<html>
<body>
<font size=3>
<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/soldz04062010.html" eudora="autourl">
http://www.counterpunch.org/soldz04062010.html<br><br>
</a></font><font face="Verdana" size=2 color="#990000">April 6,
2010<br><br>
</font><h1><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=4><b>U. S. Military
Kills Pregnant Women, Government Officials and Journalists <br><br>
</i></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=5 color="#990000">
Covering Up Civilian Deaths
</b></font></h1><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=4>By STEPHEN
SOLDZ <br><br>
</font><font face="Verdana" size=6 color="#990000">T</font><font size=3>
he recent news brought reports of two incidents in two countries where US
troops killed civilians and then lied to cover up the evidence. These are
but the latest of a steady stream of lies from military and Pentagon
sources about the killing of civilians.<br><br>
Afghanistan: Killing Pregnant Women and Government Officials <br><br>
In Afghanistan, the military has finally
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?ref=world">
admitted</a> that Special Forces troops killed two pregnant Afghan women
and a girl in a February raid in which
<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7060395.ece">
Afghan government officials</a> were also killed, according to excellent
reporting by Jerome Starkey of <i>The Times</i> of London. They have,
however, failed so far to account for their falsehoods spanning several
months. <br><br>
Previously the military had insisted that they killed
"terrorists," and claimed that the women were killed by
knife wounds administered several hours before the raid. But now it
appears that the knife wounds may have been inflicted by the Special
Forces troops excavating their bullets from the dead or dying women's
bodies. As
<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7087637.ece">
<i>The Times</a></i>' Starkey reported Monday:<br><br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd>US special forces soldiers dug bullets out of their victims’ bodies
in the bloody aftermath of a botched night raid, then washed the wounds
with alcohol before lying to their superiors about what happened, Afghan
investigators have told The Times</i>.<br><br>
</dl>Military spokespersons went further in attempting to cover up the
killing by
<a href="http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00440">
attacking Starkey</a>, the reporter who challenged the official story. As
Starkey explained:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>[T]hey [US military] have... tried hard to discredit me, personally,
for bringing this to the world’s attention. In an unprecedented response
to my original story about the Gardez night raid they
<a href="http://www.isaf.nato.int/en/article/isaf-releases/isaf-rejects-cover-up-allegation.html">
named me individually</a>, twice, in their denial of the cover
up.<br><br>
<dd>They claimed to have a recording of my conversation which
contradicted my shorthand record. When I asked to hear it, they ignored
me. When I pressed them, they said there had been a misunderstanding.
When they said recording, they meant someone had taken notes. The tapes,
they said, do not exist.<br><br>
</dl>In this case, as in so many, one can only assume that there was a
deliberate attempt to cover up US involvement in the killing. Otherwise,
officials would long ago have admitted their error and, one hopes, taken
action against those responsible for the combat errors and the lies that
followed. One wonders, for example, who told military officials about the
knife wounds? If those wounds were, in fact inflicted by Special Forces
troops trying to cover their mistake, then someone is responsible for
relaying this false information. Or was the information known all along
to be false by those relaying this claim to the press? Were the officials
just hoping that the press would tire of exploring the incident, allowing
their falsehoods to stand?<br><br>
Iraq: Shooting Photographers From the Air <br><br>
The news also brings evidence of another civilian massacre, this time
from a July 27, 2007 incident near Baghdad in Iraq.
<a href="http://wikileaks.org/">Wikileaks</a>
<a href="http://www.collateralmurder.com/">released a video</a>
apparently showing a US helicopter crew firing upon a group of Iraqis
hanging out on a street corner, and on a van that stopped to carry the
wounded to the hospital. Over a dozen people, including two Reuters</i>
reporters, were killed and two children in the van were wounded.<br><br>
As in the Afghan incident, the military initially denied that any error
had taken place. The New York Times</i> article on the incident was
entitled
<a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0DEED81E3EF930A25754C0A9619C8B63">
2 Iraqi Journalists Killed as U.S. Forces Clash With Militias</a>,
relaying the military's false account in the headline. The article also
relayed the US account in the text:<br><br>
The American military said in a statement late Thursday that 11 people
had been killed: nine insurgents and two civilians. According to the
statement, American troops were conducting a raid when they were hit by
small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The American troops called
in reinforcements and attack helicopters. In the ensuing fight, the
statement said, the two Reuters employees and nine insurgents were
killed.<br><br>
In the video we see the incident from the perspective of the helicopter
gunship.<br><br>
While those in the helicopter assumed those on the ground had weapons,
there are no weapons apparent, though it is possible that one person may
be armed, hardly a rare occurrence in Iraq. And, more important, there is
no conflict and no shots or RPGs are fired at the Americans. Rather,
there are the Reuters</i> photographers hanging out with a relaxed group
of other Iraqis making no attempt to hide until deadly fire is rained
down upon them from the helicopter.<br><br>
When a van pulls up, no attempt is made to identify the van or its
occupants before they are blown away, with permission of an authority on
the other end of the radio. Several men from the van were killed along
with two children.<br><br>
With the video, we see that the US military account, while perhaps
believed by officials immediately after the incident, could not have been
believed by anyone who examined the evidence.<br><br>
Also apparent in the video is the glee with which the troops executed
their attack, laughing as people were killed, cheering when a Bradley
tank drives over a body, and blaming the Samaritans in the van who
stopped to help the wounded for the wounded children:<br><br>
"Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle. “
[From the
<a href="http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/transcript.html">
transcript</a>.]<br><br>
After seeing the video, it is easy to explain why the military has for
years <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL05399965">refused
</a><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL05399965">Reuters</a></i>
permission to view it. The US military has been systematically lying,
covering up the killing of over a dozen Iraqis.<br><br>
Occupation<br><br>
In neither the Afghan nor Iraqi incidents is there reason to believe that
the killings of civilians were intentional. What is more disturbing is
that, in both cases, they seem to be, rather, the result of routine
actions. These deaths are the expectable result of occupations by foreign
troops who view the citizens of the occupied country as potential
enemies. Such situations are inevitably going to lead to dehumanizing of
the occupied population, who may, after all, harbor "enemies"
at any moment. In Iraq, the Iraqis
<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/soldz01232007.html">are called
"hajis"</a> by the occupiers. One is less careful about killing
"hajis" than one would be when killing one's peers.<br><br>
These types of incidents, and the dehumanizing attitudes behind them, are
facilitated by the “force protection” concept underlying the occupation.
Military and political leadership know that domestic support for the
occupation cannot be sustained if US casualties grow too rapidly. Thus,
an emphasis is put on protecting US troops in ambiguous situations,
increasing the risk to civilians.<br><br>
The troops involved are less to blame than are those who sent them to
occupy another people's land. For the dangers of dehumanization in war
are well known, as are its increased risk in counterinsurgency
situations. Every occupation, indeed, virtually every war has its
massacres. Those in charge know this while pretending otherwise to the
people back home. Hence the need for lies, lies, and lies.<br><br>
Unfortunately, they usually get away with their deceit. And, in only a
few instances is there any accountability for the lies.<br><br>
Thankfully, in the two instances recently in the news, brave reporters
risked personal attacks and threats to ferret out the truth. But how many
such incidents can they investigate? Despite their efforts, occupation
and lies will continue to exist together. While accountability for the
liars should be sought, it is even more important to pull our troops out
of these foreign lands they do not understand.<br><br>
Note:</b> The video was released through the intensive efforts of
Wikileaks</i> staff. Unfortunately, the Wikileaks</i> web site has not
been operating at full capacity for several months due to a financial
shortage. Why not <a href="http://wikileaks.org/">contribute</a> to help
them remain available to uncover future abuses. As the traditional
investigative media collapse, we need sites like Wikileaks</i> more than
ever.<br><br>
Stephen Soldz</b> is a psychoanalyst, psychologist, public health
researcher, and faculty member at the
<a href="http://www.bgsp.edu/">Boston Graduate School of
Psychoanalysis</a>. He edits the
<a href="http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/">Psyche, Science, and
Society</a> blog. He is a founder of the Coalition for an Ethical
Psychology, one of the organizations working to change American
Psychological Association policy on participation in abusive
interrogations. He is President-Elect of
<a href="http://psysr.org/">Psychologists for Social Responsibility</a>
[PsySR]. He can be reached at:
<a href="mailto:ssoldz@bgsp.edu">ssoldz@bgsp.edu</a><br><br>
<br><br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>