Why our politicians don’t want to discuss foreign policy


by Guest    
4:26 pm - April 23rd 2010

Tweet       Share on Tumblr

contribution by Ben Six

In the twilight of 2009, Afghan investigators accused the International forces of “kill[ing] 10 youths, eight of them school students inside two rooms in a house, without encountering any armed resistance.”

NATO dismissed these claims, saying that “non-military Americans” had “fired in self-defence after being shot at by villagers”.

A source told Jerome Starkey of the Times that it had been “a joint operation that was conducted against an IED cell that Afghan and US officials had been developing information against for some time”.

An ISAF statement added that “several assault rifles, ammunition, and ammonium nitrate used in bomb-making [had been] discovered”.

Nevertheless, as Afghanistan united in condemnation, it called for “an immediate joint investigation”.

For weeks, though, nothing more was heard. Dave Lindorff of Counterpunch phoned up the Pentagon who, limply, claimed that the ISAF were pursuing their inquiries.

So little was cared about the incident, it seemed, that when he dropped a line to the House Armed Services Committee, they asked him to send them details.

Finally, in late February, Starkey reported a NATO official’s admission that “knowing what we know now, it would probably not have been a justifiable attack…we don’t now believe that we busted a major ring”.

“Ultimately,” he went on, “[W]e did determine this to be a civilian casualty incident“. “Incidents such as this“, the Times was told, “Do not reflect any conduct that ISAF would condone and it is not the way ISAF trains any of our Afghan partners”.

That, it seems, is all that their “investigation“‘s come to. Strange, really, as their knowledge just after the killings was so rich. The “assault rifles” they claimed to discover have vanished without trace, and the only “ammunition” we’re sure exists was fired into the poor, dead students.

We still don’t know who the killers were. Several officials have admitted to the presence of American forces, but “US [troops] based in Kunar denied any knowledge of the raid” and “Nato insists that the troops were not part of the International Security Assistance Force”.

No one has been willing to identify – let alone accept responsibility for – the “non-military Americans”, or the Afghan troops that it’s claimed were with them.

All we have are the memories of the poor, petrified Afghan villagers who offered accounts to Jerome Starkey. The men and children, some of them as young as twelve, were killed without the slightest sign of aggression towards the fierce, night-goggled troops.

“Most were shot at close range where they slept”, we’re told, while another was dragged from his marital room, to be executed along with his three nephews. The families have seen no justice, nor received any closure; just “$2,000 compensation for each person killed”.

The killers, we must guess, walk free: safe and unnamed, without even a half-hearted slap on the wrist. Their organisation, whatever it is, has escaped embarrassment, let alone censure. The ISAF haven’t explained their many false accounts: the mystery gunfight, the “IED” reports or the non-existent “discovered” armoury.

The media is asking no questions. When Brown, Clegg and Cameron walk out for the “defence” debate, their smug assurance won’t be troubled.

It’s under the mat, with just a hint of red seeping from up beneath.

   Tweet   Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Foreign affairs ,Realpolitik


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. blanco

It’s safe to say it was the NATO/US soldiers.

2. John Q. Publican

Not necessarily; it is as likely to have been a privately-employed mercenary soldier working for a US- or Russian multinational such as the Carlyle Group. Precisely in order to achieve deniability…

3. Galen10

I’m not sure I really understand the intent of the OP, or how the headline relates to the specific incident?

Terrible as the killing of these civilians is, and however ever craven our domestic media, I don’t see how that suddenly becomes a stick to beat politicians about their unwillingness to discuss foreign policy, or their “smug assurance” during a defence debate… unless you have a view that the involvement in Afghanistan isn’t legitimate at all?

4. BenSix

I have a view – solidly rooted in t’available facts – that the IMF in Afghanistan have a) massacred civilians and b) lied about it. This case ain’t a one-off, either, and yet no one seems that bothered. I think that’s serious enough that it should be firmly lodged within the psyches of our waffle-dispensing triptych.

(The headline, though, isn’t mine.)

5. Shatterface

Wot John Q said. This looks like ‘private contractors’ to me.

Although Galen10 is also right that this is a significant story in itself and tying it into the election debates, smug assurances or otherwise, just muddies a scandal murky enough in the first place.

6. Shatterface

Sorry, Ben -looks like you answered my point before I posted it.

7. douglas clark

Shatterface @ 6,

No he hasn’t.

What is your agenda here?

Are you subscribing to the completely barren idea that US citizens are less accountable that the US Army?

You appear to do so here:

Not necessarily; it is as likely to have been a privately-employed mercenary soldier working for a US- or Russian multinational such as the Carlyle Group. Precisely in order to achieve deniability…

Fuck that for a game of soldiers. Who the heck employed your mercenary soldier and why did the US allow it?

You are talking complete utter shite.

8. douglas clark

Could I have editing back, please?

9. BenSix

By the way, last year the UN were remarkably prescient…

With regards to operations by IMF, separate and increasingly confusing command structures and joint operations have meant that in many incidents involving pro-government forces it is unclear who is responsible for a particular operation.

…the Afghan public has voiced growing anger at the perceived impunity for civilian casualties – especially those civilian casualties attributable to the actions of the IMF.

The “perce[ption]“, for one reason or another, has yet to change.

10. bluepillnation

douglas clark @ 7

Google “Blackwater” to get an idea of what he means.

11. pagar

unless you have a view that the involvement in Afghanistan isn’t legitimate at all?

I do.

12. Galen10

@11 pagar

And the alternative is….?

13. Trooper Thompson

The alternative is, at this point in time, to get out. If you want to save some face, then announce you’ve done a deal with the ‘moderate Taliban’ and then get out.

14. pagar

The alternative is, at this point in time, to get out. If you want to save some face, then announce you’ve done a deal with the ‘moderate Taliban’ and then get out.

Agreed.

15. Galen10

Ah right. I’m sure the population of Afghanistan you are keen to see re-subjected to Taliban rule will be thrilled at the prospect.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Matt Sellwood

    RT @libcon: Why our politicians don't want to discuss foreign policy http://bit.ly/cgOLQb

  2. David Wearing

    RT @libcon: Why our politicians don't want to discuss foreign policy http://bit.ly/cgOLQb

  3. sunny hundal

    RT @libcon: Why our politicians don't want to discuss foreign policy http://bit.ly/cgOLQb

  4. Thomas Swingler

    RT @libcon: Why our politicians don't want to discuss foreign policy http://bit.ly/cgOLQb

  5. Leon Green

    RT @libcon: Why our politicians don't want to discuss foreign policy http://bit.ly/cgOLQb

  6. Derek Oakley

    RT @libcon: Why our politicians don't want to discuss foreign policy http://bit.ly/cgOLQb

  7. Nicholas Stewart

    #LiberalConspiracy Why our politicians don’t want to discuss foreign policy http://is.gd/bFejR – love this guys work

  8. Liberal Conspiracy

    Why our politicians don't want to discuss foreign policy http://bit.ly/cgOLQb

  9. NewLeftProject

    RT @libcon: Why our politicians don't want to discuss foreign policy http://bit.ly/cgOLQb

  10. Jon Sharman

    RT @pickledpolitics: RT @libcon: Why our politicians don't want to discuss foreign policy http://bit.ly/cgOLQb

  11. uberVU - social comments

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by libcon: Why our politicians don’t want to discuss foreign policy http://bit.ly/cgOLQb…

  12. Kim Lofthouse

    RT @libcon: Why our politicians don't want to discuss foreign policy http://bit.ly/bBTvXX

  13. The Kunar Massacre: Silence, Beyond The Graveyards… « Back Towards The Locus

    [...] This has been cross-posted to Liberal Conspiracy. [...]

  14. Amy Wilson

    RT @libcon: Why our politicians don't want to discuss foreign policy http://bit.ly/bBTvXX





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.