Forgiveness for war crimes is as American as apple pie, but it doesn’t have to be.
For about the thousandth time in the past four years, there is outrage at President Donald J. Trump emanating from liberals/centrists. Once again, I find myself shaking my head at the hypocrisy and lack of depth in the mainstream criticism of the outgoing president. Last week, the catalyst for the outrage was Trump’s (inexcusable and horrifying) pardoning of the Blackwater mercenaries, who in 2007, slaughtered 14 civilians in Baghdad. On the surface it’s a bit surprising that the #resistance is actually upset at this. After all, these are the same people who spent the last four years demanding belligerence toward Russia, criticizing Trump for even a feeble attempt at diplomacy with North Korea, and otherwise cozying up with intelligence officials, warmongering propagandists, and ex Bush administration officials. Then again, this newest episode of anti Trump outrage is emblematic of the entire four years. The centrist democrats have a myopic view of morality and thus will find opposition to specific instances of bad behavior without ever challenging any systemic causes like capitalism, militarism and imperialism. A unique phenomenon of the last few years has been to place the (appalling) crimes of Trump outside of historical context. This entails the imagining of Trump’s crimes as unique or somehow worse than the crimes of past presidents. In this case of the pardoning of the mercenaries, Trump was simply engaging in a longstanding American tradition of being forgiving to war criminals. Perhaps if this larger context can be identified, then some of the anger for individual incidents like these recent pardons can be weaponized to draw attention to the necessity for systemic change.
Who is Most Responsible for the Murders in Nisour Square?
Trump’s critics are infuriated by the Nisour Square incident not out of concern for human life, but because this execution of civilians, like Trump himself was extremely crude in nature. I’m aware that this is a serious allegation but what else can explain it? This massacre was only possible because of the larger illegal war on Iraq that had been initiated by George W. Bush. According to principles articulated at the Nuremberg Trials , the supreme international crime is to wage a war of aggression.The logic behind this characterization, is because all of the crimes that follow in the war were only made possible because of the original decision to go to war. In other words, during WWII, the Japanese atrocities in China along with German atrocities in Poland were only made possible by the original decisions made at the highest levels of those governments to go to war. This principle that was articulated by Justice Robert H. Jackson at Nuremberg evolved into the framework for “Crimes Against the Peace.” These statutes that were later adopted by the United Nations charter define such a crime as:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
By this definition, the entire Bush foreign policy team along with many high level military officers, and even some Democrats who supported the 2003 war on Iraq have committed serious war crimes by waging an offensive war on the Iraqi people. Compared to the reaction to Trump for his pardons, those guilty of this most supreme act of violence of the 21st century have in recent years been subject to comparatively little anger from most Americans The conspirators that took part in this act of mass murder enjoy relatively good reputations, are invited to appear on popular TV shows, appear on liberal media, and have even been nominated to run for president. One of them (Joe Biden) has even won the presidency. I’ve heard very few liberals echo disgust regarding Biden’s leading role in assuring the illegal war, even as he has continually lied about his role in it. Worse yet, while the private mercenaries were at least prosecuted, the much larger criminals who perpetrated the war of aggression have never seen the inside of a courtroom for their crimes. Despite both international and domestic outcry, once Obama assumed the presidency he declined to prosecute Bush and Cheney for war crimes. He stated that, “We need to look forward, as opposed to looking backwards” Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi families that were shattered by the war likely wish they could look forward to a day when the trauma of Bush’s war no longer affects them. Barack Obama made himself complicit in Bush’s crime with that decision, yet liberals still worship him and pour money into his already overflowing bank account. Bush for his crimes lives a peaceful life, enjoys painting, and his enormous wealth.
Iraqi Lives Didn’t Matter in the 90’s Either
My indictment of loyal Democrats is that they really don’t care about Iraqi lives. I do not just mean that they are totally willing to forgive and forget the greatest crime of the 21st century that was perpetrated in the 2003 war. They are also willing to pardon the crimes against Iraqis that preceded the 2003 invasion. In the 1991 Gulf War, (a war also launched on lies), the United States deliberately destroyed Iraq’s civilian infrastructure with apocalyptic levels of bombing.. This rendered Iraq from an advanced (albeit totalitarian) society into a barely developing nation. To further exacerbate the pain for Iraqi civilians, the United Nations at the behest of the U.S implemented on Iraq the most restrictive economic sanctions in human history. These sanctions started under George HW Bush, but the majority of that decade of horror was accomplished by president Clinton. This economic warfare prevented Iraqis from obtaining basic medical supplies and food. This, along with the crippled infrastructure led to outbreaks of disease and starvation, with a resultant death toll somewhere between 500,000 and a million Iraqis, disproportionately small children.The term “genocide” can aptly be applied to this situation, and it was precisely the term used by UN Denis Halliday when he resigned from his position due to his opposition to the blockade. Clinton’s secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, had a different reaction to the sanctions, insisting that the price of hundreds of thousands of children’s deaths was “worth it.”Clinton himself was pressed on the issue by journalist Amy Goodman on Democracy Now. His response to Goodman performing her duty as a journalist was to blame the deaths of children on Saddam Hussein’s desire for weapons of mass destruction, and to accuse her of being “hostile and combative.” His insistence that Hussein was to blame for his population’s suffering is basically the admission to a violation of the Geneva Convention, The convention, which in theory guides international law, forbids collective punishment.Clinton can be forgiven for interpreting Goodman’s questioning about the genocidal program as beyond the pale. Goodman’s questions were hostile, at least by comparison to the treatment Clinton received from most Democrats, liberals, and members of the mainstream media both during his presidency and ever since. The 42nd president still enjoys a lauded reputation amongst the American populace, with any criticisms limited to his domestic policies. This forgiveness and otherwise avoidance of discussion of his war crime erases the 8 years of deprivation he subjected Iraqis to.
The Most Prolific American War Criminals Are Never Brought to Trial
The list of high ranking American officials that have never faced penalties for obvious war crimes is long. A non-exhaustive list would have to include people like Henry Kissinger, who in his capacity as Nixon’s national security advisor (among other crimes) illegally bombed the civilian population of Cambodia (a nation the United States was not at war with). The list would also include Richard Nixon for the same crime. No compilation of US war criminals could be complete without the addition of Ronald Reagan for his support for terrorists in Nicaragua along with his illegal invasion of Grenada. We could not leave off George H.W Bush either, not solely for his horrific crimes against Iraq, but also for his war of aggression he waged on Panama. Finally, I’d be remiss if I did not include Barack Obama, who among other crimes (see Libya and drone assassinations) is complicit in the ongoing genocide in Yemen. This war of aggression that has killed over 200,000 people began with Obama’s 2015 decision to arm, refuel, provide intelligence and diplomatic cover for Saudi Arabia and the UAE as they waged war on Yemen’s civilian population. This would qualify him as a war criminal under the Law of Armed Conflict. However Obama is not unique. As intellectual Noam Chomsky has stated, “If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.” Given that the US is not subject to International Criminal Court prosecution, and that no high ranking US official has ever been subject to war crimes prosecution, I do not hold out hope that justice will be served to the living members of the aforementioned list. Making matters worse however is the fact that apparently Americans can forgive, or at least ignore these crimes. Henry Kissinger is 97 years old, free, and enormously wealthy. There is very little public outcry about this outside of some noble peace activists demanding his persecution. Nixon has been demonized, but for his crimes relating to the Watergate scandal. Very few ever draw attention to the fact that his far greater crimes was the mass murder of millions of Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians. Reagan still enjoys a good reputation amongst conservatives, and liberals still look at him favorably when compared to current occupant of the Whitehouse. When George HW Bush died in 2018, he was mourned with an imperial funeral, with leading figures in both parties uniting to grieve their departed leader, with only alternative media drawing attention to his major crimes against Panama and Iraq. Finally, Barack Obama remains among the most popular figures in America, with liberals still gushing over his every word.
Mass Murder Get a Slap on The Wrist.. Once in a While
The very fact that Trump even had to pardon the Blackwater killers at all is unique. With the aforementioned high ranking US officials, there have rarely even been investigations, let alone trials or prosecutions for their crimes. However, some may be reading this and call attention to the fact that occasionally, Americans have served prison time for acts of criminality in war. These are almost always low ranking soldiers who have committed horrible acts and subsequently been prosecuted. This has allowed some mirage of justice while the high ranking officials that made these crimes possible always escape legal action. Even in the case of the direct perpetrators of these crimes, they have most often been forgiven by the American government and public. Take for example the most infamous extermination of civilians of the Vietnam War, the My Lai Massacre. Although American soldiers perpetrated many similar acts of mass carnage throughout the Vietnam War, this incident received attention due to the valiant investigative journalism of Seymour Hersh, (this was after the Army attempted to cover it up) In this particular incident, members of the US army murdered over 500 unarmed Vietnamese civilians. The slaughter was only stopped due to the heroic actions of army helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson, who threatened to fire on his fellow soldiers if they continued in their slaughter. Once the incident was exposed by Hersh, the army was forced to act. LieutenantWilliam Calley was the only person convicted for his role in the massacre, and received a sentence of life imprisonment. This was swiftly reduced to a 20 year sentence.
Calley’s behavior was shameful and barbaric, and surely no Americans could have ever forgiven such behavior, right? The wanton slaughter of defenseless women and children is beyond the pale that even the most patriotic of Americans, right? This assumption of American empathy is belied by the fact that a Gallup survey showed that 79 percent of Americans believed that Calley’s sentence was too harsh. Additionally, nearly 5000 telegrams were written to then President Richard Nixon pleading for Calley’s clemency. Nixon himself lacked compassion for the Vietnamese ,and also felt the pressure from American people. This led him to permit the sadist to be transferred from prison to house arrest. Calley was paroled after just serving 3.5 years of his sentence. To put that more bluntly, one of the leading figures the commission of mass murder of hundreds of people served less prison time than US citizen who is convicted of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. However, this injustice was predictable. Calley’s treatment was only following the precedent of Americans who had been treated with kid gloves for the murder of foriegn innocents. In the Philippine American War, US Army General Jacob Smith gave orders to his subordinate regarding how to treat the inhabitants of the island of Samar. He demanded, “I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn the better you will please me.”.. “Make the Island a Howling Wilderness.” Those orders sentenced up to 50,000 Filipinos to death. For his arguable act of genocide, Smith was charged with “conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline.” The “penalty” for his crime was that he was ordered to retire from the army without so much as a dishonorable discharge as a penalty. The cases of William Callley and Jacob Smith are among the hundreds of forgiven US war criminals that underscore the fact that the United States is a nation with a perverted sense of morality and justice.
Some may argue moral progress has been made in the sense that while the majority of Americans felt quite forgiving to Calley for his grave crimes against the Vietnamese, significantly more voiced disgust at Trump’s pardoning of the butchers of Nisour Square. However, this current outrage is related less to an advancement in morality but rather serves as evidence to partisan politics. Trump’s pardon of the Blackwater crew is certainly less egregious than Obama failing to even pursuing charges against the Bush administration, who killed exponentially more people than the Blackwater mercenaries did (and whose actions themselves led to the massacre occurring). Yet where is the public outrage for that display of forgiveness for the unforgivable? All that said, given the disparity between the empathy apparently on display currently for the Nisour Square victims, versus the dearth of it for Calley’s victims, it is fair to say that in 2020 Americans largely find face to face massacres of unarmed civilians distasteful. However their reasons for that anger are unlikely to move us toward ending the wars that cause massacres in the first place.
Which Massacres Matter?
Partisanship likely explains the (incorrect) view that the Trump pardons are further evidence of the 45th president’s departure from normative presidential behavior. Another explanation for the revulsion to these pardons is that the crimes committed by the mercenaries were extremely personal and grotesque. If this second reason is what catalyzes the current opposition to the pardons, then it could legitimize the claim that there has been at least some moral progress since My Lai. That said, I am still skeptical that this is really a sign of a growth in collective American empathy. The phenomenon of armed US soldiers committing mass murder of civilians is a common thread throughout US history from the genocidal wars against the indigenous inhabitants of North America, to the War on the Philippines to the wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Nor are they unique to the American conduct of war, as civilians have been subject to massacres in nearly all wars in human history. However, in more recent wars of aggression that the US has perpetrated in Southeast Asia, Central and West Asia, the vast majority of civilians killed by the US military are killed by explosives. These are typically fired from aircraft many thousands of feet above, or from drones. The types of massacres like My Lai and Nisour Square (albeit barbaric) make up just a small percentage of the innocents killed by the US. Paradoxically, most Americans do not see the regular incidents of bombing civilians as an affront to their morality at the same level they would place the up close massacre of civilians. When ABC was showing footage of the 2003 bombing of Baghdad, they did not feel compelled to warn of the graphic content In fact, most news outlets reported on the bombardment of a city the size of New York with relative glee. Nor were Americans demanding that the soldiers and pilots that conducted the assault on the city be held accountable. This attack on an urban center was a crime that killed exponentially more civilians than all the Nisour Square type massacres in that war combined. Similarly, there is very little public demand for the American forces that completely destroyed the Syrian city of Raqqa, along with the Iraqi city of Mosul to face justice, even though these actions killed well over ten thousand civilians. Still there are no demands for prosecutions of members of the US military for carrying such campaigns of mass murder. So what explains the disparity in outrage between these two kinds of massacres? I will present two hypotheses, both of which are explained by an overarching belief in American exceptionalism.
First I would propose that subjecting densely populated cities to bombing like Manila, Raqqa and Mosul, is deemed acceptable to most Americans because there was an enemy inside those cities that deeply entrenched itself into civilian life. (The Japanese in the case of Manila and ISIS for Raqqa and Mosul) If American troops were to go into the city and fight block to block without heavy artillery to defeat those enemies, that would certainly result in less civilian deaths than bombing the cities from the air. However, this strategy would undoubtedly result in more American casualties given the close nature of the fighting. The choice to bomb cities rather than engage in urban war is thus a conscious choice that prioritizes the lives American soldiers over innocent civilian lives. This is revelatory of a devotion to American exceptionalism and superiority, and in the case of Manila especially, racism. At the time of the Battle of Manila in 1945, Filipinos were American citizens by virtue of the colonization of those islands 45 years prior That means that the US military favored the lives of Americans from the continental United States (primarily white) over Americans who were living in the Philippines (nonwhite). As a result of the fighting, over 100,000 Filipinos were killed, while a comparatively small number of continental Americans died (1000).
The second explanation for the outrage gap between the two kinds of massacres is one that points to a degree of selfishness. News and images from civilian massacres bring the audience up close and personal with the reality of war, perhaps wars that they supported. The stories of women raped and subsequently executed along with their children force Americans to deal with the reality of state violence. Whereas one can watch the bombing of Baghdad and not attach a face to the carnage, pictures of a mother standing in front of her children in a futile attempt to protect them from American bullets attaches a humanity to war that is not easily dismissed. That humanity is not on display in the footage of fireballs extending from destroyed urban neighborhoods. Were it that events like Nisour Square and My Lai not brought into the consciousness of the average American, they could go about with their patriotism, uninterrupted in their belief in American benevolence These kinds of events are inconveniences for those that are determined to believe that the US is somehow noble or above savage behavior.
Moving forward
If the anti war/anti imperialist movement is to gain traction, the first steps should be to get Americans to focus on the systemic issues as the primary cause of individual horrific events. There is hope that this can be achieved, as Americans can be moved in their disposition. Last year when Donald Trump assassinated Iranian general, Qasem Soleimani, voices from across the political spectrum came out to denounce it as a reckless act of war. We need to move the conversation to assist well intentioned people understand that illegal acts like that assassination are predictable in the context of American empire. The murder by drone of the Iranian general was an obvious consequence of an inherent belief that the US is uniquely good, and thus not bound by international law or expectations. In that same vein, it is useful to point out the hypocrisy in being (rightly)angered over Trump’s act of war, while excusing his predecessor’s drone assassination program. Likewise, it is productive to bring light to the inconsistency regarding being upset by the pardoning of the Blackwater murderers, while excusing Obama’s failure to even investigate the perpetrators of the very war in which that massacre took place. Lacking a holistic critique of American empire is what allows someone to have an aversion to some massacres but apathy toward others; that distinction largely dependent on the identity of the perpetrator or the methods used to kill. Furthermore, the lack of a systemic critique of empire allows for a myopic condemnation of specific acts of unjustifiable violence within a war, while exonerating far more powerful perpetrators of wars of aggression. This is what permits Americans to view some wars as immoral while others as noble (IE the Iraq war was a disaster, yet somehow Afghanistan was the “good war”). The root of all war crimes is imperialism, and we need to move people to challenge the idea that the United states has the right to dominate global affairs. That is a task greater than challenging any one president, being upset at any one massacre of foreign citizens, or finding one form of warfare horrifying while finding another more acceptable.