NATO atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq

More and more evidence is becoming available about the extent of the atrocities committed by NATO troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Almost as disturbing as the atrocities themselves are the lengths that NATO will go to in order to try and cover up the atrocities. Most of this post is about an incident which occurred in Paktia province in Afghanistan on February 12th.

On that day the Sharabuddin family had more than 25 guests, as well as three musicians in their home in Khataba village to celebrate the naming of a newborn child. There was however very little celebration as five of the guests - two pregnant women, a teenage girl, a police officer and his brother - were gunned down by US Special Forces during a botched raid.

This was of course bad enough, but the US forces then tried to cover up their action. According to an investigation by the Times of London this involved the implicated soldiers carving the bullets they used to kill the women out of their bodies and washing their wounds with alcohol to eliminate traces of their involvement. The first US-endorsed story claimed that US forces had killed two Afghan men because the men were insurgents armed with rifles. The initial story went on to state that 3 women were subsequently found dead (their hands tied and their mouths gagged) inside a room in the house (implying that the murder had been carried out by the home’s inhabitants).

This totally false version of what happened was of course the version that was presented to the public. Virtually all of the mainstream media dutifully recounted the NATO lies without making any attempt to question its veracity. If anything some of the US media go overboard and jazz up the official version. This is akin to propaganda. And it is not as if there was no counter evidence available. Right from the beginning of this story some reporters and agencies questioned the NATO account and even had the audacity to go and interview the family and their neighbours in the village where the atrocity happened. These included Associated Press and the Pajhwok Afghan News, an independent news agency created in Afghanistan to enable war reporting by Afghans.

Special mention should go to Jerome Starkey, reporter for the Times of London. He has a most interesting article on the whole event on the Nieman Watchdog Foundation website. As he states in his piece: “The only way I found out NATO had lied -- deliberately or otherwise -- was because I went to the scene of the raid, in Paktia province, and spent three days interviewing the survivors. In Afghanistan that is quite unusual. NATO is rarely called to account. Their version of events, usually originating from the soldiers involved, is rarely seriously challenged.” (my emphasis) Starkey’s full article can be read here.

This should be the key story about our invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. How easily we, the public, are lied to by our military and our politicians. And, to make matters even worse, how willingly our mainstream media, with one or two honourable exceptions, colludes in all this lying.

A further example of this collusion can be found in a typically forceful post entitled More cause and effect in the War against Terrorists, by the great Glenn Greenwald. ABC News reported on the attempt by the U.S. Special Forces to apologize to Haji Sharabuddin, the 80-year-old patriarch of the family, by offering him two sheep (a gesture of begging forgiveness in Pashtun custom). ABC News in an online article included this:

“Presenting sheep is such a powerful form of requesting forgiveness that the father is now obligated not to take revenge, even though he has told reporters he wanted to become a suicide bomber. . . . “

The ABC News article celebrates the fact that the sheep offering "will help defuse" lingering anger over the massacre and may help quell the demand for an investigation, limiting the fallout of the incident.

Greenwald in his post, which you can read here, goes on to reveal how we come to know all about the above attempt at an apology. He writes, “The reason we know about the U.S. Special Forces' sheep sacrifice is because The Times of London's Jerome Starkey, who broke the story about what really happened in the Eastern Afghanistan civilian killing, was present at the scene and described it in detail, including the fact that the U.S. Vice-Admiral who offered the sheep, along with Afghan soldiers, wanted to bar the media from witnessing the event and refrained only when the family members insisted that they stay. In contrast to ABC 's sunny report that all is now forgiven, Starkey writes:

"When people come to your gate and ask forgiveness, according to Afghan law, it’s difficult to reject them," Haji Sharabuddin said later. "I am happy they came." But the family insists that it still wants justice. "I don’t care about the money," Haji Sharabuddin said. He believes the troops attacked after faulty intelligence from one of his enemies — a spy. He wants the Americans to face international justice and the spy handed to Afghan authorities and punished. "When they surrender the spy, then I will make a decision. Maybe I will forgive them," he said.”

But the fact that this 80-year-old man was vowing to perpetrate a suicide attack on U.S. forces speaks volumes about the effects of our actions in that country. And lest anyone thinks that this atrocity in Paktia was an isolated incident, there is a whole litany of such atrocities. All initially denied, then covered up and only late in the day finally admitted to. Another Glenn Greenwald post, here - How Americans are propagandized about Afghanistan - gives some more details about the pervasive nature of the atrocities committed in our name. In the post he also reports on the, largely overlooked statement from Gen. McChrystal, where he admitted, regarding U.S. killings of Afghans at check points: "to my knowledge, in the nine-plus months I've been here, not a single case where we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it and, in many cases, had families in it. . . . We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force." And as I documented before, the U.S. media constantly repeats false Pentagon claims about American air attacks around the world in order to create the false impression that Key Terrorists were killed while no civilians were.

Further confirmation of the willingness of our “boys” to commit acts of wanton violence comes in this video, published by Wikileaks, of another “incident”, this time from July 2007 in Baghdad. The footage shows an attack from a US helicopter, in which a group of around 7-8 people are shot down. The group included two TV cameramen for Reuters who has been trying since 2007 to get the military to release the video. Wikileaks does not say how it got it.

On the video, the U.S. troops later fire at a van that comes to pick up a wounded survivor from the assault. Then, as U.S. ground troops arrive, one of their voices on the intercom is laughing about having driven over a body. It is also very disturbing to hear the troops doing the shooting talk about “engaging with the individuals”, when what they are doing is killing apparently innocent civilians.

All this shows how damaging our continuing occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is to us, in addition to the damage we are doing to Iraqis and Afghanis. This aspect of the occupation is well brought out in this post by Helena Cobban on her blog - Just World News. She writes" "All these revelations that keep coming out about the strong propensity of U.S. (and Israeli) troops to engage in excessive violence, and the propensity of their respective high commands to cover up that fact, underline a couple of important lessons:

• 1. Armed conflict is always violent, and extremely damaging to anyone who is in the war zone. No matter how often they tell us about "pinpoint accuracy", "smart weapons", and so on, the vast majority of the violence involved in armed conflict is brutal and anything but "pinpoint".
  2. Armed conflict always also brutalizes those sent out to engage in it. And it brutalizes people more and more over time, as acts that earlier are seen as taboo or "exceptional" progressively become more and more routine. Time was, in Israel, the military would rigorously investigate the cause of every death-in-conflict of a Palestinian. Then it stopped doing that. Then it started acting as if extrajudicial executions could be considered as "just routine"...
  

Using violence to try to resolve differences is outrageous, and barbaric. All of us who live in countries that claim to respect human life and human liberties should renounce it. Guess what, we do now have international institutions that, if further strengthened, could help us resolve all the world's big conflicts without recourse to war."

Was the Iraq war legal?

The Chilcot inquiry in London into the Iraq war is getting a fair bit of coverage in recent days. In particular many people are hoping that the enquiry will answer the question - was the war legal? This may be an unrealistic hope for many reasons. One is undoubtedly the sheer incompetence of the inquiry committee members. The other is that there is alas, no established body to adjudicate on questions of international law. Strange, but true. Thus many of the witnesses simply make assertions with little or no challenge from the enquiry.

It may therefore be helpful to go back to first principles. From a UK perspective it is important to note that the pressure for an authoritative legal statement came from the top brass in the military. Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, was worried about possible prosecution at the International Criminal Court (ICC). He therefore, on behalf of UK forces, demanded an unequivocal assurance from lawyers that the war was legal.

The ICC is a relatively new body based in The Hague. It is an independent, permanent court that tries persons accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The ICC is based on a treaty signed by 110 countries.

In general terms war crimes are divided into two broad categories. The first are called crimes against peace. Crimes against peace include the planning, preparation, or initiation of a war of aggression. This violates the principle of just cause (jus ad bellum). In other words one country cannot make aggressive war against another country. The second category are what are called crimes against humanity. These are violations of the rules as to the means and manner by which war is to be conducted once begun (jus in bellum).

As regards the Iraq war any charge brought against the UK military or government would primarily be on the basis that this was a war of aggression and therefore a war crime. Absent a just cause, no force can be used, period.

Was there a just cause?

Interestingly there is a pretty fair analysis of this question in the 13-page legal opinion sent to Tony Blair on 7th March 2003. This was from the UK Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith and in it he offers his advice on the legality of military action against Iraq without a further resolution of the Security Council. You can read the full document here. He starts by outlining the three possible bases for the use of force:

• self-defence (which may include collective self-defence);
• exceptionally, to avert overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe;
• authorisation by the Security Council.

Goldsmith then goes to exclude the first two as a just basis for the use of force. He states that force may be used in self-defence only if there is an actual or imminent threat of an armed attack. Goldsmith clearly did not believe that in 2003 the UK was under the threat of an actual or imminent threat from Iraq. He also dismisses the arguments of those, particularly in the USA, who claim a right to take preventative action to pre-empt an attack. As Goldsmith says: “this is not a doctrine which, in my opinion, exists or is recognised in international law.” He is equally dismissive of the notion that force is needed to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. As the noble Lord puts it: “I know of no reason why it would be an appropriate basis for action in present circumstances.”

With the first two possibilities dismissed we are left with authorisation by the Security Council as the only legal basis for the use of force. Goldsmith himself puts it succinctly: “The key question is whether resolution 1441 has the effect of providing such authorisation.” Most of the rest of the memo is Goldsmith’s attempt to find such authorisation. Alas for Tony Blair and the UK government, he was unable to find any clear and unequivocal authorisation. The most he could muster up was the following: “Nevertheless, having regard to the information on the negotiating history which I have been given and to the arguments of the US Administration which I heard in Washington, I accept that a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution.”

Despite his best attempts at seeking authorisation for the use of force, Goldsmith is forced to concede that: “In these circumstances, I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force.”

Yet by 17th March Goldsmith had issued a second, single-page opinion authorising military intervention, based on the existing UN resolutions. Most strange that in such a short space of time all doubts had been removed. For there is little doubt that his opinion had changed.

Two clues can be found in the March 7th opinion. Note the very careful selection words - a “reasonable case can be made” .........”that in principle....” Not much of a ringing endorsement there. And hardly the basis for a considered legal opinion that the use of force was legal. Secondly, note the clear admission of the involvement of the US Administration. It seems inconceivable and a possible gross dereliction of duty that the Attorney General would only consult those already committed to war when seeking advice about the legality of the use of force. Why did he not consult the legal opinion of other countries? The only conclusion must be that he was not interested in giving impartial legal advise.

This view - that he was not interested in offering impartial advice is further borne out by the treatment of the UK’s own legal experts. Both Michael Wood, the then chief legal advisor to the Foreign Office, and his deputy, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, his deputy, made clear that their considered view was that the use of force against Iraq in March 2003 was contrary to international law and had not been authorised by the Security Council. This was also the view of the International Commission of Jurists. In 2003 they stated that: “Security Council Resolution 1441 does not authorise the use of force. Upon its adoption, France, Russia and China, three permanent members of the Security Council, issued a declaration indicating that the Resolution excludes such authority.”

So Lord Goldsmith disregarded the legal advice of the Foreign Office’s own legal team and failed to consult with any international jurists. In reaching his final opinion he admits that he was helped by the USA. And this is supposed to constitute sufficient advice that the use of force against Iraq was legal? No wonder that in his March 7th paper, Goldsmith makes it clear that going to war without further UN authorisation would not actually protect UK soldiers and members of the government from possible charges either in the UK or internationally.

Regarding the Chilcot inquiry, it is pretty clear that this is a typical UK government stitch-up. A genuine, independent enquiry would not simply consist of people nominated by the Prime Minister, as is the case with Chilcot. The members are all government insiders of one kind or another. The two historians both strongly supported the decision to go to war. No-one on the enquiry opposed the war and none have any legal training or experience. Most tellingly, none have any proven inquisitorial skills. Given their previous record of support for the war it is hard to see how they could possible come to a conclusion that the war was illegal. A perfect group of gents and one lady who know just when to probe and when to go easy. A disgrace. If the UK had a genuine functioning democracy with real accountability, it would Parliament that set up the inquiry and determined who its members should be. But here in the good old UK, Parliament is totally subservient to the government of the day.

They do things differently in other countries. For example In the Netherlands, where it was the Dutch Parliament which set up its own committee of inquiry on Iraq. In this case the seven commissioners included the former president of the Dutch supreme court, a former judge of the European court of justice, and two legal academics. Their conclusion, which was published in January: The war in Iraq had no basis in international law.

Two final points. The first concerns the actions or rather non actions of those in high governmental positions who knew the war was illegal and yet did or said nothing, at least in public. For example take the Foreign Office legal team then led by Michael Wood, the chief legal advisor to the Foreign Office. As mentioned above all of this team of experienced legal advisors held to the view that the use of force was illegal. Yet only one of them, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, his deputy, was honourable enough and brave enough to resign and go public with her views. The rest remained stumm and in place, content to further their careers in the service of a government which they knew was acting illegally. And these are the people who are supposed to represent the crème de la crème of Western civilization!

My final point returns to Lord Goldsmith’s legal opinion of 7th March. There he is quite adamant that: “regime change cannot be the objective of military action.” And of course, absent any weapons of mass destruction, regime change has become the post war justification for the war for the likes of Tony (I would have done it anyway) Blair. Saddam was such a bad man and look how terribly the Iraqis were suffering under his rule. Interesting to note that way back in 2003 even Lord Goldsmith confirmed that regime change was most definitely illegal.