Children Killed By U.S. Airstrike In Afghanistan Were Guilty Of Sleeping

They had come together for a solemn occasion. But they had no idea how solemn the occasion would become.

An old friend, a friend of their families, a friend of the local police, had died some months ago, and they were preparing for a memorial service.

Los Angeles Times:

The head of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, Ahmad Nader Nadery, has confirmed reports that a memorial ceremony was being held for a militia commander allied with the police [...], and relatives and friends from outside the area were staying overnight in the village.

The adults were tending fires, cooking the next day's meal. The children were sleeping.

International Herald Tribune:

[Mohammad Iqbal ] Safi, the member of Parliament, said the villagers had been preparing for a ceremony the next morning in memory of a man who died some time before. Extended families from two tribes were visiting the village and there were lights of fires as the adults were cooking food for the ceremony, he said.

Then the bombs started falling. American bombs. NATO in name only. American.

Washington Post:

At least 90 percent of all aircraft being used in the Afghan war belong to U.S. forces operating under their own command structure.

"Civilian deaths are not a NATO problem," said Marc Gerlasco, a military analyst at New York-based Human Rights Watch.

"Civilian casualties are primarily being caused in airstrikes in support of the counterterrorism mission that the United States is running completely separate from the NATO-run counterinsurgency conflict," said Gerlasco, who has compiled a report on civilian deaths from airstrikes to be published next month.

When the bombing finally stopped, seven or eight homes had been destroyed and many others had been damaged.

Los Angeles Times:

"The destruction from aerial bombardment was clearly evident with some seven to eight houses having been totally destroyed and serious damage to many others," the [UN] statement said.

Washington Post:

Gerlasco said the amount of bombs dropped by U.S. airstrikes in June (317,000 pounds) and July (270,000 pounds) is equivalent to the total tonnage dropped in 2006.

The vast majority of the strikes, Gerlasco said, are unplanned missions called in by U.S. Special Operations ground forces fighting Taliban units or because a "target of opportunity" is located through on-the-ground intelligence.

Unlike in Iraq, where U.S. forces frequently use 250-pound bombs to make attacks more precise, Gerlasco said American troops in Afghanistan "are still using a lot of" 2,000-pound bombs.

By the time the sun came up the next morning, more than seventy people were dead.

At least ninety have died thus far, from this one attack.

Los Angeles Times:

The United Nations said Tuesday that "convincing evidence" exists that an American-led operation killed 90 civilians.

And two-thirds of them were children.

International Herald Tribune:

Mohammad Iqbal Safi, head of the parliamentary defense committee and a member of the government commission, said the 60 children were aged from 3 months to 16 years old and that they were killed as they slept. "It was a heartbreaking scene," he said.

Heartbreaking.

Boston Globe:

Ghulam Azrat, 50, the director of the middle school in Azizabad, said he collected 60 bodies Friday morning after the bombing.

"We put the bodies in the main mosque," he told the Associated Press by phone. "Most of these dead bodies were children and women. It took all morning to collect them."
...

An AP photographer who visited Azizabad yesterday said he saw at least 20 graves, including some graves with multiple bodies in them. He said he saw about 20 houses that had been destroyed.

It's the sort of damage that can't easily be undone. But that hasn't stopped the Afghan army from trying.

Boston Globe:

Azrat said villagers threw stones at Afghan soldiers when the troops tried to give food and clothes to them. He said the soldiers fired into the crowd and wounded eight people, including one child critically injured.

"The people were very angry," he said. "They told the soldiers, 'We don't need your food; we don't need your clothes. We want our children. We want our relatives. Can you give it to us? You cannot, so go away.' "

Washington Post:

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said military commanders in Afghanistan continued to believe that the attack in Herat "was a legitimate strike on a Taliban target."

Sure it was. A legitimate strike. A Taliban target. Yessir. What-ever-you-say, sir.

An anonymous spokesman blamed the result on bad intelligence -- from the Taliban!

Washington Post:

A U.S. official in Washington, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the Taliban has become adept at spreading false intelligence to draw U.S. strikes on civilians. "The fact is that the Taliban now has pretty good insight into where we're picking up information and how we're developing it into actionable intelligence," the official said. "They've figured out a way to misguide us."

It's the Taliban's fault if we bombed innocent women and children. We would never do such a thing on our own. Would we?

They just gave us some bad information, did they? And we believed them, did we?

They called an airstrike on their own people -- innocent sleeping children -- just for some publicity?

Yeah, sure!

What kind of sick mind would even think of something like that?

Oops! That's easy.

Care to comment on this post? If so, click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Try To Imagine: NATO Unchained With Petraeus At The Helm And Nukes In The Quiver

A multinational team of elderly hijackers is trying to cut NATO loose from its few lawful restraints. If they succeed, NATO would no longer need the consent of its constituent nations and/or the UN before it attacked defenseless countries at the direction of the USA. And furthermore, it would feel comfortable not only threatening to use nuclear weapons in a first-strike role, but actually using them. This is utter madness, of course, and therefore entirely to be expected.

Chris Floyd explains it in a masterful post: "The New New World Order: A First-Strike NATO Über Alles", which you should read in full -- soon.

Coincidentally -- or not! -- there appears in the New York Times a piece by Michael Gordon and Eric Schmitt announcing that

The Pentagon is considering Gen. David H. Petraeus for the top NATO command later this year

Gordon and Schmitt explain that this move

would give the general, the top American commander in Iraq, a high-level post during the next administration

but they say the matter

has raised concerns about the practice of rotating war commanders.

I should say so. Plenty of questions here, too.

Why? It's a reward.

A senior Pentagon official said that it was weighing “a next assignment for Petraeus” and that the NATO post was a possibility. “He deserves one and that has also always been a highly prestigious position,” the official said.

How? Congressional approval.

In one approach under discussion, General Petraeus would be nominated and confirmed for the NATO post before the end of September, when Congress is expected to break for the presidential election.

When? Before January of 2009.

He might stay in Iraq for some time after that before moving to the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels, but would take his post before a new president takes office.

What are these people thinking?

A NATO post would give him additional command experience in an important but less politically contentious region, potentially positioning him as a strong candidate in a few years to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, several military officials said. They and some others who discussed the potential appointment declined to be identified because they were speaking about an internal personnel matter.

So why are they talking? Just passing the time of day with a few ace reporters?

No, really. What's up?

General Petraeus’s last post in Europe was as a senior officer for the NATO force in Bosnia, where he served a tour in 2001 and 2002. “He did a great job for me as a one-star in Bosnia,” said Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, who served as NATO commander at the time and has since retired. “He would have the credibility to keep Afghanistan focused for NATO.”

I never know what to make of Michael Gordon but I get the impression that whenever anybody in the Pentagon needs to leak some goodies, there's a short list of reporters he might call, and our man at the NYT is on that list.

So this story is probably a trial balloon, but the idea is actually quite perfect, when you think about it. Petraeus gets a reward for the alleged success of the so-called surge, NATO gets Petraeus to put Afghanistan back on the map of GWOT, Petraeus gets additional "command experience" in a leading role in a war designed to last forever, after which he can become chairman of the Joint Chiefs, it puts a pro-Bush general in charge of NATO just in case 2009 brings a new President with new views ... and ... and ... and ... if it's not clear yet, the entire mode of thought expressed here confirms that NATO really is a branch of the Pentagon.

Put this together with what Chris Floyd has written (which is by far the larger story, by the way), and you get a very scary picture: nuclear NATO as a first-strike weapon in the American "quiver of escalation", led by a man who thinks nothing of walling in urban residents behind concrete barriers and bombing their homes in the middle of the night, then calling it "progress" and "democracy".

If anyone could say with a straight face, "We had to nuke the Middle East in order to save it," Petraeus is your man.

Now try to imagine this man leading a nuclear-armed rogue army called "NATO".

Don't take my word for it; read Chris:

The Lords of the West have called upon their elder chieftains of war to chart a course that will preserve their power and preeminence in the face of an ever-more uncertain future. The answer? A meaner, leaner NATO, openly committed to a nuclear first-strike strategy and stripped of all the "consensus" garbage that has sometimes hampered the organization's American bosses.

[and more...]

Americans Pay Compensation For Killing Innocent Afghanis; Afghani Parliament Wants Foreign Troops Out!

On March 4, after a suicide bomber in Afghanistan injured one Marine, other Marine Special Operations forces opened fire on unarmed civilians.

We have discussed this event several occasions, and we have also noted with extreme disgust so-called dissident writers attempting to absolve the Marines of responsibility.

But not even the Pentagon will go that far, as David Cloud of the New York Times reports.

U.S. Pays and Apologizes to Kin of Afghans Killed by Marines

An Army commander apologized and paid compensation on Tuesday to families of Afghan civilians killed by marines after a suicide attack in March, in the first formal acknowledgment by the American authorities that the killings were unjustified.

Col. John Nicholson, an Army brigade commander in eastern Afghanistan, met Tuesday with the families of the 19 Afghans killed and 50 wounded when a Marine Special Operations unit opened fire on a crowded stretch of road near Jalalabad after a suicide bomber in a vehicle rammed their convoy.

“I stand before you today, deeply, deeply ashamed and terribly sorry that Americans have killed and wounded innocent Afghan people,” Colonel Nicholson said, recounting to reporters the words he had used in the meetings. In a videoconference to reporters at the Pentagon, he added, “We made official apologies on the part of the U.S. government” and paid $2,000 for each death.

Nonetheless, the hypocrisy continues, with American officers trying to pretend that unarmed innocent civilian noncombatants matter to them:

The incident is already the subject of a criminal investigation by the Pentagon. But the decision to issue a public apology now reflects the military’s growing concern that recent civilian casualties have led to widespread ill will among Afghans and could jeopardize military operations.

“Any time we’re responsible for the loss of innocent life, we understand that that hurts our ability to accomplish the mission,” Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said Tuesday.

The American military considers offering payments to relatives of victims vital in allaying anger among civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the military regularly makes payments when it kills noncombatants.

Such payments are sometimes accompanied by statements saying that the military is not acknowledging that its soldiers acted improperly. But in this case, Colonel Nicholson went further than usual in acknowledging that the civilians were “innocent Afghans.”

“This is a terrible, terrible mistake, and my nation grieves with you for your loss and suffering,” he said in his statement to the families. “We humbly and respectfully ask for your forgiveness.”

Aside from the fact that there is nothing humble or respectful about the American military being in Afghanistan in the first place, it is quite clear that our nation does not grieve for the loss and suffering of anyone, anywhere in the world.

If anyone wanted more evidence, they only had to wait another day, until Carlotta Gall filed yet another story about yet another "terrible, terrible mistake".

Afghans Say U.S. Airstrikes Killed 21 Civilians

Afghan officials said Wednesday that airstrikes called in by American Special Forces against Taliban fighters in Helmand Province had killed 21 civilians, the latest in a series of claims of noncombatant casualties that have strained relations with the Afghan government.

American military officials said they could not confirm that civilians had died in the fighting, a 16-hour battle that took place Tuesday at a village called Sarban Qala, near Sangin in Helmand Province.

But the governor of Helmand and the local administrator said civilians were killed, among them women and children, when their houses were bombed. “Twenty-one civilians were killed due to aerial bombardment,” said Ezatullah, the district chief of Sangin, who uses only one name, in a telephone interview.
...

This month, Afghan officials have said, dozens of civilians were killed after a joint American and Afghan Army patrol was ambushed near Shindand, in Herat Province, and called in airstrikes.

In a sign of the growing anger with the presence of foreign troops, the upper house of the Afghan Parliament passed a motion on Wednesday calling for a military cease-fire and negotiations with the Taliban. The resolution, which is not expected to be approved, also calls for a date to be set for the withdrawal of foreign troops.

Let's slow down and take all this in: The Afghan Parliament wants a cease-fire, negotiations with the Taliban and the withdrawal of foreign troops.

But it isn't going to make any difference, because Guess What?

We don't care what the Afghan Parliament wants. And neither does NATO.

Nicholas Lunt, a NATO spokesman in Afghanistan, told The Associated Press that it was “quite clear” that the action by the Afghan Parliament was a statement about how military operations are carried out.

But it wasn't. It was a statement about whether military operations should be carried out!

He said NATO took the issue “very, very seriously.”

But at the same time he made it very clear that this is not true.

“I do not consider this at the moment a decisive vote on our status here, and I think it would be wrong to interpret it that way,” he said. “But I think it is definitely a warning shot across NATO’s bows to take notice of the concerns.”

NATO has overall command of the international military effort in Afghanistan, including most of the American forces. But all three of the recent episodes involving allegations of civilian casualties have involved American Special Forces units that operate outside the NATO umbrella.

So here are "spoils" from the "war" on "terror": allegations of civilian casualties ... caused by American Special Forces ... operating outside the NATO umbrella ... turning civilians into puffs of dust ... and enjoying it!

May God have Mercy upon our Souls!

~~~

[related posts]

March 6:
No Photos, Please: Marines Gun Down Civilians In Afghanistan

March 11:
How The US Military Protects The American Public From Seeing Details That Are Not As They Originally Were, And Brings Freedom To Afghanistan

April 16:
Big Surprise: US Troops Used 'Excessive Force' In Firing On Unarmed Civilians In Afghanistan ...

May 5:
Mercy And Dignity For Unarmed Noncombatants? You Must Be Joking!

May 7
Liberation Of Afghanistan Continues Apace: Independent Media Are Next

Surprise! Shrub Wants More Foreign Troops In Afghanistan

Surprise? It's not as if we didn't know it was coming. What's surprising is the bluntness of the headlines.

The Belfast Telegraph let its readers draw the conclusion themselves:

Bush: NATO nations 'obliged' to help in Afghanistan

Readers of Canada dot Com got things spelled out for them a bit more clearly:

Bush chides allies for not doing enough in Afghanistan: Canadian role ignored

The Toronto Star hit a similar note but held it longer:

Pull your weight, Bush urges Afghan allies: Bulgaria, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Iceland praised for contribution, but Canada ignored

Perhaps the bluntest headline of all came from The Guardian, and ABC, and CBS, who are all saying:

Bush Tells NATO to Reinforce Afghanistan

~~~

According to CBC, the president's "Afghani Surge" is part of a Five-Point Plan which we are supposed to think of as a "Strategy for Success". In addition to sending more troops, Bush's plan includes the following four [quite hilarious] points:

* Working with allies to strengthen the NATO force in Afghanistan and convincing NATO allies to lift troop restrictions to "make sure that we fill security gaps."

* Pouring more resources into infrastructure development, with the goal of building an additional 1,000 roads before 2008 in order to open up commerce and trade routes.

* A crackdown on Afghanistan's poppy and opium cultivation — a major source of funding for Taliban weaponry. Mobile poppy eradication units can destroy the crops, then offer farmers seeds and other assistance to help them pursue an alternative livelihood, Bush said. The U.S. will also launch a task force to fight public corruption and train more Afghan judges and lawyers to establish the rule of law.

* Helping Pakistan to defend its porous border from unwanted entry by Taliban insurgents seeking sanctuary by funding more than 100 border landing posts and offering better surveillance equipment to border guards.

~~~

Last week, when the details of this speech were anonymously leaked, your cold typist couldn't resist a jab about what the Shrub considers "diplomacy". Tim Harper's article in the Toronto Star provides a chilling illustration:

George W. Bush today appealed to NATO allies to send more troops to Afghanistan and remove restrictions on those already fighting there – but never mentioned the Canadian contribution as he heaped praise on the alliance.

In telling the world that the Afghanis have "a lot of friends" in the world, Bush lauded contributions made by such players as Bulgaria, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Iceland and Norway and he mentioned the efforts of the British who are engaged in the most intense fighting in south along with Canadians.

But the omission of Ottawa was notable, particularly since the Harper government has banked on the 2,500 Canadian soldiers fighting in Afghanistan to help raise Canada’s profile as a partner in the war on terror here.

A White House spokesperson did not immediately return a call seeking comment on the Bush speech.

You can tell a lot about a person -- whether an ordinary citizen or the the so-called president of a formerly great nation -- by the way he treats his neighbors.

Of course in this case we learned all we need to know a long time ago.

From US To 'Allies' Re Afghanistan: Uncle Sam Wants You!!

The United States and its allies must launch their own offensive this spring against the Taliban in Afghanistan, a senior defense official said Thursday, calling this a pivotal time in the nearly five-year-old war there.

Huh? Nearly? It started in October of 2001. How long ago was that? How hard is it to check such a fact? Apparently it's way beyond Lolita C. Baldor, who writes for the AP. Her report, which reached me via Yahoo, goes on to say:

Previewing the message Defense Secretary Robert Gates will deliver to
NATO allies at a meeting here later Thursday and Friday, the official said now is the time to finally defeat the Taliban, who harbored planners of the September 11, 2001, attacks that prompted the U.S. global war on terror.

Presumably, Ms Balidor wishes us to believe that the Taliban harbored the people who planned the wargames that stripped the air defense from the Northeastern US on Septetmber 11, 2001.

No doubt it was Afghani cave-dwellers who planted -- and detonated -- the explosives that turned three WTC buildings to powder.

They probably also harbored the man who broke into an Army weapons lab and picked up some anthrax, so it could be sent to any politicians and media figures who didn't hop aboard the so-called "global war on terror" immediately.

But considering that nobody has ever been tried -- let alone convicted -- of planning the September 11 attacks, it would seem prudent to insert the word "alleged" somewhere in the paragraph I've quoted. But then again -- who knows? -- this may be even more difficult than 2007 minus 2001.

"We think the upcoming spring in Afghanistan is a pivotal moment in the conflict, and we're encouraging the allies to do as much as they can as soon as they can," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the planned discussions had not yet been presented to allies. "The offensive should be our offensive. That's the offensive we've been communicating to the allies."

The defense official said there currently are no plans to further increase the U.S. troop commitment to Afghanistan.

So here it is, plain as day: the US is anonymously leaking a message it will soon present to its so-called allies. How thrilled they will be to learn all this from the press rather than behind diplomatically closed doors!

What's the message? Even more thrilling:

Now is the time to intensify the struggle, with your troops, not ours.

Diplomacy has never been this administration's strong suit, since it requires both deception and tact.

And if you listen closely, you can hear the soud of their so-called coalition, getting smaller and smaller and smaller ...