On Tuesday, US forces in Afghanistan released a propaganda push highlighting “progress” in the city of Herat as the beacon of how Afghanistan is moving toward peace and being able to defend itself. Look, in the photo you can see that you can actually buy popcorn on the streets of Herat! The next day, on Wednesday, a US helicopter killed two more civilians, including at least one child. The initial press release by ISAF on this attack was produced only in propaganda mode, bleating the death of a Haqqani network leader and making false claims about “protecting” civilians who unexpectedly appeared in the area while helicopters were attacking their target.
To the extent that there is a mission in Afghanistan, the US is now there to provide security while the Afghan government and defense forces develop to the point that Afghanistan can provide its own security after we leave. That means that it is vital for the US military to “prove” that it is making progress toward that end, and so ISAF puts much effort into providing propaganda showing how wonderful things are. On Tuesday, we had this gem:
The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai named Herat as a transitional city during a speech in Kabul, today.
Development, governance and commerce in Herat happen at a rate higher than many other areas, and Afghans will take the lead in defending national sovereignty and tranquility here.
Life in Herat is vibrant, and the city is a benchmark of progress, said Brig. Gen. Sayed Agha Saqueb, Herat Provincial Afghan National Police chief.
If Hearat is so wonderful and safe, why wasn’t Karzai there to make his proclamation? And the most wonderful part of all in this press release:
The ANP is providing the security for all districts in Herat, while the 207th Afghan National Army Corps, based at Camp Zafar, assists, said the general. The ANP assures roughly 80 percent of security in the area.
See? All that training that Saint David Petraeus has ordered to take place is working! This press release would have us dancing in the streets of Herat and buying the popcorn that ISAFMedia so dutifully captured in their photo. But, oops, the propaganda factory must have been working overtime, because a bit of off-message information slipped through:
“Making a living is getting better day by day,” Saqueb said. “We have many factories and industrial states. We have electricity, the border with Iran and Turkmenistan, and there are many activities with merchant and other aspects with these two countries.”
Some unfortunate propaganda writer will be in a bit of trouble for letting out that trade with Iran could possibly be one aspect of the vibrancy of Herat.
In the meantime, only one day after producing this “feel good” piece on Herat, ISAF propaganda generators kicked into high gear to trumpet a helicopter attack on a Haqqani network leader:
Coalition forces conducted a precision airstrike targeting a Haqqani network leader, killing two insurgents and wounding one in Terayzai district, Khost province today.
The Haqqani leader is involved in the supply of weapons, ammunition, and vehicles to HQN operatives and participates in direct attacks against Afghan and coalition forces.
Coalition forces called in a precision air strike and the targeted vehicle was destroyed.
Just prior to the weapon impact, an unassociated civilian vehicle and two pedestrians walking in a wadi appeared, next to the target vehicle.
Immediately following the strike, the civilian vehicle came to a stop. Seven passengers were observed walking away from the non-target vehicle. Afghan National Security Forces spoke with the driver of the vehicle who stated there were no injuries to anyone in his vehicle.
The disposition of the two pedestrians walking in the wadi is not known at this time. Efforts are under way to confirm their status.
This press release is just such a beautiful piece of propaganda. It was a “precision air strike” that “destroyed” the “targeted vehicle”. The target was an evil person, involved in supplying weapons to those who attack US forces in the area. And, best of all, the attack spared some civilians who just “appeared” on the scene just prior to “impact” of the weapon. The civilians in a vehicle were spared. Isn’t ISAF awesome?
But, the “efforts” to “confirm the status” of the two pedestrians came to a sad end, as reported in the Washington Post:
A NATO helicopter gunship inadvertently killed two civilians while attacking suspected insurgents in the northern province of Khost, NATO announced Thursday.
/snip/
“At the time of the strike, two civilians were walking near the moving targeted vehicle,” NATO said Thursday. “They were previously unseen by coalition forces prior to the initiation of the airstrike. Unfortunately both were killed as an unintended result of the strike.”
Khost provincial police chief Abdul Hakim Ishaqzai said at least one of the civilians was a child.
Perhaps ISAF should be a little slower to rush propaganda pieces to the wires while there is still a chance that an attack they are trumpeting actually ended up killing another innocent child.




36 Comments

I have said it before, and I’ll say it again: we are not working to stabilize Afghanistan and get out; we are constantly doing things designed to keep the war going. People such as betrayus can’t really gain the status and prominence they want in a peacetime army. The mic needs the war to continue to keep building and selling ever more weapons and support systems. The president needs the war to continue to add more and more extra-Constitutional powers to his command. There are many more that could be listed, but you, dear reader, can do that yourself. There is no reason for the government to stop the war. Will of the people? Hahahaha. Control the deficit. We can take care of that by cutting more middle and lower economic class people’s costs in the budget. It goes on and on.
We continue to win in Afghanistan.
I had the great misfortune a week or two ago, to pause while channel surfing on Charlie Rose. The stuff coming out of his guest’s mouth was the Afghan world turned upside down. So I continued to listen until the guest was identified, which Rose doesn’t do very often. Turns out it was the Afghan minister of defense or sumptin like that. By then I had learned that ISAF was taking control over larger & larger sections of Afghanistan, that training of Afghan military was 25% ahead of schedule, and I can’t remember all the other sunny details. Almost no pushback from Rose, needless to say.
But, like Karzai, the interviewee was fluent in English, and had a sober & businesslike demeanor. Just the sort a U.S. audience would swoon over.
Like magic!
Is it their disposition we’re concerned with, or their status? Lawd knows if I was walking next to a Land Rover that got punked by a Hellcat missile, I would be in a foul disposition. And I’d change my myspace status to cranky.
Winning hearts and minds doesn’t mean doing the right thing, does it? It just means spinning your heinous murder of innocent civilians in the right direction.
Victory is so delicious, we have to keep repeating it like Groundhog Day.
The unfortunate reality is that in unconventional war there is no difference between civilians and suspected insurgents. When one’s buddy has been killed by a civilian — man, woman or child — one tends to treat everybody as a “suspected insurgent.”
It Vietnam it was: “Kill ‘em all and let god sort ‘em out.” War is hell.
So now, in Afghanistan, it’s open season on everybody. The gunship was gunning for suspected insurgents and hit civilians. No difference. When they’re dead they’re definitely (ex-)suspected insurgents.
The US is killing suspected insurgents and bragging about it.
ISAF news release:
http://tinyurl.com/6ag8bzn
“If Hearat is so wonderful and safe, why wasn’t Karzai there to make his proclamation?”
Because of the effective range of a .308 cal sniper rifle?
Hey, killing Afghan civilians is progress. Just ask Pvt Morlock…
/teabagging redneck
Yes, yes but have we “won the future” yet or is all of it just removing the future from the Afghans?
“They’re dead, that proves they were Viet Cong, er, Taliban.
Sheesh, gotta get the editing tools back, folks.
If you can’t win hearts and minds, blow them away!
And so Libya will be ever so different from this… HOW???
Libya is kinetic.
Libya has oil.
Not much more to say is there?
And have some popcorn.
Anyone who thinks we want to win these wars to end war is hopelessly naive.
The MIC is a self perpetuating and self fulfilling dream or nightmare… take your pick. There is no bureaucracy which is going to put itself out of business. Never gonna happen.
The MIC and the waging endless war is the cancer of the nation that if we cut it out we kill the host.
So we let it kill whomever the f they want and need to so that they don’t die and kill us.
….continue saying it to as many people as possible as it is the truth. The “shiny city on the hill” has come to represent death and destruction for others.
Jim,
Your headline and link indicate that it was “US”. The story you link to says “NATO”.
Is this an error, or is there information elsewhere?
If they cannot see pedestrians walking nearby, WHAT THE FUCK ELSE DON’T THEY SEE?????
But people here know all this do they not? I was just making an observation on how clear and concise the comment was.
Yes, I forgot.
Yes, BP must be paid back for all of their lost income/profit from having to, you know, *pretend* to clean up the Gulf of Mex last summer (plus their oil volcano lost all that precious black gold for BP) by using up BP’s last supply of deadly toxic COREXIT (now causing folks in the USA to be sick, but don’t look for this info in US corporate media) & for BP having to, you know, buy off some of the small businesses in the Gulf area who no longer can be in business bc of BP’s gross negligence.
But hey! The BP piper must be paid!! Bombs away Libya!
The United Nations report for 2010 showed a decrease in civilian deaths and an increase in Taliban caused deaths. I don’t know if the U.N. imprimatur gives their report more authenticity, but it looks like coalition caused deaths decreased. Any deaths should sadden all of us, and all of those deaths were preventable. I am ready to call the Taliban out for their share of this madness too.
I agree. Which is why I hope that BearCountry says it to as many people as possible everywhere. The comment was valid and too the point.
Maybe the military meant we’re making progress at mass-murdering Afghan civilians. Lots of progress there.
Here’s the link I did not post:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110309/wl_nm/us_afghanistan_civilians
Great. I’m boiling with rage over the new Libyan adventure in stupidity and I get to see this. Just after I saw a BS notice from some wheel in the NATO gang that NO civilians were being killed by the NATO forces.
I pay a little attention. I notice that the US military showered Libya with cruise missiles to hit critical base points in Libya.
The problem with me was that they shot over 100 missiles at 20 targets.
Can anyone else see that if you fire five missiles at each target, it is because even the military tools don’t believe that a single missile will hit the target.
Where did the extra 4 missiles go? Oh, couldn’t have been possibly dropping into civilian areas, right? The military says……
Saying:
“US Kills More Civilians in Afghanistan Despite “Progress” Propaganda” By: Jim White Thursday March 24, 2011 9:30 am
link: “NATO helicopter airstrike inadvertently kills 2 civilians in Afghanistan”.
Is the same as saying:
“BP oil spill ends up in Charles River”
http://www.wickedlocal.com/wellesley/news/x256219239/Wellesley-High-School-oil-spill-ends-up-in-Charles-River#axzz1HXpfzWZ4
In Afghanistan, there is no functional difference. You can bet the helicopter, the weapons fired and the personnel were all from the US. If those who did this had actually been from another country as part of the farcical “coalition”, you can bet they would have been identified.
You are wrong, but feel free to believe whatever you want to believe. The US did this, and there is no getting around it.
My question stands. “You can bet” is not evidence. And in fact other countries were identified in the article, British, Danish and Irish.
I’m still willing to accept the possibility that US personnel were involved which is why I asked. From your response it sounds like your world view won’t allow you to believe that US troops were NOT involved. If that’s the case I’d call your editing an error, if it’s not the case and you changed NATO to US to slur the US, I’d call your deception a lie.
Noting personel, I know there’s a slant at FDL, I just thought the standards were higher.
Yup. And that discussion of troops from other countries was describing a totally different incident where two soldiers were killed, not the civilian killings. Please show me some reporting that positively says any people or equipment in the killing of the civilians wasn’t American. WaPo didn’t note it in their report of that incident and would have if any other than Americans had been involved.
You’re good at making assertive statements, but not so good at backing them up. What I consider wrong is changing the facts of an article to provide a slanted point of view. I’ll believe the facts, not what I want to believe. It sounds like you’re the one believing what he want’s to believe even if the facts don’t support it.
Stating “The US did this, and there is no getting around it” provides no evidence, and since you’ve had several chances to back up your statement, it’s looking less likely that you can. Maybe US personnel were completely responsible, but not according to anything you’ve presented.
Thanks for your response.
I’ve searched all day and I can’t find any reporting that positively says any people or equipment in the killing of the civilians wasn’t OR WAS American.
For this reason I wouldn’t have altered a perfectly legit story.
“WaPo didn’t note it in their report of that incident and would have if any other than Americans had been involved.” Really? Is that part of the WP style guide? You seem to be piling on claims that you can’t support.
If you want me to go into the details of how the US command of NATO forces is only part of a shell game carried out for the sake of semantics when the US wants to make things look nice, I already did that in the post noted below when McChrystal was head of US FOR-A and head of ISAF/NATO at the same time. I even have a quote from a CENTCOM spokesperson in that post, and if you read the post carefully you will find what a sham it is that US uses “NATO” cover for anything in Afghanistan. Just because it’s Petraeus instead of McChyrstal now doesn’t change the situation any. US/NATO/ISAF are essentially interchangeable in Afghanistan because the US is calling the shots.
Read this: http://my.firedoglake.com/jimwhite/2010/03/12/central-command-mcchrystal-does-have-command-authority-over-detainee-operations-unit/