The number of deaths by “friendly fire” in Iraq will never really be known. One website, the Readers Companion to Military History, estimates the number to be on the high side of 10%-15%. Another website, The American War Library, includes both fatal and non-fatal accidents and comes up with numbers on previous wars that seem a little high, althought they claim that they are conservative:

World War II = 21%
Korea = 18%
Viet Nam = 39%
Persian Gulf = 49%

One of the unfortunate truths about war is that deaths and injuries due to friendly fire will never be eliminated. War is a deadly mixture of chaos, confusion, terror and death. Leaders in the field are forced to make life-or-death decisions under extreme pressure, and often without enough experience and without adequate information. It is possible that deaths and injuries by friendly fire can never be reduced below 10%. These deaths will occur whether the war is warranted, or unwarranted. They are simply a part of war.

The Defence Department inspector general has told the Army to open a criminal investigation into the friendly fire death in Afghanistan of Cpl. Pat Tillman. This will be the fourth inquiry into the death of the promising football star. Unfortunately, the only reason it is being ordered is to put on another layer of whitewash. The extra scrubbing is needed in this case only because Tillman’s parents have been dissatisfied with the previous investigations and, more importantly, the media carries their complaints.

Like all other friendly fire casualties, Tillman’s must, by definition, have been caused by somebody’s negligence or bad decision. Expending the time and energy to punish those responsible will make it more difficult for America to defend itself against countries that do not have a similar regard for human life. In war, deaths by negligence, ignorance, bad decisions, or just plain stupidity can never be fully addressed either civilly or criminally. These tragedies are an inseparable part of war. That is not to say that best efforts should not be made to reduce these occurrences. Most importantly, the true picture of what is happening should never be hidden from the public.

The answer to the problem of friendly fire casualties is that there is no answer. Whether it is by friendly fire, unfriendly fire, or stray fire, in a war lots of people will die. And that is why the United Stares should only get into a war if it is absolutely necessary. That is why all alternatives must be exhausted before a single shot is fired.

When a war happens for bogus reasons, as in Iraq, then those who got us into the war are responsible for all of the deaths that result, not just those from friendly fire. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove et. al. are responsible for the deaths of 2400 Americans, and tens of thousands of others, just as if they pulled the triggers themselves. They must be held accountable.

George Bush, who claims to be fighting for nuclear nonproliferation, has just agreed to share nuclear energy technology with India, a nation that is not a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. This is a deal that all American Presidents since Richard Nixon have refused to make. With Bush’s aid, India can now double or triple its nuclear arsenal. Now how do you think the leaders of Pakistan feel about that?

The problem, however, goes much deeper than what Bush did in India. America has never allowed international inspection of its own nuclear facilities, peaceful or military. Why should only some countries have to have their power plants inspected?

Time out for a little science lesson: Natural Uranium contains only about 0.72% of the fissionable Uranium isotope, U-235. The Uranium that goes into nuclear power plants has only about a 20% concentration. You would need about a 90% concentration to make a nuclear bomb. However the Plutonium, produced by Uranium fission in a reactor, can be separated out by chemical means, and that Plutonium can be used to make a bomb. Plutonium is not a naturally occurring element, and can only be acquired through the fission of Uranium.

Shouldn’t we wonder how America can demand that other countries not develop nuclear weapons, while we have an arsenal of 10,000 bombs that we are continually maintaining and modernizing? How can any nation say that, yes we have them, but no, you cannot?

The Republicans and the military/industrial complex are good at picking words. If we were fighting for nuclear disarmament, then that would imply that we would have to disarm also. If we are fighting for “nonproliferation” then we can keep ours, and they cannot have theirs.

As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, how can the United States tell other countries not to build nuclear arsenals while we build (improve, modernize, maintain-whatever) ours? If we want to have at least a temporary, inspected (of course) freeze on the construction of nuclear weapons, don’t we have to participate? How can we even get the world to take this first step if the freeze would be for some nations and not others?

As far as nuclear power plants are concerned, if some countries are entitled to have them, then why aren’t all countries entitled? The Russian solution is very workable in that regard. The fissionable material is supplied by an outside country, and made in a plant that is inspected by the United Nations. The nuclear waste is then brought back to an outside country and disposed of, also under United Nations supervision. In that way, all nations can have nuclear power plants just like us. Why not?

Arguably, since John F. Kennedy, the United States has never been serious about nuclear disarmament. Now we know that Bush is not even serious about nuclear nonproliferation.

Larry Shaw