At What Cost?
 

Most people are aghast at the $166 billion spent so far on our pre-emptive wars with Iraq and Afghanistan. Next year our budget will include more billions for the continued occupation and rebuilding efforts of those two countries. While it is indeed a great cost, Americans are incurring an even greater cost.

A US A-10 aircraft struck a site thought to be the location of a "suspected" militant "believed" to be responsible for the killing of two foreign contractors working on the rebuilding of a road in Afghanistan. Suspected and believed, not tried and convicted. Suspected and believed, not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Acting in a capacity we have now apparently conferred on our pilots of judge, jury and executioner, the strike to eliminate one man "suspected" of being the militant "believed" to be responsible for the deaths of two foreign contractors, also eliminated nine innocent children playing nearby. Collateral damage. There's always collateral damage when you try to kill a mosquito with an elephant gun. Wouldn't a patrol sent out to capture and question the suspect been more effective? If he was found to be the guilty party at least we would have known that justice was served. If he wasn't the guilty party, perhaps we could have gotten information about other militants, including the one responsible for the contractors' deaths. At the absolute very least, it would have saved the lives of nine innocent little children at play.

While our Constitution doesn't apply to Afghanis, and doesn't guarantee the same rights and freedoms, if we believe in its morals and principles enough to fight and die to uphold them, do we suddenly dismiss them as soon as we leave our shores? If we believe something is right, is it only right as long as we're in America? When our Declaration of Independence said all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, do we believe that only Americans are so endowed? How can we propose to bring democracy to other nations? It obviously doesn't travel well.

Army Major Christopher E. West told The Associated Press, "At the time we initiated our attack, we did not know there were children around." Well, how would you know from thirty thousand feet? He said they would "make every effort to assist the families of these innocent casualties and determine the cause of the civilian deaths." Well, right off the top of my head I'd say the cause of the civilian deaths was military bombs. What kind of assistance do you give a family after blowing up their child? Do you help them dig the grave to bury their child? Do you make sure all the parts are collected?

West also said, "We regret the loss of any innocent life and we follow stringent rules of engagement to specifically avoid this type of incident while continuing to target terrorists who threaten the future of Afghanistan." The future of Afghanistan, like the future of any nation, is in its children and it is we who are threatening them, we who are killing them. What stringent rules did we follow to avoid nine little children being blown apart in our effort to blow up a "suspected" militant "believed" to be responsible for the deaths of those two contractors? Why didn't we suspect that children were believed to be in the area?

According to West, "US troops collected extensive intelligence" and located the "suspect" in an "isolated rural area". He then said other houses were nearby. If other houses are nearby, it isn't isolated. If other houses are nearby, extensive intelligence should have made it at least occur to you that there may be children living in those houses. Did they care? The attitude and the evidence would seem to point to the fact that it didn't matter as long as they killed their "suspect."

And we simply go along and accept it as a matter of course. That there is no outcry coming from all Americans points to the greater cost of these wars. It is costing us our compassion, our morality, our humanity.

12-07-03