For decades, U.S. military officials have used the euphemism “collateral damage” to refer to the deaths of civilians and destruction of property that resulted from military operations. As a public relations device, this term has helped mask the true toll of aggressive actions and given the impression that any harm inflicted was purely unintentional. Military officials also repeatedly assert that they make every effort to minimize these accidental results. As former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stated in an ABC interview shortly after the Iraq invasion in 2003, “Our preference is, as a country, to have as little collateral damage as possible.” However the reality is that the U.S. military has made very little effort to avoid massive destruction in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in some cases, policies and practices seem intended to drive up the level of devastation.
- Israeli-Palestinian Peace Negotiations at a Dead End
- Video: Phyllis Bennis on RT’s “Crosstalk: Eternal War”
- Syrian War Moving Outward, Obama Looks Inward
- Video: Did McCain Go to Syria to Sabotage US Russia Negotiations?
- Syria: The Threats, the Claims, the Costs, the Lives
- Video: Syria Crisis Becoming Increasingly Sectarian
- Walmart’s Executive Bonuses Cost Taxpayers Millions
- The One Percent at State U
- A Call for the Building of an Alternative Legal Framework to the International Investment Treaties: favoring the Public Interest while doing away with Transnational Corporate Impunity
- Restaurant Industry Pay: Taxpayers’ Double Burden
- Debunking Eight Falsehoods by Pacific Rim Mining / OceanaGold in El Salvador
- Wall Street Bonuses and the Minimum Wage
Get the latest from IPS in your inbox.