Skip to main content

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen says that Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange "might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family."

The Eye sees and makes note of the bloody finger with which Mullen points.

Slate has put together this interactive graphic that characterizes the civilian vs. military casualties in Afghanistan over several years, based on the data Wikileaks has come into possession of.  What we can tell from an objective look at the graph is that the number of casualties we inflict on the people we deem "the enemy" (however the discrimination is being made; we can only hope it's consistently applied) is comparable to the number of civilian casualties we inflict.

If we look closer, we see that there were times (~Jan. 2006) when we were clearly offing far more civilians than enemies.  Even five years into the conflict, when one would have hoped that some progress in the war had been made and that our tactics and methods would have improved with experience in an initially novel (to us) state of war, the number of civilian casualties still roughly correlated with military deaths in proportion.  Whatever weapon systems we are using in Afghanistan, from sidearm to missile to supersonic bomber, they are being used against a form of enemy not sufficiently distinguishable from the general population that the weapon system can be directed against one versus the other in a highly preferential way.  

Yes, other wars had high civilian casualties at times; I know about Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Dresden, and London.  But I reject the notion that the past excursions of wars into simple indiscriminate death-dealing justifies future or present excursions; to do so implies that humanity learns nothing.

I see no way that the Administration's or the Pentagon's stated objectives in Afghanistan can be reasonably met given the degree of bad faith we have to be engendering.  Any kid with experience on school playgrounds can sort this out:  the big new kid who threw sand in my best friends' faces along with the bully's face he was aiming for is not automatically my hero.  

I'll leave you with one last thought.  Given the timespan of that graph, one thing we can conclude is that Afghanistan is giving us a robust pipeline of enemy combatants.  I have to wonder:  are there enough fertile Afghan women to deliver combatants-to-be indefinitely?

Originally posted to EyeOfSouthGwinnett on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 08:06 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  the only ones with 'blood' on their hands... (12+ / 0-)

    are the vile creatures who put any of our troops in harm's way, just for money!

    Never walk into a public restroom while breathing through your mouth.

    by quityurkidding on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 08:13:58 AM PDT

  •  you (10+ / 0-)

    you have some bled on your hands, says the guy covered from head to toe in blood.

    Just how delusional is our leadership and military?

    (regarding the bank mess) They want to cure the patient but not deal with the disease.

    by dark daze on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 08:14:25 AM PDT

    •  Well, check this out--repost (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Abra Crabcakeya

      Obama seeks to expand arms exports by trimming approval process

      WASHINGTON -- The United States is currently the world biggest weapons supplier -- holding 30 per cent of the market -- but the Obama administration has begun modifying export control regulations in hopes of enlarging the U.S. market share, according to U.S. officials.


      The administration's stated reason for the changes is to simplify the sale of weapons to U.S. allies, but potential spinoffs include generating business for the U.S. defense industry, creating jobs and contributing to Obama's drive to double U.S. exports by 2015.

  •  Utter Bullshit (7+ / 0-)

    The ones with blood on their hands are the professional murderers in the defense and security agencies.  The ones who want to keep this country in a state of eternal war.

    Die energie der Welt ist constant; die Entropie der welt strebt einem Maximum zu. - Rudolf Clausius, 1865

    by xgy2 on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 08:15:56 AM PDT

    •  Historically speaking (4+ / 0-)

      The collapse of the USSR was largely the result of it expending its money and military on an unwinnable war in Afghanistan.  Its focus on Afghanistan caused it to neglect its domestic economy and its empire in its satellite states through Eastern Europe.

      The US spending trillions of dollars in Afghanistan (with no realistic end in sight) while, at the same time, states are cutting spending on education and social progreams and closing libraries... well, I'd like to see this end differently than it did for the USSR.

      "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

      by gsbadj on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 08:26:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Incredible ain't it? (11+ / 0-)

    I do not mean to minimize the severity of someone taking it upon himself to leak thousands of classified documents.

    But for the military to suggest that anyone other than the Government is responsible for putting soldiers in harm's way is nutty.

    "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

    by gsbadj on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 08:16:50 AM PDT

    •  Don't the Dox End With 2008? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gsbadj, corvo

      It's not like Al Qaeda's going to have finished copying one of our nuclear subs yet.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 08:25:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'll take your word for it (0+ / 0-)

        But if you're an analyst who's leaking this many classified dox, you better not expect a parade any time soon.

        He may well be justified (think Ellsberg) by history but he still has consequences right now.

        "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

        by gsbadj on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 08:32:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well, when a 22 year old pfc (0+ / 0-)

          does the leaking, something is seriously wrong. I'm ex AF Officer in Nukes (way back during Vietnam), used to have a clearance above TS...

          The issue is, even with my clearances, it was clear that the colonels, generals and diplomats knew a lot more about what was actually going on and the ramifictations in very subtle ways of revealing many things that may or may not have been legal or prudent, but I was not in a position to make any determination about that.

          One of the keys to classification is "need to know", and I have a hard time believing that this kid had a need to know what he released. Therefore, I conclude he accessed files from security areas to which he was not authorized and became a hacker.

          And while I don't argue about whistleblowers in general, it's certainly possible for a well-intentioned but politically or militarily ignorant person to do unintended damage. Loose lips sink ships.

          This is not an Ellsberg moment. It is criminally careless.

          With a son in SF (not yet deployed), I can easily see how information like this, analyzed for traffic analysis of frequency of movement, time of day, response to outcomes ...  could easily compromise our troops on the ground, no matter who's policy it is to be there.

          Without geometry, life is pointless. And blues harmonica players suck.

          by blindcynic on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 04:46:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I agree re severity (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gsbadj, corvo, Abra Crabcakeya

      But know that what is "classified" is not always a tactical or strategic secret the way that, say, the SR-71 Blackbird or the B-2 Bomber were.  Are there things in the 90,000+ Wikileaks documents that some Afghan is going to read and go "Ohh, so that's how they do such-and-such; now we've got them!!"?  Oh, maybe.  But is it any more than what the same Afghans could do if they turned their Internet access somewhere else or gathered intelligence with a notepad and binoculars?  Who knows? Certainly the document release is highly unlikely to spell the defeat of the United States and its allies <en>at the hands of the Afghans</en> but a careful, calm, and objective uptake of the raw data and what it means may undercut support for the Afghan occupation at the ballot box.  

  •  Whistleblowers expose wrongdoing (8+ / 0-)

    ...and save lives.

    Those who have blood on their hands are the ones who keep saying, "We're winning" and keep sending young men and women to kill civilians, and be killed doing so, in "wars" against fleeing shadows where there's nothing to be won - even if we knew what we wanted to win. It's like going swimming in the oily Gulf hoping to run across a cure for Republicanism. It's beyond stupid.

    It's beginning to seem that killing their families may not be the way to winning their hearts and minds. Counterintuitive, I know, but watchyagonnado? Muslims are just crazy that way, I guess.

  •  America (6+ / 0-)

    Look in the mirror with those fingers next to the other object you see!!!

    And that's what the rest of the planet are saying!!

    "What is the difference between an al Qaida terrorist and a misguided American terrorist?" "The planes they fly!"

    by jimstaro on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 08:24:10 AM PDT

  •  We Must Stay to Win. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BOHICA, marina, corvo, esquimaux, laker

    We must stay for the vast resources.
    We must stay for the women.
    We must stay because we run your country.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 08:24:17 AM PDT

    • kill wedding parties! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina, Abra Crabcakeya

      We have to kill wedding parties over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here.  Our brave and efficient boys have killed a whole lot more wedding party participants than they have Osama bin Ladens.

      Why do we so grossly overfund our useless (as far as defending the US) military while underfunding policies that actually benefit Americans?  Oh...wait...that all changed now that we worked so hard to elect Democrats? didn't?

      Check please!

  •  Of course you get some blood on your hands, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BOHICA, corvo, Abra Crabcakeya

    when you wipe the flies out of the eyes of the gods of war.

    Mullen should know, for he bathes in the blood of the innocent so he can shout invocations of warlust purity at the truthtellers against the hidden hand of destruction in Mullen's precious precious war.

    Other than that, I really don't have an opinion about this.

  •  OMG (6+ / 0-)

    Admiral Mike Mullen, who as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the top U.S. military officer, lashed out at WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange, who says he aims to expose corporate and government corruption.

    "Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing," Mullen said. "But the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family."

    Mullen suddenly finds his humanitarian side.

    This is what chump Change looks like.

    by Wamsutta on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 08:27:18 AM PDT

  •  Heard audio of Press Secretary Gibbs... (6+ / 0-)

    ...urging Wikileaks not to release more because the Taliban are combing through the documents to find names of our allies (countries or groups or individuals?)

    He said the Taliban have ways of getting revenge.

    This is starting to sound eerily similar to an 8-year nightmare I once had. If they announce the bullshit "terror alert level" has changed colors, I'm officially changing my tepid support for staying in Afghanistan. It's becoming clear that we aren't there to find the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack.

    "♪♪ It's a-gonna happen...someday ♪♪ You're gonna see way!" Buddy Holly

    by Giles Goat Boy on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 08:27:39 AM PDT

  •  What we are now seeing (10+ / 0-)

    is a rearguard action by the military establishment. This is not about what happened it is about them not liking the idea that civilians get to see what they are really up to.

    The Pentagon fears that it may be reigned in by the civilian government and they fear that more releases like this will hasten that day.

    The Teabaggers are the GOP base

    by stevej on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 08:30:43 AM PDT

  •  infuriating isn't it (7+ / 0-)

    Re-posted this from a comment in another diary.

    Blood on whose hands?
    Red Cross Warns Afghan Children Off Cluster Bombs

    Food packet on the left, cluster bomb on the right.

    Both of these were dropped all over Afghanistan. Is a child going to be able to tell the difference?

       Soraj Ghulam Habib, 16, Herat, Afghanistan
       "Before I lost my legs I had great dreams."

       I lost both my legs when I found a cluster bomb I thought was a can of food.  I was six years old at the time and was walking home from a picnic with my cousin and four other members of my family.  My cousin was killed instantly in the blast and the rest of us were injured.

       When I got to the hospital, I was so badly injured one doctor even suggested I be given a lethal injection. But after a series of operations I survived.  I am now in a wheelchair and my world has shrunk considerably.

       Before I lost my legs I had great dreams.  When I grew up I wanted to work for my family and society. Cluster bombs have shattered my dreams.  I can no longer go to school or play with my friends and my family must support a wheelchair user forever.  When people see me in the street they laugh at me and they pity me.  But now I am part of this international campaign to ban the weapon that took my legs.

       I am calling on governments to deliver a treaty that will not only ban cluster munitions but will provide opportunities for people like me.  The treaty must ban the use, production, transfer and stockpile of these weapons immediately.

    Ban Cluster Munitions

    Afghanistan - Come for the lithium and stay for the opium.

    by BOHICA on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 08:34:14 AM PDT

  •  Talk to me when Plame Affair perps in jail (8+ / 0-)

    Lets get some perspective here.  The perps who exposed the name of a CIA operative and thus destroying her network and the nuclear secrets she had carefully cultivated were exposed, that's blood on somebody's hands. But those hands "roved" around the White House in sheer arrogance at the impotence of the Congress and the Justice Department to hold them accountable for this high crime.

    Wikileaks? It simply confirms what many already knew. That our government was not being truthful with us about this war.  It is in my view a patriotic gesture.

    --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

    by chipoliwog on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 08:34:46 AM PDT

    •  Wow... (0+ / 0-)'re indignant over Plame's outing, despite the fact she ran no assets in any threat area, yet you're completely blasé when it comes to the lives of dozens of informants currently active in the field.

      •  and you know this how? (0+ / 0-)

        No threat assessment was ever made public but statements were made that there was damage and that assets were in danger.

        And it has been covered in the press what she was working on and it was on Iran's nuclear capabilities and supply chain.  something we have a keen interest in at the moment.

        I'm indignant because treason was committed against this country at the very highest levels of our government and NOTHING was done about it.

        I acknowledge the recklessness that revelations on wikilieaks may have harmful effects in combat areas.  But it does beg the larger question, why are we there in the first place?  

        --Mr. President, you have to earn my vote every day. Not take it for granted. --

        by chipoliwog on Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 11:38:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  El stupidos: (6+ / 0-)

    They take both sides:

    "It's old news!"

    "They have blood on their hands!"

    "It's old news!"

    "They have blood on their hands!"

    No one will believe it's the Blues if you wear a suit, `less you happen to be an old person, and you slept in it.

    by dov12348 on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 08:35:35 AM PDT

  •  You're soaking in it! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, Abra Crabcakeya

    "Clark, we need Superman's help in the Gulf." "Right on it Mr. President, soon as I can find a phone booth."

    by ben masel on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 08:36:10 AM PDT

  •  At risk of getting my head handed to me (4+ / 0-)

    On Wednesday I posted a thought, that the Taliban has plenty of resources, and plenty of intelligence. I applied this thought to the idea that most likely any, or some names that appeared in the wikileaks documents are probably already known by the Taliban.  Therefore, I refuse to jump on the hissyfit bandwagon.

    I did get this reply:

    If you're so sure the Taliban have good intel, how'bout you spell it out?  

    Let's hear the specifics that lead you to that conclusion.

    Otherwise you're blowing hot air out both ends, and it stinks.

    Really, commenter?  You believe the Taliban doesn't have good intelligence?  

    I stand by my statement, say what you will.  This is their land, their country, and they know how to fight a war.  I don't believe that they are teenagers sitting around playing war video games, some are, but they are organized and have plenty of money, intelligence and I think it's naive to believe otherwise.

    But after a brief search, I did find this:

       The tribes therefore do not want to get on the wrong side of the Taliban. That means they aid and shelter Taliban forces, and provide them intelligence on enemy movement and intentions. With its base camps and supply lines running from Pakistan, the Taliban are thus in a position to recruit, train and arm an increasingly large force.

      The Taliban have the classic advantage of guerrillas operating in known terrain with a network of supporters: superior intelligence. They know where the Americans are, what the Americans are doing and when the Americans are going to strike. The Taliban declines combat on unfavorable terms and strikes when the Americans are weakest. The Americans, on the other hand, have the classic problem of counterinsurgency: They enjoy superior force and firepower, and can defeat anyone they can locate and pin down, but they lack intelligence. As much as technical intelligence from unmanned aerial vehicles and satellites is useful, human intelligence is the only effective long-term solution to defeating an insurgency. In this, the Taliban have the advantage: They have been there longer, they are in more places and they are not going anywhere.

  •  And as the Pakistani's Think........ (5+ / 0-)

    Poll: Majority of Pakistanis View US as Enemy

    A new opinion poll indicates that roughly six in 10 Pakistanis view the United States as an enemy, oppose the war in Afghanistan and are becoming less concerned about the threat of the Taliban and al-Qaida.

    The survey, released by the U.S.-based Pew Research Center this week, shows that despite intense U.S. outreach and billions of dollars in aid, Pakistanis remain extremely skeptical of Washington's intentions.

    Negative image

    America's overall image remains very negative in Pakistan, says the center's president Andrew Kohut. Continued

    Gee I wonder why, and the rest of not only that region.....................!!

    "What is the difference between an al Qaida terrorist and a misguided American terrorist?" "The planes they fly!"

    by jimstaro on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 08:46:20 AM PDT

    •  Kudos for your sig line! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Abra Crabcakeya

      I was a member of a very "liberal" church.  We were discussing "terrorism."  After most of my putative- fellow-followers-of-the-putative-teachings-of-Jesus had finished denouncing suicide bombers and those who "target civilians," I asked the obvious question...who has killed more civilians..."us" or "them?"  You can guess what the answer was: "bbbbbut we don't MEAN to kill civilians!!!"

      I: "How dumb can you be?  When you bomb an urban area, you can no longer claim that you didn't know civilians would die."

      They: {dirty looks and silence}

      Never underestimate the ability of Americans to be self-delusional...including those who think that the election of President Obama made us "more humane."

  •  Kill kids ok, Tell about it not. (4+ / 0-)

    What kind of bizzaro world do we inhabit?  It's perfectly fine to kill innocents on the tax-payer dime...but those who expose the atrocities...those are the bad guys?

  •  Obama's policies (not leaks) kill people. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm so tired of the propaganda we pay for with our tax dollars.  It's bad enough we pay for these unlawful, immoral, useless military assaults and occupations.  Can't we at least hire better propagandists?  

    President Obama is the one who decides whether or not more human life is wasted.  President Obama's policies (sorry...can no longer blame this on Bush) put our soldiers and countless innocents in harms way.

    •  I know this is futile (3+ / 0-)

      but does anyone on this site ever see a leak story in DC the same way i do?

      first thing I do is ask myself "who leaked it and what was their motivation."

      in this case, there are lots of possibilities. for example, this leak could be from someone in the Pentagon looking to make trouble for a democratic administration. problem is though that they used material from the Bush years for the most part. perhaps that was all that was available, but it still reflects as badly on W as it may on Obama.

      another possibility is that it was done by people in our INTEL community intended to demonstrate to the Obama Administration their ability and intent to use large scale leaks to create problems for them. in this case, the material is not the issue, the leak itself was. it could be a declaration of intent to use large scale leaks to get the Administration to change their position on something may not have anything to do with Af/Pak)

      another possibility is that the Pakistani's or some other foreign INTEL service may have something to do with it, possibly with cooperation of the above, and again to demostrate the ability and to weaken support for the intervention for their own reasons.

      and finally, the OBAMA administration itself may have done it, specifically to prepare the ground for a signficant reevaluation of the intervention and a signficantly altered course. if that is indeed the case, they have to look like they had nothing to do with it. statements from Gibbs denouncing the leak would be part of that.

      my only point in this is to get people to recognize that leaks are used for strategic and tactical reasons in DC, both to win control of policy making and to shape the public debate. its often how things get worked out in DC.

      so things are not always as they seem. rather than taking each leak story literally, it my be more illuminating to think about what the motivations could be before jumping to futher conclusions.

  •  "blood on their hands" line is smokescreen (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marina, EyeOfSouthGwinnett, laker

    All this "blood on their hands" spin is an attempt to divert public attention away from the most damning revelations in the wikileaks material: that Pakistan is actively supporting the Taliban even as they accept billions of US dollars. This support allowed Al Queda operatives to freely travel to North Korea to buy weapons and allows Osama Bin Laden to actively direct attacks on US and NATO forces. All this is very clear in the Guardian's analysis of the leaked material but is completely missing from US media hacks who parrot the Pentagon "blood on their hands' line.

    Government is the conspiracy of the Few against the Many. - Francois Babeuf

    by Valatius on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 08:59:44 AM PDT

    •  Ohhhhh, yes... (0+ / 0-)

      I focused on just one thing from the leaks, but the idea of the US subsidizing its enemy in a highly protracted military conflict is an exceptionally damning finding.

      •  Pakistan's support for Taliban (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        There is a very good interview with Mark Mazzetti, lead writer for the NY Times on the wikileaks story, on NPR's Fresh Air. Terry Gross, the host, asks Mazzetti to identify the single biggest revelation in the documents and he says it is Pakistan's role in supporting the Taliban. A few days before the story broke, Mazzetti and other Times writers met with Robert Gibbs at the White House, not to seek permission to publish, but to ask one question: Why does the White House keep saying Pakistan is our ally and why do we give them a billion dollars a year?

        Government is the conspiracy of the Few against the Many. - Francois Babeuf

        by Valatius on Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 02:05:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Body counts are apparently back "in", this time (0+ / 0-)

    on the anti-war side.

    I also note the purported figures do not show us who is killing the civilians. Is that irrelevant to you?

    •  Fair enough question... (0+ / 0-)

      No, it's not irrelevant to me but at the same time I have no way to characterize just who's doing how much of the killing and injuring that's reflected in these numbers.  Similarly, I have no way to speak to how many civilian injuries tabulated here become deaths in the days or weeks after injury from, say, lack of adequate medical care or perhaps euthanasia.  But I did take into consideration that this data is compiled from after-action reports, BDAs, etc. and can therefore reasonably be expected to have been collected originally <en>as a deliberate due-course response to a large number of specific acts of US/allied military operations.</en>.  I have to beg your indulgence that I have not traced the casualties back to their perpetrators; I just don't have those kinds of resources at this time.  But that kind of deeper study is certainly warranted and, to me, welcomed.  

      If I may put words in your mouth:  are you perhaps suggesting that Afghan fighters might be killing Afghan civilians during engagements with the US/allies either deliberately or perhaps secondarily but knowingly?  If that were significantly so, knowing this, what should the US/allied military's moral response be?  These are serious <en>The-Dark-Knight</en>-style questions.  If I command the US/allied forces and decide that the moral, proper choice is to not engage if faced with this sort of enemy behavior, have I not arrived at the same point as I would have if I have decided that the civilian casualties <en>I</en> cause aren't worth it?

      •  The Taliban have been killing Afgans to achieve (0+ / 0-)

        their political goals long before the U.S. was involved. They came to the fore in the Afgan civil war in 1994, and have been killing other Afgans to consolidate power or regain it ever since. That is their interest, not peaceful coexistance.

        The U.S. interest is to prevent a virulantly anti-American/anti-European, militant, religiously inspired political movement from actively supporting offensive terrorist operations against American terratory, interests and allies - again. It is a counter insurgency conflict, it which it is not in our interest to kill Afgan civilians who don't represent a direct military threat. Indeed, it is in our interest to physically protect them.

        If one is pacifist in general, or cannot assimilate human suffering for any reason, the above is all irrelevant, unexcusable, and irrational.
        Unfortunately such folk cannot influence the other side, so ignore that in favor of attacking our conduct. If the reasoning is if we stop they'll stop, I can find no basis for it historically or in current practice.

        Since you asked, I believe the moral response to warfare in progress is to defeat your enemy as quickly and throughly as possible consistant with your interests.

  •  Taliban is reading 92,000 wikileaks docs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I don't doubt that Afganistan is a place we want to get out of, but that doesn't absolve Wikileaks of any consequences from their actions.
    In a free society the public is entitled to information. However, there are often good reasons for governments to keep some things secret.
    In this case Taliban are already going through those documents themselves, (because public is public to EVERYONE, and the Taliban have internet access). And I think they won't hesitate to execute anyone they deem to be an informer and they may not give them a fair trial or opportunity to disprove any misunderstandings.

    If you were upset about Valerie Plame's outing by Bush administration but happily support the Wikileaks 92,000 documents, you may want to step back and think about whether it's freedom or simply partisanship that you are supporting.

  •  Julian Assange and Wikileaks... (0+ / 0-)

    ...pose a clear and present danger to the security of the United States.  We should demand our government treat both accordingly.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site