These articles all unite in their mission of exposing and illuminating the humanity behind the Afghan story in relation to a context of a conflict-driven stage of U.S.-Afghanistan relations. The Azmat Khan piece is quite a stunning and bitter encapsulation of how a promise, one centered in the “extraordinary technology” of the American government, became a misguided attempt ridden with ignorance to civilians, yielding a bloody and unjustified outcome.

 

But what happens if the humanity is removed from this story, replaced by technology?

 

Khan and the Times speak to the logistical flaws of what boiled down to making sure that any expected civilian casualties must be proportional to the military advantage gained. Civilians had been collateral damage in this military system, the harm produced left unaccounted for.

 

This astonishing indifference to civilian presence and a lack of accountability in military action reminds me of the conversation around A.I. weaponization (technology known as lethal autonomous weapons) and its looming prevalence in the future of warfare. When the article discusses notions of confirmation bias and the ethical debate around a civilian toll as a “strategic necessity,” how does this fare in a technologically centric model where the humans aren’t making the decisions?

 

Some statements from the Pentagon files seemed appalling to me, how the military mistook civilians for enemy fighters nearly in 1/5 of the cases, often undercounted civilian deaths, how targets on “no-strike lists” like those in schools and hospitals were removed. Specifcally, the human decision behind this reads as morally depraved due to the lack of acknowledgement of civilian deaths. Khan says that this situation is “not a series of tragic errors but a pattern of impunity”; however, how do these decisions translate if we implement lethal autonomous weapons?

 

The other narrative through this week’s readings focused on the immigrant story of Afghans seeking to find their place within the U.S. and its communities. The MPI article was very helpful in painting a picture of the immigrant story of Afghans in the U.S. They explain how migration of Afghans is historically a conflict-driven one, and we see how the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan fits into this pattern. However, what shocked me was the large discrepancies in English proficiency, educational attainment, and labor force participation for Afghans. I find myself asking what mechanisms explain this gap in opportunity for Afghan migrants.

 

The PBS News Hour article on Afghan refugee communities in Missouri had me thinking of the housing conversation that has been so rife since the intense scrutiny on Haitian migrants in Springfield, OH. St. Louis has an F in affordable housing for the most disadvantaged renters, struggling with affordable housing supply issues. This article paints the traditional bright-eyed benefits of immigrant settlement, a phenomenon that brings a vibrant touch and cultural difference. However, there seem to be these fundamental lingering issues that perpetuate an inflammatory dialogue around the influx of refugees in America and how they are negatively impacting the livelihood of American communities and their existing residents.