Way To Go Soldier Boys

In any armed conflict a sure sign that the invading army has lost occurs when a raid is conducted on a suspected enemy haven where there is a high possibility of children but the raid is carried out anyway.

This was the news greeting us this morning. A U.S.-led coalition air strike was conducted against a religious school (a madrassa) in the Paktika province of eastern Afghanistan. A few Taliban fighters were killed in the raid but so were at least seven children. Coincidentally, the death of these seven innocents occurred on the same day a Taliban suicide bomber blew up more than 35 people on a police bus in Kabul. Sort of a tit-for-tat scenario if you will.

This isn't the first time innocents have been caught in the crossfire in a war situation and it certainly won't be the last but how are the western invading armies any better than the designated enemy-in-residence if we consider children nothing more than unavoidable collateral damage?

Look at how this latest tragedy is being reported: they say that coalition forces were in possession of "credible intelligence" that several resistance fighters were holed up in a "compound" in Paktika. So far, so good. But the compound in question is also a religious school, a fact that the coalition forces were well aware of. But they blew it to smithereens anyway. To cover their own asses, reports indicate that the mission commander sought and received permission from their war bosses before carrying out the mission.

After it was determined that 7 children had been killed, the coalition spin doctors immediately released their previously-prepared pat response that they are "saddened" by the loss of innocent lives. And then they turn the whole thing around and blame it on the enemy fighters by stating that the children are dead only because the Taliban or Al-Qaeda used them as human shields.

Another coalition spokesperson in another cover-one's-ass statement said, "If we knew that there were children inside the building, there was no way that that airstrike would have occurred."

HELLO! You bombed a madrassa - a school! Madrassas are known for taking in orphans and poor children and god knows Afghanistan has more than its fair share of orphans since 2001 and you damn well knew there would be innocents inside that building and you blew it up anyway.

It's no doubt that some of the more militant fighters in Afghanistan (and Iraq for that matter) use women and children as "human shields" and for that reason innocents do tragically get killed in the crossfire. Indeed, we in the west call that particular militant practice cowardice and rightly so. But how are western forces any better than the enemy "cowards" if we bomb buildings where there is a high probability of innocents being killed?

Wouldn't a more reasonable and civilized approach be to avoid the killing of innocents at all costs? Are dead children worth a few less Taliban fighters? Apparently not anymore.

Shame on us for reading any given news report out of Afghanistan that includes collateral damage in the guise of dead innocents, without even batting an eyelash. Shame on us for learning of the latest school shooting in North America that leaves countless dead innocents, and we deeply and publicly mourn the loss of part of our future generation.

Shame on all of us for holding western youth in such high esteem and protecting them at all cost while we shrug off the youth of Afghanistan and Iraq as just a few more dead ragheads.

Makes one wonder who the real barbarians are.