The NYT investigation by Azmat Khan, is excellent, I am very unsurprised that it won a Pulitzer. Call me a dissociated international, but I hadn’t heard about the atrocities of U.S. military air strikes on civilians in Afghanistan and Syria prior to this reading. The notion that continuously reappeared throughout this thorough and intense investigation, was the lack of accountability: “mistakes do happen,” – Bill Urban, “policies, procedures, practices” are “sufficient for continued operation,” with no condolence payments to victims’ families. This lack of accountability is evident in the survivors’ testimonies, the people who want answers for why this happened and why their homes and loved ones were targeted by air forces. This kind of collateral damage certainly raises a moral dilemma. On one hand, there was a job to be done, and that was to stop ISIS, and the U.S. operations were able to do this, but at the cost of so many civilian lives. They had the facilities to make analyses and surveillance better and more equipped but they chose to spend that money on better weapons to create more damage. Why? It feels incredibly counterproductive. The reason the U.S. military were sending air strikes in the first place was to stop ISIS from committing terrorist acts and mass murders, but the U.S. military had a part to play in the killing of civilians themselves.
The “Play Time?” section of part one was both enjoyable to read, as it felt as though I was reading a fiction video game novel, but heartbreaking, because this is not fiction. I thought it was impressive how almost each air strike Khan mentioned had its own NYT article attributed to it. But Khan brings humanity and condolences to the casualties of these strikes in a way that the linked news articles don’t. Reading Part 2 in the magazine, demonstrated the immense amount of investigating, and the intricate methodology Khan used to gather her sources, her access to countries, sites, reducing misinformation from eye witnesses, it’s all so impressive. I wonder, with the amount of people she talked to, heart-wrenching stories she listened to, did she ever break down? Did she ever develop compassion fatigue? – as so many readers of migration and war time news do. How on earth did she manage to conduct so many hourly, personal interviews all on her own accord? Was it safe? Khan uses a lot of dysphemistic imagery, she says what she sees, or what the eye witnesses saw, but what impact does this have on the journalist?
In the Euro News and Politico, Reuters and Nieman stories, we learn of Germany’s abrupt decision to revoke a promise of resettlement for Afghans, and then a reversal of that decision. I am particularly struck by the quotes in these articles, “Germany must finally bring those seeking protection to safety from torture and death,” – Mareile Dedekind, and “For the moment, I don’t see any light in this darkness,” – Rubin, and “we’re safe now and can live like humans again,” – Baresh. The news and context is important, but quotes like this, I think, make the story worth reading, because we can see the actual impact a news development is having on those affected. I did my news piece on Ukrainians and their uncertainty in Germany as far-right movements rise, but it is clear that Afghans are directly impacted, with 2400, waiting to travel to Germany. It is certainly worrying for these groups as to what could happen to their protection and rights if the fair-right movement gains more traction.
