Robert Fisk: Afghanistan: Madness is not the reason for this massacre

[kpete]

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.

................................

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."

.................................

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.

...........................

more:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-madness-is-not-the-reason-for-this-massacre-7575737.html

[tabatha]

1. I am sure he has had a psychiatrist evaluate the killer.

Otherwise, he has no legs to stand on.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

2. You mean the author of this article?

Last edited Sun Mar 18, 2012, 12:29 PM - Edit history (1)

[Igel]

3. I'd say that's what he meant.

Few other referents around for "he". The soldier's ruled out. The speech-making general's irrelevant. The only real claim is the one in the OP.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

4. I take it you're being sarcastic.

Thanks for the assist.

[Igel]

5. The two claims aren't mutually contradictory.

A man can be quite mad and have revenge as his motive.

Insane doesn't necessarily mean "without motive" or "internal consistency." So to posit a plausible motive doesn't rule out mental incapacity.

Revenge as a possible motive was one of the first possibilities that came to mind. It's probably the reason that "insanity" was proffered with such speed--to keep that from becoming the dominant narrative. If it had, it would have just confirmed what most Afghans probably thought. There's no need to pull in the speech.

Chomsky's repeatedly said that asymmetries matter. A Muslim kills a Westerner. First, we must assume insanity. Personal problems that led to a mental inbalance. If not deranged, then the killing is certainly a personal affair. Or due to local tensions. Only then can we consider the justice angle, where "revenge" is completely understandable given the horrors rained down on Muslims somewhere by some Xians somewhere. Terrorism is a stretch to be proven step by irrefutable step. Why is this okay? Because it serves the societal goal of reducing tensions between groups, the a political goal of fostering inter-group peace and of not tarring a group with the crimes of an individual. If the guy's just crazy, it also gives investigators breathing space: There are fewer calls for punishment and counter-revenge.

Fisk wants to jump to revenge, and then from revenge to saying that while we condemn Saddams we have our own Saddam's. Yet Saddam was taken as oppressing his people, and had fairly tight control over a country, so his people are in the clear; this soldier was acting contrary to "his people's" order (as expressed by his commanding officers) and only might have tight control over his own weapon, yet his is a problem with society. They only appear to be morally equivalent. In the end, the Other is always justifiable and Western society, to the extent that Fisk disagrees with it, is far worse.

Fisk and his own personal manie, the constant lode star of his idee fixe.