Deadly trade-off

To the editor:

Well, I just don’t know what to think. A headline in Sunday’s New York Times reads, “Flaws in U.S. Air War Left Hundreds of Civilians Dead.” It seems that at least 400 women, children and other civilians were killed in Afghanistan during a mere 11 airstrikes in our effort to bring justice to the Taliban and al-Qaida for the 9-11 terrorist attack.

I won’t even address the “flawed” assumption inherent in the noun “flaw” that is used in reference to the “war strategy” we have adopted to deal with this criminal act. But, 400 innocent civilians in only 11 attacks? How many attacks have there been since this “war” began? Hundreds!

As reported in this same article, Global Exchange, an American organization, has documented 812 Afghan civilians killed by American forces. And this is only in major population centers. They haven’t begun to survey the hundreds of rural villages that are scattered across the countryside.

I am beginning to figure out what I am supposed to think. Let’s be conservative and assume that in the end we will have a death ratio of 2/1 one Afghan civilian killed for every two persons killed in the 9-11 attack. So I have four kids and three grandkids. I can feel comfortable that if they were all killed in some criminal act that the police would be justified in killing three or four innocent persons in order to bring the criminals responsible to justice.

I feel better now that I know what to think.

James S. Dick,

Lawrence