All of it as intended. By design. The plan.
Remaking entire parts of the planet- Destroying communities and cultures- It takes a whole lot of ethnic cleansing and refugees on the move... to reshape the globe to better suit the psychos we foolishly call leaders.Carnegie Endowment:
U.S. military actions and partnerships are directly contributing to the very crises humanitarians are trying to resolve. U.S. policy choices bear responsibility in three ways: 1) U.S. military operations have caused immense disruption and are intensifying; 2) partner militaries are systematically violating international humanitarian law and exacerbating migration outflows; and 3) consequently, international norms to protect civilians during armed conflict are diminishing worldwide.
In the campaign to defeat ISIS, U.S. military operations have caused significant damage to communities and led to a steady rise in civilian deaths. Some of the outcomes have been positive.(It’s Carnegie so there has to be appeasement to the global tyrant)Oh and this article features a big‘blame Trump” push. But then contradicts itself in the ‘ next breath’ by citing worsening conditions under Obama
On the other hand, the incredible use of firepower and munitions has brought vast destruction. Millions of Iraqis are displaced and unable to return to their destroyed communities. Whole families have been wiped out from coalition airstrikes. Meanwhile in Syria, the war continues with devastating consequences: more than half the population has been displaced and 13.5 million people exhibit serious humanitarian needs (out of an estimated wartime population of 16.6 million).
Under President Donald J. Trump, this destruction has only increased..
Even before Trump took office, human rights observers were concerned about the civilian impact from airstrikes. Under Obama’s watch, the fight against ISIS led to approximately 2,300 to 3,400 civilian deaths. The sheer amount of ordnance used was breathtaking. In 2016, for example, the United States dropped an estimated 26,172 bombs in seven countries: Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.
The non-profit monitoring group Airwars estimates that of the 102,000 bombs and missiles that the U.S. military has dropped in Iraq and Syria and the 5,500 civilians killed from airstrikes since the start of hostilities, 55% of this total has occurred in Trump’s first seven months. The huge increase in civilian deaths is not limited to the campaign against ISIS. In Afghanistan, for example, the United Nations reports a 67% increase in civilian deaths from U.S. airstrikes in the first six months of 2017 compared to the first half of 2016. In other words, civilian casualties are up everywhere under Trump’s leadership.
Experts offer several explanations for this trend.
One explanation holds that Trump’s full delegation of authority to the military has eased Obama-era restrictions and increased the threshold of risk that military commanders are willing to assume. A big criticism of Obama – including from former defense secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta – was that the White House staff micro-managed and second-guessed the military. But under Trump, the converse appears to be the case. Jon Alterman from the Center for Strategic and International Studies cautions, “if you’re going to target and kill someone, there needs to be some kind of process to ensure that it serves a strategic purpose. We shouldn’t be comfortable with the other extreme, essentially handing out death sentences without much deliberation.”
It is possible that the intense focus on pinpointing and destroying ISIS has overshadowed the competing priority of protecting civilians. Because Trump is instituting rules changes to permanently scale back civilian oversight, and has also delegated down decision-making authority to call in lethal air strikes (reportedly colonels rather than one-star generals can now authorize bombings), this may explain why civilian casualties are on the rise.
A second line of reasoning emphasizes the changing nature of the counter-ISIS campaign. The Pentagon contends that the rise in casualties is “attributable to the change in location” of battlefield operations towards more densely populated urban environments like Mosul and Raqqa. But this is only a partial answer. What the Pentagon is loath to admit is that they are dropping larger bombs with substantially less accuracy into densely packed urban areas. A Human Rights Watch analysis of bomb craters in West Mosul estimates that U.S. coalition forces have routinely used much larger airdropped bombs – often weighing between 500 and 1,000 lbs. – than in prior operations. They note: “the use of explosive weapons with wide-area effects such as air-dropped bombs of this size on probable military targets in densely populated civilian areas of western Mosul may be resulting in civilian casualties…that is excessive to the anticipated military objectives of the strikes.” In other words, bigger bombs dropped more frequently in urban settings appear to be significant contributors to the uptick in casualties.
A third explanation is that aggressive rhetoric from the president is implicitly causing the military to take more risks and de-prioritize protecting civilians. Trump routinely makes inflammatory statements, including vowing on the campaign trail to “take out” terrorists’ families, a clear violation of Geneva Conventions. As Micah Zenko from the Council on Foreign Relations observes, “A change in the rules of engagement does not have to be a change in doctrine. It can just be a change in tone and command climate.” Words matter, especially coming from the commander-in-chief. In the face of such aggressive rhetoric, it should not come as a surprise that military officers feel encouraged – if not pressured – to take greater risks.
Partner Militaries Are Systemically Violating International Humanitarian Law
In addition to the impacts of its own military operations, the United States supports partner militaries that have generated substantial civilian casualties and led to immense displacement. A tragic example is the Saudi coalition’s current campaign in Yemen.
In 2014, Houthi rebels under the backing of Iran deposed Yemen’s government and took over the capital. The following year, the Saudi’s launched a military operation to oust the Houthi and restore the government. That effort has completely bogged down and split the country in two, leading to a collapsed state and spawning “the world’s largest humanitarian crisis.” Three million Yemeni citizens are displaced, and the country is on the brink of famine – 60% of the population is food insecure and two million Yemeni children are acutely malnourished. Cholera has made a comeback. The disease has killed 2,000 people and infected half a million, representing one of the largest outbreaks in the world in the last 50 years.
International Norms to Protect Civilians Are Diminishing Worldwide
Since the end of World War II, the United States has played a leading role in establishing and enforcing norms related to the conduct of war and the protection of civilians. The U.S. was a major sponsor of the Geneva Conventions in the aftermath of World War II. Under Eleanor Roosevelt’s leadership, the U.S. pushed for passage of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But the latest actions from the U.S. and its allies are calling into question the country’s longstanding commitment to these norms. More disturbingly, U.S. behavior may be helping to precipitate a breakdown of these norms and fostering a “global protection crisis.”
First, while the U.S. military has set the standard for safeguarding civilian protection, there are enough worrisome trends when it comes to targeting oversight, selection of ordnance, and accountability that warrant some serious internal questioning about what seems to be going wrong. For example, given the heightened risks of civilian casualties in high-density urban areas, why is the U.S. military using bigger bombs that lack precision guidance? Under international law, the principle of proportionality prohibits states from launching attacks “which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”
Second, the United States could be much more vigilant about holding partner forces accountable for violations of international humanitarian law. While existing law – particularly the Leahy Law – prohibits providing training and assistance to foreign military units that have committed gross violations of human rights, this ban does not extend to the transfer of arms
Finally, given the U.S.’s role in contributing to the global refugee crisis, raising the refugee cap above the Obama-era level of 110,000 seems appropriate. In contrast, Trump has proposed decreasing the cap to 45,000, which would be the lowest number any president has sought since the government first established refugee ceilings in 1980. Increasing refugee admissions above 110,000 would set an important precedent. It would be a symbolic admission that the U.S. bears a critical measure of responsibility for the global humanitarian crisis. It would also demonstrate to domestic audiences that fighting wars abroad has real consequences and force U.S. communities to wrestle directly with the implications of armed interventions.
Love that third suggestion.. American leadership does whatever the hell it wants and the domestic populace has to pay the price? Did anyone ask the people of the US what they want?
Did anyone ask us Canadians? “Do you want our national military to go over to someone else's nation, in order to kill and displace their populace?” In order to remake some region for better business profits and exploitation? And by the way it's all on your dime? Oh and after we've wreaked havoc you suckers can pay for all the displaced? You're all good with that, right? Right?? As your arm is twisted!!!
Because there is only one taxpayer... for all governments to enslave with debt.
Ya know what I mean?
Flashback: Russia at UNSC: US Decision To Reshape Middle East is the Original Cause of Syria's Suffering
Flashback: Barbara's Spectre: Israel's Refugee's Materialize in Europe
Flashback 2015: The Weapon of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement, Coercion & Foreign Policy
Professor Greenhill examines an understudied, yet relatively common, bargaining tool and method of persuasion: namely, the use of migration and refugee crises as non-military instruments of state-level coercion.Global Refugee crisis, worsened by the US. Intentional. Planned. Executed. a common bargaining tool and method of persuasion- Just a fact. Policy. Not happenstance.
Not flubbed policy. Not blow back. Not an unforeseen consequences- THE PLAN.