[Peace-discuss] Drone war means war against innocent civilians and no amount of propaganda will cover for that

[Mildred O'brien]

What else can be expected from an 18-year Veteran officer of the US Army and Reserve and attractive Congressional Representative disguised as a "progressive" who talks a good talk, but when the surface is scratched is exposed as just another Hawk defending indefensible actions of the US military's Kill Chain? This is why it's so important that serious reporters like Jeremy Scahill ask the questions that MSM reporters are too timid or gullible to pursue.
 mo'b 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
To: Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.ne
Sent: Sat, Sep 18, 2021 3:55 pm
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Drone war means war against innocent civilians and no amount of propaganda will cover for that

https://on.rt.com/bgxn entitled " ‘A mistake’: US admits Kabul drone strike killed 10 
civilians, incl. 7 children, and NO ISIS-K terrorists; no one will be punished":

> After weeks of insisting the August 29 drone strike in Kabul killed an ISIS-K
> terrorist, US Central Command has admitted that the victims were all civilians,
> including children, but reportedly won’t discipline anyone involved.
> 
> Marine General Kenneth McKenzie, head of CENTCOM, on Friday announced that the
> Hellfire missile fired at a home in Kabul just before the US airlift ended did not
> in fact kill a facilitator of Islamic State Khorasan (ISIS-K) terrorist group.
> 
> The drone strike in Kabul “was a mistake,” McKenzie said, acknowledging that “ten
> civilians, including up to seven children were tragically killed.”
> 
> The strike was ordered in “earnest belief that it would prevent an imminent threat
> to our forces,” but “it was a mistake and I offer my sincere apology,” he added,
> offering “profound condolences” to the relatives of those killed.


That apology is the extent to which anyone responsible will pay a price for their 
assassination of innocent civilians.

But in the recent past...

> General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on September 1
> that all the proper procedures had been followed, calling it a “righteous strike”
> and repeating the original CENTCOM claim that “secondary explosions” proved the
> targeted vehicle was loaded with explosives.
> 
> A New York Times investigation published on September 10, however, found no traces
> of secondary explosions in the courtyard of the targeted home. The white Toyota
> belonged to Zemari Ahmadi, who was not an ISIS-K terrorist but an employee of
> Nutrition & Education International, a US-funded charity. He had just applied for
> a visa to emigrate to the US with his family.


Lying about justifications for war and speaking from ignorance about who was killed 
and why are standard operating procedures for the US Government. As Edward Snowden 
said of Daniel Hale (recently-jailed leaker of US military information about drone 
war), "His crime was telling this truth: 90% of those killed by U.S. drones are 
bystanders, not the intended targets. He should have been given a medal.". Drone 
attacks against American citizens run much the same way -- extrajudicially killing 
innocents; the drone attacks on father and son al-Awlakis (both American citizens who 
were killed in separate drone attacks under the Obama/Biden administration, two 
eminently impeachable crimes).

So, put simply, there is no way to stand for or endorse drone war without also 
endorsing killing (overwhelmingly) innocent civilians.

But what is the anti-war left willing to accept?

We can look at the propaganda from former presidential candidate and Hawaiian 
Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard who was widely credited as being "anti-war" 
(MintPressNews.com, Huffington Post, others), "a candidate who is principled" (Jimmy 
Dore), a "peace candidate" (CrossTalk), etc. for guidance. Then Rep. Gabbard offered 
The Intercept in a 2018 interview 
(https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/):

> Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the past you have
> said that you favor a small footprint approach with strike forces and limited use
> of weaponized drones. Is that still your position that you think that’s the — to
> the extent that you believe the U.S. military should be used around the world for
> counterterrorism, is that still your position?
> 
> Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional threat of
> terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other groups that are
> affiliated with them, we should not be using basically what has been and continues
> to be the current policy of these mass mobilization of troops, these long
> occupations and trillions of dollars going in, really abusing the Authorization to
> Use Military Force and taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations
> of those current AUMFs.
> 
> So, with these terrorist cells, for example, yes, I do still believe that the
> right approach to take is these quick strike forces, surgical strikes, in and out,
> very quickly, no long-term deployment, no long-term occupation to be able to get
> rid of the threat that exists and then get out and the very limited use of drones
> in those situations where our military is not able to get in without creating an
> unacceptable level of risk, and where you can make sure that you’re not causing,
> you know, a large amount of civilian casualties.

Trying to conflate the precision a surgeon exhibits in surgery with a bombing attack 
("surgical strike") is pro-war propaganda. But this apparently didn't faze most 
anti-war left commentators. When measured by the effects on the targets, her approach 
also means the US can make as many "surgical strikes" or "quick strike forces" as the 
US wants over time which amounts to being indistinguishable from the "long-term 
deployment" that she said she didn't favor.

In 2016 Gabbard told West Hawaii Today:

> The congresswoman has taken a hard line against terrorist groups, but opposes
> military conflicts justified in part as serving national security interests down
> the line by installing more cooperative governments.
> 
> “In short, when it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk,” Gabbard said.
> “When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove.”

The US Government apparently lies about its attacks and doesn't care to distinguish 
innocent civilians from what the US calls "terrorists". That not only suggests that 
the term "terrorist" is more apt for describing the US but it means that the 
distinction among types of warring Gabbard accepted/promoted versus what she objected 
to are not an actionable distinction at all. And it also means that the anti-war left 
has a horribly low, even exploitably-low, standard.
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20210920/7e5938b9/attachment-0001.htm>