I'm getting a bit tired of the "deranged"
soldier story. It was predictable, of course. The 38-year-old staff sergeant
who massacred 16 Afghan civilians, including nine children, near Kandahar this
week had no sooner returned to base than the defence experts and the think-tank
boys and girls announced that he was "deranged". Not an evil, wicked,
mindless terrorist – which he would be, of course, if he had been an Afghan,
especially a Taliban – but merely a guy who went crazy.
This was
the same nonsense used to describe the murderous US soldiers who ran amok in
the Iraqi town of Haditha. It was the same word used about Israeli soldier
Baruch Goldstein who massacred 25 Palestinians in Hebron – something I pointed
out in this paper only hours before the staff sergeant became suddenly
"deranged" in Kandahar province.
"Apparently
deranged", "probably deranged", journalists announced, a soldier
who "might have suffered some kind of breakdown" (The Guardian), a
"rogue US soldier" (Financial Times) whose "rampage" (The
New York Times) was "doubtless [sic] perpetrated in an act of
madness" (Le Figaro). Really? Are we supposed to believe this stuff?
Surely, if he was entirely deranged, our staff sergeant would have killed 16 of
his fellow Americans. He would have slaughtered his mates and then set fire to
their bodies. But, no, he didn't kill Americans. He chose to kill Afghans.
There was a choice involved. So why did he kill Afghans? We learned yesterday
that the soldier had recently seen one of his mates with his legs blown off.
But so what?
The Afghan narrative has been curiously lobotomised –
censored, even – by those who have been trying to explain this appalling
massacre in Kandahar. They remembered the Koran burnings – when American troops
in Bagram chucked Korans on a bonfire – and the deaths of six Nato soldiers,
two of them Americans, which followed. But blow me down if they didn't forget –
and this applies to every single report on the latest killings – a remarkable
and highly significant statement from the US army's top commander in
Afghanistan, General John Allen, exactly 22 days ago. Indeed, it was so unusual
a statement that I clipped the report of Allen's words from my morning paper
and placed it inside my briefcase for future reference.
Allen
told his men that "now is not the time for revenge for the deaths of two
US soldiers killed in Thursday's riots". They should, he said,
"resist whatever urge they might have to strike back" after an Afghan
soldier killed the two Americans. "There will be moments like
this when you're searching for the meaning of this loss," Allen continued.
"There will be moments like this, when your emotions are governed by anger
and a desire to strike back. Now is not the time for revenge, now is the time
to look deep inside your souls, remember your mission, remember your
discipline, remember who you are."
Now this was an extraordinary plea to come from the US
commander in Afghanistan. The top general had to tell his supposedly well-disciplined,
elite, professional army not to "take vengeance" on the Afghans they
are supposed to be helping/protecting/nurturing/training, etc. He had to tell
his soldiers not to commit murder. I know that generals would say this kind of
thing in Vietnam. But Afghanistan? Has it come to this? I rather fear it has.
Because – however much I dislike generals – I've met quite a number of them
and, by and large, they have a pretty good idea of what's going on in the
ranks. And I suspect that Allen had already been warned by his junior officers
that his soldiers had been enraged by the killings that followed the Koran
burnings – and might decide to go on a revenge spree. Hence he tried
desperately – in a statement that was as shocking as it was revealing – to pre-empt
exactly the massacre which took place last Sunday.
Yet it was totally wiped from the memory box by the
"experts" when they had to tell us about these killings. No
suggestion that General Allen had said these words was allowed into their
stories, not a single reference – because, of course, this would have taken our
staff sergeant out of the "deranged" bracket and given him a possible
motive for his killings. As usual, the journos had got into bed with the
military to create a madman rather than a murderous soldier. Poor chap. Off his
head. Didn't know what he was doing. No wonder he was whisked out of
Afghanistan at such speed.
No comments:
Post a Comment