US War Crimes: 10+ Years of Death and Destruction in Afghanistan, 8+ Years of Death and Destruction in Iraq

US War Crimes: 10+ Years of Death and Destruction in Afghanistan, 8+ Years of Death and Destruction in Iraq
Jonathan Gillis
August 15 2011 (Updated October 13, 18-21 2011)

When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by
conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them,
then he is always stirring up some war or other,
in order that the people may require a leader.
––Plato

It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to
think with the masses or majority, merely because the
majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is,
or is not, believed by a majority of the people.
––Giordano Bruno

The United States attacks of Afghanistan and Iraq, beginning October 7 2001 and March 19 2003 respectfully, and subsequent occupations, were, and are distinctly “Crimes against Peace” pursuant with international law. Both are imperial wars of aggression initiated and continued to expand and maintain US hegemony; both wars are illegal and immoral (given the premise, and to any extent, that any war might be deemed legalized or moralized). The War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity resultant (putting aside the initial aerial bombings and the ground invasions themselves), including among a torrent of others, Abu Gharib, Fallujah, Nisour Square, the insurgency, the counterinsurgency, the doubling of malnutrition of children (all in the case of Iraq alone), from the US occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq, unveil any rhetoric of beneficence and erode any proclaimed justifiable pretexts in absolution, in terms of any acceptable level of fundamental morality.

The US occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq––which are both criminally and immorally ongoing, with the stewards of US Empire, from the Bush to the Obama administrations, and preceding regimes of the plutocracy, maintaining a continuity of policy with seeming impunity, a policy which has inflicted vast carnage and created a climate of mass death and destruction––contain within them specific examples of death and devastation, and apologist doctrinal reactions to them, so prevalent, it is difficult to view the institutional dominant culture as anything other than a psychopathic maniac. On the merit of detailing such crimes, it is not possible to go beyond a perfunctory look to encapsulate the systemic depravity, a depravity which must be stopped and reversed if we are to look in the mirror and distinguish the morality of humanity.

The death and destruction inflicted upon the populations of Afghanistan and Iraq, has happened, and is happening, for, among many other reasons, some perhaps not as apparent as others, oil and control of production, as well as the privation of war-making and profitable war ventures. Though US imperial terrorism is certainly not limited to Afghanistan and Iraq, in the interest of endeavoring some concision, the criminal and immoral US actions against Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia, and so forth, shall have to be put aside.

It’s important to mention that Crimes against Peace, namely that of war of aggression, is considered “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” according to the principles of Nuremberg. In other words, all the violence that has occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq is the summary responsibility of the occupying and colonizing power, apart from those individuals and factions that have actually committed the violence; to the extent that any responsibility, and justice, is real, substantiated, and pursued through moral and legal frameworks already existing or in need of being established. Aggressors have no rights, only responsibilities to their victims, if culpability is real, substantiated, and meted out in a legalistic and moral framework along the lines of universal principality.  

The dominant culture’s “enemies”, which change quite hurriedly along with US hegemonic interests (Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Mumanar Quadafi, and their followers in allegiance, are all prime examples that come to mind, in that they were all US allies given military and additional support, to varying degrees for varying periods, before being vilified for one imposing pretext or another), have operated, and are operating in a context which was created, and will remain, so long as US forces and its axis of the imperial willing occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, and pursue and impose neoliberal and neoconservative policies.

With few exceptions, there has been virtually no serious discussion in the mainstream media, of the illegality and immorality of the US attack, invasion, subsequent and concurrent occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq––a predictable and regimented consequence of the highly concentrated corporate doctrinal system. The cover of Time magazine, July 28 2008 proclaims, “Afghanistan: The Right War Why the West is failing there, and what to do about it”. The question of the legality or morality of the Afghanistan war is not allowed within the narrowly defined scaffold of doctrinal discussion; why the West, namely the United States is “failing” there, with the premise of “failure” undoubtedly permissible, by virtue that it is accepted, in the highly constricted spectrum of elite educated discussion, is a question that may be asked, and conveniently answered, the answers being not of moral, but of economic, political and tactical significance.

For “too big to fail” defense contractors, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Northrop-Grumman and Boeing, the West, more specifically, the United States, is not “failing” in Afghanistan, nor in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter. In fact, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with “the Pentagon’s voracious appetite for expensive weapons systems, and the lack of competition among the remaining contractors — have been a gold mine for the Big Five”.[1] Among plenty of other corporations including the infamous Blackwater, since rebranded Xe Services, which as of a few years ago had “more than 2,300 private soldiers deployed in nine countries, including in the United States” and maintained “a database of 21,000 former Special Forces troops, soldiers, and retired law enforcement agents on whom it could call at a moment’s notice” as well as “a private fleet of more than twenty aircraft, including helicopter gunships” as reported by Jeremy Scahill in his award-winning book Blackwater.[2] Private contractors in Iraq (seemingly as well as in Afghanistan) operated, and continue to operate, with complete impunity thanks to Order 17, which L. Paul Bremer, the US “Administrator of Iraq” from 2003-2004, issued on June 27 2004. The man who created this private army, the infamous Eric Prince, an ex-seal, “radical right-wing Christian mega-millionaire”[3] is well received by many within the establishment. At an October 2 2007 congressional hearing–– prompted mainly because of the massacre at Nisour Square on September 16 2007 when 17 Iraqi civilians were killed (murdered would be a more accurate term) and at least 24 were wounded, after a convoy of Blackwater mercenaries indiscriminately and without provocation fired heavy weapons in multiple directions[4]––the Nisour Square massacre was not allowed to be brought up in the line of questioning. Incidentally, to describe this event as anything other than a massacre is disingenuous at best.

Conveniently, the night before the hearing, “Alberto Gonzale’s Justice Department announced it had launched a criminal investigation into the incident”, not exactly timely for the victims of Nisour Square, but then, the victims of US crimes are not what really matters. Rep. Henry Waxman, chair of the congressional hearing, complied with the “Justice” Department’s request, though some important remarks and questions were offered, perhaps some of which were in lieu of those that may have been offered concerning the killings at Nisour Square, were they allowed to be discussed.[5] In Waxman’s opening comments he stated that as of “2000, Blackwater had just $204,000 in government contracts. Since then, it has received over a billion dollars in federal contracts. More than half of these contracts were awarded without full and open competition.” Waxman also mentioned the incident of December 24th, 2006 when an off duty “drunken Blackwater contractor shot [an on duty] guard of the Iraqi vice president [to death].” The murderer, enjoying impunity for his crime, was merely one of “122 Blackwater employees”, which at the time was “one-seventh of the company's… workforce in Iraq”, that had “been terminated for improper conduct.” Rep. Dennis Kucinich acknowledged that he was “deeply concerned that the Department of State appears to have attempted to cover up Blackwater's killings rather than seek appropriate remedies.” A pertinent observation taking into account, that Blackwater’s contractual obligations include[d] the security of many diplomats including from the State Department, their employer. He further stated, that palpably if “war is privatized, then private contractors have a vested interest in keeping the war going.”[6]

When Bush took office, “defense” (the term is in quotes because it’s a misnomer given the Orwellian connotation) spending was some $300 billion annually. By 2004 it was just over $400 Billion. Currently, US “defense” spending is over $700 billion a year.[7] Though all these figures are misleading because they do not include nuclear weapons programs and proliferation by the Department of Energy, the budget of the Department of Homeland Security, the billions of dollars in “foreign military aid” to Israel among many other recipients, and so on, all which, if an accurate accounting were to be arrived at, would be included in the total “defense” budget. Economist Robert Higgs arrived at somewhat different sums for the “defense” budget for the fiscal years 2002 and 2004 which certainly put things in a more calibrated perspective. According to his calculations, almost $600 billion dollars was spent on “defense” in 2002. Moreover, he articulated that “the super-grand total in fiscal year 2004 [would] reach the astonishing amount of nearly $754 billion—or 88 percent more than the much-publicized $401.3 billion—plus, of course, any additional supplemental spending that may be approved before the end of the fiscal year.”[8] It follows, presently, the US is likely spending over a trillion dollars on “defense”, or more accurately, global military hegemony. It’s rather striking, and disconcerting, given that the US almost spends more on militarism than the entire rest of the world combined. China, with the world’s second largest military, spends an amount that is dwarfed by comparison, though that number is steadily growing apace. Moreover, it would not be astonishing to learn, that the US is the largest supplier of arms in the world, were it something which was discussed, not a fact to be overlooked when accolades of “national security” and “regional stability” are trumpeted along the halls of the castles of power. 

US-UN sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990, a punitive measure because Saddam Hussein stepped out of line; with the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, he was no longer a staunch US ally (to be given military and other aid), at least in the public limelight, at which point he was an “enemy” to be dealt with. Estimates of Iraqi fatalities caused by the sanctions regime range from several hundred thousands to over 1.5 million deaths. In a May 12, 1996 interview for 60 Minutes, when asked if the price of U.S. sanctions against Iraq was worth it, namely that 500,000 children may have died, meaning “more children than died in Hiroshima”[9], Ambassador Madeline Albright, whom was appointed as Secretary of State for the Clinton administration in December of that year, responded by saying, “…this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.”[10]

With minor exceptions, there’s virtually no coverage of the interview or US-UN sanctions against Iraq. One study that seems to have gone unreservedly ignored concluded that there were 227,713 “excess” deaths of Iraqi Children from 1990 through 1998.[11]

The Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University published a mortality study of Iraq spanning 2002-2006. Findings revealed that from March 2003 “…through July 2006, there have been [an estimated] 654,965 excess deaths in Iraq as a consequence of the war from all causes.” An estimated 601,027 deaths were attributed to violent causes, while 53,938 “excess” deaths were due to non-violent causes.[12] These deaths are deemed “excess” because they would not have occurred were it not for the US attack and occupation.

According to a survey conducted by the London based Opinion Research Business, an estimated 1,033,239 Iraqis had been killed between March 2003 and August 2007 as a result of the US attack and occupation.[13] Which means, over a million people, wouldn’t have been violently killed, if not for the US bloodlust for oil, other resources, pipelines, strategic control of the global energy market, and so on and on, between the time periods for which the survey was conducted.

A mortality study published in the prestigious UK medical journal, The Lancet in 2004 concluded that “[m]aking conservative assumptions…about 100 000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths.”[14] It’s evident that prior to the US invasion, violence was not the primary cause of death for Iraqis. The authors articulated succinctly that “[t]he Geneva Conventions have clear guidance about the responsibilities of occupying armies to the civilian population they control. The fact that more than half the deaths reportedly caused by the occupying forces were women and children is cause for concern. In particular, Convention IV, Article 27 states that protected persons ‘. . . shall be at all times humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against acts of violence . . .’. It seems difficult to understand how a military force could monitor the extent to which civilians are protected against violence without systematically doing body counts or at least looking at the kinds of casualties they induce.”[15]

On March 18 2002, at Bagram Air Base, Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of the Afghanistan war at the time, is reported to have stated that “…we don't do body counts."[16] Whether its true that the Pentagon does not account for how many human beings the US has killed in Afghanistan, and Iraq, or not––perhaps not an unlikely scenario given the gravity with which “successful” conventional warfare is measured within the doctrinal system, namely a greater ratio of “enemy killed”––there is a precise count of the US and allied dead. It should be mentioned, the US ensures that those it targets do not have a “level playing field” so it’s reasonably logical that a “body count” of the “enemy” would be erroneous, at least from a perspective internal to the doctrinal system. Air Force pilots, wearing their issued flight suits, operating sophisticated computer hardware in Nevada, controlling predator drones thousands of miles a way, fulfilling the ambiguous agenda of a global targeted campaign of assassination, which has resulted in thousands of women, children, and men (in Libya, Syria, and so on) being violently destroyed, including citizens of the US; one of many examples of how US war is waged utilizing an unprecedented amount of force, while bunkering behind high-tech weaponry. Given that among many other considerations, it is reasonable to assume that to “do a body count”, from within the war-waging apparatus would be an unessential exercise due to the astronomically disproportionate, and indiscriminate, killing of civilians, and armed resistors of US occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq, and elsewhere. That is to say, there are simply too many bodies to count, and many of the victims of US carnage are obliterated to such a decree, there is no body to count.    

Throughout the initial US bombing campaign of Afghanistan in late 2001, in one incident at least 100 civilians were killed as their village was “wiped out” when a 2000lb bomb fired from a US jet “missed” its target.[17] In July of 2002, as many as 48 civilians were killed and as many as 117 injured, many if not most of whom were women and children, when a US AC-130 gunship attacked an Afghan wedding; the US did not offer an “apology” because of “differing accounts of what happened”.[18] In the early months of 2003, eleven civilians, seven men and four women, were killed when a US Harrier AV-8 jet “dropped a 1,000 pound laser-guided bomb” apparently missing its intended target[19], the “price” of the deaths, while a “mistake”, being of course “worth it”.

Early in December 2003, nine Afghan children, including seven boys ages 8-12, and two girls ages 9 and 10, were killed during a US attack. The boys “were playing marbles” in front of a house, and the girls, Bibi Toara and Bibi Tamama had been fetching water from a nearby stream “when two American A-10 attack jets [fired] rockets and machine guns”.[20] In early 2004 as many as 11 Afghans were killed, including four children and three women in yet another US air raid.[21] Mid-2005 saw the killing of as many as 17 civilians, including women and children after a “US air raid in Afghanistan's rugged eastern mountains”.[22] A US air strike in May 2006 reportedly killed upwards of 16 civilians, and wounded at least another 16, while purportedly killing “80 Taliban rebels”. If the count is accepted, there being virtually no way to ensure its accuracy, and no other count––a universal pattern as it concerns the victims of US violence––the “kill ratio” for this particular US assault was 5-1, meaning, for every 5 “enemy” killed 1 civilian was killed as well.[23] A “price” which was, and apparently still is, “worth it”.

In March of 2007, “12 people -- including a 4-year-old girl, a 1-year-old boy and three elderly villagers” as well as at least two women, where killed by US Marines after they opened fire on “stationary vehicles, passersby and others who were ‘exclusively civilian in nature’ and had made ‘no kind of provocative or threatening behavior’”. The US convoy’s violent response after an ambush by a suicide bomber driving a van, also wounded 35 other Afghan civilians.[24] At another Afghan wedding held in November 2008, as many as 37 civilians were killed by US bombing.[25] In May 2009, a “misdirected US air strike…killed as many as 120 Afghans, including dozens of women and children.”[26] In February 2010, an airstrike launched by United States Special Forces helicopters killed as many as 27 Afghan civilians.[27] Also in February, 2010, an “errant” US rocket strike killed at least 10 civilians, including 5 children.[28] On 25 March 2011 a UK Reaper piloted from a US base in Nevada, “sadly” killed four Afghan civilians and wounded two others.[29] And on and on.

The inclusion of the chronology, by no means complete, of the aforementioned civilian killings by the US in Afghanistan, is meant as an indicator of how wretched the prevailing doctrine has been, and continues to be. When we (the US) slaughter the innocent, it isn’t slaughter. It’s something else, and contrary to the slaughter of others, it’s acceptable. It’s an “accident”, it’s “regrettable”, it’s that the laser-guided bomb “missed” its target, it’s “collateral damage”, that is to say, it’s the number of innocent civilians we (the US) is willing to trade (kill) in exchange for getting (killing) the “bad guys”. It’s the “bad guys” fault because they used civilians as “human shields.”As Robert Fisk adeptly put it, “[w]e are always right and when we are not, we (sometimes) apologise and then we blame it all on the "terrorists". Yes, we know the throat-cutters and beheaders and suicide bombers are quite prepared to slaughter the innocent.”[30]

In 2006, Steven Green, along with three other soldiers, “entered the home of 14-year-old Abeer Qassim al-Janabi near Mahmudiya [near Baghdad, Iraq]…shot dead her mother, father and sister, then raped Abeer before shooting her and setting fire to her remains.” The low-level soldiers planned their crime while they “drank and played card games at a traffic checkpoint where they were stationed.” Green was convicted, is serving five consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole, as were the other three perpetrators, whom are all serving life-sentences.[31]  

Gul Mudin, an innocent Afghan man was killed by members of the “rogue” US soldiers from the Fifth Stryker Brigade, Second Infantry Division, based at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington State, on January 15 2010 in the village of La Mohammed Kalay. Two other civilians were murdered, with the perpetrators “trying to make it look as though the killings had been acts of self-defense.” A second incident occurred a month later on February 22, 2010, when a member of the “kill team” fired a Russian Kalashnikov, then shot Marach Agha, a 22-year old Afghan, to death with another weapon. Finally, during “a third incident on May 2, 2010, it appears that a hand grenade attack was again staged before the shooting and killing of Mullah Allah Dad.”[32] Specialist Jeremy M. Morlock was sentenced to 24 years for his part in the killing of Afghan civilians for “sport”. His counsel, “called to the witness stand a sociologist who had reviewed an internal investigation of the Stryker brigade and its former commander, Col. Harry D. Tunnell” who stated that “the documents portrayed a ‘dysfunctional’ brigade and command structure that ‘created an environment that led to these crimes.’”[33]

The soldier’s actions are obviously abominable and inexcusable. However, their actions, while on a micro level, stem from, thus are, representative of the Bush doctrine (since codified and elaborated Obama doctrine) of preemptive war of aggression, namely against Afghanistan and Iraq.

Where are the trials of war crimes against the civilian and military architects, at the top of the plutocracy, of these wars of aggression and how soon before they will be convicted of their crimes (which are far worse, in both scale and scope, then those of Green and his accomplices, and Staff Sgt. Calvin R. Gibbs, the “ringleader” of the killings of the three Afghans mentioned) and begin serving their consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole?

US terrorism has expanded since 9/11. The US drone programs, operating in many countries, including Pakistan and Yemen, are widely heralded for the terrorism they induce. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism “has collated credible news reports of 385-775 civilians being killed” by US-CIA drone attacks in Pakistan since 2004. According to the report, “[m]ore than 160 children are among at least 2,292 people reported killed in US attacks since 2004.” Over 1,100 people have been wounded as a result of the drone strikes. Obama has accounted for 239 of the total 291 US drone strikes in Pakistan. The sanctioned assassinations occur about every four days.[34] The US extrajudicial killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American born in New Mexico, by way of a drone attack, on September 30 in Yemen, should be cause for concern, considering that “officials deemed it lawful to kill an American citizen”, one whom was not charged with any crime, “setting a precedent that scholars, rights activists and others say has raised concerns about the rule of law and civil liberties.”[35] The “Justice” Department concluded that it was lawful to assassinate Mr. Awlaki, because, among other self-serving and easily illicit pretexts, Mr. Awlaki was “a lawful target in an armed conflict”. It appears Mr. Awlaki was not engaged in armed conflict with the US at the time (perhaps at any time) of his obliteration from earth; it seems the US, by way of an armed drone was in conflict with Mr. Awlaki, namely when the drone and the missile it discharged destroyed him. Mr. Awlaki’s 16 year old son, Abdel-Rahman Anwar al-Awlaki, again, an American citizen not charged with any crime, was also murdered by the US by method of the infamous drone, mere “collateral damage”, the “price” which, is of course, “worth it”.

The importance by which US and allied lives are held over the lives of Afghans and Iraqis, among so many others, is so palpable it cannot be underestimated. The institutional value of human and cultural life placed over any other is sadistic in and of itself. Though, when segments of the citizenry of the dominant culture, unflinchingly following the company line of politicians and pundits, dance and partake in merriment in the streets, including in front of the White House, (as if their favorite football team won a great victory), as they did upon learning the news of the Navy Seal team raid on the alleged haven of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, one can only shutter in terror at the abject jingoism, and the parade of utter contempt for the millions of lives whom have been destroyed, and the multitude millions of others displaced––by the highly sophisticated, technological, and regimented machine of war unleashed by the most powerful and most destructive empire the world has ever experienced––leading up to that parade of jubilance. Had I been among any of the crowds celebrating the alleged death of an individual notorious fanatic, whom did not simply come out of a vacuum, an inconvenient truth easily tossed down the memory hole, I would have recalled Winston, at a Two Minutes Hate rally during Hate Week, in George Orwell’s 1984; the parallels one can draw are striking.       

As long as these inherently atrocious wars (all wars being appalling and horrific) continue, it follows that soldiers will commit atrocities. The reflection is a serious one deserving of wide, serious, long-over due inquiry, and multifaceted action to address. Amnesty International called on Canada to prosecute or extradite Bush Jr. in advance of his anticipated October 20^th visit. Susan Lee, Director at Amnesty International conveyed that because US authorities have failed, perhaps refused is the operant word, to bring Bush, and his cohorts, to justice, the international community, namely Canada, must take action. “A failure by Canada to take action during his visit would violate the UN Convention against Torture and demonstrate contempt for fundamental human rights.”[36] Suffice to convey, Canada, much like the US, has an ugly, and extensive history demonstrating “contempt for fundamental human rights.”

Some in the international community, namely in Spain, have taken action, albeit innocuous and fated. On October 6 2009 a legal case was filed before the Audiencia Nacional in Spain against US presidents George H W Bush, William J Clinton, George W Bush, Barack H Obama, and UK prime ministers Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Anthony Blair and Gordon Brown for “commissioning, condoning and/or perpetuating multiple war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Iraq.”

An introduction to the case, which I shall quote at length, proclaims the charges, including the “13-year sanctions regime on Iraq” which was “known and proven to have an overwhelmingly destructive impact on Iraqi public health, especially child mortality” with some 560,000 children dying as a result. Additionally mentioned, is the bombing campaigns of the 1990s which entailed “the purposeful destruction of Iraq’s water and health facilities, and defence capacities, and the widespread contamination of Iraq’s ecosphere and life environment by the unjustified and massive use of depleted uranium munitions.” Also included in the case, the perpetuation “of an illegal war of aggression against Iraq based on deliberate falsification of threat assessment intelligence and systematic efforts to conceal from the general public in the United States and the United Kingdom, and other countries, along with parts of the military command structure of the respective armed forces deployed, the true aims and objectives of that war.” Further, the “true aims and objectives” of the Iraq war as planned, executed, and codified by those charged in the case and their accomplices, have dispossessed “the Iraqi people of all or the majority of their fundamental rights as established and protected by international human rights law and international humanitarian law, expressed in the UN Charter and conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Conventions, including the right of defence.” Moreover, the introduction goes on stating that since the beginning of the “US-instigated and dominantly administered sanctions regime up to the present day, an approximate total of 2,700,000 Iraqis have died as a direct result of sanctions followed by the US-UK led war of aggression on, and occupation of, Iraq beginning in 2003.”

The charges of the case, remarkably condemning, contain that the devastation “of the Iraqi people as a national group” and the deprivation of “this group of all or the majority of its rights, appears from a reasoned account of the catalogue of violations, abuses and attacks” to have occurred, and continually occurs, “in order to redraw by [US-UK] force the strategic and political map of the Arab region and Iraq’s place within that context, and to capture, appropriate and plunder, via cancellation of the sovereignty of the Iraqi people and the destruction and fragmentation of their identity and unity as a national group, Iraq’s substantial natural energy resources.” These “immoral and unlawful acts” are considered “substantive violations of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.”

As confirmation of the flagrantly aggressive US-UK policies, “in 2009 the American Friends Service Committee, in collaboration with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), reported that some 80 per cent of Iraqis surveyed in Iraq had witnessed a shooting, 68 per cent had been interrogated or harassed by militias, 77 per cent had been affected by shelling/rocket attacks, 72 per cent had witnessed a car bombing, 23 per cent of Iraqis in Baghdad had had a family member kidnapped, and 75 per cent had had a family member or someone close to them murdered.”[37]  

The fated Spanish legal case was outright dismissed, receiving virtually no coverage in the corporate media, which is unsurprising. Of course it would go against the corporate interests to seriously investigate and actually cover certain issues. Brief sound bytes are filled more and more with commentary celebrities and so called “experts”. A high-tech post-industrial lone super power needs lots of “experts” like retired generals to offer encouraging commentary on the latest weapons systems. And the highly concentrated centers of power, will no doubt, have the rich (themselves and their underlings) at heart, until the very end, when the straw house is blown away by the very wind bellowed from its breast. Of course, such topics are taboo, for they are paralyzing to our illusion and susceptibility to self-sensor and willingly allow ourselves to be inculcated and dominated. This also, while deplorable, is unfortunately, for us, not allowed to be discussed, which is of course, not surprising. Putting such matters aside.

According to Article IV of the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, the agreement which established the laws and procedures of the Nuremburg Tribunal, decreed on August 8 1945 by signatories France, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Russian Federation, and the United States of America, “Crimes against peace” comprise the “[p]lanning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of [these] acts mentioned…”[38] Of incidental relevance, the US dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki a day later, on August 9^th, 1945; just days before, the US had dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, on August 6^th, 1945. Over 150,000 human beings were obliterated instantly between these two nuclear bombings of Japan, with many tens of thousands killed during the subsequent nuclear fallout. The “price” being, at the time, “worth it”. The US has the dishonorable distinction of being the only state to target human population centers with nuclear weapons. Not an insignificant fact, considering the literal threat of annihilation of the human species, as well as millions of other species which we share the earth with. The continued proliferation of nuclear weapons has increased the likelihood, that other nations, such as Iran, that don’t fall into lockstep with the US and its interests, will pursue nuclear weapons programs as a deterrent against US “preventive” aggression. Why Iran would not seek to develop nuclear weapons, after being threatened with annihilation from the US and its imperial allies and assaulted with a deadly economic sanctions regime currently imposed upon them, which of course, with many if not all flagrant sanctions regimes, hurts the population the most––so they are meant to suffer for their government’s “misdeeds”, causing turmoil and unrest from within–– is a subject of no minor importance. Particularly given the current doctrinal cadence to march off to yet another war, this time with Iran; there’s the déjà vu, though there’s nothing to remember except what the corporate-government propaganda system allows, which varies as history is constantly being rewritten––so better we merely resign ourselves to the moment. The proliferation of nuclear weapons as a deterrent, is similar to how the so called “War on Terror” has in fact, been the cause for a tremendous surge in terrorism (including state terrorism it should be added)––globally at that. Ironically, perhaps the greatest terrorist of all, namely the United States, appears not to be waging war on itself.

On December 11 1946, the UN General Assembly affirmed “the Principles of International Law recognised by the Charter of the Nüremberg Tribunal” with the codification of Resolution 95 (I) of the United Nations General Assembly.[39] Between 1945 and 1950, from the introduction of the definition of crimes against peace to institute the legal basis of the Nuremberg Trial, to the codification of the legal pronouncement at the UN General Assembly, the language of the Principles went unadulterated, and remains so today. Notwithstanding certainly ambiguity, namely that of the definition of War of Aggression, the Nuremberg Tribunal set a precedent, however imperfect. The waging of war and all the death and destruction it encompasses was, arguably, perfectly legal within the thin framework of international law in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries. In the United States’ opening address at the Nuremberg Trials, chief American prosecutor Robert H. Jackson stated eloquently that humanity “…demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power and make deliberate and concerted use of it to set in motion evils which leave no home in the world untouched.” The Nuremberg Tribunal resulted in 12 of the highest level Nazis sentenced to death and consequently hanged, as well as several others sentenced to imprisonment for their responsibility in planning and carrying out the atrocities committed during the Nazi Germany holocaust. Justice Jackson went on to comment that the importance of the Nuremberg Tribunal “…is that [the twenty-odd Nazi] prisoners represent sinister influence that will lurk in the world long after their bodies have returned to dust. They are living symbols of racial hatreds, of terrorism and violence, and of the arrogance and cruelty of power. They are symbols of fierce nationalisms and militarism, of intrigue and war-making which have embroiled Europe generation after generation…destroying its homes, and impoverishing its life. They have so identified themselves with the philosophies they conceived and with the forces they directed that any tenderness to them is a victory and an encouragement to all the evils which are attached to their names.” There are no leaps and bounds in drawing parallels between Justice Jackson’s words then, and the realities now, nor in sketching equivalents between Nazi Germany of the 1930s and 1940s, and the US Empire today.

A crucial distinction was made between the German people and the Nazis that ruled supreme. Justice Jackson stated that there was no intent “…to incriminate the whole German people” because “…the Nazi Party was not put in power by a majority of the German vote.” Indeed, the actions and policies of corporate government, or corporations for that matter (being as the dominant doctrinal premise that corporations are legitimate institutions is widely accepted) should be taken somewhat separately from the populace, or workers, it rules. This is certainly relevant with regard to dissidence of US domestic and foreign policies today, which, to an extreme degree, are far to the right of popular public opinion.

The US is obviously no stranger to incriminating, or rather oppressing, whole populations of people. The destruction of millions of Native peoples who inhabited this continent, well before the first Europeans arrived, the hundreds of years of slavery of millions of Africans are of course two colossal, however generalized, examples of US genocide and colonialism with residual policies still in place today, and affects still reverberating. The “beneficence” of the genocide and colonialism was touted loud and clear, there were after all, rewards offered for “Indian scalps” be they from women, children, or men, and slavery of Africans was legal, the lynching of black people and murder of other people of color done with impunity. A more recent example of US incrimination of an entire people was of course the bombing campaigns, the invasion, subsequent occupation, and “counterinsurgency”, assumed to be carried out against the Taliban because they provided training for the suspected jihadists supposedly responsible for 9/11, though inherently, the attack, invasion, and occupation was against the Afghan people; incidentally, none of the alleged 19 hijackers were of Afghan descent. Another recent example of US incrimination of a whole people, is the case of the Palestinians, namely in Gaza, where the entire population was made to suffer–– already anguishing under US-Israeli doctrine going back over 40 years––by an extenuation of their previous abuse, when Hamas, a US designated “terrorist” organization, was democratically elected into the majority in 2006. A two-state solution, kicked around for over 30 years, has been barred from seeing the light of fruition, mainly due to the US and Israel’s doggedness. Putting such matters to the side.     

Justice Jackson insightfully stated that “[w]e must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.” The Nazi leadership tried at Nuremberg were not tried for crimes that the US committed as well; a distinction was made of atrocities that were planned and executed exclusively by the Nazis. If there were ever a Washington tribunal, perhaps the leadership, tried for war crimes, would stand in isolation, with maybe the exception of the leadership of the UK, for the attack-drone programs, were they ever to be deemed war, or any other crimes. 

Justice Jackson concluded that “[w]hatever may have been the considerations that caused the defendants to plan and launch the war, the doctrine of this agreement is that the planning and launching of an aggressive war is illegal, irrespective of any political, economic or other reasons for which justification is sought. The international tribunal established under the agreement is not required to go into the question whether Germany had real or fancied grievances. It need decide only whether an aggressive war was in fact launched.” This is a certainly an important distinction.  

Furthermore, Justice Jackson warned in 1946 that “[i]f the nations whose representatives fought for [the judgment of the first international criminal tribunal in history] and whose judges rendered it fail to obey the standards they set up, it may be discredited and neglected.”[40] There is no shortage of serious indications that that warning may have come to fruition. Though if so, it need not stand, if we disallow such a fulfillment.   

It should be mentioned, albeit obvious, that genocide, and other atrocities, and colonialism, including neocolonialism, committed by the US, if we owe ourselves to honesty, has been unremitting since the founding of the Republic, and subsequent Empire’s inception and rise to global hegemony. It stands to reason this pattern will continue, so long as we audaciously and unquestioningly accept our role as spectators in the deadly arena of totalitarianism.

The imperial wars of Afghanistan and Iraq are not “mistakes” or “failures”, they are immoral and criminal, and by now, they are significantly well evolved components of our collective character. Components which are utterly shameful; the only rectification being to salvage what is left of the wreckage of our collective self and begin in earnest correcting our collective character, or better still, creating a new one. A good start being, the immediate, full and unconditional withdrawal of all occupying forces, and all deployed weapons and weapons delivery systems from Afghanistan and Iraq, the paying of massive reparations to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, the ceasing of the total spectrum commitment to violence and plunder, and the abolishment of any policies and institutions which engage in, or allow, violence and plunder, to occur.

It is essential, within the most elementary morality, specifically the principle of universality, to keep in perspective what is done by the corporate government, as well as what is done with our consent, which is certainly, to a great extent, contrived. For if we forge our perspective from the ready-made ones which those in power provide us, we do not perceive the real folly and insidiousness of the oligarchs at the top of the oligarchy and the policies they implement, thereby we deny our autonomy, the very ideal we, as a collective conscience, purport to uphold, honor, and bestow. Though, more importantly, we, as a collective conscience, deny the autonomy of the victims, and falsely proclaim that their deaths were to maintain freedom.

I am free to eat, while another is made to go hungry. It is easier to pretend that the one has nothing to do with the other than it is to be aware that I am benefitting from the deprivation I choose to ignore. This is not freedom. It is a disgrace and a perversion of the ideal.

There are no isolated incidents in war, for war destroys all that it impacts, directly and indirectly, to varying degrees of ruin. There is no honor in war, for there cannot be any respect or admiration derivative of carnage. Carnage which, when spoken or written of, becomes revised so as to be easily digested by the citizenry, so that those architects of war, and their suitors and benefactors, may thump their chests, and say what valor there is!

When we look in the collective mirror and see the debacle that is staring back, it’s a wonder we are not aghast. What do the people and the ghosts of Afghanistan and the people and the ghosts of Iraq see when they stare at us, when they look upon our collective self?