The hot Afghan sun beats down on the young Marine patrolling near a desolate village in Helmand province. Fatigue had set in weeks ago and he is on autopilot, just putting one foot in front of the other. His 35-pound body armor encases him in an airless cocoon of sweat and heat -- slowly sucking out every ounce of energy he still has in him. The armor prevents bullets from ripping into his chest cavity, but also prevents airflow thereby increasing the flow of sweat, staining his armor and uniform with white stripes of salt. Sweat, it seemed, was his friend now for it was always with him. On his head rests a Kevlar helmet, weighing five pounds or so, acting as a heat vacuum for he swore it actually sucks the heat into his head. The sweat drips into his eyes, causing a slight sting. He immediately wipes it away for clear vision is the most important thing in the world right now. It is more important that his armor or his weapon. It’s his eyes that give him the best chance of staying alive. Body armor and a weapon cannot see the tale-tale signs of an IED or combine with his sixth-sense to put him on high alert or see the insurgent quickly dart from a house.
Even when he stops, the eyes constantly move. He adjusts his 50-pound pack that seems much heavier in the Helmand sun. As he does so, the hair on the back of his neck stands on end. Something isn’t right, but he can’t place it. His eyes dart back and forth, up and down frantically, trying to determine the threat. Then he sees it, a thin metal tube just barely sticking from behind a wall. It moves ever so slightly. He immediately recognizes it as the barrel of an AK-47 and as he turns to sound the alarm, shots ring out. It is the unmistakable sound of multiple AK-47s. He and his patrol have run smack into an insurgent ambush. Instinctively, he drops into the dirt, returning fire and looking for cover. A nearby tree becomes a lifesaver as it absorbs several shots aimed directly at him. He and his fellow Marines lay down a base of fire and begin maneuvering toward the insurgents (its what Marines do). The insurgents put up a fierce fight but ultimately begin a tactical withdrawal toward a house. As they do so, a Marine is fatally shot.
Once consolidated in the housing compound, insurgent small arms fire increases dramatically. Breaching the walled compound to get at the insurgents would be foolish for the lightly armed Marine patrol. The defensive position the insurgents have is formidable and would result in many more casualties from the patrol and attacking it in these circumstances simply does make sound military sense. Airpower is called in. As aircraft arrives on scene, the power engines echo across the landscape. There is no mistaking the fact that pinpoint firepower has arrived. The insurgents have seen and heard it before and they know that it has come for them. The jet makes a pass over the housing compound behind which the insurgents hide, tilting his plane slightly so that he can see what is below him. As he does, his ordnance is there for all to see. Death hangs on the wings, but the insurgents continue firing at the Marines. The pilot drops his ordinance, directly hitting the house and killing all inside. As the dust settles and the firing stops, the patrol enters the compound to confirm the insurgent deaths and collect intelligence. To their horror they discover that the house that the insurgents choose to use as a defensive position had nine children and two women inside. They were also killed when the bomb hit.
Death in war is a sorrowful thing, but it is worse when a civilian dies. Civilians do not choose to be combatants and, thus, do not choose to voluntarily risk their lives in the fight. However, civilian casualties in war are as old as war itself. International law seeks to mitigate, as much as possible, death and injury to civilians by placing them off limits as targets. However, the law does permit civilian casualties. I’ll say it again: international law permits civilian casualties. The law requires that civilians not be the targets of attacks and that when civilians are known to be present in or around a target area, the attacker must weigh the military benefit against the potential for civilian harm before attacking. Thus, if the military benefit is significant enough, the attack can legally take place despite the fact that civilian casualties are likely. In the US military, lawyers are embedded throughout the command and targeting structure to mitigate civilian casualties as much as possible.
Here, however, the situation is different. In the scenario above, which seeks to reference an actual scenario that occurred on 28 May 2011 in Helmand province, the presence of civilians was unknown. In the heat of a firefight, Marines took action to eliminate the threat posed by insurgents. Those insurgents chose to set up a defensive base in a housing compound and continue pouring fire on Marines. With rounds impacting all around them, the Marines took the only action they could take to eliminate the threat. There was no time for detached reflection or to arrange a discussion with the insurgents to determine whom else might be in the house. The insurgents chose to make that house a lawful target, not the Marines. While death was certainly brought about by a bomb dropped at the behest of that Marine patrol, blame rests solely with the insurgents. They chose to fire on a Marine patrol seeking to establish security on behalf of the Afghan government. They chose to establish a defensive position in a home. They chose to remain there with knowledge that civilians were present. They chose to continue firing at the Marines. They chose to keep the civilians in the house even after airpower arrived on station. So if there is blame here, it rests solely with the insurgents.
But what does Afghan President Hamid Karzai have to say about this? As leader of the Afghan people, he must certainly make a statement. However, given that his place on the throne, as it were, is guaranteed by American military power, he must use a bit of tact, right? Not so. Instead, President Karzai issued his “last warning” to the Americans regarding “arbitrary and unnecessary” US-led military operations. He went on to condemn the “murder” of Afghans at US hands. WTF?
Let’s analyze these statements separately. A last warning? Or what? Civilian casualties in war are horrible and everything should be done to mitigate the chances of civilian harm. I understand and agree with this. But really, what is Karzai going to do? Will he kick US troops out? I don’t think so. His entire regime depends on US military force; it’s what keeps him in power. His own troops can’t ensure the viability of his government.
Next, he says the operations are arbitrary and unnecessary. Arbitrary would indicate that no planning goes into the location of such operations. If this is the case, then the Americans must indeed be the luckiest (or unluckiest depending on your perspective) military in the world because they always seem to make enemy contact. Indeed, this is the point because the Americans are doing what much of the Afghan Army cannot do; track down, engage, and eliminate forces in conflict with the Afghan government. This leads us to the unnecessary part. Reread the last sentence. American troops are conducting these operations to prop up the current Afghan government, you know, the one Karzai leads. Yep, Mr. Karzai, those operations keep you in your nice presidential palace. Are you sure they’re unnecessary?
The last characterization is the worst. He called it murder – not an accidental killing or an unfortunate side effect of a long and terrible war. No, he said murder. He called our Marines murderers. These Marines were conducting an operation designed to maintain the very power structure that maintains his office and he called them murderers and demand an apology. How about Karzai apologize for the death of the Marine during the operation? How about he apologizes for the fourteen Americans killed this past week? Or what about the 8 airmen killed by one of his soldiers? Or how about the more than 1500 Americans who’ve died trying to save this country?
I look around and see my country suffering both in blood and treasure to bring the rule of law and stability to this country. We seem to be engaged in a Sisyphean task with no end. Our economy is in shambles. Our mission here is fairly unclear and timelines have been imposed that make the mission’s accomplishment impossible to achieve. The danger we came in to eliminate has moved across the border into relative sanctuary. Politicians at home are just now beginning to demand an end to the war and polls show the people are with them. Couple this with an ungrateful political apparatus in the country we are trying to help that seems more intent on fending for themselves than building their own country. And I wonder why we’re still here. I think I know now what my dad must have thought when he was in Vietnam.
*The following narrative is for illustrative purposes only. Although some of it has been gleaned from news reports, it is not to be taken as fact, but merely as a means of illustrating a similar situation in order to convey a point.
No comments:
Post a Comment