The civilians we care about
A wounded Iraqi child (Image from humanrights.cn)
Update: Commenter “jasong” points out that the figure of Iraqi civilians who have been killed during the US-led invasion and occupation may be as high as 1.3 million, according to justforeignpolicy.org.
—
The recent outpouring of support from Americans for Iranian citizens ranges from the sincere to the premeditated. For every post of Twitterific solidarity from a well-intentioned American, there is a wily Jonah Goldberg spouting empty platitudes about needing to preserve freedom by _____ (we can only assume invading Iran.) Everyone seems outraged that an authoritarian power would dare to steal an election, though Americans seemed widely unconcerned when this happened in Azerbaijan in 2003 and Egypt in 2006.
There was also little outrage from Americans when police beat citizens in Agri/Kurdistan as they tried to protest election results:
In fact, if one searches the database over at Human Rights Watch for “election fraud,” page after page of reportedly stolen elections comes up. But the citizens of Kenya, Nigeria, Thailand, Columbia, Uganda, Rwanda, and Armenia aren’t the citizens exploitive politicians and Americans choose to care about.
Not only are citizens’ rights to free and fair elections being violated in many countries most Americans couldn’t even locate on a map, but the US is also currently killing innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan right this very moment, and Americans aren’t Twittering to stop that injustice.
In Afghanistan, over 3,000 civilians have died from US and NATO airstrikes alone (and Human Rights Watch emphasizes this is an extremely conservative figure.) HRW states, “civilian deaths from US and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007.” The total figure of Afghans killed during the invasion is unknown, but figures range from 7,500 to 20,000 dead (when factoring indirect consequences such as civilians later dying from severe wounds.)
In Iraq, the figures have reached a genocidal level with around 655,000 civilians having been killed (conservative figures state 81,174–88,585 civilians have died in Iraq, though these figures seem extremely low.)
Today’s New York Times briefly returned to the issue of the Civilians We Don’t Care About. US military officials ensure us that they are working super, super (pinky swear!) hard not to kill Afghan civilians. Commander Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal said airstrikes will only be used to prevent Americans and coalition troops from being overrun, which he’s totally psyched about because all of those pesky civilian deaths have been undermining the American-led liberty parade mission.
Of course, the NYT also reports that the United Nations found “the number of Afghan civilians killed in 2008 was 40 percent higher than in 2007,” so McChrystal has a long way to go before anyone ever accuses him of being compassionate toward civilians.
While the reports of Afghan and Iraq civilian deaths have been sparse, the news of Pakistani deaths has almost been nonexistent, but the numbers of dead there are also startling with US drones having killed at least 687 civilians.
The civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan don’t seem to count anymore. While it’s nice American citizens are expressing concern for a possibly stolen election in Iran, it would be equally heartening to see this degree of media attention turned toward the countries where the US military kills innocent men, women, and children every day with taxpayer dollars.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Allison I think there is something else going on here with America’s embrace of Nada and what is going on in Iran right now, and that is revenge. I don’t think most Americans (and especially the likes of Jonah Goldberg) give a rat’s ass about the people of Iran but just see this as a chance to “avenge” the taking of our hostages on November 4, 1979.
Oh, of course. I have no respect for anything Jonah Goldberg has ever said or written. He’s an opportunistic chickenhawk.
In response to another comment. See in context »Allison, Thanks for the great post. I worry, too, when we need to find a sort of “American Idol” in international affairs. On the one hand, it’s good to get everyone paying attention, on the other hand the reductive quality, while making us feel we can “do something,” turns geopolitics into a Disney movie. Here’s another example to support what you suggest about keeping the lens wide, years ago, my friend’s daughter was murdered (I’m not going to distract from the point by saying where). She was attacked by people against her “type” in a park, knifed, crawled off to hide from the attackers, cell phoned her parents but was so weak couldn’t explain where she was hiding, and died before they found her. Wasn’t Iran. Didn’t make the news.
Vickie — Thanks for commenting. This issue is especially dangerous because certain chickenhawks have been looking for a reason to stick their noses in Iran’s affairs. The Neo-Conservatives would love to meddle in Iranian affairs under the guise of “preserving democracy.” This has already begun with the likes of Jonah Goldberg to name only one warmonger.
In response to another comment. See in context »Allison, one reason we should be concerned about election fraud in Iran, as opposed to Nigeria or other countries you’ve mentioned, is that Iran’s leaders are working very hard on obtaining nuclear weapons (and are darned close), which would put them in a position to blackmail those who depend on them for oil, including us. One could make a good argument for supporting democracy activists in Iran for that reason—and no, a military invasion is not the only option one can assume that proponents of supporting these activists put forth. Strict economic sanctions, including not providing gasoline, and a lot of negative publicity for the mullahs would be good places to start.
Hi Cyndie — This is what we’re told by the Neo-Conservatives: Iran is a country controlled by an authoritarian lunatic that wants to nuke Israel from the face of the earth. Setting aside the fact that Iran would have to be suicidal to ever use a nuclear weapon against Israel (they would be vaporized by the US in a matter of minutes if they ever chose to do that,) Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Ahmadinejad’s opponent, will probably continue Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
So the Iranian pursuit of nuclear technology will continue even if the US throws their support behind “democracy activists,” and Mousavi becomes the Iranian leader. So nuclear power isn’t the real issue here. The real issue is that Ahmadinejad is hostile to the west, and western political leaders don’t like that, so they’re supporting Mousavi’s followers in hopes of undermining him.
If the real issue here was “preserving democracy,” the US would have also shown equal interest in the rigged elections in Azerbaijan, Egypt, Nigeria, Kenya, etc.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’ll leave the politics to you, but as arts and culture bloggette I can say watch out when the poetry appears in politics. Here’s a bit of today’s The Daily Beast that astutely picks up on the near future of the diaphanous phrase, “Great Leap Forward,” to tell a cautionary tale:
“Revolutions notwithstanding, the right wing’s version of the GLF is not so different, except that it is much easier to put in place. What is needed to transform tyranny into freedom, according to the arguments of its most esteemed ideologues, is the American-inspired overthrow of this or that Islamic regime, usually, it turns out, whose country’s name begins with letters “Ira…”.”
haha a very good point. Countries can only have “democracy” if they’re America-approved democracies with leaders, who are friendly toward the west and all their corporate interests.
In response to another comment. See in context »layla who says Iran is “darned close” to getting nukes? By most accounts they are several years away.
Hey, Allison,
Can you name all the democracies that aren’t friendly toward the West and don’t have big corporations of their own?
Michael – I’m not sure what your point is. My point isn’t that regimes that are hostile to the west don’t have their own corporations. However, the US has a history of supporting regimes that are pro-west as a means of advancing corporate interests in certain regions.
In response to another comment. See in context »Great post. And exactly to the point. The Iranian protests are being used by the neocons to justify yet another military adventure. They really don’t give a damn about civilians or human rights here or there and certainly not in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Thanks for commenting, Laurie. I don’t doubt the sincerity of some Americans posting about Iran on Twitter. However, it’s important to keep these things in perspective. Yes, it’s wrong if the Iranian election was stolen, but then all stolen elections are unjust and Americans should care about those injustices, too. The simple fact that they (and the media) care about some civilians, while excluding others, shows that there is a hidden (or not-so-hidden) agenda at work here.
In response to another comment. See in context »Just neocons, striving to turn The Onion into an accurate prognosticator – http://tinyurl.com/onioniran
Sometimes The Onion possesses eerie prescience.
In response to another comment. See in context »“In Iraq, the figures have reached a genocidal level with around 655,000 civilians having been killed…”
That estimate is from October 2006.
One current estimate has the count at over 1.3 million:
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/156
Too bad the dead can’t Tweet.
Thanks, I’ll update the post to include that figure, too.
In response to another comment. See in context »I think its interesting that the US is pretending to care about whats going on in Iran and if one would look at the history of US’s foreign policy you would see that it only cares when its on par with US economic and political interests. This has many examples; one would be when the US supported El Salvidor when the government were massacring their own people because of economic and political reasons. another would be Iran the first time around when the US aided and backed a coup that brought in the Shah who was a oppressive dictatorship and supported him up to him being overthrown and even after when he fled to the US which caused the whole hostage debacle in 1979(as Brian mentioned above)and it could have easily solved if the US just gave the Shah to Iran to be judged for his crimes, but the US refused. Also if you look at the US’s redaction when some country people votes in an election in a way that would benefit the poor and not American corporate interests such as Haiti and the US responds either with intervention by aiding and backing Coup d’état(as with Chile) or an economic Embargo(as with Haiti). The point is that US only cares when its interests are involved and this recent obsession in Iran is no different.
Well said. As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t doubt the sincerity of some Americans posting about Iran on Twitter. However, it’s important to keep these things in perspective. What I mean by “perspective” is exactly what you’ve listed — the history of US intervention in autonomous states.
In response to another comment. See in context »The Iranian nuclear energy project is, in fact, a US backed up initiative from the 50’s, and the concerns about Iran getting nukes are also old ones.
(http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb268/index.htm)
So why is it so important now? Could be the threat the relatively new oil trade in euros posses to american dollars?. I’m no expert, but the text and the source page sound convincing enough.
(http://www.energybulletin.net/node/12463)
Even if Iran developed nuclear weapons this year, there is zero proof that they would then immediately nuke Israel. In fact, Iran would be suicidal to do that because the US would certainly retaliate and vaporize the entire country in less than a minute. I think the US has to be honest with the fact it is in no position to mandate if certain countries can or cannot pursue nuclear technology when the US is one of the leaders in nuclear armament. If Iran is going to pursue nuclear technology, they have the right to do that, but the US should instead work on building diplomacy with Iran.
In response to another comment. See in context »