Editorial Comment: NATO, why always pursue peace, democracy through war?

people with a conscience and a moral duty to ensure that we respect the dead irrespective of how much we loathed them. We condemn it in the same manner we condemn and abhor terrorist acts.
This is one of several incidents by US troops and their Nato allies that have managed to come to light, and we wonder how many of these ghastly acts are hidden away somewhere.
Albeit, against arguments of governments that are fighting the so-called “war on terror” in Afghanistan and other parts of the world where the invading and/or occupying forces have mandated themselves as the self-appointed saviours of citizens of these sovereign states.
Instead of fighting the Taliban, which they said was their number one objective, and putting in place governance systems based on democratic principles, what we have witnessed since the 9/11 terror bombing is a deliberate attempt to cleanse these countries of systems that are opposed to Western forms of governance.
When innocent Afghans are killed in the thick of night by a lone US soldier who surprisingly had to pass through strong security checkpoints, heavily armed, we ask why the United Nations continues to remain silent.
If the same soldier had been killed by the Afghan villagers he killed in cold blood, would the US have kept quiet?
We also wonder why American citizens whose tax-dollars are used to finance these bloody and needless wars are silent. We wonder also why they seem to think that it is okay that other people should be dehumanised because they are a danger to their peace and security.
What will it take for American taxpayers to wake up and smell the coffee? Successive American administrations would not ill-treat smaller nations if they did not have the backing of the people, finance especially.
Indeed, we can argue that this is just one aspect of the ugly side of war, but the world has time and again asked whether these wars are needed, and why they never seem to be won.
Instead of offering hope and a better future to the people, what they have done is bring misery, suffering and uncertainty. People who are capable of charting their future through hard work are reduced to objects that have to depend on outsiders for their upkeep and security.
We salute the LA Times for publishing the pictures, and also thank the brave soldiers who surrendered the pictures. At the end of the day, they have to exorcise the ghosts of war and the post-traumatic disorders they experience later.
We are also aware that there was pressure from the Obama administration for the LA Times not to publish the pictures, a policy put in place since the war on terror started almost a decade ago.
By publishing the pictures, the LA Times like any responsible media outlet had to face the harsh realities about press freedom, the readers’ right to know and, public interest on one side; and then the negative ripple effects the published photos would have on the troops in Afghanistan and other parts of the world.
It was a delicate balance, but one which required sound editorial leadership, since another media house would still have published them.
This is an election year for a number of Nato-member states. The publication of these macabre photos will brings back the discourse on the war on terror on centre-stage. It has become a talking point where it is evident that there are divisions in Nato on the pull-out date from Afghanistan.
The story remains incomplete without showing the duplicity by the so-called international community. These are the same governments that have been on the Zimbabwe Defence Forces’ case for some time.
Since the war in the Democratic Republic of  Congo, Nato allies have accused our troops of atrocities and human rights violations, and are claiming that Zimbabwe is a militarised state.
Whenever the MDC, their front in their quest for effecting illegal regime change cries foul, they point a finger at our soldiers, security sector reforms being their latest.
They have tried to bar Zimbabwe from the membership of the Kimberly Processing Certification Scheme, arguing that the Marange diamonds were “blood diamonds”, and, accusing Zimbabwean soldiers in the process.
If Nato’s prime goal is to see democratic values prevailing, why is the world so uncertain and unsafe today? Why should war be a better determinant of peace than constructive dialogue?
Why should democracy be achieved through such bloody and dehumanising acts?
The perceived de-Islamisation of these regions is quite evident, but if that is the case we argue that it cannot be achieved through force and brutality, just as we condemn any act of terror and those who support terrorism.
We hope that the outcry we have heard from different parts of the world will force Nato to rethink its strategies and make them respect the wishes and aspirations of the Afghan people echoed by their leader Hamid Karzai who of late has been very outspoken about the “inhuman” activities of the occupying forces.
We also reiterate that these double standards are an enemy of democracy.