While Coalition forces search
‘Search’ = destroy
October 12, 2007 40 comments
The US has killed 19 “terrorists”, and 15 civilians — six women and nine children — in an “operation” near Lake Thar Thar in Iraq. I now let the official CENTCOM news release take up the story:
Upon assault, Coalition forces were engaged by small arms fire from the target building. Responding in self-defense, supporting aircraft engaged the enemy threat.
It’s a strange way to put it, that the aircraft specifically responded in “self-defense”. It seems doubtful that the aircraft were at risk from small-arms fire.
After securing the area, the ground force assessed 15 terrorists, six women and nine children were killed, two suspects, one woman and three children were wounded, and one suspected terrorist was detained.
Interesting. The killed included “terrorists”, but the wounded included merely “suspects” and there was one “suspected terrorist” left alive. If the live guy was only “suspected” to be a terrorist, how is it known that the dead were definitely terrorists? Perhaps it’s just because they were killed. (From another war: “If it’s dead, it’s VC.”)
“We regret that civilians are hurt or killed while Coalition forces search to rid Iraq of terrorism,” said Maj. Brad Leighton, MNF-I spokesman.
Mmm, but they weren’t just searching, were they? In other words:
We reget that civilians are hurt or killed while we accidentally blow them up.
Boom!
Hands up if you’re not a terrorist!
*tumbleweed*
All dead confirmed as terrorists sir!
“Mmm, but they weren’t just searching, were they?”
Well, they were, until they came under attack. Unless you have other information? I think it unlikely that the US military deliberately killed these innocents as Jherad suggests (what for?). And they did not identify all the dead as terrorists, of course. Granted, it would be better to be more cautious and to describe the dead suspects as suspects. You should point this out to the authorities.
John M – I’m certainly not suggesting that the US military went out of their way to kill innocents – as you rightly say, what for?
I have no doubt that the US military came under enemy fire – the response to which was an airstrike. Blow them all up, if they’re dead, and an adult male, they’re a terrorist. Of course, only if they’re alive do you have to bother with this whole nuisance ‘suspect’ business.
Applause, Jherad, to your #1. “Better understanding through satirical theatrical reconstructions” has long been the motto of this blog, or one of them.
JohnM: my point, which I thought clear, was that it was not the mere searching that killed the civilians but the, y’know, dropping a bomb (or missile or whatever it was), which latter has been neatly elided from Major Leighton’s statement of “regret”.
If the live guy was only “suspected” to be a terrorist, how is it known that the dead were definitely terrorists?
Through the application of science:
Sir Bedevere: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
Peasant 1: Burn them.
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from witches?
Peasant 1: More witches.
Peasant 2: Wood.
Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do witches burn?
Peasant 3: …because they’re made of… wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of her.
Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
Peasant 1: Oh yeah.
Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!… It floats! Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread.
Peasant 2: Apples.
Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
Peasant 1: Cider.
Peasant 2: Gravy.
Peasant 3: Cherries.
Peasant 1: Mud.
Peasant 2: Churches.
Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A Duck.
Sir Bedevere: …Exactly. So, logically…
Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck… she’s made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore…
Peasant 2: …A witch!
Should that read: 15 terrorists, (six women and nine children) were killed?
Or is presumptive terrorist status only applied, per jherad, to adult males? If so, whose gender and responsbility categories are we dealing with here?
“JohnM: my point, which I thought clear, was that it was not the mere searching that killed the civilians but the, y’know, dropping a bomb (or missile or whatever it was)”
Your point was clear but I didn’t think it was a very good one. I think it is a perfectly normal use of language. Many or most of the civilians hurt or killed during these operations are not hurt or killed by the US military so it would actually have been more misleading if he had phrased it in the way you prefer.
“Or is presumptive terrorist status only applied, per jherad, to adult males? “
Unless he is just off the boat he is unlikely to make this mistake, I would have thought. The phrasing was as clumsy as you’d expect from a soldier but I understood that there was an implicit distinction being made between dead combatants of both or either sex (the ‘terrorists’) and the clearly non-combatant dead who comprised women and children.
It is a little confusing, yes.
‘the ground force assessed 15 terrorists, six women and nine children were killed, two suspects, one woman and three children were wounded, and one suspected terrorist was detained.’
Suggests that the fifteen terrorists were not the six women and nine children however. The gender of the terrorists was not identified, though none of the dead were labelled as adult male ‘suspects’ or civilians. You have dead women, dead children, and dead terrorists.
It may well be that all the dead adult males were proven to be, in fact, terrorists. I don’t like being led to assume that by odd language though.
Really? Are you actually claiming that “many or most” (hey, who cares?) of the civilians killed “during these operations”, by which I assume you must mean US military “search” operations in Iraq, are not in fact killed by the US military? That’s an interesting suggestion.
Or are you instead claiming that “many or most” (hey, who cares?) of the civilians killed in Iraq in general since the war began have not been killed by the US military? In which case I think you’d be better off sticking with “many”.
WIIIAI: thank you for that wonderful piece of Monty.
Richard: interesting point. The CENTCOM release first states 19 “terrorists” killed, including four in the previous airstrike, so I guess the 15 “terrorists” killed in the second airstrike are not the same as the 15 civilians. But we do not seem to be told explicitly whether the “terrorists” were all male.
Jherad says:
Quite. If so, it would be nice to know by what criteria they were determined to be “terrorists”. Perhaps they all wore evil lapel badges. Or perhaps (and maybe this is more likely), anyone who opens fire on an advancing force of US troops in Iraq is automatically a “terrorist”.
“Really? Are you actually claiming that “many” or “most” (hey, who cares?) of the civilians killed “during these operations””
Yes I am. Many innocents certainly are killed by ‘resisting’ ‘insurgents’ during US search opertions. That’s not controversial, surely? Did you imagine the ‘insurgents’ were more fastidious?
“Or perhaps (and maybe this is more likely), anyone who opens fire on an advancing force of US troops in Iraq is automatically a “terrorist”. “
Since the US troops are operating with a UN mandate and at the behest of the democratically elected Iraqi government, surely people who open fire on them are terrorists pretty much by definition. I suppose there may be accidents of one kind or another, but typically the shooters are going to be of the terrorists variety, aren’t they?
I don’t think even the US military denied that they killed the civilians this time, John.
‘Coalition forces conducted a coordinated operation […] killing an estimated 19 terrorists and 15 civilians, wounding six and detaining one suspect.’
– seems to speak for itself. I’m quite sure that like the military, insurgents DO kill civilians, but we weren’t talking about protracted room clearance. Insurgents opened (or returned) fire, and the house got flattened. What would be the point?
#13: Short answer: “no”. Long answer: chapters 6 and 8 of Unspeak.
The unclear wording may or may not be intentional – who knows? Lack of clarity, mis-speaking, and the refusal to deal in hard facts characterise the administration and make any sort of accounting impossible. I don’t think that’s accidental – in some ways it’s quite an ingenious way of sidestepping a political process built on debate. I recall that as a matter of policy “we don’t do body-counts,” so what’s left is little tidbits like this, an interchangeable “many or most,” free-floating accusations and floods of equally uninformative optimistic and pessimistic op-eds. I think we’ve seen that sort of approach to public information before. What I find surprising is that, in this case, the administration seems to think it’s sufficient for its own use, too: it genuinely does not appear better informed than the rest of us.
“I don’t think even the US military denied that they killed the civilians this time, John.”
No, they clearly accept responsibility this time, I was ust taking issue with theissue taken over the manner in which they went avbout it. if you see what I mean. The military spokesman expressed regret for civilain casualties incurrede during US search operations. I think it was a reasonable way to express regret (although inelegantly phrased (having worked with soldiers I can tell you that they tend to be weak linguists))and not misleading at all, even though the casualties are literally caused by armaments (generally) and not ‘searching’ in the abstract (does anybody actually use English like that?).
But, John, I didn’t actually claim it was “misleading”, in the sense that anyone was actually likely to be misled by it.
Maj. Brad Leighton seems to.
Oh I dunno, Eisenhower and de Gaulle were pretty good.
Getting back to the Major’s quote then, it is the second segment that most annoys me – “These terrorists chose to deliberately place innocent Iraqi women and children in danger by their actions and presence.”. This type of statement is *always* wheeled out when explaining civilian casualties in military vs insurgent combat (particularly in Israel v Lebanon hostilities).
It’s as if the US military had mailed their intended targets a week in advance, who had, like cowards, hidden with their families when the troops rolled in at their appointed time to come shoot them. I’ll make no judgement about the insurgents – I don’t know them. But in a ‘friendly’ country, you could replace the term ‘insurgents’ with ‘resistance’, and it would not be odd that they’d be found with their families.
I’ll preempt a possible ‘the insurgents shot first’ with a ‘maybe’:
— ‘Upon assault, Coalition forces were engaged by small arms fire […]’
Yes, blaming “these terrorists” for placing women and children in harm’s way is a handy escape route from awkward questions. (Presumably he would prefer it if they hadn’t gotten married or had children, but who knew that the Coalition was going to invade?) However it’s a very short step from that position to blaming the women and children for sheltering “these terrorists” in the first place, is it not?
…and if you shelter a terrorist then you’re a terrorist too? That sounds strangely familiar.
“Since the US troops are operating with a UN mandate and at the behest of the democratically elected Iraqi government, surely people who open fire on them are terrorists pretty much by definition.”
Er… hold it right there, John.
It is obvious that US military policy in Iraq is decided by the US and is determined by US commanders and politicians – and fatuous to suggest that they “operate at the behest” of the Iraqi government in any meaningful sense, (in a country where the occupation is loathed by the majorityof the population.
Nobody “democratically elected” the Iraqi government – the parties received votes in an election and then jockeyed for positions of state while the US government exercises an almighty veto – not actually the same thing as representative government and Iraqis have noticed the difference. The US government has sinceremoved Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari from power and may yet remove forcibly Nouri al-Maliki from power. US policy planners are currently consdering what they cheerfully call “the Musharaff option”. Which ranks up there with the El Salavdor Option among democratic niceities in a death-squad state.
To describe this state of affairs as “a democratically elected” government is to unspeak the reality of how Iraq’s government is put together. The opinion of the majority of Iraqis about Coalition forces – that it can be legitimate to fight and kill them – is not a secret, by the way.
And just as egregrious:
“surely people who open fire on them are terrorists pretty much by definition”
The definition of a terrorist is actually quite a tricky thing, but this surely is not it.
We do not necessarily call people who shoot at the police or army terrorists. They may be criminals, they may be gun-owners responding to a raid on their home in confusion, panic, revenge or spite.
As for the after-the-fact UN mandate that the Bush administration and Blair government stitched up in the Security Council – Iraqis had no input in that. And I wonder what would happen if that mandate was ever legally challenged in the International Court of Justice or the World Court. The League of Nations used to recognise mandates too, of course – the meagre colonial spoils of the victors of the First World War.
This kind of euphemistic rhetoric might win applause at other blogs, but this one is called Unspeak for a reason. Using words to create a fantasy Iraq is not the idea.
“Many or most of the civilians hurt or killed during these operations are not hurt or killed by the US military”
Many or most!
To be fair, that’s not what he said.
But I bet it was what he was thinking.
Back to teh Unspeak. Did anybody else notice this part:
“Upon assault, Coalition forces were engaged by small arms fire from the target building. Responding in self-defense, supporting aircraft engaged the enemy threat.”
Can somebody please tell them that if you attack a group of people and they fight back, you can’t claim to be acting in self-defense?
Alex, many thanks for stepping into the breach, so to speak.
Well, it’s some people’s idea. ;)
Merkur,
Good point! You can claim that it’s a righteous attack, that the bastards were asking for it etc, but you can’t really cry self-defence.
Yes, of course a terrorist is anyone who shoots at an unwelcome occupying or invading force, or even shoots their mouth off at them, or – lets be a little more relaxed about this – anyone who disagrees with Bush administration policy.
It’s a startlingly difficult job the US has ahead of it, because the world is full of these people – Americans, British, Australians, Europeans, most of South America, all of Arabia and probably all or most of Asia – basically the rest of the world and most of its own people. The Americans themselves were terrorists in your definition when they fought the British during the war of Independence.
I’m afraid there’s nothing else for it, and it is becoming clear that this is the American military’s policy now: kill all the innocent civilians! When that is accomplished the terrorists will have no-one to terrorise. End of Global War on Terror. QED.
You see the US forces coming at you for a search, and you start shooting at them with kids next to you.
What do you think will happen ?
What would you do if you were one of the soldier being shot at ?
And what you people find important is what some press statement says ?
The US soldiers are not all evil, and the terrorists/insurgents whatever you want to call them are certainly not all angels http://www.michaelyon-online.com/
Or an assault, but hey, if you are being assaulted you should know better than to fire back — which only terrorists do, as Graham has proven.
It appears to depend on what nationality of soldier I am. If I am a US soldier, it seems that I would call in an airstrike. However, this kind of behaviour in Afghanistan has been pissing off the British forces because – and who would have guessed it? – it tends to alienate the locals.
If I ever suggested either thing, please feel free to smear faeces all over this website.
The CENTCOM story is amazing, but the fact that a number of ostensibly neutral individuals would step forward to defend this truly audacious spin is much more astonishing, I must say. Also I’m surprised at my ability to still be amazed by this…
“The US soldiers are not all evil, and the terrorists/insurgents whatever you want to call them are certainly not all angels”
We really are going back to basics now, aren’t we?
Ooh, as a pinkie-lib-lefty it comes as SUCH a surprise to learn that guerrilla armies and militias are exclusively made up of benign spiritual beings with wings and glowing light. Who knew? Thanks!
But, Pascal, Wikipedia is our friend:
“The informal fallacy of false dilemma—also known as false choice, false dichotomy, falsified dilemma, fallacy of the excluded middle, black and white thinking, false correlative, either/or fallacy, and bifurcation—involves a situation in which two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there exist one or more other options which have not been considered.”
And a note about your questions… None of them give an indication that you have ever considered a different perspective.
You see the US forces coming at you for a search, and you start shooting at them with kids next to you. What do you think will happen?
How about – ‘what will happen if you send occupying soldiers into populated areas where the inhabitants reject your right to rule their country in any way?’
Answer: See ‘Iraq’ Also, Vietnam, Chechnya, Algeria, Ireland, Angola, American colonies 1775 etc.
What would you do if you were one of the soldier being shot at?
What Steven said. Also, how about ‘What would you do if the soldier shot at you?’ Do you appreciate that US soldiers are not the only people who face dilemmas in Iraq? And that the dilemma is a by-product of the fact that they are trying to act as the government of someone else’s country?
In the USA, many on the right would scream to Heaven for vengeance if federal agents turned up at their house to enforce tighter gun ownership laws. But for some reason they expect Iraqis to be OK with armed patrols of a foreign army kicking their doors down. Interesting.
“Also I’m surprised at my ability to still be amazed by this…” (Abb1)
I guess the day will come when we go, ‘I am no longer surprised by this’. That will be one lousy day.
No. What “we people” find important is what the press statement reveals about the attitudes of the institution that wrote it.
That’s the whole point of this blog, and the lovely book which Steven wrote, which I would recommend to you in an instant.
And while I think that Michael Yon does some good reporting from Iraq, the first line on his website is quite revealing in itself:
Those “frontlines”, of course, are the towns and villages of Iraq – you know, where Iraqis actually live. And while I also appreciate Yon’s commitment – and I really do mean that without sarcasm – those Iraqis also risk combat injury, sand and dust storms and jarring explosions. I imagine that they find the cost crushing as well.
Unlike Yon (or the soldiers he reports on), of course, they’re not being paid to be there.
Not being paid to be there? Come, now: they’re getting a shiny new democracy that’s going to be an exemplary beacon fo the whole region! In years to come, their children will ask “what did you do when democracy came knocking , daddy?” and they’ll be able to say “I hid, stark naked, in the deepest bunker I could find until the soldiers had passed by, and eventually I managed to slip out of the country, and that’s why you’re alive today to ask me this question.”
I got a little carried away with my sarcasm and so forgot to include a crucial ‘not’ in the middle of the angel section.
As ever, hubris is followed by grammatical nemesis.
[…] UAN Command Press Release, 2022: “After the targeted and precision attack, and the area had been secured, the UAN’s automated ground force assessed that 15 drug gangsters, six women and nine children were killed. Two suspected criminals, one woman and three children were wounded, and one suspected criminal was detained.” “We think urban is the future,” says James Lasswell, a retired colonel who now heads the Office of Science and Technology at the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory. “Everything worth fighting for is in the urban environment.” And Wayne Michael Hall, a retired Army brigadier general and the senior intelligence advisor in Schattle’s operation, has a similar assessment, “We will be fighting in urban terrain for the next hundred years.” … […]
A young photojournalist, Ashley Gilbertson, has also spent a lot of time right in the frontline in Iraq. I mean, really frontline. His experience resulted in PTSD which required the services of three psychiatrists when he got out. He was lucky. He could get out and be treated. The Iraqis get to stay. It’s no wonder they could feel a little rattled when they see coalition soldiers approaching for any reason. You can see a stark but gripping interview with Ashley via 3QuarksDaily.
*pokes Steven*
Do another post!
*Grimaces in pain*
Ouch!
Mmmkay, maybe soonish, actual paid work permitting. ;)
In the mean time there is this…
When you do most things, it is possible to evaluate your success. In Iraq certainly the Baathist government fell quickly.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
I didn’t post the sign.
Most discussions about Iraq fail to mention two basic points : (1)the cost to Iraqis
(2) the bases whose construction was supposedly blocked by the conditions attached to budget authorization.
Out of a nation of 29 million at the time of an occupation launched without known preparation,
http://www.justforeignpolicy.o.....eaths.html
That should be considered well beyond an appalling unacceptable cost. The UN estimates of Iraqis displaced from their homes is 4 million : continuing homeless 2 million.
Troops back from Iraq refer to ‘the toilet’.Conditions ripe for disease are attributed to unavaoidable sabotage. Think about it : fresh water fouled, toilets unavailable, food, heat and shelter at a premium.
Those are the basic necessities of life.Accidental ? The programs for rebuilding were trash : the contracts unsupervised. And then there’s this
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0808-07.htm
Well, this is running on for a comment. I’ve posted lots more Points to Ponder on my Links page. But, for anyone who wants to contend that these things were unforeseeable complications – you do remember 16 American intelligence agencies reported invasion of Iraq would increase terrorism in the NIE submitted before the act I trust – explain the likes of this
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/N...../index.htm
Do I think the U.S. should continue in Iraq ?
Shouldn’t I judge by past performance ?