Summer Sale! Get unlimited digital access for 13 weeks for $13.
Op-Eds
News Opinion Op-Eds

'Bugsplat': the civilian toll of war

"The Lakotah had no language for insulting other orders of existence: pest, waste, weed ..."

But what about "bugsplat"?

That's the word for the cop at UC Davis, walking up and down the line of students sitting with their arms locked, zapping them in the eyes with pepper spray. It's the word for the Tunisian police and bureaucrats who humiliated Mohamed Bouazizi and destroyed his livelihood as a street vendor. It's the word for anyone whose power exceeds his humanity.

And, according to a 2003 Washington Post story, it's the name of a Defense Department computer program for calculating collateral damage, as well as, apparently, casual terminology among Pentagon operation planners and the like to refer to the collateral damage itself ... you know, the dead civilians. CIA drone operators talk about bugsplat. The British organization Reprieve calls its effort to track the number of people killed by U.S. drone strikes — in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen — Project Bugsplat.

It's a term I've only recently come across, but I can't get it out of my head. The only way I know how to begin thinking about it is to quote that passage from Rupert Ross' extraordinary book about Native American wisdom, "Returning to the Teachings," and contemplate the idea of a people who have "no language for insulting other orders of existence." Such a thought, it seems to me, is worth sitting with for a while, especially as we read or listen to the news and behold the daily unfolding of our casual disrespect for every order of existence, including our own.

Mr. Ross goes on to talk about "the core teaching that all aspects of Creation were essential, none were superior and each must be respected if all are to survive."

What if this is actually true? What if this is the depth at which we need to transform ourselves, not merely personally but at every level of our interaction with the world, including geopolitically?

"But even when they're not targeting civilians, which is probably most of the time, they end up killing massive numbers of civilians," journalist Allan Nairn told Amy Goodman in a "Democracy Now!" interview last year.

"The Pentagon has a word for that, too," he went on. "They call it 'bugsplat.' In the opening days of the invasion of Iraq, they ran computer programs, and they called the program the Bugsplat program, estimating how many civilians they would kill with a given bombing raid. On the opening day, the printouts presented to General Tommy Franks indicated that 22 of the projected bombing attacks on Iraq would produce what they defined as heavy bugsplat — that is, more than 30 civilian deaths per raid. Franks said, 'Go ahead. We're doing all 22.'"

And this is the foundation of our national security.

I go back to the now-infamous video of the policeman at UC Davis, acting not so much in personal disdain toward the students he was pepper-spraying as in a context of institutional disdain for them. The police defined their role as restoring order, but what they were doing was re-establishing turf. To that end, they were simply doing their jobs: removing impediments.

The extended video of the incident, showing the chaotic aftermath of the spraying, with the crowd screaming "Shame on you!" as the injured students clutch their faces and roll on the ground in pain, as some are cuffed while they lie face-down in the grass, is almost as harrowing to watch as battle footage. At one point someone shouts in outrage, "These are children!"

While the balance of power seems remarkably uneven in this incident, in reality that's not the case. As the demonstrators focus their anger and cries of shame, the perplexed police are the ones who stumble backward, at least momentarily.

This doesn't happen where we wage our wars. This, for instance, is from a New York Times article on Thanksgiving Day, about a NATO airstrike in southern Afghanistan that killed seven civilians (including six children):

"Abdul Samad, an uncle of four of the children who were killed, disputed the government's version of the attack. He said his relatives were working in fields near their village when they were attacked without warning by an aircraft.

"His brother-in-law, Mohammad Rahim, 50, had his two sons and three daughters with him. They were between 4 and 12 years old and all were killed, except an 8-year-old daughter who was badly wounded, Mr. Samad said."

Project Bugsplat is the name of every war, at least from the planners' point of view. A winnable war is waged from above, invisibly, with godlike impunity. Such wars, especially in today's political order, cannot be effectively opposed with acts of equally brutal counterforce; they can only be prolonged.

"Bugsplat" is a term of ultimate disrespect and indifference, and it begins with a state of mind. The global Occupy movement, with its humane and nonviolent core certainty, is tipping the balance. Finally it comes down to this: Occupy consciousness.

Robert Koehler is a nationally syndicated writer. His email is koehlercw@gmail.com and his website is commonwonders.com.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • ISIS should be described as murderers, not militants

    ISIS should be described as murderers, not militants

    The Sun's report on the burning to death of the captured Jordanian pilot refers to his murderers as "militants" ("After Jordanian's death, U.S. moves pilot rescue aircraft closer to battlefield," Feb. 5). The juxtaposition of the barbarity of the murderers coupled with the anodyne description of...

  • Obama's window dressing in Iraq

    Obama's window dressing in Iraq

    President Barack Obama's announcement last week that he will send an additional 450 U.S. troops to Iraq to train and assist the Iraqi Army in its battle against the self-proclaimed Islamic State appears to be a futile gesture. The chances that a few hundred more American advisers can turn the situation...

  • Obama's incompetent foreign policy

    Obama's incompetent foreign policy

    "Alarmed about the growing threat from Islamic State, the Obama administration has dramatically stepped up warnings of potential terrorist attacks on American soil…."

  • In Iraq, a de facto U.S.-Iran alliance

    In Iraq, a de facto U.S.-Iran alliance

    In principle, the Obama administration's strategy for confronting the Islamic State made perfect sense: The U.S. would conduct military airstrikes against insurgent strongholds in Syria and Iraq in support of coordinated attacks on the ground by troops fielded by our regional allies. The goal was...

  • Iraqis give away U.S. weapons

    Iraqis give away U.S. weapons

    Observing the Iraqi forces fighting ISIS running away every time they engage ISIS is one thing, but it is entirely another thing for the Iraqis to abandon their American weapons every time they retreat in a panic ("Islamic State seizes part of ancient town of Palmyra in Syria," May 20).

  • Why must media use the term ISIS?

    Why must media use the term ISIS?

    I was elated to see the article, "U.S.: Airstrikes in Syria, Iraq change Islamic State tactics" (Oct. 18), use the same terminology as President Barack Obama when referring to the Islamic State that we are currently combating. I wish I could say the same for the media. Prominent anchors and pundits...

  • Obama's costly foreign policy failures

    Obama's costly foreign policy failures

    Peter Morici produced a fine piece of writing and logic ("The poverty of Obama's foreign policy," May 20). But he should give some credit to President Barack Obama's self-proclaimed "successes" in Iraq, Yemen and Libya.

  • ISIS not a byproduct of carbon dioxide

    ISIS not a byproduct of carbon dioxide

    One can expect former Gov. Martin O'Malley to develop ludicrous postulates to garner the support of the radical left. The Sun may support Mr. O'Malley's bid for the presidency, but to promote a hypothesis that ISIS is an outcome of global warming is beyond the pale of credibility ("ISIS and climate...

Comments
Loading
81°