Last week, four American diplomats were killed when armed men attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The attackers’ apparent motivation was that someone, apparently American but with an uncertain identity, posted a video on YouTube several months ago that deliberately defamed the Prophet Mohammed. The attack in Benghazi was portrayed as retribution for the defamation, with the attackers holding all Americans equally guilty for the video, though it was likely a pretext for deeper grievances. The riots spread to other countries, including Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen, although no American casualties were reported in the other riots. The unrest appears to have subsided over the weekend.
Benghazi and the Fall of Gadhafi
In beginning to make sense of these attacks, one must observe that they took place in Benghazi, the city that had been most opposed to Moammar Gadhafi. Indeed, Gadhafi had promised to slaughter his opponents in Benghazi, and it was that threat that triggered the NATO intervention in Libya. Many conspiracy theories have been devised to explain the intervention, but, like Haiti and Kosovo before it, none of the theories holds up. The intervention occurred because it was believed that Gadhafi would carry out his threats in Benghazi and because it was assumed that he would quickly capitulate in the face of NATO air power, opening the door to democracy.
That Gadhafi was capable of mass murder was certainly correct. The idea that Gadhafi would quickly fall proved incorrect. That a democracy would emerge as a result of the intervention proved the most dubious assumption of them all. What emerged in Libya is what you would expect when a foreign power overthrows an existing government, however thuggish, and does not impose its own imperial state: ongoing instability and chaos.
The Libyan opposition was a chaotic collection of tribes, factions and ideologies sharing little beyond their opposition to Gadhafi. A handful of people wanted to create a Western-style democracy, but they were leaders only in the eyes of those who wanted to intervene. The rest of the opposition was composed of traditionalists, militarists in the Gadhafi tradition and Islamists. Gadhafi had held Libya together by simultaneously forming coalitions with various factions and brutally crushing any opposition.
Opponents of tyranny assume that deposing a tyrant will improve the lives of his victims. This is sometimes true, but only occasionally. The czar of Russia was clearly a tyrant, but it is difficult to argue that the Leninist-Stalinist regime that ultimately replaced him was an improvement. Similarly, the Shah of Iran was repressive and brutal. It is difficult to argue that the regime that replaced him was an improvement.
There is no assurance that opponents of a tyrant will not abuse human rights just like the tyrant did. There is even less assurance that an opposition too weak and divided to overthrow a tyrant will coalesce into a government when an outside power destroys the tyrant. The outcome is more likely to be chaos, and the winner will likely be the most organized and well-armed faction with the most ruthless clarity about the future. There is no promise that it will constitute a majority or that it will be gentle with its critics.
The intervention in Libya, which I discussed in The Immaculate Intervention, was built around an assumption that has little to do with reality — namely, that the elimination of tyranny will lead to liberty. It certainly can do so, but there is no assurance that it will. There are many reasons for this assumption, but the most important one is that Western advocates of human rights believe that, when freed from tyranny, any reasonable person would want to found a political order based on Western values. They might, but there is no obvious reason to believe they would.
The alternative to one thug may simply be another thug. This is a matter of power and will, not of political philosophy. Utter chaos, an ongoing struggle that leads nowhere but to misery, also could ensue. But the most important reason Western human rights activists might see their hopes dashed is due to a principled rejection of Western liberal democracy on the part of the newly liberated. To be more precise, the opposition might embrace the doctrine of national self-determination, and even of democracy, but go on to select a regime that is in principle seriously opposed to Western notions of individual rights and freedom.
While some tyrants simply seek power, other regimes that appear to Westerners to be tyrannies actually are rather carefully considered moral systems that see themselves as superior ways of life. There is a paradox in the principle of respect for foreign cultures followed by demands that foreigners adhere to basic Western principles. It is necessary to pick one approach or the other. At the same time, it is necessary to understand that someone can have very distinct moral principles, be respected, and yet be an enemy of liberal democracy. Respecting another moral system does not mean simply abdicating your own interests. The Japanese had a complex moral system that was very different from Western principles. The two did not have to be enemies, but circumstances caused them to collide.
The NATO approach to Libya assumed that the removal of a tyrant would somehow inevitably lead to a liberal democracy. Indeed, this was the assumption about the Arab Spring in the West, where it was thought that that corrupt and tyrannical regimes would fall and that regimes that embraced Western principles would sprout up in their place. Implicit in this was a profound lack of understanding of the strength of the regimes, of the diversity of the opposition and of the likely forces that would emerge from it.
In Libya, NATO simply didn’t understand or care about the whirlwind that it was unleashing. What took Gadhafi’s place was ongoing warfare between clans, tribes and ideologies. From this chaos, Libyan Islamists of various stripes have emerged to exploit the power vacuum. Various Islamist groups have not become strong enough to simply impose their will, but they are engaged in actions that have resonated across the region.
The desire to overthrow Gadhafi came from two impulses. The first was to rid the world of a tyrant, and the second was to give the Libyans the right to national self-determination. Not carefully considered were two other issues: whether simply overthrowing Gadhafi would yield the conditions for determining the national will, and whether the national will actually would mirror NATO’s values and, one should add, interests.
The events of last week represent unintended and indirect consequences of the removal of Gadhafi. Gadhafi was ruthless in suppressing radical Islamism, as he was in other matters. In the absence of his suppression, the radical Islamist faction appears to have carefully planned the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. The attack was timed for when the U.S. ambassador would be present. The mob was armed with a variety of weapons. The public justification was a little-known video on YouTube that sparked anti-American unrest throughout the Arab world.
For the Libyan jihadists, tapping into anger over the video was a brilliant stroke. Having been in decline, they reasserted themselves well beyond the boundaries of Libya. In Libya itself, they showed themselves as a force to be reckoned with — at least to the extent that they could organize a successful attack on the Americans. The four Americans who were killed might have been killed in other circumstances, but they died in this one: Gadhafi was eliminated, no coherent regime took his place, no one suppressed the radical Islamists, and the Islamists could therefore act. How far their power will grow is not known, but certainly they acted effectively to achieve their ends. It is not clear what force there is to suppress them. It is also not clear what momentum this has created for jihadists in the region, but it will put NATO, and more precisely the United States, in the position either of engaging in another war in the Arab world at a time and place not of its choosing, or allowing the process to go forward and hoping for the best.
As I have written, a distinction is frequently drawn between the idealist and realist position. Libya is a case in which the incoherence of the distinction can be seen. If the idealist position is concerned with outcomes that are moral from its point of view, then simply advocating the death of a tyrant is insufficient. To guarantee the outcome requires that the country be occupied and pacified, as was Germany or Japan. But the idealist would regard this act of imperialism as impermissible, violating the doctrine of national sovereignty. More to the point, the United States is not militarily in a position to occupy or pacify Libya, nor would this be a national priority justifying war. The unwillingness of the idealist to draw the logical conclusion from their position, which is that simply removing the tyrant is not the end but only the beginning, is compounded by the realist’s willingness to undertake military action insufficient for the political end. Moral ends and military means must mesh.
Removing Gadhafi was morally defensible but not by itself. Having removed him, NATO had now adopted a responsibility that it shifted to a Libyan public unequipped to manage it. But more to the point, no allowance had been made for the possibility that what might emerge as the national will of Libya would be a movement that represented a threat to the principles and interests of the NATO members. The problem of Libya was not that it did not understand Western values, but that a significant part of its population rejected those values on moral grounds and a segment of the population with battle-hardened fighters regarded them as inferior to its own Islamic values. Somewhere between hatred of tyranny and national self-determination, NATO’s commitment to liberty as it understood it became lost.
This is not a matter simply confined to Libya. In many ways it played out throughout the Arab world as Western powers sought to come to terms with what was happening. There is a more immediate case: Syria. The assumption there is that the removal of another tyrant, in this case Bashar al Assad, will lead to an evolution that will transform Syria. It is said that the West must intervene to protect the Syrian opposition from the butchery of the al Assad regime. A case can be made for this, but not the simplistic case that absent al Assad, Syria would become democratic. For that to happen, much more must occur than the elimination of al Assad.
Wishful Thinking vs. Managing the Consequences
In 1958, a book called The Ugly American was published about a Southeast Asian country that had a brutal, pro-American dictator and a brutal, communist revolution. The novel had a character who was a nationalist in the true sense of the word and was committed to human rights. As a leader, he was not going to be simply an American tool, but he was the best hope the United States had. An actual case of such an ideal regime replacement was seen in 1963 in Vietnam, when Ngo Dinh Diem in Vietnam was killed in a coup. He had been a brutal pro-American dictator. The hope after his death was that a decent, nationalist liberal would replace him. There was a long search for such a figure; he never was found.
Getting rid of a tyrant when you are as powerful as the United States and NATO are, by contrast, is the easy part. Saddam Hussein is as dead as Gadhafi. The problem is what comes next. Having a liberal democratic nationalist simply appear to take the helm may happen, but it is not the most likely outcome unless you are prepared for an occupation. And if you are prepared to occupy, you had better be prepared to fight against a nation that doesn’t want you determining its future, no matter what your intentions are.
I don’t know what will come of Libya’s jihadist movement, which has showed itself to be motivated and capable and whose actions resonated in the Arab world. I do know that Gadhafi was an evil brute who is better off dead. But it is simply not clear to me that removing a dictator automatically improves matters. What is clear to me is that if you wage war for moral ends, you are morally bound to manage the consequences.
“From Gadhafi to Benghazi is republished with permission of Stratfor.”
Read more: From Gadhafi to Benghazi | Stratfor
Read more: From Gadhafi to Benghazi | Stratfor
The Associated Press reported early Thursday that Nakoula, 55, is responsible for the “Innocence of Muslims,” the film that was said to ridicule the prophet Muhammad and, in turn, prompt violent assaults on US land overseas, including missions in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and the US Embassy in Yemen.
Nakoula gave an interview to the AP on Wednesday and insisted that he managed logistics for the firm that produced the film, but denied any role as a director, a position that had been linked to a man using the name Sam Bacile. The AP claims to have traced the cell phone number provided to them as Bacile’s back to the same Los Angeles area home where they had earlier met with Nakoula.
Hours later on Thursday, a law enforcement official speaking on condition of anonymity confirmed to the AP that Nakoula was in fact behind the production of the film to a degree must larger than he claimed.
During their investigation, the AP identified Nakoula as an ex-con who had been convicted of bank fraud. He described himself as a Coptic Christian and had connections with Morris Sadek, a conservative practicing member of the religion who had promoted “Innocence of Muslims,” in the days before the film is believed to have sparked outrage overseas.
On their part, LA Weekly claims to have successfully tied Nakoula to Media for Christ, a company that described itself as “established to become the light that shows Jesus Christ to all human beings” that is also listed on the permit obtained to film the flick.
Since the attacks on US diplomatic establishments this week, the cast involved in the film have condemned the movie, issuing a joint-statement saying they feel that they were taken advantage of by the producer.
“We are 100 percent not behind this film and were grossly misled about its intent and purpose,” the statement read.
A July 2011 call for work placed in Backstage magazine described the movie as a “historical Arabian Desert adventure film,” that was looking to cast for the roles of George, “a strong leader, romantic, tyrant, a killer with no remorse,” and Assad, a “bearded tribe leader” with an “Israeli accent.”
The actors who participated in the film said that they were not aware that the film mocked Muhammad and that extra lines were added and dubbed into Egyptian Arabic in post-production.
Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress in the film, tells AP, “there was never any mention of Muhammad, Muslims or anything like that in the film. I was just playing the role of a mother.”
“We were supposed to be playing a film of how life was 2,000 years ago,” she claims.
Garcia says that when she confronted the director for an explanation over the final product, he told her to clear her name and explained that he was motivated because, “I’m tired of the radical Muslims running around killing everyone.”
Anti-American violence is spreading across the Middle East, with mobs rioting at US missions in Tunisia, Sudan and Morocco.
Hundreds of protesters rioted outside the U.S. embassy in Tunisia on Wednesday night. Police in the capital of Tunis were forced to fire teargas canisters at the mob when some 300 rioters stormed the American embassy compound. The rioters, however, were pushed back. Up to that point, the demonstration had been relatively peaceful, with demonstrators brandishing black and white Salafi Muslim banners.
Throughout the Middle East, United States embassies have been warning American citizens to avoid crowded places, and to “remain alert at all times.” Even demonstrations that appear to be peaceful “can turn suddenly violent,” the embassyalert warned citizens living in Arab countries throughout the region.
In Morocco, considered a “moderate” Arab nation with few radical Islamist leanings, hundreds of protesters gathered in Casablanca, the nation’s largest city. Demonstrators torched American flags outside the U.S. Consulate, according to anAFP reporter, chanting anti-Obama and anti-American slogans. No violence was reported. The mostly young protesters, who reportedly gathered via a call through Internet social networks, were heavily contained by Moroccan police.
They, like protesters throughout the Middle East, used the excuse of their rage over an amateur video produced in the U.S. that had made news as an “profane insult to the Prophet Mohammed,” the founder of Islam, as the justification for the riots. Some used it as an excuse for violence.
In Libya, rage over the film’s “insult to Islam” was used as the excuse for whatappears to have been a full-scale Al Qaeda-linked terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the grisly murder of America’s Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three American diplomats.
The obscure video, produced by a man named Sam Bacile, allegedly a pseudonym, was released at least six months ago and had escaped notice by the Islamic world. Entitled “Innocence of Muslims,” it made news after being translated into Arabic with atrailer posted onto YouTube a few days prior to the 11th anniversary of the “9/11” Al Qaeda terror attack on America.
Angry demonstrators also protested at the U.S. Embassy in Sudan, where an embassy official who requested anonymity said, “I do believe it was a few hundred. Our compound was not breached.”
Staff at the embassy in Khartoum met with three of the protesters, who delivered written demands from a group called “Sudanese Youth.” The official said “They were asking for an immediate apology, removal of the YouTube video,” and expressed anger at Florida-based Pastor Terry Jones, a controversial Christian cleric reported to be associated with the video. However, it has subsequently been reported that Jones has had nothing to do with the film, other than possibly promoting it.
Over the past several weeks, we have discussed a number of different situations that can present a common problem to people caught up in them. First, we discussed how domestic terrorism remains a persistent threat in the United States, and that despite improvements in security measures since 2001, soft targets still remain vulnerable to attack by terrorist actors driven by a variety of motivations. Due to the devolution of the jihadist threat toward the grassroots, there is also a growing trend of jihadist actors using armed assaults instead of bombing attacks. We also discussed the continuing problem of workplace violence, and finally, we discussed last week evacuation plans for expatriates due to natural disaster, civil unrest or war.
People caught in any of these situations could find themselves either confronted by an armed assailant or actually coming under fire in an active shooter scenario. Of course, there are other situations where people can find themselves confronted by armed assailants, from street muggings and carjackings to bank robberies. Because of this, we thought it might be useful to our readers to discuss such situations and how to react when caught in one.
Perhaps the most important factor affecting a person’s reaction to a life-threatening incident is their mindset going into the situation. As we have previously noted when discussing situational awareness, the way the brain is wired makes it very difficult for a person to go from a state of being “tuned out” and completely unaware of what is going on around them to a state of high alert. When confronted by such a jump, it is not uncommon for people to freeze, go into shock and become totally unable to respond to the situation confronting them. This type of panic-induced paralysis can be extremely deadly, and at that point the only hope of surviving an incident is sheer luck or divine providence. People in such a state can do nothing to save themselves.
Another factor of this mindset is the need for people to recognize that there are bad people in the world who want to hurt innocent people, and that they could be potential targets. This means that people must not only practice situational awareness but also trust their gut when they feel something isn’t quite right. Denial can be a very dangerous thing when it overrides or rationalizes away gut feelings of danger. Over my former careers as a special agent and corporate security officer, I have interviewed numerous people who allowed denial to override suspicious indicators they noted, and who then proceeded to do things that resulted in their victimization — all because they had the mindset that they could not possibly become victims. These situations ranged from a mugging victim, who thought there was something odd about the way three guys on the corner looked at her, to the kidnapping victim who spotted the deployed abduction team but proceeded into the attack zone anyway because he thought the team would target someone with more money than his family had. In shooting situations, I have spoken with victims who did not realize that shots were actually being fired and instead dismissed them as pranks or fireworks. I have seen media reports of similar remarks from witnesses regarding recent shooting incidents, such as the July 20 shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. In short, denial is deadly.
By practicing the proper level of situational awareness and understanding the possibility of being targeted, a person will be mentally prepared to realize that an attack is happening — something we call attack recognition. The earlier a target recognizes the attack, the better. In the kidnapping case noted above, the victim recognized the attack before it was sprung, and could have avoided a long (and costly) hostage ordeal, had he taken immediate action to avoid the attack site. As we have mentioned repeatedly, criminal and terrorist attacks do not appear out of a vacuum. Instead, they are part of a planning process that can be recognized if one is looking for it. We have also noted over the years that criminals and terrorists tend to be very bad at camouflaging their actions, and their suspicious demeanors often leave them vulnerable to early detection.
Admittedly, there is the slight danger of embarrassment in the aftermath of a false reaction. I have blushed after hitting the ground and rolling to cover in response to unexpected celebratory gunfire in Yemen, but in general it is far better to initially overreact when there is no threat than it is to underreact in a truly dangerous situation.
But even if one cannot avoid an attack, recognizing danger immediately and then quickly taking action to avoid it can often mean the difference between survival and death.
Run, Hide, Fight
Some people have been critical of the simplicity of the “Run, Hide, Fight” public service video available on YouTube, which was produced by the City of Houston and funded by the Department of Homeland Security. In our assessment, the video does a good job achieving its goal of raising awareness of active shooter situations and of providing a simple, easy-to-remember mantra similar to the “stop, drop and roll” fire-prevention slogan. The video also discusses the necessity of having an evacuation plan and being aware of surroundings. Is the video a complete self-defense course? Clearly not, but it does meet its limited objectives.
Once a person has recognized that an attack is taking place, a critical step must be taken before they can decide to run, hide or fight — they must determine where the gunfire (or threat) is coming from. Without doing so, the victim could run blindly from a position of relative safety into danger. We certainly encourage anyone under attack to get out of the attack site and run away from danger, but you must first ascertain that you are in the attack site before taking action. Many times, the source of the threat will be evident and will not take much time to locate. But sometimes, depending on the location — whether in a building or out on the street — the sounds of gunfire can echo and it may take a few seconds to determine the direction it is coming from. In such a scenario, it is prudent to quickly take cover until the direction of the threat can be located. In some instances, there may even be more than one gunman, which can complicate escape plans.
Fortunately, most attackers engaging in active shooter scenarios are not well-trained. They tend to be poor marksmen who lack tactical experience with their weapons. For example, in his attack on a Los Angeles Jewish community center daycare Aug. 10, 1999, Buford Furrow fired 70 shots from an Uzi-style submachine gun but only wounded five people. The Uzi is an effective and highly accurate weapon at short distances, meaning the only reason Furrow did so little damage was his poor marksmanship. During the July 20 shooting in Aurora, James Holmes only managed to kill 12 people — despite achieving almost total tactical surprise in a fully packed theater — due to a combination of poor marksmanship and his inability to clear a malfunction from his rifle.
This typical lack of marksmanship implies that most people killed in active shooter situations are shot at very close range. There are some obvious exceptions, like the shooting at the University of Texas on Aug. 1, 1966, when ex-Marine Charles Whitman shot several people from the top of a tower on the college campus. But even then, most of Whitman’s victims were shot early on in his attack, and his ability to successfully engage targets declined rapidly as victims realized where the shots were coming from and either moved away from the threat or took cover and waited for the authorities to respond.
As seen in the Whitman case, potential victims can do several things to reduce their chances of being shot, even with a trained shooter. We use an old acronym to describe these steps: MDACC, which stands for motion, distance, angle, cover and concealment.
First, it is much harder to shoot a moving target than a stationary one, especially if that target is moving at a distance. Most tactical shootings happen at distances of less than 7 meters. Indeed, there are very few people who can consistently hit a stationary target beyond 25 meters with a pistol, much less a moving target. Most people can put 25 meters between them and an attacker in just a few seconds, so motion and distance are your friends.
The angle between the target and the shooter is also important, because shooting a target running away in a straight line is easier than shooting a target running away at an angle, since the second scenario would require the shooter to swing the barrel of the weapon and lead the target. Both require a good deal of practice, even with a rifle or shotgun. If the target can run at an angle behind objects like trees, cars, office furniture or walls that obstruct the shooter’s view of the target (concealment) or stop bullets (cover), that is even more effective.
Whether running or trying to hide, it is important to distinguish between concealment and cover. Items that provide concealment will hide you from the shooter’s eye but will not protect you from bullets. A bush or tree leaves may provide concealment, but only a substantial tree trunk will provide cover. A typical office drywall-construction interior wall will provide concealment but not cover. This means that if a person is forced to hide inside an office or classroom, they might be able to lock the door but the shooter will in all likelihood still be able to fire through the walls and the door, should they choose to do so. Still, if the shooter cannot see his or her target, they will be firing by chance rather than intentionally aiming.
In any case, those hiding inside a room should attempt to find some sort of additional cover, like a filing cabinet or heavy desk. It is always better to find cover than concealment, but even partial cover — something that will only deflect or fragment the projectiles — is better than no cover at all.
The Inner Warrior
Mindset also becomes critical when a person is wounded. In active shooter situations it is not unusual for many more people to be wounded than killed; this also relates to the issue of poor marksmanship discussed above. In such a situation, it is extremely important for the wounded person to understand that, unlike what is portrayed in the movies, most wounds are not immediately fatal and rarely immobilize the victim right away. However, it is not uncommon for people to drop to the ground when they are shot and freeze in panic or go into shock. This gives the shooter an opportunity to approach them for a point-blank coup de grace.
It is very important for people to realize that most gunshots are survivable and that, even after being wounded, their bodies can continue to function to get them away from the attack site and to safety. Certainly, once a target gets out of the immediate danger zone they will want to seek first aid or treat themselves with improvised pressure bandages to stop the bleeding and avoid going into shock. Modern trauma medicine is very good, and as seen in the Aurora shooting, most victims wounded in these types of attacks will survive if they get prompt medical assistance.
It is no mistake that training regimens for special operations forces soldiers and serious athletes place so much emphasis on the mental aspect of combat and sports — that is, learning that your body can keep functioning and continue to do amazing things, even after your mind has told you that it is time to quit. That same sense of drive and determination, the inner warrior, can help keep a person’s body functioning after they have been wounded. The inner warrior is also critical when it is time to fight rather than to run or hide, but that is a topic for another time.
“When Things Go Bad is republished with permission of Stratfor.”
Read more: When Things Go Bad | Stratfor
Read more: When Things Go Bad | Stratfor
Two amateur videos were posted on YouTube on Monday showing what appear to be images of 20 dead Syrian soldiers, blindfolded and handcuffed. They were reportedly executed by rebel fighters in the northern city of Aleppo.
The video showed the men dressed in army clothes, sprawled along a road with their bloodied heads lying on a pavement.
Men believed to be rebel fighters are then shown holding assault rifles calling the men “Assad’s dogs”.
It was not possible to verify the authenticity of the video.
A man off camera, filming a car with the name of the brigade written on the bonnet, said “The Suleiman al-Farisi brigade killed several members from the (state) security”.
The Suleiman al-Farisi brigade is one of a number of units from nearby Aleppo provinces, which have taken up arms against the Assad regime and pushed into the city itself.
Rami Abdulrahman, head of the London based opposition watchdog, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, told Reuters that four people in Aleppo had told him about the incident, which is believed to have happened on either Friday or Saturday.
“The soldiers were from the Aleppo district of Sekenat Hanano but they were killed in the district of Sabaa Baharat,” he told Reuters by telephone.
More than 27,300 people are believed to have died in an uprising to topple President Bashar al-Assad that has lasted more than 17 months.
As the violence continues to rage the UN has reached a diplomatic impasse on Syria. The US and Russia disagree over a Russian proposal for a new UN Security Council resolution, which calls for a ceasefire and political transition which the US says has “no teeth”.
He is also due to visit Damascus, the Syrian capital, in a couple of days. He has said he faces a “very difficult mission”.
But Editor in chief of the newspaper the Syrian Tribune, Dubai Mohamad, told RT that Brahimi might have a chance if he can persuade those countries supplying the rebels with weapons and money to stop, “Just like what we said regarding Annan, only if the countries backing the rebels and sending them weapons and money stop doing so, [then] we can have a peaceful resolution to the crisis. If Lakhdar Brahimi is capable of convincing these countries and I doubt it, then, yes, he has a chance,” he said.
New U.N.-Arab League envoy for Syria Lakhdar Brahimi.(Reuters / Amr Dalsh)
Earlier this month, a bridge in Harbin citythat cost 1 billion yuan to make collapsed killing 3 people.
We drew on various news reports and a recent post from Wall Street Examiner’s Russ Winter to put together images of major bridge collapses in the past five years.