Serving the University of Toledo community since 1919.

Novak: Recognizing U.S. government leaders as war criminals

Kyle Novak, IC Columnist

image_pdfimage_print

The legitimacy of the United States’ military activity abroad is an issue that has been on my mind quite a lot lately, and the recent bombing of a Doctors Without Borders hospital by the Air Force has helped to make something clear to me. We need to start thinking of our political and military leaders as what they are: war criminals.

The claim that our leaders are war criminals hardly falls within the mainstream political discourse in the United States, and it is even more uncommonly argued that we should hold such a view, but there are good reasons for both claims.

We’ve all (hopefully) been raised with the view that war criminals are among the worst of the worst. The most famous example remains the Nazi soldier senselessly ordering helpless families to the gas chambers, but there are many actions that are considered war crimes. A few listed under the BBC guide to ethics include torture or inhumane treatment, devastation not justified by military necessity and the murder of civilian populations in conflict zones. To say that the leaders of the United States are war criminals is to say that they are responsible for some or all of these actions.

Numerous news outlets have reported on the physical and sexual assaults committed by U.S. personnel, including the rape of teenage boys, at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad in 2004. Similar abuses have also been widely documented at Guantanamo Bay and in Afghanistan, often against detainees who were not even accused of any crime (in some instances informants working for United States were mistakenly detained and tortured). While some of these atrocities were committed by service members operating without orders, the Christian Science Monitor reported in December of 2014 that torture had been approved by then-Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

Even more heinous is the widespread devastation resulting from the War on Terrorism, specifically in Iraq. Iraqbodycount.org is a public record of the violent deaths in Iraq following the 2003 invasion. They report that as of October 19, 2015 at least 144,434 civilians have been killed since the beginning of the war. To put this in perspective, 2,996 people were killed in the attacks on September 11, 2001. This means that the United States has killed 48 times as many civilians as were killed on 9/11 in a country that had no connection to the attacks. The widely accepted fact that Iraq posed no threat to United States in 2003 means that these deaths were the result of unjust aggression and cannot be attributed to military necessity.

U.S. war crimes are not just a relic of the Bush administration, but are ongoing. The Obama administration has largely conducted military operations through the use of drone strikes which are supposed to be more precise, thus minimizing collateral damage. However, the Guardian reported in November 2014 that attempts to kill 41 men with drone strikes had resulted in the deaths of 1,147 people (many of them children) with many of the targets still alive.

A strike that kills dozens of civilians due to faulty intelligence is preventable. The continuation of strikes producing these deaths is predictable. The fact that they are not stopped is criminal. The terror created by the administration’s campaign could not be any clearer than in the Air Force bombing of a Doctors Without Borders hospital this month, which left patients burning alive in their beds and resulted in the death of 22 people.

Certainly the activities being ordered by our leaders and carried out by the members of our military are criminal, but why is it important to recognize this?

The facts mentioned above may be new to some readers but will be familiar to many. In some circles, it is denied that the United States could ever commit a war crime. In others the news of a new atrocity is met with apathy rather than denial, surprise or outrage. If that were to change, we might be able to see some positive results.

By asserting that our political and military leaders (as well as some military members) are guilty of war crimes, we could shift the political discourse away from the current norm which idolizes the military and refuses to admit that United States could be guilty of any wrongdoing. This could save lives by producing an electorate less inclined to send service people ridiculous and destructive expeditions around the globe.

Doing so might also allow the military budget to be reduced and funding to be shifted toward social and educational programs. Ideally, such an attitude shift could be part of the process of moving away from unsustainable empire building and toward a more responsible nation.

Kyle Novak is a masters student of philosophy.

Print Friendly

2 Comments

  • Critiquer

    Warcrimes require intent, perhaps you should learn to do proper research before writing articles.

    [Reply]

    Joshua Thornton Reply:

    Define intent.

    Invading Afghanistan was an accident?

    [Reply]