Midnight’s victims

IF 1.8 Q3 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Area Development and Policy Pub Date : 2023-08-01 DOI:10.1080/23792949.2023.2237558
Derek Gregory
{"title":"Midnight’s victims","authors":"Derek Gregory","doi":"10.1080/23792949.2023.2237558","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The last US drone strike during its occupation of Afghanistan took place in Kabul on 29 August 2021. The target was identified as an Islamic State–Khorosan (ISIS-K) cell preparing to attack Hamid Karzai International Airport while the United States and its allies conducted a large-scale non-combatant evacuation and the Taliban advanced into the capital. Although the strike was the culmination of intensive aerial surveillance, it killed only innocent civilians. In comparing the official account of events provided by the Pentagon to explain the catastrophic mistake with an alternative narrative established by investigative reporters, it becomes clear that the strike was prompted by a performative series of assumptions and inferences that fastened on every observed action as suspicious and ultimately hostile. A further comparison with a US airstrike in Uruzgan on 21 February 2010 shows that this chain of misinterpretation and miscalculation has been a constant in civilian casualty incidents for many years. This prompts a series of reflections on the architecture of aerial violence and its implications for civilians caught up in the battlespaces of later modern war.","PeriodicalId":31513,"journal":{"name":"Area Development and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Area Development and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23792949.2023.2237558","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT The last US drone strike during its occupation of Afghanistan took place in Kabul on 29 August 2021. The target was identified as an Islamic State–Khorosan (ISIS-K) cell preparing to attack Hamid Karzai International Airport while the United States and its allies conducted a large-scale non-combatant evacuation and the Taliban advanced into the capital. Although the strike was the culmination of intensive aerial surveillance, it killed only innocent civilians. In comparing the official account of events provided by the Pentagon to explain the catastrophic mistake with an alternative narrative established by investigative reporters, it becomes clear that the strike was prompted by a performative series of assumptions and inferences that fastened on every observed action as suspicious and ultimately hostile. A further comparison with a US airstrike in Uruzgan on 21 February 2010 shows that this chain of misinterpretation and miscalculation has been a constant in civilian casualty incidents for many years. This prompts a series of reflections on the architecture of aerial violence and its implications for civilians caught up in the battlespaces of later modern war.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
午夜的受害者
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Area Development and Policy
Area Development and Policy DEVELOPMENT STUDIES-
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
13.80%
发文量
27
期刊最新文献
Connecting through public transport: accessibility to health and education in major African cities Is there an agglomeration economy in Eastern Russia? FDI and industrial development in a mega-city region: a modelling study on the Pearl River Delta Urban poverty beyond ‘slums’: mapping its multidimensionality Navigating the challenges in the land intervention practices of peri-urban areas in Indian cities using CRITIC-TOPSIS approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1