On August 29, 2021, the United States carried out a drone attack in Afghanistan which killed 10 persons, of which 7 were children. The U.S. had said it was a righteous act as they believed the target they hit was planning an attack on U.S. forces still in Kabul at that time.
Today, in a reversal, the Pentagon said that they made a mistake. Basically, none of the 10 killed had anything to do with terrorists.
This is the transcript.
As ex-military, I can understand the pressure those involved in this operation must have felt. If the target was a terrorist and they did not act, the result could be another explosion which may kill more people. The memory of the August 26 attack must have still be fresh in their minds. At the same time, it is this pressure to act that could also cloud decisions. We are trained to fight under pressure, to make decisions under pressure. But we are also taught to keep a clear mind under pressure, to exercise critical thinking at all times.
Which is why I am curious as to the actual evidence that the U.S. military had to come up with its final decision to order a drone attack. If the only evidence was an underlying high threat situation, someone driving a vehicle ferrying people around, and bags being passed between people... every taxi or bus driver in a high threat area becomes a potential terrorist.
No, there must be something else that had to act as strong evidence that they had the right target, that it was an imminent threat. Otherwise, claiming self-defence to strike would not stand in any court. And those who were involved in the attack should face consequences. Like manslaughter. Failure to exercise due diligence resulting in 10 civilian deaths... that is negligence resulting in manslaughter.
Those involved in this drone attack... I hope they understand the gravity of their actions. War is not a game. A drone attack on foreign soil is an act of war. Claiming self-defence does not mean one is free to do anything. I cannot go onto the street and shoot someone, claiming I did it in self-defence. I will need to prove to the court that my act of self-defence was justified based on evidence. Failure to provide credible evidence means I am the one guilty of a crime.
In this case, if the U.S. cannot provide credible evidence that the drone attack was an act of self-defence, then the U.S. is guilty of a crime against humanity: killing innocent people. The international community needs to stand up to demand such evidence. We cannot let the U.S. do what it wants just because it carries the biggest stick; that runs counter to the entire rule-based international system that we have been advocating for. We are the ones saying China is undermining the rule-based system, yet it is the U.S. that has time and again failed to live up to those standards. The invasion of Iraq was based on sketchy information on weapons of mass destruction which were never found. How many more must die before the international community stands up and says, "Where is the evidence to support your claims?"
No comments:
Post a Comment