
However, I do take your point to heart, and very seriously.
But such “position” won’t mean much until “None of the Above” has “standing” and wins.
Surely you coulod vote for “None of the Above”?
Even just as an experiment?
A tough one, spork, really.
DW
I agree! The only option was to not legitimize a non-choice by participating in the election process. That’s difficult for so many of us – the vote is the only sense of power to impact the world we have – but it will become easier as we watch Barack “The One” Obama show us his naked cynicism and corruption. To think I caucused for that S.O.B.!
sensitive, thoughtful responses from SF & DWB.
it’s tough, and it is tougher for different people. voting, and partaking in the electoral process is kind of a civic religion, and membership is such a massive, mainstream, real, social structure is satisfying to people, for real.
going to church and partaking in shared values as a group just feels good to us, no denying it, no matter what is being preached from the pulpit.
and public renunciation of a congregation and voluntary exile is effing tough, no doubt, and doesn’t feel good.
I mean, it is kind of a heart/head dichotomy – I can write caustically about both candidates being war criminals, but that is from the head. from the heart, one can desire to, and be gratified by participation in the electoral process despite its providing 2 bad candidates, and that is valid, I’m being for real, no snark.