The Pentagon is rather quickly transitioning its narrative on the large number of civilians US airstrikes have killed in Mosul this month, with blanket denials giving way to concessions that it was probable the US was responsible for the killings and now to outright defiance about that fact.
Official comments from top generals, including Gen. Joseph Votel, appear to have moved totally beyond the question of the large number already killed, and are focusing their comments today on the many civilians the US will kill in the days to come, with Votel insisting the US “will try” to avoid endangering civilians with airstrikes, but that it is becoming “more and more difficult” during fighting in densely populated Mosul.
Officials are saying that the soaring death toll was “to be expected” as fighting advanced into the Old City, and no longer appear to be focused on denying any of the killings so much as insisting that killing civilians was a natural consequence of bombing the city.
These comments, along with the none-too-convincing promises to “try” to avoid killing huge numbers more of civilians, are likely to add to the growing disquiet among human rights groups about US behavior in Iraq, drawing even more unwanted attention to the hundreds of civilians they’ve already killed and the lack of interest in changing policies to prevent more in the future.
To the extent that any reassurance is being made at all to justify US actions, right now it just centers on insisting that the rules of engagement are the same as they were under the Obama Administration. That they aren’t working appears to be totally beside the point.
The Pentagon is an American killing machine. Human life has no value. Only power counts. The USA is slowly moving to a totalitarian state.
You cannot be more correct.
And isn’t it encouraging and enobling to hear Americans saying it … finally?
Slowly?
My dear the us has been a totalitarian state for quite some time now.
It would be nice if the competitive nature of the U.S. military extended to competing with the Russians for ‘least civvies killed in urban action’.
Not a fixed MSM popularity contest between who blows ’em up the most blamelessly.
I like the way they forewarn us of the deaths of kids. Wonder why some of the barbarians in the 20th century never thought of that. Stalin could have told the Ukrainians to expect more deaths from starvation. Mao to the Chinese to expect many more deaths due to the Cultural Revolution, and Hitler would have been more of a humanitarian if he had warned France, Poland, Russia etc to knuckle under or expect many many more deaths.
They will “try” to avoid endangering civilians” but “a soaring death toll was to be expected”. As little control the Obama administration had over its loose cannon military, it seems the Trump gang has less. When will the American people finally tire of sending sixty percent of their tax revenues to fund this never-ending savagery?
Puts the human shield bulls**t excuse to rest.
Western values
The first question should be: is a military solution what’s called for. Next, is bombing the right strategy? If American and allied forces are heros, they would sooner endanger themselves fighting street to street than persist in a strategy of 500-lb bombs which they know will kill civilians by the score. The math going on here is that it’s better to kill 20 innocent foreigners than let one enemy sniper survive, or one allied soldier be harmed. But if the people American leaders consider important started dying in large numbers, this “not-war” would be called off. As it should be.
The us doesn’t give a damn about civilians … who do you think is paying these so called terrorists? Answer … the us. The us is the enemy that specializes in killing civilians .
The first question should be considered as having already been asked, and answered. But I detect that you have been asking yourself some questions and your thinking is being expressed out loud here on this board.
Is bombing the right strategy, you asked?
Do you have the answer?
I won’t stipulate that the question was even asked or answered, at least not properly… it was assumed. First step, who runs Syria is none of our business. Second, a coherent functional government of Syria of ANY kind is a more urgent US interest than if it includes Assad, and bombing tends to destabilize a country even more than it is. A military strategy that might eventually work (defeating ISIS) after many American casualties and some civilian deaths is clearing ISIS territory house to house and street to street using small arms. That would deflate the ISIS recruiting strategy, accurately describing US brutality and indifference to self-determination.
40 Billion dollars in shrink-wrapped cash pallets gets us here. http://www.cnbc.com/id/45031100
What decent person would care about the money spent and ignore the lives of millions of innocents who’ve been slaughtered by US/Nato.
They use so much airpower just because it seems. Not that it’s actually all that effective in built up areas. Von Richtofen’s airforce reduced Stalingrad to rubble in a few days time. While it alleviates the immediate issue which is, “we’re being shot at from that building”, it has a nasty habit of creating an even better spot to shoot from.
Telling civilians to stay put while a massive urban battle is to take place is beyond idiotic. It’s a deliberate effort to maximize civilian and infrastructure damage while giving the impression that they “defeated the enemy”.
Defiance? No, a change in the rules of engagement by Trump, as he had promised.
Time for all the Trump supporters to step forward and choose whether you are antiwar or pro-Trump.
Their screaming about casualties in Aleppo was cover up of Mosul casualties