Proving the obvious: Study shows civilian war deaths create enemies

By David McElroy · December 29, 2011

If soldiers from another country come to your town and bomb your neighborhood and kill your friends and family, aren’t you going to hate them? So why is it any surprise that many of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan have learned to hate Americans in the last 10 years?

There’s a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research that shows something simple and obvious. If U.S. forces in Afghanistan kill civilians — even if the deaths are accidental — the attacks on American and allied forces go up in the weeks and months to come. Is anybody surprised?

According to coverage from Wired magazine:

“When [U.S. and allied] units kill civilians,” the research team finds, “this increases the number of willing combatants, leading to an increase in insurgent attacks.” According to their model, every innocent civilian killed by [U.S. and allied forces] predicts an “additional 0.03 attacks per 1,000 population in the next six-week period.” In a district of 83,000 people, then, the average of two civilian casualties killed in [U.S. and allied]-initiated military action leads to six additional insurgent attacks in the following six weeks.

The study looks at the short-term and medium-term effects of such violence, but I’m even more concerned about the long-run effect. I’m concerned about the kids who are growing up watching family and friends die — because they’re the ones who are going to be angry and ripe for recruitment by groups offering a chance to retaliate against America in the future — maybe a decade or more from now.

Many Americans would indignantly say, “But they started it. They attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001. So they caused the problem. Not us.”

The truth is far more complex than that. We have a tit for tat going on now, but the roots of the problem run many decades back. Haven’t you wondered how people in places such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq came to hate westerners? And how they came to hate Americans?

The U.S. government has been interfering in those countries for longer than most people can remember. They were pawns in the struggle against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. American tax dollars have propped up cruel dictators in many countries. The Soviets did the same thing. In Afghanistan, for instance, Soviet troops invaded to prop up a communist government, so U.S. taxpayers pumped many millions of dollars in weapons to the terrorists fighting them. (Oh, wait. They’re terrorists when they fight us. They’re freedom fighters when they’re killing Russians or whoever our enemy of the day is.)

We’ve created our own problems by trying to control bits and pieces of the world. The administration of George W. Bush was famous for telling us that those who hate us over there “hate us for our freedoms,” but the truth is that they have hated us (and other foreigners) for decades because we interfered with their lives. And over the last 10 years, U.S. troops have been in their countries, killing civilians — sometimes on purpose and sometimes by accident. Either way, it’s created new generations of people who hate us.

Most Americans woke up to the existence of these places on Sept. 11, 2001. They had pretty much ignored them before that. They didn’t know the history of the places or what their government had done there, so they just assumed there was no cause for the attack. The truth is that there’s a long cycle of reasons — back and forth.

The current military approach isn’t going to work, now or ever. The only thing that’s going to work is if we can agree to leave each other alone. We see their way of life and barbaric and evil — and they see our way of life as barbaric and evil, too. We need to agree to leave each other alone. The killing needs to stop.

There’s a 1991 song from a rock group called Daniel Amos that looks at what it’s like for children growing up in those countries where war is just part of the norm. For me, it’s an emotional reminder that our actions and reactions to one another are just creating more generations of people to hate each other. And remember that this song was recorded 10 years before the 2001 terrorist attacks.

It’s time for the violence to stop. It’s not leading to a future that any of us are going to want.

Father Explains
Daniel Amos

from the album “Kalhöun”
Words and music by Terry Taylor

His bare feet are calloused, he hikes up his pants
His mother says “Son you’re too young for the ranks”
We need food for our family not airplanes and tanks
And that’s where the moneys all gone

Eight brothers and sisters, but three of them died
Caught out in the marketplace with nowhere to hide
The boy thinks God may be over on the devil’s side
Where the line in the sand has been drawn

Father’s screaming now “Somebody put out the light
If God wills it now we’ll be in heaven tonight”
(Oh yeah) The bombs came down like steel rain
(Oh yeah) Hit the ground like steel rain
(Oh yeah) Nothing sounds like steel rain
“It’s our lot in life, son” his father explains

When the total of life has been suffering and hate
Death on the doorsteps and endless debate
Then God only knows how much blood it will take
Before someone makes right all the wrong

So bitter and hardened, too old for his age
The boy screams his madness, succumbs to his rage
Now he’s just another death on the bottom of the page
And that’s how the story goes on

Father’s screaming now “Somebody put out the light
If God wills it now we’ll be in heaven tonight”
(Oh yeah) The bombs came down like steel rain
(Oh yeah) Scarred the ground like steel rain
(Oh yeah) Nothing sounds like steel rain
“It’s our lot in life, daughter” her father explains

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Proving the obvious: Study shows civilian war deaths create enemies

Father Explains
Daniel Amos

from the album “Kalhöun”
Words and music by Terry Taylor

Father Explains Daniel Amos

from the album “Kalhöun” Words and music by Terry Taylor

Related Posts

Father Explains
Daniel Amos

from the album “Kalhöun”
Words and music by Terry Taylor