FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Confusing the Face of the Enemy

 

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

 

 

 

More articles by:

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.

Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
Ted Rall
Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From
Lauren Regan
The Day the Valves Turned: Defending the Pipeline Protesters
Ralph Nader
Questions, Questions Where are the Answers?
Binoy Kampmark
Deplatforming Germaine Greer
Raouf Halaby
It Should Not Be A He Said She Said Verdict
Robert Koehler
The Accusation That Wouldn’t Go Away
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Making Workers Tweet About How Great It is to Work There
Robby Sherwin
Rabbi, Rabbi, Where For Art Thou Rabbi?
Vern Loomis
Has Something Evil This Way Come?
Steve Baggarly
Disarm Trident Walk Ends in Georgia
Graham Peebles
Priorities of the Time: Peace
Michael Doliner
The Department of Demonization
David Yearsley
Bollocks to Brexit: the Plumber Sings
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail