Accidentally
Targets
Orphans.
Accidental
Incidents,
Rightfully.
Strategic
Tragedy
Rampant.
I
Know
Everything
The New York Times recently published an article online about a NATO Air Strike that didn't go quite as planned, resulting in the death of two civilians in Kabul, Afghanistan. The article brought a question to mind, that I will attempt to put across to all of you.
Let's decide their intent
Based on reputation
And the enemy
By the same brush
Alright - NATO blows two civilians away while they were walking past the target they were preparing to eliminate. Lets assume for a moment that the roles have been switched, shall we? Imagine the article read that two civilians has been killed by a botched Afghani air strike. What would the reaction be?
I can't guarantee anything, but I'm pretty sure there'd be a damn site more of an uproar. Think about it. Allied forces get taken into custody by the "enemy", and the entire Western world hears about it in volumes. What we don't ask is how many of the "enemy" have been captured, brutalized and murdered by the Allies. Is it somehow easier, more acceptable to believe that NATO made an honest mistake than it would be to believe that the "enemy" had done the same?
I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong, here... I am simply wondering where we should draw the line. I am saddened that those civilians lost their lives to military inaccuracy, and I wish their families well.
No comments:
Post a Comment