Community | April 03, 2010 | 13 comments

Shocking Admission on Killing Civilians by Top US General Almost Completely Ignored by Corporate Media | | AlterNet

Image
Monkey_Films
"We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat," says Afghan commander McChrystal.

March 31, 2010 |

"We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat," says top American commander.

President Obama's sneak visit to Afghanistan this weekend, although shrouded in secrecy, still received lots of prime press coverage.

At the same time, an astonishing open admission of possible US war crimes by Obama's man on the ground in Kabul, senior American and NATO commander in Afghanistan General Stanley A. McChrystal, was reported by Richard A. Oppel Jr. in the New York Times... and then promptly ignored by the rest of the mainstream media.

"We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat," McChrystal said during a recent video-conference to answer questions from troops in the field about civilian casualties.

According to the military's own figures, American and NATO troops firing from passing convoys and military checkpoints have killed 30 Afghans and wounded 80 others since last summer, but as McChrystal noted, none of the victims proved to be a danger to the troops.

Despite new rules put in place by McChrystal, aimed at reducing the killing of innocents, such shootings have not dropped off. Although fewer in number than deaths from air strikes or Special Forces operations, their continuance, as the Times noted, "has led to growing resentment among Afghans fearful of Western troops and angry at what they see as the impunity with which the troops operate -- a friction that has turned villages firmly against the occupation."

These persistent "escalation of force" episodes have "emerged as a major frustration for military commanders who believe that civilian casualties deeply undermine the American and NATO campaign in Afghanistan."

A case in point: the murder of Mohammed Yonus, a 36-year-old imam killed two months ago while commuting to a madrasa where he taught 150 students. As Oppel noted, "a military convoy raked his car with bullets, ripping open his chest as his two sons sat in the car. The shooting inflamed residents and turned his neighborhood against the occupation, elders there say."

Although General McChrystal has reduced the number of civilians killed overall — deaths from aerial attacks, for example, fell by more than a third last year — shootings from convoys and checkpoints involving American, NATO and Afghan forces continue to plague the coalition. Shooting deaths caused by convoys guarded by private security contractors - not part of the calculation — make the total number of "escalation of force deaths" far higher than just those decried by McChrystal.

As noted by blogger Allison Kilkenny - one media observer who wrote about McChystal's statement — what the general admitted to may be a war crime:

“Military brass and the warmongering elite usually skirt war crimes accusations by saying the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations aren't conventional warfare. That is to say, the US is not at war with an official army, so anyone picked up on the battlefield (which is the entire world in the War on Terror) isn't a POW. They're an enemy combatant who does not have access to the protections afforded to enemy soldiers under the Geneva Convention.

This is a tricky way to circumvent accountability, but even this clever interpretation of international law can't cover the stink of McChrystal's admission. The US is occupying Afghanistan, and while there, they are killing innocent civilians, says the highest ranking military official in the country.

So, to recap: the President of the United States visits Afghanistan to deliver personally "pointed criticism to President Hamid Karzai in a face-to-face meeting," after flying in "for an unannounced visit that reflected growing vexation with Mr. Karzai as America's military commitment to defeat the Taliban insurgency has deepened."

The president's visit comes only days after his highest ranking military official confirms in the “Paper of Record” that his military forces have killed dozens of people, none of whom posed a threat -- and other media doesn't see fit even to mention that fact?
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   WTF,   Random,   17 more
  2. tags:
    War Afghanistan Military Murder 7 more
  3.     
    |

13 comments // Shocking Admission on Killing Civilians by Top US General Almost Completely Ignored by Corporate Media | | AlterNet

  • Gravity_Man
    • 0
      Gravity_Man  
    • Wait. I thought Obama was Weak on the military. You mean ta say that was all sum kinda ACT. Naw, couldn't be. No Black or White is that smart. Maybe he's a mutant endowed with superior brainpower. He sure has made fools of an entire nation of voters. Yep, just like Bush, except Bush carried a Bible and Obama carried a Green card.

      Whatever it takes to get in the girl's pants.

    • 2 years ago
  • kulahptik
    • 0
      kulahptik  
    • hmmm, why would the media cover something like that up? why would the not mention the beheadings that occured on American soil within the last 3-5 years? pesky media.

    • 2 years ago
  • Gravity_Man
  • crispyfritters
  • bking74
  • bking74
    • +1
      bking74  
    • This is not a shocking admission to anyone who has even a passing knowledge of the evils of armed conflict. The U.S Military's Rules of Engagement have five different levels and are adapted to fit the current scenario. I have to be extremely careful on how I phrase this. In a Light Infantry Division or a Light Calvary Unit like my own innocent civilians have lost their lives sometimes because of a tactic error, inaccurate intelligence or sadly miscommunication. I can assure you, honestly and first hand that I never witnessed a single soldier celebrate the death of a civilian no matter if it was justified or not. While Saladin is correct in that in modern warfare civilian infrastructures are considered military targets this is generally during the initial invasion. It was a military tactic perfected in the modern age by General Sherman and General Grant. Correct and Verified Target Acquisition is one of the most important duties of any recon unit. Most civilian deaths are truly accidents, this doesn't make them any less horrendous just a fact of war. I also disagree that the media ignored civilian targets destroyed by misdirected predator drones and missile attacks. General David Petraeus has been extremely open concerning civilian deaths caused accidently by the U.S Military, honestly admitting fault when it was due.

    • 2 years ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • What Americans need to take away from this is that this is what war is LIKE. This is not an isolated incident, this is not an American phenomena.

      In modern war, there is NO DISTINCTION between civilians and soldiers. When you drop bombs on a city, you are not targeting military targets. You're attacking everyone, and that's done -intentionally-.

      Civilians are targets in modern war, they have been since the American Civil War.

    • 2 years ago
  • Walks_in_Storms
  • Gravity_Man
    • +1
      Gravity_Man  
    • Walks_in_Storms:

      In the time it took to type your post another CEO somewhere was making final plans to move his business out of California and, more than likely not back toward us. The US may soon not have any big industry left.

      I don't foresee a national uprising of people drawing unemployment checks anytime soon. It takes a proud people to work up an uprising. Proud has left the building. Proud has all been shipped out overseas.

    • 2 years ago
  • treewolf39
    • 0
      treewolf39  
    • The media is the problem. Anyone who gets their news from the television is under informed. If they watch Fox then the news is from another dimension.

    • 2 years ago
  • Orkhaic
    • +3
      Orkhaic  
    • If all the mainstream media networks broadcast information and news that was 100% truthful and real, the world would be a better place as more would be educated and we could progress in a linear confident direction to improvement rather than being filled with entertainment, gossip and distractions and misleading manipulated content that keeps us in the comfort zone.

    • 2 years ago
more from Community:

top videos