Guest editorial by Ernest A. Canning
In "Plumbing the Depths of Lawless Executive Depravity", I argued that targeted assassinations threaten the very foundation of our republic. This occurs not only due to the potential for collateral damage but due to the distinct possibility that many whom we target as "suspected" terrorists may be entirely innocent.
A more recent article of mine here, "WikiLeaks' Pakistan, Yemen Cables Expose Unchecked Executive Power, 'Hatred for Democracy'" addressed a specific form of targeted assassinations --- the predator drone strike. In it, I noted that the secret expansion of such strikes into Pakistan and Yemen, as confirmed by diplomatic cables recently published by WikiLeaks and their media partners, reflected a dangerous usurpation of power by the Executive branch.
These two articles, and former CIA field operative Robert Baer, in a must-see RethinkAfganistan.com video (embedded at end of this article), assume the targets of the drone strike are suspected insurgents and terrorists. Both of them deal with the counterproductive effect of unintended civilian deaths ("collateral damage") which serves to destabilize "friendly" governments, provide a recruiting tool for those bent on revenge, and increase the likelihood of "blowback," a CIA term that describes "the unintended consequences of policies that were kept secret from the American people."
Have Baer and I erred in assuming these strikes are not aimed at civilians?...
Considering the Unthinkable: An Intended Civilian Body Count
Despite the many documented lies from public officials, a good number of Americans (self-described "9/11 truthers" excepted) share an unstated assumption that our government has waged war in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Pakistan and Yemen in order to prevent another 9/11. We have targeted terrorists, the government tells us, and, in targeting terrorists, civilians become unintended casualties; "collateral damage."
The question arises as to who is the terrorist?
As I noted in "'Terrorism,' 'State Terrorism,' and Point of View", quoting terrorism scholar Michael Stohl:
Under Stohl's definition, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki presented a classic case of "state terrorism" for, irrespective claims that these "saved American lives," the "audience of the act" was Japan's political and military leadership in Tokyo. The message: Surrender or you're next!
That type of "effects-based" effort forms a fundamental component of the "shock and awe" strategy employed in Iraq. As explained by U.S. Air Force Col. Gary L. Crowder one day after U.S. bombs began falling on Iraq:
While, as reported by Slate, military strategists present this strategy in relation to so-called "precision bombing" that provides the "ability to deliver desired effects with minimal risk and collateral damage ensur[ing] decisive dominance [and] den[ying] the enemy sanctuary," a substantial body of evidence reveals that the U.S. military has either deliberately targeted non-combatants or that it recognizes that its bombs are not so "smart."
Consider, for example, a Global Research report by Prof. Marc C. Herold pertaining to the much touted "precision bombing" at the outset of the war in Afghanistan [emphasis added]:
Herold claimed the bombing of Afghan civilians was "relentless," yet ignored by U.S. media.
In War Made Easy, Norman Solomon questioned the military's claim that a Nov. 13, 2001 missile strike on the al Jazeera bureau in Kabul was because it was an al Qaeda building. Solomon contends the military had known for two years that the building, which had satellite dishes on its roof, housed only al Jazeera. He also reports that, in order to hide the inordinate number of civilian deaths from the American people, the Pentagon spent millions to acquire the exclusive rights to all photos obtained by the Ikonos satellite.
The missile strike on al Jazeera's Kabul office was by no means the only instance in which the issue of seemingly intentional targeting of journalists has arisen. On April 8th, 2003 a U.S. Army tank opened fire on Baghdad's Palestine Hotel, killing Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk and Jose Couso, a cameraman for the Spanish television network Telecinco. While the U.S. military, which was aware that the hotel housed both American and foreign journalists, claimed the shooting was an accident, Army Sgt. Adrienne Kinne (Ret.) informed Democracy Now that she saw secret US military documents which listed the hotel as a possible target.
More recently, a State Department cable, released by WikiLeaks, revealed that the U.S. had pressured Spanish authorities to drop litigation initiated by Couso's relatives in response to the U.S. attacks.
As The BRAD BLOG previously reported, the Daily Mirror exposed a "Top Secret" UK memo which asserted that, on April 16, 2004, George W. Bush told then British P.M. Tony Blair "that he [Bush] wanted to bomb al Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere" and that "Blair replied that would cause a big problem. There’s no doubt what Bush wanted to do --- and no doubt Blair didn’t want him to do it."
If the purpose of this perpetual "war on terror" were truly that of protecting the American people, then surely our leaders, who have had access to scholars inside and outside of the government, would understand that indiscriminate bombing is counterproductive and likely to lead to blowback, just as they fully understand that torture is useless as a means for obtaining actionable intelligence, not to mention being illegal and counterproductive.
Here, Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine provides an astute, if not groundbreaking, analysis:
Placed within the context of the corporate Empire so aptly described by John Perkins in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, and the neocon military doctrine of "full spectrum dominance," one may see the so-called "war on terror" as a war to inflict state terror on the victim populations.
Support for the theory that the U.S. intends to inflict civilian casualties can be found in the U.S. decision to employ Cluster Munitions during the Dec. 17, 2009 cruise missile strike in Yemen which killed 41 local residents, including 14 women and 21 children and, as cited above, by the use of Cluster Munitions at the outset of the bombing of Afghanistan; in the U.S. refusal to sign onto the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), which "prohibits all use, stockpiling, production and transfer of Cluster Munitions," and in the arrangements made with the U.K., which had signed the CCM, to violate its provisions by temporarily storing Cluster Munitions on behalf of the U.S.
Moreover, according to Vincent Warren, the Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights (see RethinkAfghanistan.com video below) 98% of the victims of drone strikes inside Pakistan are civilians.
The U.S. military describes "submunitions" as "small explosive-filled or chemical-filled items designed for saturation coverage of a large area" [emphasis added]. It notes: "Saturation of unexploded submunitions has become a characteristic of the modern battlefield," then goes on to express concern not for civilian casualties but for "fratricide," e.g. the danger posed to U.S. and allied forces who later occupy areas where cluster munitions have been employed, even as the military defines "unexploded ordinance" as an “explosive ordnance which has been primed, fused, or otherwise prepared for action, and which has been fired, dropped, launched, projected, or placed in such a manner as to constitute a hazard to operations, installations, personnel or material and remains unexploded either by malfunction or design or for any other cause."
Human Rights Watch argues that cluster munitions, by design, "pose unacceptable dangers to civilians."
As the Convention on Cluster Munitions was garnering support from 100 nations opposed to the use of such brutal weaponry, "US [State Department] spokesman Robert Wood said that the Bush administration considers the bombs essential in modern warfare."
The question as to whether the U.S. intends to strike fear in the victim populations (both civilian and armed resistance) must be considered in the context of even deadlier non-nuclear weaponry that it has likely applied.
Consider the description Dr. Helen Caldicott provided in The New Nuclear Danger of the 15,000 lb. fuel air explosive (FAE) which the Pentagon has given the cute little name, "Daisy Cutter":
In "'Terrorism,' 'State Terrorism,' and Point of View", I not only pointed to the U.S. "shock and awe" Iraq war strategy, modeled on the Nazi blitzkrieg, but to the bloody 2004 second assault that leveled Falluja, an Iraqi town approximately the size of Cincinnati --- an assault so brutal that it led independent journalist, Dahr Jamail, along with The Guardian's Jonathan Steele to compare it to the infamous April 27, 1937 Nazi destruction of Guernica, a small Basque village in northern Spain that became a testing ground for Adolf Hitler's incendiary bombs. Guernica burned for three days, killing or wounding some 1,600 civilians.
Ali Fadhil, one of the first independent journalists permitted to enter Falluja some two months after the siege had ended, noted not only how shocked he was by the devastation, but asserted that most of the dead were civilians and that they were deliberately massacred:
In my recent piece, I argued that "the US military and [then Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld had intended, by means of the two assaults on Fallujah, to apply such a deadly and massive display of force as to strike fear in the hearts of Iraqis everywhere: 'Resist and we will destroy you, your cities, your families.'" I noted that the military's effort to bar independent journalists was an effort to prevent anyone from bearing witness to a massacre; that this concealment was thwarted when al Jazeera correspondent Ahmed Mansur and cameraman Laith Mushtaq found a way into the city where they remained, un-embedded for the duration of the first assault on Falluja.
Mushtaq spoke of a man named Hamudi, whose house had been bombed along with the entire neighborhood, “and they brought the corpses and bodies to the hospital,” where the scene was “like a sea of corpses...mostly children.... I was...forcing myself to take photographs, while I was at the same time crying.” Hamudi was the only survivor in his family. Mushtaq took pictures of Hamudi speaking to his infant son Ahmed, who was asleep with a toy car in his hand. "Half his head was gone.... I could not really find any one human being in one piece or intact.... It’s bombing of airplanes."
What we are left with is competing theories --- former CIA field operative Baer's assumption, which I previously shared, that civilian casualties are but an unintended but inevitable consequence of predator drone strikes vs. a theory that civilian deaths are an intended part of a war designed to terrorize both civilians and armed resistance fighters. I'll leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions.
'Blowback' as a source of perpetual war
Weapons manufacturers openly acknowledge that the existence of a credible threat bolsters military spending. That threat would be eliminated if it were somehow possible to eliminate "terrorism."
One does not have to reach the conclusion that "blowback" is an intended result to understand that an increase in terrorist activities in response to predator drone strikes will likely enhance the military-industrial complex' bottom line any more than one need agree with the self-described "9/11 truth" movement's claims in order to appreciate that 9/11 has served as a boon to war profiteers and mercenaries. Indeed, at a time when the American working class is experiencing hardships not seen since the Great Depression, the military budget for FY 2011, at $708 billion, "is 33 percent larger than the peak of Pentagon budgets during the Vietnam War and 64 percent higher than the Cold War average."
While readers will have to draw their own conclusions, I will leave out there the unassailable fact that there is a convergence between the likely blowback which flows from the horrific toll occasioned by predator drone strikes and the financial interests of war profiteers.
Where is the outrage?
On May 2, 1970, within two days of President Nixon's announced incursion into Cambodia, protests erupted on college campuses all over the country. On May 4, 1970 four students were shot and killed; nine wounded when the National Guard opened fire upon unarmed demonstrators at Ohio's Kent State University, resulting in a firestorm of public protest in which "over 400 colleges and universities across America shut down. In Washington, 100,000 protesters surround[ed] various government buildings including the White House and historical monuments."
Within the past two weeks, State Department cables obtained by WikiLeaks were released confirming that two successive Presidents have taken us into war in Pakistan and Yemen without Congressional consent or even the slightest public debate; yet one would have trouble finding so much as a murmur of protest on any of our nation's college campuses, or, for that matter, on the streets or in the corporate media.
In a later piece, I'll address why. In the interim, for those whose conscience tells them "enough," there is a petition one can sign.
RethinkAfghanistan.com video follows...
Ernest A. Canning has been an active member of the California state bar since 1977. Mr. Canning has received both undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science as well as a juris doctor. He is also a Vietnam vet (4th Infantry, Central Highlands 1968).