The Fog of War

The New York Times reports that

Up to 28 U.S. soldiers face possible criminal charges in connection with the deaths of two prisoners at an American-run prison in Afghanistan two years ago...

Unfortunately, the 3,000 or so who died in the US bombing campaign don't merit so much as an official apology, becoming simply "collateral damage." And then there are the allegations that Northern Alliance forces allowed Taliban POWs to suffocate to death inside semi trailers.

Of course, plenty of folks right here in the US would likely gloat about the deaths of Taliban prisoners, whether or not they understand the principles behind the Geneva Conventions. But I bring all this up to note the problem with war, generally speaking--it carries within it an almost innate expectation that ugly things will occur. In other words, whether or not we are party to, and elect to abide by, such things as the Geneva Convention, the odds are that something will happen in the course of hostilities that, like it or not, could be considered an atrocity.

For instance, the Swift Boat Moron in chief, one John O'Neill, still apparently refuses to admit that a "free fire zone" is a direct violation of the Convention (General Provisions, Article 3, Section 1), as he takes the position that NO atrocities were committed by the United States during the Vietnam War. Mr. O'Neill is simply wrong. Atrocities were committed in Vietnam, they were and are being committed in Iraq, they happened in Panama, in Korea, during World War II (on ALL sides), indeed, there ISN'T a conflict where NO atrocities happened--war itself implies a certain tolerance for what we generally consider unacceptable behavior, yet even by relaxed standards, actions occur that are beyond the pale.

This is why war must always be the final, last resort--an action to be taken ONLY when all other means of resolving conflict have proven futile. Bush's actions in Iraq don't even come close to meeting that criteria, and even the Afghanistan conflict seems to have occurred with haste to the extent that thousands died for no reason other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were victims of "the fog of war."

Here these victims become little more than statistics. In their hometowns, family members grieve, or vow revenge, or engage in all the activities you could consider if you've lost a loved one. Unfortunately, in the developed world, mention of such tragedy is usually dismissed with a wave of the hand and sterile terminology--and, often enough, disdain. We somehow consider ourselves less savage--even as we put out of our minds the images of suffering that accompany ALL wars. Some actually revel in the destruction, choosing to believe myth before truth--the myth that we will somehow bestow all the trappings of civilization upon those we bomb into oblivion.

War can bring out the worst in people. It can even affect those of us who aren't in the combat zone. I believe this was one reason why the Founding Fathers bestowed war making powers solely on the most unweildy body of the Federal government, the Congress. We should NEVER take lightly the decision to go to war--even when it turns out that the war was "easy," as in, say, the first Gulf War. It was "easy" for most US citizens, although no one seems to be all that concerned these days with the soldiers who were killed (likewise, the few dozen killed in Panama don't even register as a blip on the radar). It was NOT all that easy for the Iraqis, who still suffer the effects of that war, the Iran war, AND the present war (not to mention the sanctions). Consider: if the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq can generate actions like our soldiers killing or torturing prisoners in custody, imagine how the Afghans and Iraqis might react.

I just sincerely hope they don't plan on traveling here to exact their revenge.