This past weekend, a NATO strike killed at least 80 human beings. This loss of human life was unfortunately overshadowed by the massacre in Norway that occurred last Friday, deemed less important because the strike took place in Afghanistan (where loss of human life is usually considered nothing to get upset about in the West), and downplayed by some creative word play.
Both the New York Times and the CNN website featured articles about it, although they're not as easy to find as the photo of the Norwegian Christian fundamentalist who committed mass murder last Friday (Could news outlets please stop printing that glamour shot of his? To have his self-selected glamour shot printed in every newspaper is exactly what he wants.) One way in which the articles differ is that CNN quotes NATO as saying that fifty of the eighty dead were "insurgents" (1) and the New York Times article (2) conveniently omits any details regarding how many of the eighty dead were actually insurgents. In fact, unless one reads the NYT article carefully and skeptically, one would likely get the impression from the way it was written that all killed were "insurgents." And if all were "insurgents," it just makes it a lot easier to feel good about ourselves and continue believing in the Holy Righteousness of all war waged ostensibly on our behalf.
But what is an "insurgent" anyway? Merriam-Webster's first definition of an "insurgent" is "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent." (3) The Vietnamese who were resisting French and then American occupation/invasion were considered "insurgents." Iraqis who were resisting the American invasion were considered "insurgents." Basically, to most of us in the West, an "insurgent" is anyone who is on the other side, because the only "civil authorities" or "established governments" are the ones that we in the West recognize, which usually means an "authority" or "government" that we propped up and/or support monetarily and militarily.
Nevertheless, if you try to understand the meaning of "insurgent" as it is used in news articles in the West and in press releases from organizations like NATO, it is actually much looser than the Merriam-Webster definition. It also includes anyone who was killed by a NATO/US/other Western power strike, and whose murder is more conveniently justified if one uses a label that strips the victim of her or his humanity.
The deadly NATO strike last weekend is nothing new, and neither is invoking "insurgent" or a similar term (such as "militant") to downplay the loss of human life (4, 5, 6, and 7). In some cases, NATO has claimed that those they killed were "insurgents," while local authorities and civilians have claimed that they were civilians (4). When it is harder to deny that civilians were killed, NATO has justified the strikes by insisting that "the strike was against insurgents" (6) or saying that the strikes were "in retaliation for an insurgent attack" (7).
Killing first and negatively labeling later is a tried and true method, not one invented by NATO. For example, during the war in Vietnam, the US military often posthumously labeled anyone they killed as "VC" (8, 9). This method is attractive because it makes reports of deaths palatable to the American public and other Westerners. The method works because most people won't go beyond the label, whether the label is "insurgent," "militant," "VC," or "military-aged male."
It is too much work, and too disillusioning, to think about who is covered by the label. It is much easier to keep using the label "insurgent" even if we don't have any idea what an insurgent actually looks like.
Notes/references
(1) "Gunbattle in Afghanistan leaves 80 militants dead, governor says," CNN.com, July 24, 2011.
(2) "Toll Climbs to 80 in NATO Raid on Insurgent Camp in Southeastern Afghanistan," The New York Times, July 23, 2011.
(3) Merriam Webster dictionary entry for "insurgent."
(4) "Afghanistan: 'Twelve dead' at protest over Nato raid," BBC News, May 18, 2011.
(5) "Afghan officials: Up to 16 civilians killed in NATO strike," CNN, July 12, 2011.
(6) "Nato air strike in Afghanistan kills scores," The Guardian, September 4, 2009.
(7) "Afghan officials say NATO strike killed 14 in residential area," Los Angeles Times, May 30, 2011.
(8) "The Village of Ben Suc" (1968) and "The Military Half"(1968) by Jonathan Schell, as published in the book collection "The Real War." See especially pages 91-93, pages 126-127,
page 327: "'When we kill a pregnant woman, we count it as two V.C. - one soldier and one cadet,' he said. Everyone laughed."
and
page 241: "... a Vietnamese who had been shot by our troops was almost invariably a 'confirmed V.C.' (The soldiers had a joke that ran, 'Anything that's dead and isn't white is a V.C.' The practice that had grown up of judging the guilt of a Vietnamese by what we happened to do to him could be clearly seen in the Army's use of the category 'detainees.'"
(9) Vietnam, Inc. (2001 edition) by Philip Jones Griffiths (Phaidon Press Limited).
See especially the caption on page 60: "A platoon from the 1st Cavalry... kills still another civilian (posthumously elevated to the rank of VC like all the rest)."
and the caption on page 54: "Wounded VC suspect, regarded by these men of the 1st Cavalry Division as more likely to be 'hard-core' VC simply because he was already wounded when he was delivered to them for interrogation. He later turned out to be an innocent farmer.
0 comments:
Post a Comment