“Dehumanization” in the Caribbean paves the way for Pentagon “homicide.”

According to Isna, the American think tank states in an article that the recent military operations of the United States, which are justified in the form of “war on drug terrorists”, reflect a dangerous pattern of dehumanization that leads to the weakening of international law and entails heavy strategic costs in the long term.

In this article, the American think tank “Quincy Institute for Responsible Governance” examines the American attacks in the Caribbean region and places these actions in a broader historical and intellectual context of American wars against actors who are not presented as political enemies, but as “criminals”.

Quincy notes that US Secretary of War Pete Hegst reportedly ordered the commander of special operations forces to “kill them all” during a pursuit of suspected drug smugglers off the coast of Trinidad. According to this article, a missile attack set the boat of these people on fire and the 2 survivors who were clinging to the remains of the boat were killed by the second US attack. The events, which took place on September 2, were described as the first “extrajudicial killings” in the context of a campaign that the administration of “Donald Trump” calls the fight against “drug traffickers”.

According to the American think tank, at least 80 people have died in more than 20 similar attacks in the last 2 months. These operations are justified by the claim that the Venezuelan government is the main source of narcotics entering the United States; A claim that the article describes as “patently false.” The US government claims that the suspected smugglers are involved in an “armed conflict” with the US and are therefore not subject to a fair trial or legal protections under the laws of war, including protections for shipwrecked persons.

Quincy adds that Hogst has publicly stated that every smuggler killed was affiliated with a “terrorist organization.” This type of literature is not only a legal function, but also a moral and psychological tool. Using the term “drug trafficker” leads to the dehumanization of the targets and numbing of the public opinion, making them seem morally unworthy of legal protection; Even if this leads to the death of innocent fishermen.

The article emphasizes that while attacks on boats may be illegal and shocking, they follow a long-standing pattern in American foreign policy. According to the article, Washington has repeatedly defined its enemies outside the boundaries of “civilization” and thus justified violent responses by appealing to national security, economic interests, racial superiority, or moral claims.

The American think tank widely cites the book “Chasing the Bandits: America’s Long War on Terror” by Michael Neagle to explain this pattern. Nigel shows how the constant use of labels such as bandits, savages, guerrillas, and terrorists has been used to delegitimize the opposition. According to him, this derogatory language has had 2 main functions: first, to mobilize political and public support inside America by strengthening the sense of cultural superiority, and second, to justify foreign interventions that have expanded American influence in strategically important areas.

Nigel’s analytical framework forces readers to reexamine the “Global War on Terror” in light of comparisons with past American interventions that are less remembered today. Among these cases, the American interventions in the Philippines at the beginning of the 20th century, in Mexico during the First World War, and in Nicaragua in the 1920s and 1930s; where local militants were portrayed as bloodthirsty criminals rather than actors with legitimate political goals such as national independence.

As an example, the article mentions the Filipino rebellion of 1899-1902 led by Emilio Aguinaldo. According to Nigel, tactics such as ambushes and assassinations by the insurgents became a pretext for violent retaliatory actions by American forces; Actions that were associated with violating or evading the newly established rules of engagement. The article mentions that US forces used “water torture” and kept thousands of Filipinos in torture camps; Years before the policies of torture and indefinite detention were introduced.

Quincy adds that although Aguinaldo eventually surrendered and many of the figures involved were never caught, Washington achieved its important goals. However, these gains came at a heavy price: thousands of deaths, prolonged violence, and a rise in anti-American sentiment that turned opponents into symbols of resistance.

In another part of the article, “Ernesto Che Guevara” is discussed, whose failed attempts at guerrilla warfare in Congo and Bolivia are another example of the limitation of military power and ideological extremism. Although his mission failed and he was captured and executed by the US-backed Bolivian military, the article notes that his reputation grew posthumously and inspired other revolutionaries in Latin America.

The central question of the article is whether killing or capturing enemy leaders really makes a meaningful difference. In this context, the killing of the notorious Colombian trafficker Pablo Escobar in 1993 is mentioned, after which other cartels filled his void, and according to the US Drug Enforcement Administration, Colombia remained the main source of cocaine entering the United States.

In conclusion, the article returns to the global war on terror after the Al-Qaeda attacks and notes that although “Osama bin Laden” was finally killed, public support for the war had long since subsided and the human costs, displacement and instability were extensive. Citing Nigel’s conclusions, the article emphasizes that the use of dehumanizing literature makes policymakers blind to the consequences of war, and Washington, regardless of the label it puts on its enemies, cannot escape the unwanted consequences of its policies.

end of message