Brave New Foundation’s Rethink Afghanistan project has been following the story about a night raid in Gardez by U.S. and Afghan forces (see the video above), and today those forces made a major admission about their responsibility for civilian deaths. In a press release issued on Easter (gee, I wonder if they hoped people would be distracted today), the U.S. and allied forces under General McChrystal’s command, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), admitted they killed three innocent Afghan women, two of whom were pregnant.
KABUL, Afghanistan (Apr. 4) – A thorough joint investigation into the events that occurred in the Gardez district of Paktiya Province Feb. 12, has determined that international forces were responsible for the deaths of three women who were in the same compound where two men were killed by the joint Afghan-international patrol searching for a Taliban insurgent.
The two men, who were later determined not to be insurgents, were shot and killed by the joint patrol after they showed what appeared to be hostile intent by being armed. While investigators could not conclusively determine how or when the women died, due to lack of forensic evidence, they concluded that the women were accidentally killed as a result of the joint force firing at the men.
ISAF had already admitted they killed the two innocent men.
Recall that on March 15, ISAF’s spokesperson, Rear Adm. Greg Smith, said:
“The women, I’m not sure anyone will ever know how they died.” He added, however, “I don’t know that there are any forensics that show bullet penetrations of the women or blood from the women.” He said they showed signs of puncture and slashing wounds from a knife, and appeared to have died several hours before the arrival of the assault force. In respect for Afghan customs, autopsies are not carried out on civilian victims, he said.
Now wait just a minute. NATO has strenuously denied any cover-up in this incident while smearing journalists who challenged their initial, untrue story. Yet somehow, we’ve gone from knowing enough about the condition of the bodies to say that there were puncture and slashing wounds from a knife to conclusions "that the women were accidentally killed as a result of the joint force firing at the men." NATO then expects you to believe that all the bad information in this story was due to "a lack of cultural understanding by the joint force and the chain of command."
Someone please explain to me the cultural misunderstanding responsible for Smith’s implication that women were killed by knife wounds when they were in fact killed by gunfire.
These are not errors of cultural understanding. They are intentional lies meant to allow someone to escape responsibility for killing three women, two of them pregnant. Smith was lying before when describing the bodies or repeating lies he was told. ISAF was perpetrating a cover-up, and Smith participated in it, either willingly or unwillingly. Until ISAF admits that they did, in fact, attempt to perpetrate a cover-up, they are still lying to you.
I said it last week and I’ll say it again:
Starkey’s reporting and ISAF’s reaction to it shows that their natural inclination to escape accountability remains strong and operative when they think they can get away with violent mistakes under the cover of darkness.
This incident shows why it’s important to push back against the ISAF/Pentagon message machine. If you want to help, a good way to start is to become a fan of Rethink Afghanistan on Facebook.
UPDATE: I want us all to do some thinking about the timeline here. According to both Jerome Starkey (who’s primarily responsible for initially blowing up NATO’s official story on this), and to the New York Times’ Richard Oppel, someone tampered with the evidence at the scene, most likely the special operations forces conducting the raid. The tampering ranged from digging bullets out of walls to digging bullets out of people and then washing the wounds with alcohol.
Remember that survivors of the raid said that the special operations forces denied the wounded medical treatment and prevented survivors from going to get medical help for an extended period of time, during which one of the women and one of the men who were mortally wounded died.
That means special operations forces were busy digging bullets out of walls and/or people to cover their asses while the innocent people they shot bled to death.
Heads. Roll. Now. Please.
UPDATE II: In the above, I asked how ISAF went from talking about "knife wounds" to knowing about deaths from gunfire. Alive in Afghanistan’s Brian Conley just emailed me with an observation that makes this all snap into place: You know what you use to dig out a bullet? A knife. Think about that for a second. While Conley thinks this shows only "the likelihood that ISAF did a sloppy job reviewing the events," I think it shows a great deal more. In light of the accusations of special operations forces digging bullets out of the bodies, somebody needs to ask Smith, on camera, who told him about knife wounds on the corpses.



119 Comments

aw, shit. and shit again.
What makes you think soldiers in the night wearing balaclavas and dark clothing without any form of visible identification didn’t descend upon the women while they slept, grabbed and twisted their long hair pulling their heads back while slitting their throats from ear to ear and down to the bone before disembowling them and wiping their dripping knives on the blankets.
Guns make loud noises and draw attention. Freshly honed blades are quiet and infinitely more personal as they allow the killer to savor the dying of the light.
This is what is being done in our name and our oh-so-noble president knows it and thinks it’s great. Hallowed be his name!
So, carrying arms denotes “hostile intent”?
That is gonna play well with those teabaggers wanting to “carry” in the US when the government start using drones domestically and such.
We’re shooting pregnant women for our freedom.
Who wouldn’t be packing when unannounced visitors from the land of the Statue of Liberty habitually drop in unannounced with murder, kidnapping, and torture in mind.
Tomorrow wikileaks is releasing a classified video of murder in Afghanistan
I cannot believe, after all we went through in Vietnam, that our Intelligencia fails to understand that for every civilian we kill (accidentally or otherwise) we recruit one terrorist.
I am starting to think that we are global terrorists. Part of our economy relies on continued conflict, something Eisenhower tried to warn us of. I don’t blame the grunt, but, I certainly do blame those “civilians”.
From the London Times…
But all this shit is old news, and the US story fell apart immediately.
March 17, from UPI…
And what’s the bottom line?
Maybe Derrick could have provided a little more background, if he hadn’t been so eager to shill for his silly fucking Facebook page!
Uh, Jacob…not to be a jerk, but maybe you should read some of my past postings and watch the video work we did above from the last couple of weeks before you go jumping all over me for my coverage of this issue. For example, we did an original, remote interview with the reporter from the first story you linked to help push back against the ISAF attack on his credibility. And we’ve been using that “silly fucking Facebook page” to push back on this story since it came to our attention. I think you need to take a breath.
Update above putting together some pieces from the timeline that I don’t think people have considered yet.
Fuckin’ war sucks. Anytime, anyplace and by anyone doing it regardless of which side your on…
Okay, after a little prodding from yours truly, Derrick provided a little more context, including the salient detail that bullets had been dug out of the bodies.
But he’s still too busy shilling for his silly Facebook page (apparently intended to compete with the ISAF’s Facebook page) to notice exactly who killed all those civilians, and instead of carefully reading the press release from the ISAF, Derrick simply assumes that this was a “special forces” operation, with the usual meaning of SEALs or Rangers or other elite US and NATO personnel mixed in with a few locals.
But this particular language is carefully avoided in the press release, which does not mention “special forces” or the ISAF or NATO or even US forces on the ground, but employs a much vaguer term, “international forces,” instead.
In ISAF press and news releases, counter-insurgency forces are described with a variety of different terms, but usually consistently within the same story.
For example, if a story describes an “ANSF-ISAF” patrol, the same terminology is usually repeated, and likewise with much vaguer terms like “international forces,” in this instance.
This terminolgy leaves open the very interesting possibility that military contractors participated in the disastrous raid at Gardez, and if Derrick’s project has a friend on the ground in Afghanistan who is in a position to question ISAF representatives, then this would be a very interesting question to ask.
Did military contractors participate in the raid at Gardez, which killed two pregnant woment, and several other civilians?
And let me repeat that excellent question for Derrick’s contact in Afghanistan to ask the ISAF.
Did military contractors participate in the raid at Gardez?
This is even a slightly better question than it may appear to be, since US and NATO forces don’t operate under rules of engagement which call for shooting down everybody in a family compound just because one person is holding a weapon, but it wouldn’t be unusual for the sort of goddamned cowboys who work for Blackwater and similar outfits.
Jacob: I appreciate your interest, but I’d note that a lot of the context you were criticizing me for not providing was actually in the video in the original version of this post. But be that as it may, I will definitely pass along your question. However, let’s not forget that it would also not be unusual for some cowboys who work for special operations forces who frequently kill civilians in night raids.
I’ll try to get the question asked, but let me also go out on a limb and say that if there were people to be thrown under the bus for killing pregnant women that would get ISAF or SOF forces off the hook, I’d be willing to bet they’d have been thrown at this point.
And since we are fighting an uphill battle to push back against ISAF/Pentagon spin, you’re damned right I’ll keep pushing people to join us on Facebook.
Derrick Crowe has apparently been dumbed down by playing politics on Facebook, but for those of us who pay more attention to Afghanistan than trendy internet hijinks…
It’s obvious that pregnant women killed by out of control contractors is a much bigger story than yet another sad tale of “collateral damage.”
Get out your notes from Journalism 101, Derrick!
If it already happened 10,000 times, it ain’t news!
And “death by collateral damage” already happened at least 10,000 times in Afghanistan!
But if Obama and McChrystal gave a license to kill to some Blackwater thugs in Afghanistan…
Then that story both bleeds and leads!
And just so you don’t forget my question, while you’re checking out your fans on Facebook, here it is again.
Did military contractors participate in the raid at Gardez?
These women had to die so that a hand full of rich old white men could get a little richer. This is nothing new. I served under Johnson and Nixon. Most Americans are OK with all this murder as long as the dead are foreign nationals. I am grateful to Jacob and Derrick and everyone who makes it their business to resist this evil.
Great reporting, Derrick. I agree that heads should roll over this, but don’t get your hopes up. Note that McChrystal has taken special ops under his command structure and that the special ops are run by his hand-picked successors. I fully believe that McChrystal is still deeply involved in the special ops in Afghanistan and that the only thing he would change about this operation is the fact that this team got caught altering the evidence. McChrystal has been on a months-long process of trying to put a warm, fuzzy face on his COIN approach while his special ops buddies continue running their rules-free operations. The only way to get rid of this outrageous situation is to fire McChrystal and McRaven.
Jacob, you’re being ridiculous. Since I’m so dumbed down, I believe I’ll let you chase down your own leads. Go get ‘em, tiger.
Thanks Jim. I am also deeply skeptical about McChrystal’s new P.R. offensive.
I wonder about the timing of all this given the Wikileaks plan to report soon.
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/05/11/the-gas-must-flow/
” since US and NATO forces don’t operate under rules of engagement which call for shooting down everybody in a family compound just because one person is holding a weapon”
BULLSHIT we can rape, Torture and murder anyone for any reason because GOD said so, that’s the rules of engagement.
Hadifia ,in case you missed it.
I ask this seriously: is anyone surprised by this? Really? If so, why? Why would anyone be surprised?
I deplore and abhor war, especially wars like this ginned up by rich white men to enrich themselves and their families and their cronies at the expense of the poor everywhere. What else is this activity for? Freedom? Yeah, sure, right… umm hummm… well if you think it’s for your freedom or my freedom or someone’s pursuit of liberty and the good life… well think again.
I appreciate the post. I really do. Well written and presented. I read a very sanitized version of it in the NYT this morning and just about tossed the cookies that I had for dinner last night (since I hadn’t yet had breakfast).
But seriously, why would anyone be surprised either by the killings or the cover up. It’s what this is all about, baby. Don’t like the blood on your hands? Me neither.
What to do? Rahmbamma thinks this ole here lil war is just the swellest. yes sir, the swellest.
Yes, I am surprised. I guess it’s because my mind heals a little bit since the last time I heard of something so horrendous done by my country.
It’s like asking “Silly skin, why do you still bleed when you come in contact with a sharp object?”
Thanks for this, Derrick. You and Glennzilla have been doing signal work here.
Does anyone believe that a knife or stabbing wound bears any resemblance to fatal bullet wounds caused by high-velocity, heavier, steel-core-penetrator military ammunition fired from automatic weapons? Knives don’t perforate the human body, leaving holes in the walls behind those stabbed dead.
I agree that a Blackwater Contractor Story is bigger. Also, while US/NATO forces are capable of this type of heinous killing (and bullet scavenging with a knife on living, bleeding, gunshot pregnant women), it is not normal protocol.
It is standard procedure for Blackwater.
Margot, I guess you have not read about police here in the US tasering a seven months pregnant woman for refusing to sign a speeding ticket-and the courts agreed with it?
Check this out:Court OKs Repeated Tasering of Pregnant Woman | Threat Level …Mar 29, 2010 … …. The CIA and Military Intel do not even taser pregnant women, …
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/pregnant_woman_tasered/ – Cached
This is especially chilling:
Indeed.
And as far as the “Special Operations Forces” are concerned we all need to understand that these guys are basically highly trained homicidal maniacs, racists, and religious extremists who really, really do not view the people they are killing as, well, people at all …
Every war ultimately, inevitably, eventually includes some of this kind of horror once engaged in. Which is why I reserve my greatest anger and disdain for those who mindlessly and reflexively cheerlead for entry into a new one.
I read elsewhere that the bodies lay there for 14 hours.
“Would be” and “is” are two different things.
There’s been no indication from any reporting at all that Blackwater was involved. I say this as someone who thinks Blackwater/Xe is one of the most evil companies on the face of the earth. Now, would it surprise me? No. Do we have any evidence at all at this point for it? Also, no.
Until someone comes up with any evidence at all for their involvement, this is just speculation, and it lets the special forces (whose night raids are one of the most deadly tactics for civilians) off the hook.
If you have evidence, post a link and I’ll update the story. Got any?
Thanks for your reporting efforts.
BUT, I would not be so quick to conclude that protecting actual soldiers would carry a higher priority with the brass than protecting the damn contractors, who definitely seem to have friends in the highest places.
(Perhaps because they will be most important to quell any domestic uprisings that might occur? Worth a surmise.)
You’re right, and so is Mr. Friendly at # 31. So, maybe the question should just be asked if you get an opportunity. I appreciate the limitations.
When it comes to karmic payback the U.S. and it’s ignorant, lazy and self-absorbed yahoos are in for a world of hurt.
You don’t believe that Jerome Starkey now, do you, after dismissing his credibility before? I don’t think he’s changed a word of his story.
No kidding. And to think, everyday you hear over and over “Support Our Troops”. Ya, support our psychotic murderers over everyone else’s.
If you guys want to reinforce a distaste for special operations activities, I’d recommend watching this Dutch documentary. They follow the special ops guys around (who are English-speaking Americans) and just subtitle them.
Part one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7k7JYS3tUU
Part two http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiOww3HprN0&feature=related
Part three http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WorYj6bwmsk&feature=related
Bonus points if you can spot the SOF guy shove the woman carrying a baby down and get in her face, yelling in English.
Wish it was in english. Can’t understand it as well.
I feel the same way about Canadian troops as US troops, so I guess I’m unpatriotic and thankless. I know many of my youngest daughter’s “friends” who have enlisted, and there is a reason. They are losers that can’t hold a job, and are very violent anyway. Small brains that are easily brainwashed. I can’t support that.
Just skip the voiceovers. The SOF guys are speaking English
Thanks Derrick. Watching. Have you read the comments? Seriously, there are some people with some serious mental problems out there!
I used to think Special Ops meant “elite.” Now I know it just means they use the short buses to get them to the training camp.
I’m beginning to think that the main reason why the anti-war movement is failing to take hold in America is because those who criticize our military presence in the Muslim World can’t do so without also criticizing our unconditional support for Israel. This didn’t happen to the outspoken critics of the Vietnam War because there weren’t the likes of AIPAC and the Anti-Defamation League around to silence them, by either seeing to it that they were fired from academics, as happened to Norman Finkelstein, or denied tenure, as happened to Juan Cole. So until we can figure out a way to cut the balls of AIPAC and the Anti-Defamation League, thus freeing ourselves from our unconditional support for Israel, we will continue to waste enormous amounts of blood and treasure on worthless wars throughout the Muslim World.
Blowback will some day be writ large.
A little different from the video game and action movie image of these guys, isn’t it?
While I’ve only known briefly three of these guys in my life – a former SEAL, a former Delta, and a former regular green beanie – I can say that they were all really messed up guys, completely unable to fit into the civilian universe and all on the verge of violent breakdown. All of them regarded with only the cruelest lack of humanity any member of a foreign population coming from a nation in which the US has a war going in.
And whenever I get real news reports on what they do in the field – well, they’re basically death squads and borderline terrorists themselves.
Cole wasn’t denied tenure. He was denied appointment at Yale after having been recommended by the History Department. When Yale asks me for an alumnus donation, I always send back the request with two words: ‘Juan Cole.’ Big donors put a huge push on this. I don’t think Rick Levin would ever go for it if he hadn’t been threatened by the donors.
While not disagreeing with your post Cynthia, I also think the anti-war idea is so unpopular and small because people actually support this. They think of their own soldiers as hero’s. Even if they are nothing more than psycho killers who dropped out of school, it matters not. They are defending YOU by killing women and children. I am constantly amazed at how many people truly have that opinion.
The Times (UK) is running with this story:
“US special forces soldiers dug bullets out of their victims’ bodies in the bloody aftermath of a botched night raid, then washed the wounds with alcohol before lying to their superiors about what happened, Afghan investigators have told The Times.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7087637.ece
Read Glenn Greenwald on Salon today.
The women were bound and gagged, and the knife wounds were from McChrystal’s darlings literaaly trying to dig out their bullets from the bodies. One of the men killed was a prosecutor. They were celebrating the birth of a son.
The entire episode is sickening and horrifying. Just another day in Afghanistan, and another deliberate cover up.
I want to know what is going on with the US military and their lust for blood. There’s something gone terribly awry when US troops are cutting the bodies to dig out the bullets with their bare hands. These guys are really deranged and nobody gives a shit.
This is what war is and if you don’t get it yet remember we are all collateral damage as far as the military is concerned. Just like all the damage to the planet is an externality as far as economics is concerned. This is why I don’t support the troops and neither should anyone who is anti war.
The stupidity and ineffectuality of anti war rallies beginning with I support the troops has never been comprehensible to me. I guess this younger generation is responding the the misinformation spread by the right that the anti vietnam war folks spit on the troops. They keep out the information about the GI coffeehouses and the movement and how they worked together against the war. Oh well we don’t have movements anymore we’re all just too clever for that.
With Wikileaks’ release of the 2007 vid the Army is havin’ a really bad PR day. Excellent.
In AFGANISTAN? Where everybody and her niece is armed?
Yeah it’s pretty incredible. It matches the content pretty well, though.
see comment #1
I felt obligated to be first
I am ‘surprised’ by this, it’s horrifying. I am not all that interested in whether it was contractors or our forces, heads need to roll. Not literally. But I imagine that’s what the survivors are thinking, heads actually rolling. Who can blame them?
How do these guys fuck this up so bad that they’re shooting pregnant women and digging bullets out of them while they die? Why are they still there?
Get them home!
Don’t get logical on us, you DFH!!!
They’ve got good reason to be armed, looks like.
Actually, I think it’s probably many more than one. Each of these women had an extended family who now think all Americans are murderers.
It’s bad enough that these things happen, but WHY is the reaction always a cover-up? Won’t they ever learn how much worse it is when the truth comes out, as it always does?
Answer: NO, they will never learn, just as corporations will never learn, just as religious organizations (hear me, Ratboy?) will never learn. It’s part of the DNA of people who are all about power.
Next generation resistance fighter.
Tal Afar, 20 Jan 2005
Sorry for your discomfort, but with all due respect to you: what do you expect in a war zone? I mean that seriously and am writing with kindness.
I guess I’m old enough now to have gone through various “conflicts” where blood is very definitely on our hands, including supporting coups in South & Central America (Pinchet, anyone???). Everyone got upset over My Lai, but seriously, do you think it was the only incident of its kind? THIS IS what war is all about.
We can bitch and moan and cavail about sadism and nasty homocidal maniacs who dropped out of school to join the US forces after getting hyped up on the video games created just to do that very thing (go to almost any movie these days, and see what I mean). THIS is what war is. It’s ugly; it’s nasty; it’s brutal; it’s effed up. People die in gruesome, horrid ways, and often the most innocent among them die in hideous disgusting brutal ways that are, yes, unnecessary.
So, said in respect: why is anyone surprised??
If you are, then you must be younger than me. So I say (again with due respect): welcome to reality. This is what war is.
Don’t like it? Then what’s next? How do we take action against it?
And if you seriously think that heads will roll over this… ha. Well that’s a “nice” thought, but it’ll be Abu Garaib all over again… the lowliest grunts will get kicked out of the Army or something, and the chain of command will laugh in your pussy pacifist faces. Seriously.
War is hell, ain’t it. It’s a bitch for sure.
Big Daddy WarBuck$$$, Inc, learned a long, long time ago all he needed to learn about war. And that was: more money for me and mine, and I don’t a shit about anyone else.
There’s nothing here for the corporations or the politicians or the generals to learn. If we pussy pacifists want to complain: fine.
Meanwhile, get outta Big Daddy WarBuck$$$ way: more money rolling down the pipeline. CHA-CHING!!!!!!
Someone died in an ugly way? To quote Dick Cheney: SO?????
They don’t give a shit. For this one cover up that got outed, there’s most likely other cover ups that we don’t know about. It’s called: collateral damage. The end.
You’re exactly right, razorbrain. All our troops are not psychotic killers–there are some, just like there are in civilian life, but not all. There are a few really bad ones, and unfortunately, a larger number who just obey orders, and many of them will never be whole people again. I’ve seen some go and come back in years past, and they didn’t leave as the non-functional, on-the-edge wrecks unfit for civilian life who frequently came back. Like razorbrain says, this is inevitable in any war, and it’s the best reason why no war should be fought unless there’s simply no other recourse.
Mind your tone. Finding this horrifying and unacceptable does not mean I need an explanation of how and why it occurs.
I absolutely believe you are correct in your characterization of the people we want to oppose, and so the question I wrestle with, sometimes publicly on these pages to the chagrin and ire of the Moderators (ALL my comments are now “pending moderator approval”), is how can you change or defeat people who are all about violence, without even being able to mention violence here? Cuz you’re right, they simply dismiss all of us “pacifists” because all they care about is that we won’t fight them, while they are perfectly willing to kill us. I wish SOMEONE could address that conundrum. An honest philosophical question.
Outstanding! It’s really all about you, Derrick, and your ludicrous Facebook page.
God forbid that you should actually advance the story, instead of just trailing along behind Jerome Starkey, and “reporting” press-releases from the ISAF!
Jacob, again, you’re being ridiculous. You’ve attempted to make this personal since the start of this thread. You didn’t watch the video, you launched an attack based on that lack of information, and you took credit for updates I made based on getting updates from Starkey, not you. But when I attempted to be graceful and said I’d work to get your answer, you responded with another ridiculous broadside, confirming that your participation in this thread was only ever about getting attention and concern trolling. Nice try. Try again.
Jeez, what is this high school? You’re embarassing yourself, get a grip. None of this is about you or Derrick or wtf ever you’re cryin about. THERE WERE WOMEN SHOT.
Gandhi says it best.
“I will believe violence will overcome violence when you can convince me that darkness will overcome darkness.”
One of the things that attracted me to the Lake lo these many years ago was the fact that calls for violence, real or fantasy, against others was prohibited. Not only was the Lake anti-war it was anti-violence. I like it that way.
I respect you greatly, my friend, but not every Ghandi analogy is a sound one. I have personally had to use violence to stop violence in my life, so I know how different that dynamic is from adding darkness to darkness. And I never regretted the fact that my use of violence stopped the violence of an aggressor. And my successful use of violence never transformed me into someone who would ever dream of initiating violence.
The thing that attracted and attracts me to the Lake is that rationality and clear-mindedness seemed to thrive here.
I respect and admire the gentle spirit which underlies pacifism, but that spirit can be extinguished if the body in which it dwells gets extinguished by a less-principled actor. We are now surrounded by less-principled actors.
Amen.
Fine, but do you seriously think that Ghandi could have defeated Hitler? Passive civil disobedience relies on inducing shame in the oppressor. Some oppressors feel no shame. Look around.
My interest in your post is about dish-water liberals and their feel-good-about-themselves Facebook page.
And when you guys take a minute away from Facebook to “think” about Afghanistan, your partner in inanity Josh Mull is propagandizing for
Jeezus!
Republicans aren’t even asking for anything more undefinable and open-ended!
And although you don’t want to admit it, you misread the only significant aspect of the ISAF press-release that you hung this diary on, and just assumed that this was a special-forces operation, when the actual language of ther press release is “international forces,” and it doesn’t assert that regular army units from either NATO or Afghanistan were involved.
And then you come back with…
“You dissed me, so I won’t ask if military contractors were involved in the raid at Gardez.”
God forbid that you actually advance a story about Afghanistan for once, instead of playing feel-good-about-yourself games on Facebook!
That’s a red herring. The question you should be asking, I think, is not whether Gandhi could have beaten Hitler. The question is whether a group of people trained in nonviolent struggle could have stopped the Nazis from obtaining their goals. Boiling it down to two men like that is not what you meant, obviously, but being more precise this way helps expose the underlying bias of the question. It’s not about two men. It’s about a hypothetical match up between two opposing groups waging a political struggle where one side uses violence and the other uses strictly nonviolent techniques. Like any struggle, it depends on a number of things, like numbers of people involved on each side, smart application of strategy, etc. But broadly, yes. In fact, there were small incidents of dramatic victory of nonviolent techniques vs. Nazis, but these were never linked together in a wider campaign. Widespread ignorance of nonviolent struggle was a factor in that too.
Nope. That’s a statement based on a misunderstanding of what nonviolent struggle is. From Gene Sharp’s book “Waging Nonviolent Struggle”:
In fact, the fact that an opponent him/herself does not feel shame is in many cases an advantage you can use. Nonviolent struggle targets multiple sources of power of your opponent. Psychological factors are one source, but not the only source.
Jacob, the contact information for ISAF/NATO is publicly available on their website. I’m sure you know this, considering your lecture above about Journalism 101. If you have what you believe to be a lead on a story, get on it.
It’s painfully clear that your issues have nothing to do with me or the piece above. Therefore, instead of continuing to engage with you, I’m going to follow the words of a wise man:
The trolls. Don’t feed them.
Enjoy your evening.
That was a good explanation, Derrick.
How about suggesting the likelihood of success, within a decade or two, for a non-violent campaign of thousands attempting to frustrate totalitarians where the totalitarians have control of the political and military might of a nation of millions and have little hesitation in using their power to machine-gun people protesting.
Do you have a specific scenario in mind that I’m working with or are we just talking in general? Just curious if you’re heading somewhere in particular with it. Burma, for example?
It’s really hard to say, much the same way it’s hard to say if you stuck guns in the hands of those thousands of people. Nonviolent struggle isn’t magic. But if you want to play the odds over the last 100 years, see here.
For the best explanation of this topic that probably exists anywhere, I’d suggest Gene Sharp’s book mentioned above. It’s not easy to find–you’ll probably have to order it straight from the publisher like I did.
I was thinking of a couple of situations. Germany in the mid-30s, Hungary in the 50s among them.
(I located Sharp’s Politics of Non-Violent Action I’ll give it a try if I can get my hands on it.)
I’d note though, that in this situation, if all they did was protest when the regime “had no qualms about machine gunning them,” there’s a really good chance they’d lose. If every time they got together for their primary tactic, they all got shot, and that went on for years, not many people are going to sign up for that. Thankfully, mass marches and the other things we Americans tend to equate with “protest” are not even close to comprising the full range of tactics.
Like any struggle, you need sound, clear-headed strategic thinking.
That’s a good one, but I think his definitive work is “Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20th Century Practice and 21st Century Potential.” Many of his other works are available for free on the Albert Einstein Institution website as PDFs.
Thx, Derrick. I’ll see what I can find to read.
Sorry, Derrick, but I find that singularly unpersuasive. First, nobody here is using any nonviolent tactics of the sort you envision, so that’s the real red herring. We’re just sitting back and waiting for them to come for us. Second, all those forces you refer to, I summarize as “shame.” And I’m comfortable with that shorthand unless and until yoou get much more specific about the forces and mechanisms you envisage. Third, read the upthread posts about the Iraq and Afghan killings and cover-ups, then come back and tell me any of your preferred tactics would work against those guys. And those are the guys we’d be facing if we mounted any kind of action, even a non-violent one.
How about Roumania a few years back?
How about Roumania a few years back? I do believe more recent events are more pertinent than older ones, since the concepts of honor and the value of life have changed radically in the interim.
Well, I, for one, have been struggling with this tactical question for quite some time, here and on my own. Care to share what you’re come up with that would be effective in our lifetimes? Because I’ve come up with zilch.
Being totally honest, every analytical approach I’ve pursued on this issue leads me to the same unhappy conclusion; We cannot defeat our current array of oppressors through violent OR non-violent means (forget about electoral and legislative tactics). While we partied through the Me decades, they carefully constructed a machine that can’t be stopped by people like us.
American Experiment, R.I.P.
this?
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19891221&id=eBY1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=9KULAAAAIBAJ&pg=3720,801165
Imagine Russia under Stalin. He simply didn’t give a shit about any rights of any protest movement.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19300226&id=oW4hAAAAIBAJ&sjid=y4cFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3415,5111784
Ruthless repression by the state isn’t going to be overcome by non-violent protest, or any other kind, until the bulk of the citizenry joins the protest.
We’ve had this discussion before. We’re not talking about defending one’s self or another, we’re not talking about pacifism. We’re talking about the kind of violence I’m used to. Violence where one is aggressively providing the enemy maximum opportunity to give his life for his cause. Viet Nam, Bosnia, Kuwait, Irak, Afghanistan, doesn’t matter. Who gained other than the war profiteers?
Yes, I believe that’s exactly right. Only, not only are the bulk of the people unwilling, but nobody is. AND, the weapons and surveillance techniques available today would doom any effort, anyway. You can’t organize, and they can lay down whole crowds at a time.
We lost. We are livestock. Moooo.
I gotta say, I don’t know anything much about the Romanian struggle.
But there really are a lot of examples from modern times. Philippines, Latvia, blocking of the Soviet hardline coup, etc. Nonviolent struggle in Central America, too. There are plenty of good examples.
If you’re looking for a cookie cutter answer, they don’t exist. I mean think about the reply I’d have to write if you asked me to provide a military strategy and a tactical plan to overthrow the Chinese government with force that the Chinese civilian population can muster. All I can do is direct you to the resources listed above, especially the Albert Einstein Institution‘s website, to show you the tactics and strategic guidance.
Except, fighting for one’s own country is different than fighting to take over someone else’s, isn’t it? But, please read my immediately preceding comments. I really don’t think anything will work anymore against the corporate and military machine. I think our future is to be livestock, and our discussions will never be anything more than discussions. Sorry to say.
I don’t think the word “protest” is helpful. I think it clouds the issue and narrows the range of options people think about. Protests of the kind we typically think about are one tactic, but not the whole enchilada. But generally, you are correct that “there is no substitute for numbers.”
Speak for yourself. I haven’t lost shit. When “they” kill me, I’ve lost and even then all I’ve lost is my life.
Just having a conversation, Derrick. There are no simple answers to anything, and I didn’t expect one from you. I really don’t believe there are any tactics that can work against the resources that can and would be deployed against us. Things have been going the wrong way for a long time, and there is such a thing as a point of no return. I think we have passed it, and my only consolation is that I have no children and don’t expect to live more than another 10-15 years. You have no idea how much I hate having to be honest enough to write that.
gimme a better word than protest, I’m open on that.
Direct action.
I mean we’ve lost the dream of democracy and the promise of the Great American Experiment. Personally, I’ll live off the land in atent if I have to until I die, but really, my personal existence is of little importance. The ideals I’ve believed in and argued for mean infinitely more, but they seem to have moved permanently beyond reach now.
I don’t think that’s true at all.
At the risk of derailing the entire thread (sorry in advance), think about the Obama campaign.
Now, before your head explodes, let me say at the outset I’m not asserting that the anti-war movement “won” against the military/corporate complex. Not at all. Nor am I asserting anything was won against a totalitarian state willing to crush people in mass numbers. However, when only addressing your point about the military/corporate complex in the U.S. , it does show that the American people can be mobilized pretty dramatically by effective local organizing. In fact, quite a lot of the energy of the Obama campaign came from the success of the Obama campaign in co-opting a movement that began as an anti-war movement, which itself made a strategic decision to morph into an anti-Bush electoral movement, which then made another choice to morph into the pro-Obama campaign across the country. The moment of failure came the day everyone relaxed the day after the campaign finished, and groups failed to keep the momentum going, and the anti-war faction relaxed because “their” candidate was in office.
I knew that was a failure the day I heard that Christian Peace Witness would not include the Afghanistan war in their annual vigil against the Iraq war because they didn’t want to “bash Obama.”
There were a lot of mistakes made along the way. But I think that story, as depressing as it is, also shows there’s some hope.
But I’d pose your same question back to you: you really think a grassroots violent movement has a better chance vs. a modern nation-state given the advantages you listed above? Sure, the guys in the hills have guns and maybe assault rifles, but the bad guys have tanks, surveillance and armed drones.
nonviolent struggle, I’d say.
I’m all ears. Got specifics? Maybe I just have a lousy imagination.
Oh I know. Wasn’t meant to be an attack. Appreciate your honesty, I just fundamentally disagree.
Not all of us. St Pete for Peace is back to its core when we started in 02 but we’re the socialists/anarchists and knew the wars would go on. The others left after the election but are drifting back, little by little.
Didn’t take it as an attack. Not at all. I don’t question your intellect or your good faith. Getting to exercise the brain here is a precious activity to me, with inherent value of its own. I just don’t believe anything we do here will stop the corporate-military machine from owning the future. It’s not just the wars, it’s the total erosion and subversion of everything my generation was raised to believe in, by cunning and soulless actors. I foresaw the present situation developing 35 years ago, and think I see the future pretty clearly, and I don’t think the future will offer much of a life for regular people.
But it’s good that all us smart, well-intentioned people can gather here and entertain and support each other.
First thing ya gotta be prepared to struggle probably for the rest of your life, given your estimate of 10-15 years. We’re not going to undo 40 years of corporate entrenchment in a couple congressional election cycles. Nor is there going to be any kind of revolution. There is no instant winner in this struggle.
Education. We can’t get people agitated and organized if they continue to rely solely on teevee pablum. We have to provide alternative points of view. The key, imo, is youth. We’re not going to get a lot of old fucks like me to change their minds. It’s the ones who are thinking about their future, the ones who think that’s 100 years or more, bein’ bullet proof an’ all.
No simple answers and a lot of hard work. And an attitude.
Never. Give. Up.
School night. Way past my bedtime.
Be good to yourselves, and all other living things.
Namaste
Thanks for the suggestions. I’m not sure that “direct action” carries the connotation of non-violence as well as the direct use of non-violent in “non-violent struggle” does, but thanks for both.
Ah, education. A great thing, but how to achieve it? The tools to do that are not in our hands. And our educated youth, if achieved, would get gunned down by their uneducated gunslingers in full body armor.
We haven’t found any answers tonight, have we?
Off to bed. Sweet dreams, love and peace to all.
You give up easily. You want to think and operate on a grand scale. How about thinking and operating on a local level? Have to have our neighbors with us before we can expect the world to follow us. St Pete for Peace shows a film every week, free, open to the public. Discussion starts well before the film and continues afterward. Be involved or wring your hands. Your choice.
I don’t think I give up easily. But I do step back from time to time to contemplate the big picture, and every time I do that, I see a great tide that is moving in the wrong direction and which seems to have the inevitable effect of sweeping over us. Because local is fine locally, but irrelevant to the big picture unless duplicated everywhere. And I don’t see any evidence of that. Still, my personal convictions and beliefs will remain unchanged while I still breathe. And, who knows, perhaps someone, here or elsewhere, will come up with a creative tactical agenda that has some chance of success. If so, I’ll be on board with it. As you will.
Sorry, I missed this comment last night and thought I’d respond:
I’d disagree with you still about “shame.” “Shame” doesn’t properly refer to any of these tactics, and this is by no means a comprehensive list of those tactics not covered by “shame”:
Actions by Consumers
71. Consumers’ boycott
72. Nonconsumption of boycotted goods
73. Policy of austerity
74. Rent withholding
75. Refusal to rent
76. National consumers’ boycott
77. International consumers’ boycott
Action by Workers and Producers
78. Workmen’s boycott
79. Producers’ boycott
Action by Middlemen
80. Suppliers’ and handlers’ boycott
Action by Owners and Management
81. Traders’ boycott
82. Refusal to let or sell property
83. Lockout
84. Refusal of industrial assistance
85. Merchants’ “general strike”
Action by Holders of Financial Resources
86. Withdrawal of bank deposits
87. Refusal to pay fees, dues, and assessments
88. Refusal to pay debts or interest
89. Severance of funds and credit
90. Revenue refusal
91. Refusal of a government’s money
Symbolic Strikes
97. Protest strike
98. Quickie walkout (lightning strike)
Agricultural Strikes
99. Peasant strike
100. Farm Workers’ strike
Strikes by Special Groups
101. Refusal of impressed labor
102. Prisoners’ strike
103. Craft strike
104. Professional strike
Ordinary Industrial Strikes
105. Establishment strike
106. Industry strike
107. Sympathetic strike
Restricted Strikes
108. Detailed strike
109. Bumper strike
110. Slowdown strike
111. Working-to-rule strike
112. Reporting “sick” (sick-in)
113. Strike by resignation
114. Limited strike
115. Selective strike
Multi-Industry Strikes
116. Generalized strike
117. General strike
Combination of Strikes and Economic Closures
118. Hartal
119. Economic shutdown
Rejection of Authority
120. Withholding or withdrawal of allegiance
121. Refusal of public support
122. Literature and speeches advocating resistance
Citizens’ Noncooperation with Government
123. Boycott of legislative bodies
124. Boycott of elections
125. Boycott of government employment and positions
126. Boycott of government depts., agencies, and other bodies
127. Withdrawal from government educational institutions
128. Boycott of government-supported organizations
129. Refusal of assistance to enforcement agents
130. Removal of own signs and placemarks
131. Refusal to accept appointed officials
132. Refusal to dissolve existing institutions
Citizens’ Alternatives to Obedience
133. Reluctant and slow compliance
134. Nonobedience in absence of direct supervision
135. Popular nonobedience
136. Disguised disobedience
137. Refusal of an assemblage or meeting to disperse
138. Sitdown
139. Noncooperation with conscription and deportation
140. Hiding, escape, and false identities
141. Civil disobedience of “illegitimate” laws
Action by Government Personnel
142. Selective refusal of assistance by government aides
143. Blocking of lines of command and information
144. Stalling and obstruction
145. General administrative noncooperation
146. Judicial noncooperation
147. Deliberate inefficiency and selective noncooperation by enforcement agents
148. Mutiny
Domestic Governmental Action
149. Quasi-legal evasions and delays
150. Noncooperation by constituent governmental units
168. Nonviolent raids
169. Nonviolent air raids
170. Nonviolent invasion
171. Nonviolent interjection
172. Nonviolent obstruction
173. Nonviolent occupation
Social Intervention
174. Establishing new social patterns
175. Overloading of facilities
176. Stall-in
180. Alternative communication system
Economic Intervention
181. Reverse strike
182. Stay-in strike
183. Nonviolent land seizure
184. Defiance of blockades
185. Politically motivated counterfeiting
186. Preclusive purchasing
187. Seizure of assets
188. Dumping
189. Selective patronage
190. Alternative markets
191. Alternative transportation systems
192. Alternative economic institutions
Political Intervention
193. Overloading of administrative systems
194. Disclosing identities of secret agents
195. Seeking imprisonment
196. Civil disobedience of “neutral” laws
197. Work-on without collaboration
198. Dual sovereignty and parallel government
http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations103a.html
Re: whether a nonviolent resistance could work against the people who perpetrated the kind of acts described in the post above, I’d say look closer at the resistance in India and what’s now Pakistan to the Brits. We have a cultural affinity with Brits that tends to mask the brutality of the colonial exercise and that confuses manners and protocol with humanity. As just one example, once there were allegations of a local assaulting a British woman. In retaliation, the occupiers forced every Indian who used the street on which the assault took place to crawl, and authorized the beating of any Indian that came within a cane-swipe-radius of a British official. Another example: the machine-gunning of a nonviolent crowd at Jalainwala Bagh, where Brits shot until they ran out of bullets and refused to render aid to the children wounded. That’s just two examples. Generally, they used brutal tactics against the resisters:
The events described in the post are shocking, grotesque and vile, but certainly no more evil than the induction of starvation, homelessness and sexual and public humiliation of whole villages at a time.
And yet…
I appreciate your very comprehensive response to my comment. And I do agree that if all or a significant proportion of those actions were taken by the mass of the population, it would get som real attention. However, with regret, I don’t see that as a real possibility. Some, no most, of those tactics have immediate short-term negative consequences for the actors, and I don’t see how you magically transform an essentially passive population into such an active one willing to suffer for their beliefs. Maybe you see a different population than I do?
Plus, I think we are dealing with an overclass that has much less moral inhibition than in the old days you refer to, with an unprecedented control of the media megaphone. I think a response with force is the most likely reaction to many of the tactics you list, and the media would portray such as justified.
But, bottom line, I see no trace of any disposition to move toward the tactics you describe. Hell, we can’t even mount a public demonstration to match that of the Teabaggers. How pathetic is that? I don’t think you are being realistic, although my heart is completely with your heart.
No real argument here. I think only time will tell whether the U.S. population is willing to do any of the above. I am also very frustrated with the current situation, so I really do understand where you’re coming from. I guess what I’m trying to show is that there are real options from within a nonviolent framework and that if we fail, it’s not because we don’t have knowledge that could save us.
This is one of my real frustrations with the peace/anti-war movement(s?) in general: we, like the military, fight the last war. The powerholders in this country have learned some very effective ways to manage dissent and often the professional opposition organizations encourage “slactivism” where you build email lists and get donations via the internet, but that’s rarely translated into offline organizing. So we need to map some uncharted territory that accounts for this and that re-engages people in local organizing to take the resources we have and translate them into power.
It’s daunting as hell but I don’t think it’s hopeless.
How to mobilize an essentially passive population? That’s the central problem. The study of media and the formation of public opinion has been a lifelong interest of mine, and I know that all the powerful tools are in the hands of our oppressors now.
BTW, I never think of violence as anything but a desperate last resort, and, given current realities, probably never more than a futile gesture of defiance that would be doomed to a crushing defeat. But I do think we need to find some more militant tactics than we have been using. They would get more attention, and maybe get people excited and motivated.
Re media, note the latest greatest sad development, the appeals court ruling against net neutrality, latest post above. The Internet has potential to become the great equalizer, so it must be controlled by corporate interests. They cover every bet, don’t they? And we are disorganized little roaches by comparison.
Nice rationalization. I’ll pass, thanks.
Where’s the rationalization? Ignoring inconvenient facts is the rationalization, don’t be guilty of it. The corporate tide is accelerating, and our side is doing nothing but losing ground. Deal with it. Even if it makes you uncomfortable.