Glenn Greenwald of Salon uncovers a brutal mindfuck of gruesome pro-civilian bombing positive influence in the pages of the New York Times. A defence corporation employee demands the US blow more money terror bombing the civilian populace of Afghanistan.
New York Times column excerpt :
So in a modern refashioning of the obvious -- that war is harmful to civilian populations -- the United States military has begun basing doctrine on the premise that dead civilians are harmful to the conduct of war. The trouble is, no past war has ever supplied compelling proof of that claim. . . .
[A]n overemphasis on civilian protection is now putting American troops on the defensive in what is intended to be a major offensive. . . .
Of course, all this is not to say that the United States and NATO should be oblivious to civilian deaths, or wage "total" war in Afghanistan. Clearly, however, the pendulum has swung too far in favor of avoiding the death of innocents at all cost.
General McChrystal’s directive was well intentioned, but the lofty ideal at its heart is a lie, and an immoral one at that, because it pretends that war can be fair or humane. . . .
Wars are always ugly, and always monstrous, and best avoided.
Once begun, however, the goal of even a "long war" should be victory in as short a time as possible, using every advantage you have.
She means unleash the Flying Killer Robot drones, the ones with very expensive bomb payloads.
Does anyone need it explained to them why causing large civilian deaths through air attacks in Afghanistan is not only morally grotesque but also completely counter-productive to our stated goals?No.
But those bombs and missiles have to be dumped somewhere, so the warehouses and new orders can be filled and re-filled, over and over again.
Stephen Walt At Foreign Policy Responds