FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Confusing the Face of the Enemy

by Ron Jacobs

 

During America’s war against the Vietnamese, one of the common plaints of the soldiers in the jungle was that one couldn’t tell the “enemy” from a “friend”. Eventually, this inability to differentiate turned to a frustration that changed the rules of engagement, at least unofficially. No longer were there enemies and friends among the Vietnamese. They all became the enemy to the GI in the field. It was this type of consciousness that led to atrocities like the one that happened in My Lai, where hundreds of women and children were massacred by Lt. Calley and his soldiers. Of course, many soldiers were never personally involved in slaughter on the scale of My Lai, but virtually every GI who fired a weapon in the jungle in Vietnam lives with the uncertainty of who he really killed-innocent or enemy.

As the war in Afghanistan continues, the likelihood of a similar scenario developing grows ever more likely. Already, US forces have mistakenly killed Afghanis involved in smuggling (a common way of making a living in the mountains of the region), thinking they were Taliban fighters intent on killing US soldiers. Other so-called mistakes have been made when villages were bombed because Taliban and Al-Queda fighters were believed to be residing there. When the dust had settled, however, it was discovered that only civilians had been killed by the US bombs. An American GI was recently quoted in the Washington Post when asked about his mission “That’s one of the frustrating parts of being over here,” Eddy said later with a sigh. “You can’t tell who’s who.”(5/18/02)

Besides a confusion based on the inability of foreign troops being unable to distinguish friend from foe due to the fact that they all seem to dress the same, there is the lack of understanding of local customs. A recent US helicopter attack on an Afghani wedding that killed several of the celebrants is one example. When asked about this action, the US military spokesman first tried to defend the action as a legitimate target because there had been gunfire and ” That kind of behavior is not indicative of a wedding.” When I was a kid in Pakistan, I went to a wedding of a Pakistani friend of the family and after the couple was married and the celebration begun, most of the men in attendance fired their weapons in the air several times. Indeed, it seemed that shooting weapons into the air was part of many a celebration in this part of the world.

Instead of acknowledging this, however, the US military is insisting that the target was legitimate and that “Taliban or Al-Queda” were killed. This uncertainty itself as to who was killed only emphasizes the potential of intentional mistakes such as these killings and others like it. Of course, in what can only appear even more callous than an admission that a mistake was made, the Pentagon stated that the military meant to kill the Afghanis identified as wedding celebrants by their relatives and friends. When one is on the ground in a war zone, the logic becomes one of survival. Politics do not matter much to a human who believes their life is in danger no matter what uniform s/he is wearing. The only thing that matters is killing the person who wants to kill you. Killer or corpse-neither is a desirable option.

If for this reason and no other, the US-led foreign forces must leave Afghanistan and every other place they currently roam in their attempt to keep the “natives in their place.” When US troops are not in foreign countries, they don’t get killed by fighters opposed to their presence there. It’s as simple as that. Similarily, if the United States stopped supporting the occupation of the Palestinian territories, the likelihood of a terror attack on the US by groups or individuals supporting the liberation of Palestine would decrease to virtually nothing. This is not a difficult dynamic, nor is it lacking in sense. Indeed, the current dynamic which insists on maintaining (and in some cases expanding) the US military presence around the globe and backing Israeli expansionist policies both morally and financially is the policy which lacks sense. There is little doubt that it is this imperial approach to the world that endangers us regular folks, whether we wear a uniform or not.

Ron Jacobs can be reached at: rjacobs@zoo.uvm.edu

 

 

 

Ron Jacobs is the author of Daydream Sunset: Sixties Counterculture in the Seventies published by CounterPunch Books. His latest offering is a pamphlet titled Capitalism: Is the Problem.  He lives in Vermont. He can be reached at: ronj1955@gmail.com.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
February 17, 2017
Friday - Sunday
David Price
Rogue Elephant Rising: The CIA as Kingslayer
Matthew Stevenson
Is Trump the Worst President Ever?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Flynn?
John Wight
Brexit and Trump: Why Right is Not the New Left
Diana Johnstone
France: Another Ghastly Presidential Election Campaign; the Deep State Rises to the Surface
Neve Gordon
Trump’s One-State Option
Roger Harris
Emperor Trump Has No Clothes: Time to Organize!
Joan Roelofs
What Else is Wrong with Globalization
Andrew Levine
Why Trump’s Muslim Travel Ban?
Mike Whitney
Blood in the Water: the Trump Revolution Ends in a Whimper
Vijay Prashad
Trump, Turmoil and Resistance
Ron Jacobs
U.S. Imperial War Personified
David Swanson
Can the Climate Survive Adherence to War and Partisanship?
Andre Vltchek
Governor of Jakarta: Get Re-elected or Die!
Patrick Cockburn
The Coming Destruction of Mosul
Norman Pollack
Self-Devouring Reaction: Governmental Impasse
Steve Horn
What Do a Louisiana Pipeline Explosion and Dakota Access Pipeline Have in Common? Phillips 66
Brian Saady
Why Corporations are Too Big to Jail in the Drug War
Graham Peebles
Ethiopia: Peaceful Protest to Armed Uprising
Luke Meyer
The Case of Tony: Inside a Lifer Hearing
Binoy Kampmark
Adolf, The Donald and History
Robert Koehler
The Great American Awakening
Murray Dobbin
Canadians at Odds With Their Government on Israel
Fariborz Saremi
A Whole New World?
Joyce Nelson
Japan’s Abe, Trump & Illegal Leaks
Christopher Brauchli
Trump 1, Tillerson 0
Yves Engler
Is This Hate Speech?
Dan Bacher
Trump Administration Exempts Three CA Oil Fields From Water Protection Rule at Jerry Brown’s Request
Richard Klin
Solid Gold
Melissa Garriga
Anti-Abortion and Anti-Fascist Movements: More in Common Than Meets the Eye
Thomas Knapp
The Absurd Consequences of a “Right to Privacy”
W. T. Whitney
The Fate of Prisoner Simón Trinidad, as Seen by His U. S. Lawyer
Brian Platt
Don’t Just Oppose ICE Raids, Tear Down the Whole Racist Immigration Enforcement Regime
Paul Cantor
Refugee: the Compassionate Mind of Egon Schwartz
Norman Richmond
The Black Radical Tradition in Canada
Barton Kunstler
Rallying Against the Totalitarian Specter
Judith Deutsch
Militarism:  Revolutionary Mothering and Rosie the Riveter
Nyla Ali Khan
Kashmir Evoked a Lot More International Attention in the 1950s Than It Does Now
Adam Phillips
There Isn’t Any There There
Louis Proyect
Steinbeck’s Red Devils
Randy Shields
Left Coast Date: the Dating Site for the ORWACA Tribe
Charles R. Larson
Review: Bill Hayes’ “Insomniac City”
David Yearsley
White Supremacy and Music Theory
February 16, 2017
Peter Gaffney
The Rage of Caliban: Identity Politics, the Travel Ban, and the Shifting Ideological Framework of the Resistance
Ramzy Baroud
Farewell to Doublespeak: Israel’s Terrifying Vision for the Future
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail