On the second day of the NATO escalation in the town of Marja, at least 10 civilians, half of them children, were killed when a US-deployed, GPS-guided rocket struck a crowded home. The strike and its aftermath were witnessed by the Marines who surrounded the area. It forced General Stanley McChrystal to produce what’s called an “apology” in which he “regret[s] this tragic loss of life.” This story was covered in the February 15^th New York Times lead front page article headlined: Errant US Rocket Strike Kills Civilians in Afghanistan.

                Events such as this put committed propagandists to the test, separating the wheat from the chaff. Presenting wanton massacre in a palatable way requires considerable ingenuity, creativity, and of course unwavering dedication to supporting power. It requires what Mark Twain called our “three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either.” In practice, however, sophisticated propaganda must go far beyond mere prudence to be effective, and this impressive display underscores two crucial facts about our society: 1) The extraordinary level of constant violence and atrocities that we are involved in that require such sophisticated means of obfuscation, and 2) that such high forms of deception are required to keep a potentially dissident population from reacting with outrage and action. 

                A good place to begin is the first word of the headline: errant. What is the evidence that this strike was errant? The Company commander said so. Problematic is that the rocket systems “are GPS-guided and advertised as being accurate enough to strike within a yard of their intended targets.”  Since these are the only two pieces of evidence presented, we can only determine an operative principle of responsible journalism is that the assurance of our military officer overrides technical evidence, framing the headline in this case. And this is not a trivial detail. It is important that readers understand that if our side harms civilians it must be out of innocent error. The second sentence reinforces this point, describing the “cornerstone” of U.S. war strategy as one of “avoiding such civilian deaths,” true simply by definition. At this point, a rational reader may be confused. Wait a minute; an article in which the U.S. military destroyed a home killing at least 10 people is describing our dedication to avoiding civilian casualties?   It’s time to change gears.

                What are needed at this point are heroes. If proper heroes can be created, then it no longer matters what they do, because it is in the service of nobility and we wish them well. The framework of the tale must be established early lest the reader lose interest. 

We learn first that the heroes set up friendly “checkpoints” and “outposts,” working long hours and performing “exhaustive house-to-house searches” for the bad guys (exhaustive for the heroes, of course).   Fortunately up until now, “Despite the fighting allied casualties have been low.” Curiously this does not offer any insight as to why Afghan civilians are being slaughtered by faraway missile systems. 

Anyway, on with the battle! 

At first things aren’t looking up for our heroes. The bad guys “surrounded the company, probing and attacking from different directions.” Videogame sound bites (Reloading! Gun up!) dovetail with Clint Eastwood-style one liners (“’Happy Valentine’s Day’ said Sgt. Phillip A. Hinde”) to create the necessarily hysterical background as the enemy closes in. Our heroes are being “harassed” and “attacked,” with even possibly (gasp!) sniper fire. 

And then it finally happens. One of our heroes is hit. Now he is “on his back, blood flowing down his left arm.” The trusty Hospitalman, the anxious squad leader, and the tough fellow Marine (whose names and rank we learn) are by his side. We can feel the camaraderie and brotherhood in this desperate moment. Did the bullet hit an artery or a bone? Fortunately not, and he will live to receive his medal. 

But wait…

Cue the music….

Our hero rises to his feet and rejoins the fight until his sergeant finally orders him down.

Now we finally have the proper context in which to view the headlined events. “The wrong building had been hit.” And nobody is more frustrated by this than our band of heroes who send help right away, though to no avail because of the deviousness of the enemy who seize this opportunity to attack them once again, “pushing the medical help away.” And the battle continues.

The impressive level of journalistic moral depravity is painfully evident, but just to summarize: In an article in which we massacre civilians, our troops are the heroes bravely there to defend the locals and to “smooth the way for permanent government rule in the area.”  In contrast, the evil enemy value nothing but human suffering and misery demonstrated by their merciless attack on army medical personnel. Everyone on “our side” has a name and a face and all the Hollywood courage you can dream of. The faceless enemies scurry around like rodents and “fall” if we hit them. Furthermore, everything our leaders say is true, and it would apparently be impolite to even suggest otherwise.

The authors can hope that such important contributions to ongoing atrocities will not go unnoticed. C.J. Chivers and Rod Nordland may have a bright future ahead of them in the media. Maybe they’ll win a Pulitzer someday. One can only hope.