This anti-Americanism on the Left is not exclusive to Europeans and began as soon as US military action began. At the end of last year, there were exaggerated reports of civilian causalities in Afghanistan. Using press reports, Professor Marc W. Herold, of the University of New Hampshire, estimated civilian casualties of nearly 4,000 people. Given that the death count at the World Trade Center has been difficult to determine even in a open society and the fact that it is difficult to identify the civilians and Taliban and al Qaeda, it is foolish in the extreme to use press reports (many from papers unsympathetic to the United States) to compute a civilian casualty count. Herold's civilian casualty total exceeds that claimed by the notoriously mendacious Taliban. Now the British press cites Herold uncritically as if he has a definitive casualty count.
A report from Edward Cody of the Washington Post Foreign Service illustrates the difficulty in untangling what is really going on in Afghanistan. On December 29, 2001, US forces destroyed a number of brick homes near Qalai Niazi, Afghanistan. Was this an attack on civilians or a legitimate military target? According to Cody, "Journalists who arrived here [Qalai Niazi, Afghanistan] on Sunday found a large store of ammunition that filled one little house, from boxes of rifle rounds to stacks of antitank rockets. But, by today, [Thursday] it had been hauled away, and people now swear it was never here in the first place." One can understand how locals might want to distance themselves from the Taliban and al Qaeda, however, this motivation tends to diminish their credibility.
The foreign press has a positive obligation to examine every country critically, including the United States. No one supportive of liberty wants a lapdog press anywhere in the world. However, the zeal with which the British and European media have leapt to assert the worst on the basis of thin evidence reveals more about these media outlets than it does about the US military.
Go To Page: 1 2
