Once again, the U.S. justifies the unjustifiable


The United States government believes it is perfectly reasonable — or, at least, "not unreasonable" — to kill an innocent family of civilians.
If that sounds brutal, consider this: A Pentagon review of the August drone strike that wrongly killed 10 members of an Afghanistan family during the U.S. pullout has concluded that no one in the military should be disciplined for the attack. A slaughter that Gen. Mark Milley initially called "righteous" was decidedly unrighteous, but the review determined that the process which led to the attack was fine. It's the result that turned out badly.
"I found that given the information they had and the analysis that they did — I understand they reached the wrong conclusion, but ... was it reasonable to conclude what they concluded based on what they had? It was not unreasonable," Air Force Lt. Gen. Sami Said told The Associated Press. "It just turned out to be incorrect."
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
There is a lot of work being done by the word "just" in that last sentence, a sort of shrugging "oops" that implicitly minimizes the catastrophic results of the mistake. (To be fair, Said also called the deaths "regrettable.") That's awful, but the larger problem is that such mistakes are routine: Researchers suggest that at least 22,000 civilians — and probably many more — have been killed in U.S. airstrikes and drone strikes since 9/11. The Afghanistan attack was simply the one that drew attention. "There have been countless similar strikes over the years, and so many intentionally uncounted deaths, that have happened in the shadows," Matt Duss, the foreign policy advisor to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), noted on Wednesday.
The United States wrongly killed Zemerai Ahmadi and members of his family because it was trying to protect its own forces that were retreating from the country. That's seemingly understandable, but it is also reminiscent of so many police shootings of unarmed civilians because the officers mistakenly had a "reasonable belief" that they were in danger. The results, in both cases, can be similar: At home, police have faced a crisis of legitimacy among the people they are sworn to serve and protect, while abroad researchers have found that drone strikes often end up "harming rather than enhancing U.S. security" by generating rage among the families and friends left behind by the victims.
Governments routinely justify violence that is, in the end, wholly unjustifiable. It was ever thus, perhaps. But there should be nothing routine about the slaughter of innocents. If "the process" so often turns out terrible results without anybody having to take responsibility, then it's time to change the process. Right now, America's use of drone strikes doesn't seem very reasonable.
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Joel Mathis is a writer with 30 years of newspaper and online journalism experience. His work also regularly appears in National Geographic and The Kansas City Star. His awards include best online commentary at the Online News Association and (twice) at the City and Regional Magazine Association.
-
September 13 editorial cartoons
Cartoons Saturday's political cartoons include court-approved racial profiling and America's moral compass
-
Giorgio Armani obituary: designer revolutionised the business of fashion
In the Spotlight ‘King Giorgio’ came from humble beginnings to become a titan of the fashion industry and redefine 20th century clothing
-
Kim Jong Un’s triumph: the rise and rise of North Korea’s dictator
In the Spotlight North Korean leader has strengthened ties with Russia and China, and recently revealed his ‘respected child’ to the world
-
Graphic videos of Charlie Kirk’s death renew debate over online censorship
Talking Points Social media ‘promises unfiltered access, but without guarantees of truth and without protection from harm’
-
Trump's drug war is now a real shooting war
Talking Points The Venezuela boat strike was 'not a mere law enforcement action'
-
Truck drivers are questioning the Trump administration's English mandate
Talking Points Some have praised the rules, others are concerned they could lead to profiling
-
Gavin Newsom's Trump-style trolling roils critics while thrilling fans
TALKING POINTS The California governor has turned his X account into a cutting parody of Trump's digital cadence, angering Fox News conservatives
-
Costco is at the center of an abortion debate
Talking Points The decision to no longer stock the abortion pill came following a pressure campaign by conservatives
-
It is 'beyond time for us to seek bipartisan solutions' for Afghanistan
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
What does occupying Gaza accomplish for Israel?
Talking Points Risking a 'strategic dead-end' in the fight against Hamas
-
Ghislaine Maxwell: angling for a Trump pardon
Talking Point Convicted sex trafficker's testimony could shed new light on president's links to Jeffrey Epstein