Obama crosses John Cusack's "line of conscience"

The "Line of Conscience" phrase in the headline is mine. I wrote here, in the start of a series I will still complete:

Group 1 in the "Can't vote for Obama" crowd — no matter the other reasons for pulling that trigger — are those whose lines of conscience have been crossed.

I aim this at the people who say, "But President Santorum would take marching orders from Koch Bros Central." That's true; President Santorum would rule from Wichita (via its Wisconsin field office).

But there are those whose consciences are so offended (that's a war crimes link) that they cannot let themselves do one good thing for the perpetrator. Not one.

Unlike phony "consciences", these genuine cries of integrity must be honored, in my view, even if you tactically disagreed. You can fight a war, in other words, and still respect the Quakers.

There are other reasons for not voting for Obama, and many for voting for him as well. That's the point of the series — identify the reasons for and against that make sense, and sort out the ones that make no sense at all.

But back to this one — crossing lines of conscience. At what point does a generally good office-holder lose your support? What if they*:

• Stole from the office lotto pool?
• Had sex with a colleague in the back room?
• Had sex with an intern in the back room?
• Tortured frogs?
• Hit a spouse?
• Committed murder?

At the lesser "crimes" you overlook the bad for the good. But at some point in that list, if your candidate were guilty, you would not be able to support them*. He or she has crossed your "line of conscience."

Back to Obama. I've written many times:

Barack Obama is crossing lines of conscience, one Democrat at a time.

It's obvious, true on its face. And whether your line has been crossed or not, he seems to be testing us all, one step at a time. FISA betrayal? No? Bush tax cuts? Not yet? NDAA perhaps? No? Let's try this one then...

Nevertheless, as I've also said, the next Republican president will be a wrecking ball — he'll use the radical Republican governors as a template.

What are the Republican governors doing, if they can get away with it? Constitutional coup at the state level, with the goal of permanent one-party rule. It's almost impossible to say that any other way.

But this piece is not about your vote. It's about Barack Obama, lines of conscience, and John Cusack.

Here's Cusack writing at Shannyn Moore's site (my emphasis, paragraphing and asterisks; yes, plural):

[T]here are certain Rubicon lines, as constitutional law professor Jon Turley calls them, that Obama has crossed. ...

Three markers — the Nobel prize acceptance speech, the escalation speech at West Point, and the recent speech by Eric Holder — crossed that Rubicon line for me…

Mr. Obama, the Christian president with the Muslim-sounding name, would heed the admonitions of neither religion’s prophets about making war and do what no empire or leader, including Alexander the Great, could do: he would, he assured us “get the job done in Afghanistan.”

And so we have our democratic president receiving the Nobel Peace Prize as he sends 30,000 more troops to a ten-year-old conflict in a country that’s been war-torn for 5,000 years.

We can’t have it both ways. Hope means endless war? ... Why? We’ll never fully know. Instead, we got a speech that was stone bullsh*t and an insult to the very idea of peace. ...

To sum it up: more war. So thousands die or are maimed [but] he and his satellites get their four more years.

Cusack concludes:

One is forced to ask ... Is the President just another Ivy League Assh*le shredding civil liberties and due process and sending people to die in some sh*thole for purely political reasons?

You really should click over if this interests you. The article continues with a terrific interchange between Cusack and constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley, of whom we've written much. It's well worth your time.

This election has turned into a Rorschach test for Dems, with clusters of answers and all of them about you, not the candidates.

Romney and the Koch-couped Republicans are a solid known. ("Power please, and no, you may not have it back.") Obama is also a known. ("Look out Lame Duck; you could be Dead Duck in December. Keystone, you're next.")

But what about you? The choices define your care-line. Is drone-killing babies a bridge too far? Or do you think Republicans are doing even worse? Do you prefer the slow death of Social Security to the fast? How much new carbon before Obama is a criminal too?

How about the genuine victory of electing the first Black president, offset by the fact that he too won't help the "undeserving" — "moochers" in Repub-speak; "not-bankers" in Obama-world. Talk about an ironic choice.

Fascinating stuff, I have to admit. If I didn't care about the outcome, this would make a lively and ghoulish family drama, an aching Long Day's Journey into Night for the American people and their unguarded dying democracy.

Obama or Romney? Really. How did average Americans get shoved into this box? (Oh that's right; their addiction to hating the "undeserving" and a last little straw called Bush v Gore, which passed by majority vote of an unprotesting people.)

But I do care, and I don't want to watch a friend choose which drug to die from. Trouble is, he's doing it in front of me. Cusack is another who's noticed, as has Turley. The piece is quite a find. (Interesting thought; I'll bet Cusack has acted in Long Day's Journey. Wonder if he's thinking of it now.)

* Grammar note for fans: "They" and "them" are slowly gaining the singular meaning "he or she" ("him or her") in addition to their plural meanings. Note that they, them and their are already both singular and plural in speech — "everyone has their book."

As a talk-around for the "he or she" problem, this has become my preferred solution, far less clunky than any of the others. (Fair warning — this is deliberate. In thirty years, no one will notice.)

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Suicides increasing among US troops

From AP:

Suicides are surging among America's troops, averaging nearly one a day this year — the fastest pace in the nation's decade of war.

The 154 suicides for active-duty troops in the first 155 days of the year far outdistance the U.S. forces killed in action in Afghanistan — about 50 percent more — according to Pentagon statistics obtained by The Associated Press.

The numbers reflect a military burdened with wartime demands from Iraq and Afghanistan that have taken a greater toll than foreseen a decade ago. The military also is struggling with increased sexual assaults, alcohol abuse, domestic violence and other misbehavior.

I've worried for a while about the cost of war on individual servicemembers over all these years.  How do you live every minute of every day worrying about being killed, and not have it takes it toll after a matter of days, if not months and years?

I had and interview with Nobel economist Joe Stiglitz about the financial cost of war, which includes the cost of treating wounded (both physically and psychologically) servicemembers.  Stiglitz estimated that Iraq and Afghanistan will end up costing the US more than $3 trillion. Here's that interview:

Read the rest of this post...

Poll: New low for support of Afghanistan war

Who are the 27% that support this ridiculous war? It's about time the DoD had a serious come-to-Jesus about spending and start spending at home. These wars have been a terrible drain on the economy yet the defense industry keeps finding new toys to play with as though we're not in a beaten down economy. There have been some cuts to Pentagon spending but it's nowhere near enough for one of the most bloated parts of the government.

The original purpose of being in Afghanistan passed years ago so let's declare victory and cut the spending now. If the 27%ers want to support the war, let them start writing the checks. The US is locked in to spending there whether we like it or not. There's a high likelihood the situation will rapidly deteriorate after the US pulls out completely but after eleven years, so be it. Nation building was a bad idea before and it's just as bad today. LA Times:

On the heels of President Obama's surprise visit to Afghanistan last week, in which he pledged to "finish the job we started" and "end this war responsibly," the American public’s support for the 11-year conflict has reached a new low, according to a poll.

Just 27% of respondents said they back the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan, the new Associated Press-Gfk poll found. Of the 66% who said they oppose the war, about half said they believe the presence of American troops in Afghanistan is doing more harm than good.

But among all respondents, nearly half -- 48% -- said they think the continued U.S. military presence is doing more to help Afghanistan become a stable democracy.

Read the rest of this post...

Welcome Home: Scott Ostrom's struggle with PTSD

Scott Ostrom served four years as a reconnaissance Marine, deploying for two tours in Iraq. Now 27 years old, he suffers from severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Since being honorably discharged from the military he has struggled to maintain healthy relationships or keep a steady job. But the most difficult thing for him has been coping with his chilling memories of Iraq, and what they mean for him going forward:

The most important part of my life already happened. The most devastating... Nothing is ever going to compare to what I've done, so I'm struggling to be at peace with that.

Craig Walker of the Denver Post is set to receive a Pulitzer Prize in Feature Photography for his photo essay, entitled "Welcome Home," which documents Scott Ostrom's life as a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The photos, and accompanying captions, provide a sobering reminder that the cost of war is measured in more than lives, dollars and poll numbers. I encourage readers to view the photo essay here.

As of April 2012, 6,422 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and 47,545 have been injured in combat. Countless more, including Scott Orstrom, suffer from post-traumatic stress.

Between 106,000 and 116,000 Iraqi civilians and 12,793 Afghan civilians have been killed have been killed. Thousands more have been injured; millions more have been displaced.

The next time our leaders consider sending American troops overseas, be it for promotion of American values or cynical national interests, they should think about Scott Ostrom. I challenge anyone to look at "Welcome Home" and, with a straight face, tell me that the invasion of Iraq was worth it. Read the rest of this post...

CNN airs interviews with Afghan witnesses: "Were others involved in the killings?"

This is an excellent must-watch report, with witness interviews, of the Kandahar massacre story (h/t Steve Hynd via Twitter for the link).

I suspect this is CNN's international feed, the highly respected one you can't get at home. The British accent of the anchor suggests as much, as does the content.

From the CNN page describing this video:

Reporter Yalda Hakim of Australia’s SBS network has become the first western journalist to visit the villages where a U.S. soldier allegedly killed 17 people.

In a remarkable report she talks with some of the survivors and some Afghan guards on duty at the military camp from where Staff Sgt. Robert Bales left on his alleged killing spree. The video at the top of this story is Hakim’s account of her journey to the remote villages near Kandahar and what she was told.

A short rundown:

▪ Starting at 4:05, there's an excellent recreation of the events of that night, begnning with the layout — the relative locations of Camp Belambai and the two villages, Alkozai and Najiban. This provides an excellent sense of place, what those villages look like, what the houses feel like inside, how barren the countryside. An excellent job by this reporter and her team.

▪ The discussion of the number of shooters starts at 5:55. Note that it's the U.S. military that initially blocks interview (7:15). Interviews themselves start at 7:45.

▪ At 8:50, there is a clear eyewitness who saw more than one soldier performing the killings, in what an Afghan official said earlier looked like a helicopter-supported operation.

▪ Near the end of the CNN wrapper to the SBS segment, you'll see an interview with John Henry Browne, the accused lone gunman's attorney. That's a name to remember and watch for.

This is a terrific watch. Please do if you have the time. Ms. Hakim, the reporter, is the one in the green hijab, or headscarf.

(To see this report larger and in a new tab, click here.)



One final note: When Ms. Hakim describes Sgt. Bales' movements, she's taking the American view of events ("lone shooter") since she has no witnesses to his movements in or near the base to the contrary. (In other words, no one is saying "A group of men left the base at this or that time that night.")

When she describes the events in the villages, she lets the witnesses speak for themselves. Thus the apparent discrepancy.

In our three-legged stool on the Afghan massacre story, this is the first break in the media side of the story — some acknowledgement that the U.S. military's explanation is not the only one with credibility.

And on the U.S. side of the story, this attorney's public appearance means the pre-trial dance has begun.

It's interesting, by the way, how closely this comports with Marcy Wheeler's smart speculation. More as it develops.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius) Read the rest of this post...

US service member dies saving little girl in Afghanistan

This was a story I came across yesterday. It think it's important to remember that our service members are human beings too.  War is not a pretty thing.  And regardless of our feelings about the mission, or its aftermath, our troops are real people, and they're not all bad, by a longshot.  This story, below, is as about as human, and heartbreaking, as you can get.

CNN:

According to the Rhode Island National Guard and the U.S. Army, Weichel was in a convoy a week ago with his unit in Laghman Province, in northeast Afghanistan. Some children were in the road in front of the convoy, and Weichel and other troops got out to move them out of the way.

Most of the children moved, but one little girl went back to pick up some brass shell casings in the road. Afghan civilians often recycle the casings, and the girl appeared to aim to do that. But a Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicle was moving toward her, according to Lt. Col. Denis Riel of the Rhode Island National Guard.

MRAPs, as they are known, usually weigh more than 16 tons.

Weichel saw the massive truck bearing down on the girl and grabbed her out of the way. But in the process, the armored truck ran him over, Riel said.

The little girl is fine. Weichel died a short time later of his injuries.

Read the rest of this post...

U.S. pays families of Afghan massacre victims $50,000 for each slain relative

I offer this to square the circle on the Kandahar massacre story. With this information, you're up to date.

The other news recently — other than radio silence from both the British and American press on the multiple eyewitness accounts opposed to the "lone gunman" thesis — is the weekend payments by the U.S. military to the victims of the slaughter and their families.

The Boston Globe puts it this way (my emphasis):

The families of 16 [sic] Afghan villagers killed this month in a massacre blamed on a US soldier [sic] were given $50,000 by the United States for each of their slain relatives, Afghan and US officials said.

The payments were made Saturday by US military officers at the office of the governor of Kandahar Province, where the killings took place. Those wounded in the violence were each given $11,000, said Haji Agha Lalai, a member of the Kandahar provincial council.

Haji Jan Agha, who lost cousins in the killings, said he and other relatives of the deceased were invited to the governor’s office by foreign and Afghan officials, according to the Reuters news agency. “They said this money is an assistance from Obama,’’ Agha was quoted as saying.

Lalai also described the payments as “assistance’’ to the wounded and the families of the dead, not as any kind of traditional compensation that would absolve the accused of responsibility for the crimes.

Interesting parsing. This Guardian story, which covers the payments near the end of the article, characterizes the U.S. as seeking "to appease Afghans by providing assistance".

About the number of victims, the Globe adds in the same piece:

Bales, who was flown out of Afghanistan soon after the killings, was formally charged on Friday with 17 [sic] counts of murder and six counts of assault and attempted murder. He is being held at a military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

According to Afghan and US officials, Bales walked off his small combat outpost in a rural area of Kandahar in the early hours of March 11 and shot and stabbed at least 16 [sic] people to death. ... Neither Afghan nor US officials have explained the discrepancy between the official Afghan government death toll of 16 and the 17 counts of murder that Bales was charged with by the US military.

Two things to note: First, that story syncs up with Marcy Wheeler's work, which we discussed here. Second, the Globe has both U.S. and Afghan "officials" holding to the "lone gunman" story, which we first discussed here.

Let's see if it sticks — not the "lone gunman" story; the media's failure to report the eyewitness accounts. So far, the silence makes my ears hurt.

UPDATES:

1. Even Al-Jazeera is walking the "alleged lone gunman" line with no report of the Afghan commission finding that I could locate. Here's their latest — note the parsing. Not a whitewash exactly, but no offsetting reporting either. Try a search of their site yourself; see if you get different results. Silence is all I hear.

2. And then there's this.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...

Overwhelming majority of Americans want out of Afghanistan

Who exactly are the people who still support the war in Afghanistan? There is no winning there though it's been that way for years. At this point the only people supporting it are the defense contractors and senior brass who get to play live war games. Spending precious tax dollars on an un-winnable war was a bad idea before and it's only worse now. The time to declare victory and move on is long gone, so let's just move on at this point.

Support for the war in Afghanistan is slipping fast, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll released Monday. More than two-thirds of those surveyed, 69 percent, think the United States should no longer be fighting, a 16 percent jump from just four months ago.

A similar number, 68 percent, say the war effort is going either "very badly" or "somewhat badly," a big increase from 42 percent in the last poll in November.

Nearly half of Americans think the timetable for pulling U.S troops out of Afghanistan should be moved up. Forty-four percent say U.S. forces should leave before the Obama administration's planned withdrawal by the end of 2014, while 33 percent say the U.S. should stick to the current schedule. Seventeen percent say the U.S. should stay "as long as it takes"; 3 percent say the troops should come home now.

Read the rest of this post...

Kandahar massacre update—Global Post interviews Afghan witnesses

As you know, we've been following the Afghan shooter spree story (also here) — and recently wrote:

1. Will it get near-term media traction? Let's see if the British independent press picks it up, or some prime American source. These are critical hours for the story in the U.S.; the fruit is still unripe, still vulnerable to the frosty stare of the next missing news-blonde.

2. In the U.S. what will be the response? At some point there will be a trial. That in itself could rekindle awareness. After all, if one or more people had gone on a midnight killing spree of 16 women and children in Kansas, we'd be inundated with it, drowning in it.

3. In Afghanistan, this could change the political equation. Yes, we're talking about maybe exiting the war. But there's now more on the table for honor-focused tribal leaders than just our leaving.

■ The U.S.–DoD side of the story (point 2 above) is being ably followed by Marcy Wheeler — including the difference in the number of victims claimed, and the implications of that discrepancy. Do check that out, especially her speculations near the end of the post. (And see also this, then this to get her long-range projections for this story's arc. I'm guessing she's right.)

The rest of this looks at the media side (point 1) — including differences between the villagers accounts of the number of shooters and the U.S. military's account — and also at the Afghan side (point 3).

■ The media side of the story is fairly quiet. However, there's this fascinating article from the Global Post, headquartered in Boston, which casts doubt on the stories of the Afghan witnesses.

But read on; they did a lot of original reporting, including their own interviews with eyewitnesses, and turned up some great results (my emphases and some reparagraphing):

Conflicting reports from eyewitnesses, US officials and local leaders show, if anything, how little is known for certain about what happened in the early morning hours of March 11, when Staff Sgt. Robert Bales allegedly massacred 16 Afghan civilians [amended by the U.S. to 17], including nine women and children. ...

“ISAF is looking into all the witnesses accounts who are deemed credible and we will investigate that,” Lt. Brian Badura said. Credible is the key word. Most of the “witnesses” so far interviewed are from the villages, or are family or friends of the victims. But very few actually saw the shooting unfold.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who summoned several villagers to Kabul to get their side of the story, has ardently supported their claims. GlobalPost, however, interviewed the same people in Kandahar before they flew to meet Karzai, and found that either they didn’t see the shooting or that they couldn’t recall key details.

[For example,] Habibullah, a 28-year-old farmer who saw parts of the massacre unfold, was one of those who met Karzai. He told GlobalPost he saw several soldiers in his compound when his father was shot. But he also admits he can’t remember everything that happened. “My mind is too confused,” he said. ...

Note that the article's disclaimer ("they didn’t see the shooting or ... couldn’t recall key details") is belied by this direct testimony from later in the same article:

After the soldier with the walkie-talkie killed her husband, [Massouma] said he lingered in the doorway of her home. “While he stood there, I secretly looked through the curtains and saw at least 20 Americans, with heavy weapons, searching all the rooms in our compound, as well as my bathroom,” she said. ... An Afghan journalist who went to Massouma’s home in the days after the shooting and spoke with one of her sons, aged seven, said the boy told him he looked through the curtains and saw a number of soldiers — although he couldn’t say how many.

Massouma's husband is Mohammad Dawood according to Wheeler, who is attempting to coordinate all these names, lists, and versions.

Do read the rest. It would be easy to dismiss this as a U.S.-based media outlet doing DoD laundry. But the detail is credible, even though (or because) it doesn't support the lede.

So shame, I suppose, for bending (if that's what they did), and kudos for going, asking, and reporting what they heard.

■ On the Afghan side we feared retribution. Well, it's happening. First The Guardian, reporting on an Afghan-on-British forces shooting:

Two British soldiers were killed on Monday when an Afghan soldier turned his gun on them at the gates of a UK military base. The attacker was also killed during an exchange of fire which may have started after security guards stopped a truck as it tried to enter the heavily fortified compound in Helmand's capital Lashkar Gah. ...

Massoud Khan Nourzai, an MP from Helmand, said: "These kinds of attacks have increased lately and maybe they will continue to increase in the future.

"They have increased because of the incidents like the one in Kandahar. If an incident like Kandahar happens, people are not sitting quietly. In every Afghan family they are talking about it and saying they committed a cruel action."

The AP ups that number to three killed in two attacks:

Afghan security forces shot and killed three international troops Monday, one of them an American, in two attacks. They were the latest in a rising number of attacks in which Afghan forces have turned their weapons on their foreign partners.

Causes are given in both papers as the Kandahar massacre, the "burning of Muslim holy books at a U.S. base, and uncertainty about Afghanistan's fate."

Note this from the Guardian article:

Tensions have been running high in Afghanistan because of the burning of Qur'ans by US forces inside an international base, and then the shooting dead of 17 [sic] Afghan civilians in Kandahar province by Staff Sergeant Robert Bales.

So the independent British press is following the DoD line, at least for now — no mention in this story of offsetting witness accounts. The Guardian article closes with a quote supporting Cameron's decision to remain in Afghanistan, so the media "lone gunman" story is a joint trans-Atlantic op, at least in appearance.

There you have it, a three-legged update on the three-legged stool of this story. More as it develops. In the meantime, keep an eye on emptywheel.net for more of her coverage — Wheeler is following aspects not found elsewhere.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...

Afghan stories—What happens when a charismatic Sgt turns into "a hater"

We've been covering the recent Afghan murder spree — the horror of the massacre and the question of the number of troops involved.

The latest face-off has an Afghan parliamentary inquiry finding that 15–20 soldiers were involved (based on numerous eye-witness interviews) vs. the U.S. military (and most of the press) holding to a "lone gunman" explanation.

I've also written that until the multiple-troops story is debunked, simple assertions by the U.S. military don't carry sufficient offsetting weight.

Let's now consider, in general, the situation of an Afhgan-based platoon when one of its sergeants has gone over the edge, become "a hater" (in the words of another sergeant who "wanted nothing to do" with him).

This story, from the American Scholar, will set you back. Its title:

Afghanistan: A Gathering Menace
Traveling with U.S. troops gives insights into the recent massacre

You can see where it's going, and what its value is. It contains both mitigation and indictment. I'll reprint the mitigation. The indictment I'll discuss, but you should read it for yourself — I don't want to put the detail in these pages.

First, the mitigation, from near the middle (my emphasis everywhere):

Since 2006 I have written off and on about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nearly all of my work in those countries has been done embedded with NATO, mostly American military units. Many times I have watched soldiers or Marines, driven by boredom or fear, behave selfishly and meanly, even illegally, in minor ways. In a few searing moments I have wondered what would come next, what the men would do to prisoners or civilians or suspected insurgents. And I have wondered how to describe these moments without reporting melodramatic minutiae or betraying the men who allowed me in.

Most soldierly stupidity does not amount to crime; most soldiers never commit atrocities. U.S. soldiers shooting at goats, for example, or pilots getting drunk on base, or guards threatening the lives of prisoners, all things I have seen, defy military rules and erode efforts to win hearts and minds. But how bad is it, really? Do we care? ...

We tend to ignore such problems unless they are connected to a crime. ...

Now the indictment. The bulk of the essay describes the writer's time embedded with a platoon he calls "Destroyer". Among the sergeants is a man he calls "Givens" and describes thus:

He was in his mid-20s, charismatic and quick, a combat veteran. He threw down declarations like a hip-hop star—respect yourself and no one else; f**k bitches, get money—and the younger infantrymen revered him. Even officers appeared to defer to his humor, efficiency, and rage.

Platoons are often structured like high school cliques, and Givens stood at the apex of his, setting the tone and example. A list of characteristics scrolled through my mind as I listened to the men, traits I probably learned from episodes of Law & Order, or Lord of the Flies. Pop-culture sociopathy. Sexualized aggression. The displays of wolves.

There are tales of what Givens and his men do during house-to-house Taliban searches (which turn up nothing). The behavior will not be described here, but it's bad enough that the Afghan soldiers working with them...

...at first tried to stop them, then grew angry, sullen. ... I imagined the Afghan soldiers standing by, helpless, while Destroyer destroyed. I thought of attacks over the past several years in which Afghan policemen or soldiers had suddenly turned on their NATO allies and opened fire. Such betrayals have been increasing.

Do read to see just what those Afghan soldiers were forced to witness.

This is not an indictment of all U.S. troops — far from it. As I mentioned, some of the other sergeants would have nothing to do with "Givens" and almost hated him. But the writer also makes clear there is more than one Givens serving in Afghanistan:

I have heard [Given's] words [which I will not quote] in many variations, from many American combat troops. But he and some of his men were the first I had met who seemed very near to committing the dumb and vicious acts that we call war crimes.

About the Given's quote alluded to above — it's the most startling sentence in the piece. If you want to see it, go here. Steve Hynd uses it as his title, in his own examination of this remarkable American Scholar essay.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius) Read the rest of this post...

Afghan parliamentary probe: Up to 20 U.S. troops involved in massacre

We asked earlier, "How many shooters were involved in the Afghan killings?" Afghan lawmakers are asking the same question, and have settled on an answer — as many as twenty.

The Kabul-based Pajhwok Afghan News agency — Afghanistan's largest independent news service — is reporting on an Afghan parliamentary probe into the murder of 16 civilians by one or more U.S. soldiers over the weekend. According to the report (h/t Steve Hynd via Twitter; my emphasis and reparagraphing):

A parliamentary probe team on Thursday said up to 20 American troops were involved in Sunday’s killing of 16 civilians in southern Kandahar province.

The probing delegation includes lawmakers [eight MPs listed]. ... The team spent two days in the province, interviewing the bereaved families, tribal elders, survivors and collecting evidences at the site in Panjwai district. Hamizai Lali told Pajhwok Afghan News their investigation showed there were 15 to 20 American soldiers, who executed the brutal killings.

“We closely examined the site of the incident, talked to the families who lost their beloved ones, the injured people and tribal elders,” he said. He added the attack lasted one hour involving two groups of American soldiers in the middle of the night on Sunday.

“The villages are one and a half kilometre from the American military base. We are convinced that one soldier cannot kill so many people in two villages within one hour at the same time, and the 16 civilians, most of them children and women, have been killed by the two groups.”

A stunning development, if true. The U.S. military is holding to the "lone gunman" theory, and has flown the soldier who has reportedly confessed out of the country. Some of the lawmakers wanted the perpetrator(s) tried in Afghanistan.

There are several implications to this report. Just a few:

1. Will it get near-term media traction? Let's see if the British independent press picks it up, or some prime American source. These are critical hours for the story in the U.S.; the fruit is still unripe, still vulnerable to the frosty stare of the next missing news-blonde.

2. In the U.S. what will be the response? At some point there will be a trial. That in itself could rekindle awareness. After all, if one or more people had gone on a midnight killing spree of 16 women and children in Kansas, we'd be inundated with it, drowning in it.

3. In Afghanistan, this could change the political equation. Yes, we're talking about maybe exiting the war. But there's now more on the table for honor-focused tribal leaders than just our leaving. The report includes this:

The lawmaker said the Wolesi Jirga would not sit silent until the killers were prosecuted in Afghanistan. "If the international community does not play its role in punishing the perpetrators, the Wolesi Jirga would declare foreign troops as occupying forces, like the Russians," Lali warned.

The Wolesi Jirga is the lower house of the Afghan parliament. Declaring U.S. troops an occupying force would have an effect. Lali, by the way, is Chairman of the Parliamentary National Security and Internal Affairs Commission. Not nobody.

As Rachel Maddow reported, our troops are already being "fragged" by their Afghan "partners." This could turn into a very different war than we asked for, and the Afghans seem determined to follow this through.

Stay tuned.

UPDATES: 1. More thoughts on this at the Agonist.

2. And here at emptywheel.net.

3. Informative additions by commenter hauksdottir here. This is a good comment thread. Thanks to all.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...

How many shooters were involved in the Afghan killing spree?

As you know by now, there was a killing spree in Afghanistan over the weekend in which sixteen Afghan civilians in several villages, including nine children, were murdered in cold blood by at least one U.S. soldier. We covered the story here and here; click for fast background.

Commenter Bubs now points out a discrepancy in reporting the number of shooters involved. Normally these discrepancies mean witnesses see different things (or think they do). This Reuters story, however, paints the situation in an entirely different light.

I call your attention to this (my emphasis and some reparagraphing):

There were conflicting reports of how many shooters were involved, with U.S. officials asserting that a lone soldier was responsible, in contrast to witnesses' accounts that several U.S. soldiers were present.

Neighbors and relatives of the dead said they had seen a group of U.S. soldiers arrive at their village in Kandahar's Panjwayi district at about 2 a.m., enter homes and open fire. An Afghan man who said his children were killed in the shooting spree accused soldiers of later burning the bodies. ... Afghan officials also gave varying accounts of the number of shooters involved. Karzai's office released a statement quoting a villager as saying "American soldiers woke my family up and shot them in the face." ...

"They (Americans) poured chemicals over their dead bodies and burned them," Samad told Reuters at the scene. Neighbors said they had awoken to crackling gunfire from American soldiers, who they described as laughing and drunk. "They were all drunk and shooting all over the place," said neighbor Agha Lala, who visited one of the homes where killings took place. "Their (the victims') bodies were riddled with bullets."

American officials, on the other hand, "rejected witness accounts" and called them "flatly wrong."

Clearly a he said–they said situation, and not to be judged rashly. Nevertheless, it's telling that all of the eyewitnesses agree with each other, and that at least some Afghan officials agree with the eyewitnesses.

The lone defender of the "lone gunman" theory is the U.S. military, whose record in these matters is not encouraging — see the Pat Tillman cover-up and the Jessica Lynch controversy. The google has lots more where that came from.

Still, I'm not saying that the U.S. official position is wrong. I'm saying that it would be wrong to take them at their word without a full and impartial investigation.

Of special interest will be the soldier's confession at trial, if indeed he faces the death penalty. If I were him, an offered Lt. Calley–style slap on the wrist might make me go all quiet on any others involved. But if I'm facing death, I'm not sure what the motivation for lying would be.

So watch this, especially if there's a trial. Will he be given a good defense team? Will his statements be public and transparent, or limited and filtered? Will he be offered reasons to lie, such as lighter sentencing? And most importantly, will Afghan eyewitnesses be given a full opportunity to testify?

Until the evidence is conclusive, the question in the title of this post is open for discussion. How many shooters? We don't know until someone reconciles these discrepancies.

UPDATE: Great discussion in the comments, including this by Bubs. Thanks, all.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...

Onion: "Could The Use Of Flying Death Robots Be Hurting America's Reputation Worldwide?"

My God this is well done. It's only 2 minutes long and freaking brilliant.  Here's a snippet of the dialogue:

News Anchor: Some experts have suggested making robots that are more visually reassuring... they're now developing a 40 foot robot that actually looks more like an American soldier, and sprays lasers from his eyes.

Expert 1: At least that's a step forward.

Expert 2: As long as it fires missiles and bombs with very little accuracy and zero Americans are at threat, I'm all for it.

Expert 1: They should give it funny floppy arms.

Expert 3: It should spray candy out of its chest before it starts shooting everything.

Anchor: You know Jason, that's actually a really nice gesture for the children who don't get mowed down by the bullets. 

Could The Use Of Flying Death Robots Be Hurting America's Reputation Worldwide? Read the rest of this post...

Is the Afghan murder story our My Lai Moment?

UPDATE: Excellent comments below, including this by Bubs, who links us to Reuters. Note the uncertainty about the number of soldiers involved.
________

Here's a great Rachel Maddow segment on the murder rampage we wrote about earlier. There are so many angles to this story, and this segment is especially good on the politics of both the incident and the Afghan War itself.

But note, before you watch. I'm not a fan of the death penalty, so I don't want to specify the punishment. But what this man did is a war crime, an atrocity.

He is responsible for his actions, and our military is responsible for the conduct of its soldiers.

This may well be, therefore, a My Lai moment, both for those who prosecute this war (our government) and for public opinion. Please keep this in mind as you watch this great segment.



No one loves this stuff. Hopefully we can stop putting people (ours and theirs) into this horrible, indefensible position. Let us pray.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...

Soldier could face death penalty in Afghan rampage killings, Panetta says

This is a Quick Hits post, but I want to keep the story on the radar. (For why, see below.)

As you may know, a 38-year-old U.S. soldier serving in Afghanistan lost it and went on a civilian killing rampage:

A US soldier in Afghanistan has killed at least 16 civilians and wounded five after entering their homes in Kandahar province, senior local officials say.

He left his military base in the early hours of the morning and opened fire in at least two homes; women and children were among the dead. ... He is reported to have walked off his base at around 03:00 local time (22:30 GMT Saturday) and headed to nearby villages, moving methodically from house to house.

The new news is from the DoD (CNN; my emphasis and some reparagraphing):

The U.S. Army soldier accused of killing 16 Afghan men, women and children in a house-to-house shooting rampage could face the death penalty, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said. Panetta spoke to reporters as he flew to the Central Asian nation of Kyrgyzstan for high-level talks Tuesday.

Hundreds of Afghans took to the streets Tuesday to protest the killings as the Taliban threatened to behead "Americans anywhere in the country." ... In Jalalabad, near the border with Pakistan, "hundreds of protesters, many of whom are university students, have taken to the streets," said Ahmad Zaii Abdulzai, a spokesman for Nangarhar province.

Click through to the CNN coverage for more; it's a nice here's-what-happened review.

Folks, this story is a big deal. If we're lucky, it could end the war in Afghanistan.

Here's hoping.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)

NOTE FROM JOHN: This is one of those times when the old "you'd have to be crazy to kill someone" saying kicks into my mind.  This guy sounds like he absolutely lost it.  While I'm not opposed to the death penalty (I know...), I'm not sure that killing a guy who literally lost his mind is going to send any kind of clear message to anybody else who loses their mind in the future.  And I'm also not sure we should put to death someone who went insane simply to please the locals. Having said that, we need to find out what happened first - was this a case of PTSD overload or just some jerk taking out his frustrations on the locals? Read the rest of this post...

Fox News commenters react to Afghan killings: "A dead Muslim is a good Muslim"

First the story about what happened in Afghanistan. BBC:

A US soldier in Afghanistan has killed at least 16 civilians and wounded five after entering their homes in Kandahar province, senior local officials say.

He left his military base in the early hours of the morning and opened fire in at least two homes; women and children were among the dead.

Nato said it was investigating the "deeply regrettable incident".

He is reported to have walked off his base at around 03:00 local time (22:30 GMT Saturday) and headed to nearby villages, moving methodically from house to house.

Jesus Christ. I've been worried for a while now about how many young men and women are going to come back from ten years at war supremely messed up.

From LittleGreenFootballs:

I’ve looked at about a dozen right wing sites this morning to see how they’d react to the news from Afghanistan, and the comments at every single one of them were full of people celebrating the killings, praising the soldier who allegedly committed them, and denying there was any crime, while at the same time frantically trying to blame the crime on President Obama.

But the worst site by far is the right wing’s premier news channel, Fox News:

This is nothing! Wait until you see what happens to the n!qqqers here in the US of A when the new civil war starts!
[…]
THATS 15 LESS AFGAN POLICE WHO HAVE BEEN MUR D ER ING OUR TROOPS AND CIVILIANS
[…]
Obama just announced that he is personally going to provide fe la tio to every Afghani male to compensate for their loss.
[…]
The P O S P apoligizes to moooooooooooooslimes and doesnt have any respect for American solders ! Sent the ragehead obummerdeen and his entire family to Kenya where their dirty s c u m b a g b o d i e s belong !
[…]
This guy only did what the NewBIackPanthers promise to do to white babies.

Read the rest of this post...

Nate Silver: "The military is now the most trusted major institution in the country"

While listening to an excellent interview at Majority.fm with Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings on his new book The Operators: The Wild and Terrifying Inside Story of America's War in Afghanistan, I was sent a Nate Silver link by Twitter-friend Mtl4u2. It's a great great find, especially in the context of the Majority Report discussion.

Some background: Hastings spoke in the interview about the conflict between the top military — especially the "special forces" military represented by Gen. McChrystal and Gen. Patraeus — and the Obama administration. At one point, for example, McChrystal spoke insultingly about VP Joe Biden in a meeting with his own staff, his military subordinates.

The blurb for the book addresses this, and reads in part (my emphasis and paragraphing):

General Stanley McChrystal, the innovative, forward-thinking commanding general of international and U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was living large. He was better known to some as Big Stan, M4, Stan, and his loyal staff liked to call him a "rock star." During a spring 2010 trip across Europe to garner additional allied help for the war effort, McChrystal was accompanied by journalist Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone.

For days, Hastings looked on as McChrystal and his staff let off steam, partying and openly bashing the Obama administration for what they saw as a lack of leadership. When Hastings's piece appeared a few months later, it set off a political firestorm: McChrystal was ordered to Washington, where he was fired unceremoniously.

This raises a lot of Truman & MacArthur questions, and makes you wonder what's going on in the country that makes people like McChrystal think this is OK.

That's where Nate Silver comes in. From his blog at fivethirtyeight.com:

The longstanding project called the General Social Survey, which has polled Americans about their feelings on a variety of political and social issues for more than 35 years, just recently came out with their preliminary 2008 data[.] ... One of my favorite sets of questions on the GSS is one that asks Americans about their degree of confidence in various social institutions...

Silver then presents this chart (click to open in a new tab).

The dark blue bar is 1976; the lighter blue is 2000; the lightest is 2008. For each institution, top-to-bottom is earliest-to-latest.

Fascinating, yes? Silver comments:

The only major institution to have gained a statistically significant about [sic] of trust since 2000 is the military, which is now the most trusted major institution in the country.

Not sure I like that, especially in light of this:


Side note — If you like what you read here and you'd like to make comments or suggestions, I'm fairly active on Twitter, especially during the "morning paper" part of the day (Pacific Time, of course). Feel free to follow me and make suggestions. They are always welcome.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Controversy over video showing Marines urinating on Taliban bodies in Afghanistan

Hamilton Nolan at Gawker has a fascinating take on this:

A video emerges showing US Marines pissing on three Taliban corpses in Afghanistan. The outrage machine grinds into motion. The media bestirs itself from its slumber. Americans momentarily pay attention to the war in Afghanistan again. Politicians rush to add their names to the chorus of identical statements. All inflamed over the least bad thing that soldiers do in war.

Do you know what is worse than having your dead body urinated upon? Being killed. Being shot. Being bombed. Having your limbs blown off. Having your house incinerated by a drone-fired missile that you don't see until it explodes. Having your children blown up in their beds. Having your spouse killed. Having your hometown destroyed. Being displaced. Becoming a refugee. Having your entire life destroyed as a consequence of political forces far, far beyond your control.

And we as a nation could not be more bored by the unceasing industrial strength violence being carried out in our names in nations where none of us will travel, or vacation, or think about much at all as long as sports and American Idol and Downton Abbey are on TV. We skim past those stories of the latest bombing or drone strike or gunfight or civilian massacre. We joke about the personal foibles or funny accents or minor gaffes of the politicians who hold it in their power to stop war, but won't. We're bored and petulant and self-absorbed until that video of some soldier pissing on dead bodies comes along, at which point we can have an outrage contest and feel good about ourselves for being more outraged than the next completely uninvolved person, for a day or two, until the big game comes on.

I'm not sure. My reaction isn't disinterest to the actual death of the Taliban fighters, it's approval.  I still, however, am not sure I like videos like this.  Which is interesting, since killing them is fine but urinating on them is not.

And regardless, you'd think soldiers would have learned by now about taking videos of themselves doing bad things to dead Muslims. Read the rest of this post...

NATO now blames Pakistan for starting fight

Oh please. At this point, nobody really wants to hear about who started the fight. It's like listening to a bunch of five year old kids argue about "he hit me, no he hit me first." Regardless, it comes back to the same question over where this never-ending war is going. From an outsiders perspective, it looks like it's war for the sake of war. The Guardian:

An attack by Nato aircraft on Pakistani troops that allegedly killed as many as 28 soldiers and looks set to further poison relations between the US and Pakistan was an act of self-defence, a senior western official has claimed.

According to the Kabul-based official, a joint US-Afghan force operating in the mountainous Afghan frontier province of Kunar was the first to come under attack in the early hours of Saturday morning, forcing them to return fire.

The high death toll from an incident between two supposed allies suggests Nato helicopters and jets strafed Pakistani positions with heavy weapons.

Read the rest of this post...

NATO troops cross Pakistani border, kill troops

There may have been justification for the cross border raid, but this can easily trigger a much bigger reaction that nobody wants. In the end, where is the war in Afghanistan really going? If there's no plan (and there doesn't appear to be other than "we're there"), this is an even worse idea. The Guardian:

Nato helicopters from Afghanistan have intruded into north-west Pakistan and attacked a military checkpoint near the border, killing as many as 25 Pakistani troops, intelligence officials in the country have said.

Sources in the region said up to 14 other soldiers had been wounded in the attack on the Salala checkpoint, about one and a half miles (2.5km) from the Afghan border.

A Pakistani military spokesman confirmed the pre-dawn attack in the tribal region of Mohmand.

Read the rest of this post...