RANGER AGAINST WAR: The U.S. Only Kills Civilians <

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

The U.S. Only Kills Civilians

People are people
So why should it be
You and I should get along so awfully
--Depeche Mode

Yes, Depeche Mode is horribly lame, but that's exactly why I'm using them. Um, there's a reason for the awful getting along, isn't there?

Technically within the paradigm of the PWOT (Phony War on Terror),
everybody killed by U.S. forces is a civilian. If the people we are fighting are not covered by the Geneva Conventions, then ipso facto they are civilians.

If they were soldiers, then they would be POW's when captured. Since they are not POW's, then they are civilians. There is not a great deal of plasticity in terms of international law, contrary to what the GWB administration would like to make us think with their masterful obfuscations. If one causes or intends to cause harm to another, one is either under criminal purview (civilian), or military (soldier).

In this one brief AP article (
"Afghans: U.S. Killed Civilians") U.S. officials call the adversaries both "militant gunmen" and "enemy attackers." After five years, it would seem that we could at least have a name for the people that we are so gladly killing.

If they are "enemy attackers," then are they are POW's when captured? Captured "enemies" in a wartime scenario usually equates with POW status. If they are "militant gunmen," then they are civilian.

This article covers the confusion following an ambush on a Marine convoy, in which 10 Afghanis were killed and 34 wounded. Top military spokesman in Afghanistan, Lt. Col. David Accetta, said "It's not entirely clear right now if the people killed or wounded by gunfire were killed or wounded by coalition forces gunfire or enemy attackers gunfire."

When caught in an effective ambush, troops are taught and expected to either assault their way out of the kill zone, or to fall back to defensible position. Nobody could or should second-guess a decision made on the ground.

Ranger criticizes the fact that U.S. troops are put into combat danger without a clearly defined enemy, and with even less clearly defined missions and objectives.

Let Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, et. al., solve their own internal political and religious problems. Then America can do the same. Remove our troops from hostile environments that do not welcome their presence or sacrifice

Expecting soldiers to identify targets in milliseconds in a civilian environment is a recipe for disaster.


Blogger Winter Patriot said...

at least we didn't have to look at the pictures

How The US Military Protects The American Public From Seeing Details That Are Not As They Originally Were, And Brings Freedom To Afghanistan

Sunday, March 11, 2007 at 3:47:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Thanks for your links, WP. They certainly dovetail with my thoughts.

Legality and jurisdiction are main themes for me.

The U.S. military has nothing in its charter that authorizes them to limit the press. A soldier has no legal standing in Afganistan or elsewhere to approach a newsman and delete photographs. The military purview is separate from the civilian.

Sunday, March 11, 2007 at 10:36:00 AM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home