Collateral Murder: On Civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan

Several weeks ago, the website known as "wikileaks" released 2007 footage of a U.S. Army Apache helicopter machine-gunning a Reuters reporter (Namir Noor-Eldeen), his cameraman (Saeed Chmagh), as well as the driver of a van that then stopped to help the men. The footage also shows one of the helicopters firing a hellfire missile into an apartment building.

Not surprisingly, the footage has caused somewhat of an uproar in both the American press and within the upper echelons of The Pentagon and U.S. Military intelligence. Immediately following the release of the footage, Defense Secretary Robert Gates released a statement saying "These people can put out anything they want, and they're never held accountable for it. There's no before and there's no after".

What we've seen so far is a concerted effort on the part of U.S. Military representatives (as well as their allies in the press) to discredit the assertion by Wikileaks that the attacks constituted "collateral murder" through the use of "US Bomb strikes on Iraqi Civilians". The claims used to discredit the Wikileaks release fall into three main categories:
1: The people killed were actually insurgents, and can be seen in the footage carrying weapons
2: Wikileaks is unaccountable
3: In the event that Premise #1 is false, this was an isolated incident.
What I'm going to do is examine each of these premises and debunk them. So let's examine the first one.

Premise 1: The dead were insurgents
This is one that has been used by a variety of news sources when discussing the issue, as well as by The Pentagon itself when releasing their own documents concerning the tapes. Following the release of the footage, Fox News criticized wikileaks, noting that although the video slows to identify the Reuters crews, "that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body." A subsequent Pentagon publication asserted that a nearby infantry company had been under attack by small-arms fire, and also concluded that at least two members of the group attacked by the helicopter were armed, likely with variations of the AKM or AK-47.

Now there's a few things wrong with this premise. The first is that it can be very clearly seen in the video that Noor-Eldeen was carrying a camera (not, as initially claimed, a weapon), as reported by The Guardian and the German Süddeutsche Zeitung However, even if we are to assume that the premise above is correct, it makes precious little difference with regards to the actions of the crew of the helicopter. We have to keep in mind that this is Iraq we are talking about; everybody and their grandmother owns an AK-47, and since the fall of Saddam Hussein that has been the case. In his account of his time served in Iraq, war resistor Joshua Key notes that "the first seven house raids we conducted all turned up small arms. After that they became so commonplace that we stopped confiscating them; every family had at least one or more weapons in the house". Now, again, even if we are to assume that these were not just your average Iraqis carrying guns, and that they were indeed insurgents, that still does nothing to excuse the actions of the gunship pilots. It is easily identifiable that Noor-Eldeen was carrying a camera, and opening fire on a reporter and his cameraman, and then on the vehicle that stops to help them, cannot be excused no matter the situation with regards to those around them.

Premise 2: Wikileaks is unaccountable
Since it became rather unquestionable that Noor-Eldeen was carrying a camera and not an RPG, those criticizing the footage have looked instead at the origin of the release. This was the line of defense used by Robert Gates himself, who commented that "These people can put out anything they want, and they're never held accountable for it. There's no before and there's no after".
Granted, there may be some truth to this premise. Wikileaks does not operate within the limits and rules of traditional "official" sources. Again, accepting this premise to be true does not change my line of argument. Shortly after the footage was released, a U.S. military official confirmed the authenticity of the footage. we can debate the merits of wikileaks all day long, yet the fact remains that the footage came from somewhere. The footage is confirmed to be authentic, and arguing the value of wikileaks does nothing to change this.

Premise 3: In the event that Premise #1 is false, this was an isolated incident
Once most of those voicing opposition against the footage had been forced to accept Premise #1 as false, they turned into full defensive mode. Essentially, they said "even if an innocent reporter and his cameraman were gunned down, this was an isolated incident. This was a few bad eggs ruining the reputation of the entire U.S. army".
Again, there may be some truth to this line of reasoning. I'm not going to claim for a moment that every single young man who joins the United States Military is a murderous psychopath with a fetish for machine-gunning reporters and children. If that is the case, then why have so many incidents occurred? Let's run through a brief list:
28 April 2003: Fallujah killings, marines open fire on a crowd in Fallujah, killing 17 and injuring more than 70. No charges are laid.
2004 (ongoing through entire year): Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (torture, rape, sodomy, homicide, general abuse), 11 soldiers convicted, mostly minor charges, charges dropped against an additional three
19 November 2005: Haditha Massacre - 24 men, women and children killed by U.S. Marines, all charges are dropped
16 September 2007: Blackwater incident. Blackwater guards kill 17 civilians in Baghdad, currently, all charges are dropped
Is anyone else noticing a common pattern? First off it seems as if these incidences were not as "isolated" as many have claimed. Indeed, testimony by many former members of the U.S. Army has indicated as much. If we look again at the writings of Josh Key, he records that drill sargeants at Basic Training urged recruits to bayonet dummy-enemies with the slogan "Kill the Sand-Niggers!". We know that hatred of Iraqi civilians was thoroughly ingrained into the minds of new recruits before the Iraq war began, and I know from the experience of acquaintances of mine that this continues to be the case.
Again, even if we accept the premise to be correct, this doesn't change a thing. This is the second pattern in the events above. In every single case, the vast majority (if not all) of the charges have been dropped. I can accept that there are only a handful of clinical psychopaths in the U.S. Army. However, when that small handful commit war crimes and yet are not charged with anything above "dereliction of duty", that is a slap in the face of the entire concept of Rule of Law. We know that the men in the gunship were probably a little bit on the crazy side. When ground support teams reported that two young girls had been hit, one of the gunners callously shot back "Well, it's their fault for bringing kids into a battle". People like this deserve more than a dishonourable discharge and a fine. The U.S. Military undermines what little credibility it has left when it refuses to examine its own ranks and dole out legitimate punishment to those who commit war crimes.

We can therefore draw several conclusions
1: Innocent people were killed in the incident
2: The accountability of wikileaks is irrelevant to the larger question of the U.S. Army's actions
3: The United States Military has failed to wash its hands of the blood of hundreds of thousands - perhaps over 1 million - Iraqi civilians who have died since the March 2003 invasion.
4: Assuming that Bush and his cohorts will not be tried for their role in the war, the next best way to wash America's hands of at least some of the blood it has is to ensure that those who have committed war crimes in Iraq are given punishments befitting of the crime, not a slap on the wrist and a dishonourable discharge.

Resurrected

At the beginning of March, it looked as though Obama's healthcare reform - as well as his presidency - were on life-support with the situation going downhill. Scott Brown had broken the supermajority in the senate with his election to the senate seat of Ted Kennedy (a seat held by Democrats since the mid-1950's), momentum on healthcare reform in both the House and Senate had slowed to a crawl, and many of Obama's initial hopes for healthcare - a Public Option, a medicare buy-in, bipartisan support - had slipped away as Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) threatened to filibuster the bill. The conservative punditocracy had proclaimed that Obama's presidency was dead.

Last sunday, that all changed.

On Sunday, after a mind-numbing ten hours of debate, the House of Representatives passed the Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act 220-211. The debate was inspiring, infuriating, and stupidly repetitive all at the same time. Democrats repeated the same old mantra of "healthcare for America's families and children", while the Republicans resorted to their Limbaugh-like scare tactics once again. One Representative claimed that the bill was "the first step in turning America into a socialist utopia", while another asserted that "a little bit of freedom dies today", while many proclaimed it "unconstitutional". Outside, hundreds of furious protesters chanted "kill the bill", hurling N-bombs at African-American members of congress and screaming gay slurs at Barney Frank (D-Ma.), the first openly-gay member of congress. Following its passage, multiple members of congress received FBI and Secret Service protection, while Twitter has been awash with death threats against Democrats and members of Obama's presidential staff.

At the same time, however, the most sweeping healthcare reform in decades has been passed by both the House and the Senate. Yes, it is flawed. Yes, it is a colossal paycheck to the insurance industry. Yes, it fall far short of the kind of reform needed to truly fix the United States healthcare system. But at the same time, it is a start. The first civil rights legislation in a generation happened in 1957. the Voting Rights Act didn't come until eight years later in 1965. Yes, the healthcare reform bill tackles many of the insurance issues - notably preconditions and payment limits - that should have been dealt with decades ago. The only real difficulty is that it is - ultimately - health insurance reform, not healthcare reform.

What we have witnessed, however, is one of the most extraordinary rebirths of a presidency in history. Since Sunday, Obama has gone from being the aloof and detached compromiser back to the tough-talking, no-nonsense semi-populist he was on the campaign trail. In the past week, the Senate has passed more sweeping reforms than in the previous year before that. Healthcare reform is passed, a $40 billion student loan reform passed earlier this evening, and Chris Dodd's banking overhaul is on the senate floor and preparing to be debated. The Democrats are energized, with multiple new-versions of health reform still being debated - and rapidly at that. Gone is the one-year long slugging match, the insanity of the townhall meetings and racist white people screaming "Obama=Hitler!" (they've moved onto "Obama=Stalin!"), the Democrats unwilling to grow the pair necessary to pass serious reform. Campaign donations have been flowing in, not only to Democrat congressmen/women seeking reelection, but to progressive candidates fighting "Blue Dog Democrats" in red states like Arkansas.

Simultaneously, the Republican Party seems to be in a state of absolute dismay and chaos. For months, Fox News and other right-wing outlets goaded libertarians and ultraconservatives into a frenzied bloodbath of hatred, assuring them that the healthcare bill didn't have a chance in hell of passing, and that the Obama presidency was as good as dead. On Monday morning, the shock of reality hit them full force. Many Republicans have called for states to sue the federal government (the Attorney General in Georgia is likely to be impeached because he has refused to do so), while others have blamed our favourite specters: ACORN, the liberal media, and accused Obama of being a Kenyan Witch Doctor etc. All the while, the Republicans have dug in their heels and continued to define themselves as what one Massacheusetts Democrat Rep termed the "party of nope". Republican politicians have continued to embrace the far-right tea party movement
Fortunately, not all conservatives have done so. David Frum, the former speechwriter for Dubya, immediately wrote that healthcare was a modern-day battle of Waterloo...for the Republicans. On Monday, he wrote on his website FrumForum:
"We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?"

On Wednesday, he was interviewed by ABC about the role of Fox News in the framework of the GOP. His response illustrated an astute understanding of the Republican Party he once embraced but now criticizes for its embrace of lunacy.

"Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we're discovering we work for Fox. And this balance here has been completely reversed. The thing that sustains a strong Fox network is the thing that undermines a strong Republican party."

Unsurprisingly, Frum has since been fired from his post at the American Enterprise Institute. Similarly to the Republican Party, a mass uproar from the Fox News base that provides financial support for the AEI likely played a significant role.

By digging in their heels, the Republicans have virtually sealed their fate. By continuing to invoke obscure senate rules regarding committee work and blocking unemployment benefits, they have continued to render themselves irrelevant. Strom Thurmond's 24-hour filibuster of a civil rights bill in 1957 did nothing to help the Republican Party; it set in motion the machinery that gave Lydon Johnson a Supermajority in the Senate and virtually crushed the Republican Party in the congress.

Keith Olbermann offered the most stinging critique of the Republican Party's methodology:
"You will be the Flat-Earthers, the Isolationists, the Segregationists, the John Birchers. Stop. Certainly you must recognize the future is with the humane, the inclusive, the diverse-- it is with America. Not the America of 1910, but the America of 2010. Discard this dangerous, separatist, elitist, backward-looking rhetoric, and you will be welcomed back into the political discourse of this nation. Continue with it, and you will destroy yourselves and whatever righteous causes you actually believe in, and on the way you will damage this country in ways and manners untold."

Either way, what we have witnessed in the last week goes beyond a recovery. Obama's presidency has been resurrected.