For the record my lj is mhammer, though I originally started it to keep up with my then fiance's lj when I was at Fort Irwin (the worlds largest cul-de-sac) and she was on the east coast. So I don't post much, but go read for your amusement.
As far as going after Germany. If they'd been smart they would have kept quiet. The Irish-americans were clamouring to get in the war on Britain's side, though thankfully FDR was no fool (lend-lease program anyone?). Of course, if Hitler were smart he would have honored his pact of non agression with Stalin. But he had to learn the lesson Bonaparte learned, in the exact same way Bonaparte learned it.
And Raven, the Vichy and Quisling governments were "neutral" collaborationist governments. They may have dragged their feet on certain policies, namely the final solution, but they did what their advisors told them to on most things.
As far as the lenght of my posts, I am answering four of five people at one time. You are only answering one guy.
As far as my hard headedness, I'll point to my definition of arguement. I am here to be persuaded. If I read this particular page's premise right it is in short: "Top to bottom the Bush Administration and US military's policy is to torture and murder our way through Iraq and to hell with the consequences." If someone else has a different take on what we are arguing, I'll stop arguing against that point. And if anyone wants to know what the official position of I MEF is (and by extension MNC-I), I'll go ask tomorow, as it is my day off today.
I'm not here to argue just for the sake of arguing. I saw the page, disagreed with it's premise as it is something that is close to me, and felt like joining the debate. I'm not heckling you. I'm not driving you spare for entertainment's sake. I actually believe that I and the soldiers, sailors, Airmen and Marines are not the vilest things to walk this earth (and that includes their leaders).
I think Bush has made a lot of mistakes in planning. He and his advisors came into this with a head full of wrong ideas about how it was going to go down, but something can be made of it. You forget, I'm the guy in this discussion who talks to people and two days later reads the reports on their deaths. My prediction of where this is going if things don't shape up, and especially if we leave before they do shape up, is far, far worse than your most violent, bloody nightmare of an impossibility could ever match.
I died by lysergic . . . oh nevermind
Literally. My gut exploded from laughter like a polish sausage tragically left in a malfunctioning microwave. Oh what a wonderful way to go! Laughter is wonderful.
One correction to above. I stated Iraqis have gone out of their way to purchase false ideas. That should read false ID cards AKA Gensias or Bitakat Gensiya or Iraqi National Identification Cards (INICs).
And let me be the first to vote for me to shut up. Just three to go, hehehehe. *yawn*
Well, my obsession has gotten the better of me, though technically it is "Oh my god it's early" one hundred hours here and so I did wait until "tomorow" to post again. 8-P on me and yeah for my one day off a week!
242 Greg: If I'm reading your post right, your contention is there were no WMD as of 1992. There were only the lies of Chalibi? There was only the fabrications of Bush? The only thing was "hey what lie can we tell everyone to go kill someone?" This in the face of "groupthink" and "intelligence failures" which by their very nature were people interpreting information in front of them to conform to what they already believed.
UNSCOM generally felt Saddam's stockpiles were 90-95% destroyed as of 1998, before they were tossed out on their ear. The evidence of the last 5 - 10% was too muddled to ever really know. As far as Saddam's obstructionist policies are concerned, they are a fact which ended in his expelling the UN inspectors in 1998 and was led to four years under no supervision. Now, when one is faced with starting from a known capability to produce and a stockpile of weapons and one faces continued resistance to fully accounting for those stockpiles for over 10 years, what conclusion should one draw when faced with similar foot dragging and incomplete documents? Why naturally one should assume they are 100% honest about everything. Silly me.
Documents captured in Baghdad and translated from Arabic, show one of Saddam's policies was to play a kind of brinksmanship with the US, a tactic perfected by the Soviets. He was counting on other regional powers to be awed of his chutzpa and in fear of his "weapons stockpiles" in order to assure his safety. He didn't really consider the possibility we would ever attack and even if we did, we would never succeed. He bought his own bs. How many of you remember the Iraqi Information Minister telling the world press how wonderfully the Iraqi Army was defeating and humiliating the US led coalition? All of this while we were rolling into BIAP and Baghdad proper? Saddam became victim of his own propaganda. It is only one contributing factor, but whom the gods would destroy, first they make mad.
One thing I would point out, when asked "what is victory," I have never said "100,000 dead insurgents." Military might is necessary to ensure security while a government is stood up. Military might will not solve all the ills in Iraq. There is no magic number of people to kill or places to destroy. We must fight to quell sectarian violence. We must also politic and deal. The Iraqis had decades of living in a society where bare survival was the end all, be all. You did what it took to survive and didn't question it. Under Maslow's heirarchy of needs, the Iraqis are most definitely stuck at the safety level. They are not in a position to move beyond that point. They won't be until one of two things happen, we either prop them up and train them until they can take over or the various factions tear each other apart in a bloody, horrible fight and the last men standing wearily agree to lay down arms and work togather because it is that or a fight to the death which no one wins. For many decades, bribery and corruption have been a way of life here. Looking out for number one (and immediate family) has only been supressed when one's tribal leaders and imams have been particularly insistent on an outcome. Else wise, it has been "me and mine are getting out of this alive, Inshallah. You and yours can go hang." This belief that things work by bribery and corruption has become so ingrained, I have seen locals go out of their way to purchase false ideas at great time and expense, when the legitimate ones can be had closer to hand and for far less money.
Thomas E Ricks, a writer for the Washington Post, wrote an article on September 11th, 06, referencing an article by one of the top analysts in the Marine Corps. It states Al Anbar Province has been lost because there are not enough US troops in the area to ensure security, not enough of an Iraqi presence leading to a vacuum filled by the insurgents and criminal elements and not enough of a political campaign (or "PR" campaign if you will) to win the hearts and minds of the locals. That wars are won or lost in the political arena is no new idea. Carl von Clausewitz forwarded this notion in Vom Kriege, published posthumously in 1832. von Clausewitz began revising the work in 1827 to include the political angle, but died before finishing the work. So if it was know at least by 1832 that politics was part of war (or rather war was part of politics), then what went wrong in Iraq and why is this idiot (namely me) believing we can win? We went wrong from the get go because high level planners and policy makers confused Iraq with Eastern Europe. It was assumed we would be welcomed and shortly thereafter democratic institutions would be created and democratic traditions would be followed. But no such institutions or traditions had ever truely existed in the region. Eastern Europe had at least rubbed shoulders with such things at worst and had fledgling institutions which were subsumed by Cold War maneuvering at best. Any attempts by subordinates to "plan for the worst" were literally shouted down in favor of only "hoping for the best" (good song by Mel Brooks by the bye). This is finally being realized in the open. While we are still in Iraq this flaw can be corrected for and the use of military forces to provide security while political forces work to shift public opinion and action to support a working government can proceed. A true establishment of democratic traditions which would create a democracy that lasts would take decades. Americans, in my opinion, can not wait that long. We must settle on a government that answers to the will of its people, exchanges hands in a non violent method and can ensure on its own safety as an acceptable end point. This would take a few years (a figure I am not qualified to calculate, not being a political theorist). I would however point to Egypt and its slow and steady walk towards what we would consider democracy. Something in my opinion that must be applauded and encouraged.
When I speak of lack of will, I speak of stamina to continue in a difficult course. I remind you that WWII was started with the promise the boys would be home by Christmas. "Johnny come lately" was coined to describe those bright eyed and bushy tailed, idealist young "yanks" who felt they would come in and pin Hitler's ears back, save Europe and go home with little interruption in their lives. 407,300 dead latter Germany and Japan were defeated. An interesting footnote, Japan attacked us in a preemptive strike on 7 December, 1941, but it was Germany who fell first. VE Day came before VJ Day. MacArthur was pulled out of the Pacific Front ("I shall return") to push the European front. We knew what the disaster of a united Europe under Nazi occupation would mean and felt safe in keeping the Japanese occupied while we focused on dropping Germany and Italy. Japan hit us but we took out Germany. I can't help but wonder how public opinion would paint that fact if it happened today.
As far as Bush Sr and his decision to stay out versus Bush Jr (or shrub as my wife calls him), I would point to Jim Baker's recent interview where he pointed out realities on the ground had changed since 1991 and Bush's decision not to go in.
Raven: Just a few points. I have stated time and time again that an independent regime was equally important. And by independent, I have equally stated it be independent of us. As long as the Iraqi government answers to the Iraqi people AND NO ONE ELSE, then we have succeeded in our goals.
I would also point out, I have in the past written and publicaly posted to my lj, a treatise that colonization is not always a bad thing and if done right could result in positive things (note the could). It has almost always ended in rebellion as the colonizer has usually held on waaaaaay too long. However, I would point out that our notion of democracy grew from British common law and we are currently on good terms with the Brits (for the most part) in spite of a little tea party we threw in their honor a few years back. India, too, is no blood enemy of the UK. Australia has a fairly good view of those Pommy limeies these days. The two regimes you point out were collaborationist governments cobbled up so that Germany could push its goal of Heute Europa, Morgen die Welt. Stating the Iraqi government is meant to be such a government used to give us a foothold as we conquor more land on our way to out doing the Brittish Empire at its 1921 height (36.6 million km squared) is slanderous at best. I'm afraid I'll next be hearing people claiming Bush is going to tell Arabs "Arbeit macht frei."
P.S. For everyone's peace of mind (not to mention my sleep cycle), I'll shut up if at least four people ask me to do so. Honestly, its about the only way I will as my wife is at home and not here to regulate my love of arguing.
I keep responding to individual post and spreading myself thin, so I'll try to give my ideas one go. If I miss something, just whack me again to gain my attention.
Our goal in going in to Iraq was to overthrow the Ba'athist regime and replace it with a democratic government. Our "win" state is a regime that is stable, inclusive, responsive and lasting. In short, a government that will be here 100 years from now which answers to the will of its people. It may not look like the US form of democracy. It may not look like the parliamentary system popular in Europe. However, it and the idea that a government should answer to its people should be firmly routed in Iraq before we leave.
As far as how this war started, I see it as a response to frustration at Saddam's obsfucation. When does one say "enough?" Saddam spent over a decade hiding his capabilities from the world. His concerns were Israel and Iran. He was not truely concerned with the US or the UN.
Iraqi Army after action reports from the first Gulf War show Saddam considered that war a success for his side. He was still in power and his army survived to secure his regime after we left. Those same reports and others captured after the fall of Baghdad show he felt this war would be the same. He was only concerned with what it would take to bloody us enough to leave and how quickly he could reassemble his scattered forces to regain control of the country. James, you want "Cloud-Cuckoo Land?" I give you Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti.
I consider our actions in Iraq as colonization. I general refrain from using such words because of the vastly negative results and conotations they have. However, it is as close to a proper word as you can get. We are here to instill in the Iraqis a culture of democracy. You can't just generate a constitution for them and then leave. You either have to stay until they "get it" and carry it on themselves, or you smash the existing power structure and leave. We were really hoping for the later. We seem not to have what it takes to bear the strain of hanging around in Iraq until they "get it." Anything less in my mind is a waste of time and lives. We already started this goat rope (or cluster or SNAFU or what have you), pulling out now means we have allowed over 2600 soldiers, sailors, Airmen and Marines to die so we could piss off a lot of people at home and abroad.
We were in Germany for over 50 years rebuilding a government and instilling democratic ideals. The Weimar Republic didn't count. It was some poorly cobbled togather thing which collapsed like a house of cards at the slightest breeze. Most of those who built it only did so because they were told to at the end of WWI. They didn't do it because they believed in the system.
Our system saw it's birth in the Greek city states and got its real start for us in 1215 with the Magna Carta. Numerous centuries, legal precedents, and documents later, we have one of the finest democracies on paper (though few show up to vote these days and many show up to criticize). With all of these centuries of history behind our system, you would think we have learned to be patient. We haven't. We want Iraq to get it's stuff togather now, all so we can leave now and feel good about ourselves.
James, as far as anti versus counter terrorism. These are terms taught at the school house in Fort We gotcha, AZ. Anti is attack and usually consists of SEALs and SF. Counter is your friendly, neighborhood CI guy and is slow, methodical and passive. Counter is finding out the ongoing op and disrupting it. Anti is finding the training site and blowing it and its current class to hell and back.
On the issue of Article 3, James is right on one point. Though he did not say it as such, I need to go back and read the new law passed by Congress to see what it says and attempt to extract the ideas and meanings behind the words before I comment further on the subject. I would point out the Supreme Court decision directed the White House to look at international precedents before submitting this bill. This isn't happening in a vacuum and, if I recall correctly, one of those precedents was from France. So I'm not talking about third world dictatorial nations who define torture as "anything we are not doing."
As far as the accusation of trolling is concerned. I resent the remark. It implies that I am trying to bait you into needless bickering. I do enjoy arguements. My definition of arguement being an exchange of logical ideas between two or more sides, where each side is trying to convince the other of the validity of their ideas, such backed up by research. And yes, I have multiple websites and other sources open while I write these, my mind otherwise being swiss cheese at the best of times. I have great short term memory but my borderline compulsion to collect stories, facts and anecdotes has my mind full of as much useless trivia as it does useful facts. Hell, it is one of the reasons I keep coming back here when I appear to be in one hell of a minority. The obsession with a good give and take arguement has me checking this site utnil 2am local (not good when you have an interview schedule for the next morning).
Well, I have bored you with my overlong posts enough for one day. I shall quietly retire (or at least pretend to as I don't do quiet well) and see you tomorow.
148 PJ: What do I mean by lack of will? Peace moms calling for an immediate withdrawal, anti war protestors stating any loss of life is too much. Generally, I believe that peace negotiations cannot go forever and throwing up your hands and leaving because things aren't easy doesn't solve anything. We are in the middle of this and just leaving will cause the world a number of problems. It is my view we can not leave until the Iraqi government answers to ALL of its citizens, protects them and is stable enough to stand up against internal and external pressures. Everyone fears a civil war in Iraq. I fear a war that enflames Sunni against Shia, Turk against Kurd, Muslim against Christian, but I am a paid, professional paranoid. Welcome to my world.
149 James: No the solution is to fight to win. I question those who view a redefining of outrages on human dignity as their opposition stating "Hey lets go pull this guys arms off and see if he talks" a bit disengenuous. Don't speak for me and I won't speak for you (actually I will because I've a terrible long term memory and poor manners, but if you call me on it, I'll back down).
I must admit to prefering Anti terrorism to counter terrorism. I get hot under the collar when seeing reports on terrorist activities. Hell, I even dislike the Sons of Liberty since they targeted civilians in an attempt to frighten them out of supporting the Brittish agenda in America. For the record anti means you do the police work to then attack the groups who are planning to attack us at their bases BEFORE they attack, while counter is investigating an incident that happened and find the four or five guys who did
it and deal with them.
I would ask who you feel we must cooperate with internationally. I have stated I believe in cooperation with nations who share our ideals of democracy and freedom. The UN General Assembly is full of representatives of nations which are autocratic and brutal. It is in my opinion a poor place to go when you want to properly deal with a nation which is causing problems. North Korea is days away from proving they have a working nuclear device. They have continually taken a provocative stance in regards to their neighbors. My favorites were the testing of a medium range missile on the day the new South Korean President made his inaugral speach and the testing of a two stage missile where stage one landed on that side of Japan and stage two landed on this side of Japan. And where was the NK Ambassador recently? At a meeting of the "Unaligned Nations" in Cuba calling for the world to leave them alone and let them do their thing.
150 Paul: Some of the capacities are will/ideology and personnel. We need to work to make Wahibism/Qutbism and the like unpopular and remove it as appearing as a natural choice for the youth of the Middle East. We will do that by promoting diologue, definitely; we'll also help by helping governments in the region which are free and democratic. Having a free (even from us) and democratic Iraq will go a long way to that goal. It will be extremely tough, but can be done.
151 Greg: Somalia was an excellent example of our not having the will to follow up. That mission violently changed from humanitarian to nation building. When we started taking casualties, we started running from that region. Now the "government" of Somalia is isolated to a few buildings in one town. Not exactly a shining success, neh?
153 Joe: Yes we can agree that stopping terrorist attacks on the US is a priority. We can also agree that maintaining our civil liberties is equally a priority at ALL times. I futher stipulate that while a POW or terrorist caught in the act of furthering violent jihad should not gain a US citizen's civil liberties, they do have full Humanitarian Rights to protection from torture and mistreatment. Having worked with Army interrogators for years, I am aware that beatings and similar harsh treatment (what James calls "torture lite") are ineffective in getting info. They are unnecessary and needless. There are some approaches which are harsh in tone and may raise the fear of the person being questioned, but there is no need for physically striking a person. I would question whether some deprivation (keeping a smoker from smokes, continual questioning for hours upon hours at a time) designed to tire and confuse a person to keep them from remembering their complicated lies is torture. It is my understanding this is for the most part what was asked for in the redefining of Article 3. Now as far as waterboarding goes (which is supposedly nonleathal and "not torture"), I have no experience with and can't comment on it; however, here I go commenting anyway, I dont think from a personal standpoint it is necessary either. Convincing a guy they are going to die by drowning, even if they are supposedly not in any danger of dieing, is not Kosher.
156 Sandy B: I was not my usual elloquent self when making that statement. I believe our exercising of free speach is one of the most wonderful things in the whole world. The fact we are critical of ourselves and our own harshest, worst critic is a good thing. I feel some go over board and assume the worst in many cases, but I equally feel it should (in a nonpartisan inspired way) continue.
159 Terry: I speak of the number of foreign fighters, who like Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, married into local families. In AMZ's case, in spite his targeting local Shia, Sunni Imams who spoke for participation in the elections and his own fellow countrymen. I speak of instances where Iraqis expect us to find the true insurgents (i.e. those who come from outside Iraq, not home grown dissidents) but refuse to (or are fearful of) pointing them out to Coalition patrols. There are a number of reports to the extent of "there are some people who don't speak Iraqi dialect around. Where? I don't know, I just know there are some." I read a BBC report on the reported death of Al Masri in Haditha, which listed the Al Qaeda in Iraq numbers as 5% of the overall insurgency. From my experience here, that is about right. Most of the problems are locals pushing their tribal or religious agendas by violence (i.e. there'll be no Sunni in this town, by gum!), but the AQIZ are much better trained and much more violent. A real combat multiplier as you stated.
I was an Army CI agent for 12 years and am now a DoD Contractor in Iraq providing HUMINT support. I was in Bosnia, twice, for a total of 15 months where I saw evidence of foreign fighters fading into the background instead of leaving as dictated by Dayton.
164 & 166 Teresa and PJ: I get my information from a number of sources. I work in Iraq currently (as stated above). I have 12 (going on 13) years experience as a CI guy. I draw from news sources as diverse as the BBC, Al Jazeera, CNN, and Fox. I would go to others, but my french sucks, I read none of the asian languages and the arabic only websites are blocked during business hours. I don't get my views from any political parties talking points. I am no stooge, hack or parrot.
PJ we lost Viet Nam for a number of reasons. Poor planning was one of them. Backing our flavor of dictator over theirs was another. Being locked in an ideological battle with Communism and blinding ourselves to the potential of turning Ho Chi Minh to our cause was another. But lack of political will was definitely a contributing factor.
172 Raven: I draw a distinction between "agressive" (to whit one to seize territory) and "preemptive." A prime example of preemptive war would be the Six Day War (or the 1967 Arab-Israeli War), wherein Israel attacked first in response to evidence of a pending attack from Egypt.
I believe it is wrong to equate our country and its participation in the war in Iraq with the National Socialists Party and their conquest of Western Europe. Calling for the heads of Bush, Rumsfeld, et al and equating them to the participants of the Wannsee Conference is wrong! Bush is no Reinhard Heydrich and Rumsfeld is no Adolf Eichman!
I understand the American people are made uncomfortable about us being in a state of war. I know we love to hear "It'll be over by Christmas." I sympathize with those who have family members in harms way and empathize with those who have lost loved ones. But we are not the devil and we are no where near one of the most vile political regimes to exist on this earth because we went into Iraq. Truth be told, Saddam did this to himself. Between believing he could avoid regime change and survive any face off against the US was foolish. He had deluded himself into thinking he could hide his forces, bleed us enough we would go away, then reassemble his forces in time to quell unrest from within and power grabs from without. His national security policy was obfuscation and lies. He relied on everyone not truely knowing what capabilities he had and reinforcing the uncertainty by cheesing us off and getting away with it. He coupled that with the belief we would never really do anything about our concerns.
If we loose in Iraq and thus our true intentions are never shown, or if we remain in control of Iraq for the next 100 years ruling it as a colony, then I feel a case can be made that we were agressors on par with the Nazis. If we succeed in helping stand up a free and democratic (free even from our influence) functioning government in Iraq, then there is no case for agression on par with the Nazi's seizing Poland, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Holland, et al.
184 Lizzy: Excellent statement. We must indeed be careful of our actions, for we are not perfect and are prosecuting/questioning those innocent of attacking us. So, we should treat our prisoners Humanely. I base this on the sheer number of people held in Gitmo and elsewhere. That large a population can not help but contain those who meant us no harm (note past tense).
One more thing and then I've got to get some sleep (it is midnight).
Joe: There is a PR element to this thing true. It is something that has helped dismantle the European Nationlist Terrorists (Provo's, ETA, Red Brigades, etc). The combination of a general population that wouldn't support violence to gain political goals, more open borders and nations who showed they were willing to meet violence with action (arrests, trial, incarceration and more) led to the view that political violence was a tool that just didn't get the job done for these groups. However, the hardliners in this region aren't going to play nice after some positive spin. Hizbollah is still convinced they are 100% necessary for the defense of Lebanon, no matter what the duely elected Lebanese government says. HAMAS is still convinced it was elected to destroy Israel, not to rebuild the Palastinian Authority. Some of these groups and their ideals are not going to "go gentle into that goodnight."
Thanks, Ma as salama wa mabruk ramadan.
Franklin: I would agree to some extent we be the quiet, well armed guy sitting in the corner of the UN. A Pax Americana is out of the question though. There is a need for consensus before action. I just question WHO we need that agreement from. Too many of the "non aligned" countries in the UN make us look like we have a spotless record and they're callling for more "democracy" in the UN and less US lead, "dictatorial" decrees from the Security Council.
Paul: The "terrorists" (or "freedom fighters") of the 80's have mostly called it quits. The Basque separatist movement is laying down its arms. The Provo's destroyed their weapons. While Hizbollah was wildly popular in the immediate days after the Israel/Hizbollah war, there are now counter movements inside Lebanon. Hamas is learning the hard way that they did not receive a local mandate (let alone an international mandate from the Pan Arab societ) for the destruction of Israel. They are learning in a bloody, internecine battle in the streets that they were hired only because of Fatah's corruption and cronyism. So yes, these asymetrical warriors are not the best target for a thermonuclear warhead. Israel learned that using artillery on Hizbollah only drew condemnation when they learned Hizbollah had parked most of their missle launchers in civilian's backyards. We win by changing the dynamic and one of the biggest dynamics in this area are autocratic regimes who at best turn a blind eye to extremism and at worst export it to other nations. If we have a hand in setting up a successful, stable, representative government that can withstand external and internal pressures, we have taken a step towards lessening the ideals which fuel this fight. The violent jihadists already had a reason to hate us. Unless you are willing to convert to Islam and then move far away from any non Muslims (so as not to be caught in collateral damage) the violent jihadists are probably going to leave you alone. Though I'm not sure how they will pick you out of the rest of the 300 million citizens of the US. Our job in this region isn't to slaughter muslims (the vast majority of muslims being outside this region) nor is it to slaughter Arabs (or the Persians, Kurds, Turks, Bedouins, Jews and other such ethnicities in the region). Our job is to show we are not out to shoot anything that moves and that we realy believe our own brand of bs (namely that there is something beyond tribe and Inshallah).
Terry: Sadly you are right. Too many people in the planning stage forgot "hope for the best, plan for the worst." Too many felt if you planned for the worst you would jinx it. It was felt Eastern Europe and the collapse of the Warsaw Pact Block would be the prime example of our time in Iraq. "We'll roll in. Saddam will disappear. There will be dancing in the streets. Democracy will appear. We'll be home for Christmas." Not so much, neh?
I'll tell you one thing though, it is amazing how many "Iraqis" are new to their town, married to a local girl and don't speak the Iraqi dialect. Same thing happened in Bosnia. Dayton said all foreign fighters have to leave. The Bosniacs said "what foreign fighters? All we got are nice local boys. See they're married and part of the community." There are a fair number of violent jihadists who come here to carry out the will of Allah as it has been taught to them versus going to the US one way or another, learning to fly a plane and taking out a few hundred people as they go. These guys were doing "martyrdom opperations" before we were in Iraq, so they didn't necessarily need us to "stir them up." If we help set up a government that answers to its people (an idea not truely common in this part of the world), we will have a region which is less likely to foster and forment such ideology. Win for us. Yea!
Joe: I think I've "gotten off message." I don't think we should use torture or even overly harsh questioning. I do think some better defining of what is "outrages upon personal dignity" are necessary so our interrogators can opporate without fearing prosecution. Key word there is "fearing." An EMT can do everything by the book and it is just not his day and the patient dies on the way to the hospital. Follow the protocols and a lawsuit will fail. That doesn't mean some bereaved relative won't sue. It just means they won't win in court. Same here. There are some interrogation tactics which go beyond "name, rank, serial number? Ok, anything else? No? gee, ok" which aren't torture but aren't nice. Hell in the first world war, Congress didn't authorize various espionage initiatives because "gentlemen don't read other's mail" (i.e. it wasn't nice). We do need to be able to interrogate. We don't under any circumstances need to torture. We do need to know where the line is drawn and "outrages" isn't a line, it's more like a disputed border zone. It is indistinct territory on the best of days.
True, I agree wholeheartedly that we should ensure our principles are maintained even if our enemies hold to another, more violent, less empathetic viewpoint. There is, sadly, a breaking point for us, be it a timeframe or a total casualty number beyond which we have not the will to continue (at least within near recent history). The question is what should we do to ensure we are not in the best case scenario pushed out and barred from acting on the world stage? What should we do to counteract an enemy that struck us and killed over 3000 people in less than a day for being involved in the Middle East? What should we do so that we don't further the precedents that our will can be broken (Vietnam, obviously, but Somalia is definitely no success as the government we sought to help is lucky to be in control of a few buildings in one town)?
In my opinion, the enemies we will face on the battlefield will come from autocratic societies which view our notions of Human Rights as a foolish weakness we use to inexplicably hinder ourselves. However, it is a "hinderance" we must bear all the same, for if not us, then who? If we should ever face a nation on the battlefield who holds then the same ideals our citizens hold now, we should seriously ask ourselves where we went horribly wrong. Don't get me wrong, we are no angels, no perfect beacon of liberty and hope. Neither are we demons speaking with silver toungues and acting with blackest and cruelest of intentions. We are humans, who fall down, make mistakes and blunders. But we hold on to these foolish ideals that all men are created equal (in spite of many a third world dictator proving different on a daily basis).
As far as our current actions are concerned, I prefer that vengence belong to the Lord, on a spiritual level. On a temporal level, we must injure our enemy's capacity to strike on the scale of 9/11 ever again. The ideals are espoused and taught from a certain region of the world. Should we indiscriminately attack that region in retaliation for our injuries? For PAYBACK? NO, flatly and unequivocally NO! Have we been successfuly. Yes, to a degree we have. Other nations are being struck by those holding the ideals of violent jihad against unbelievers acting in the holy land (and sadly "home grown" ones at that), so we have not been completely successful. Will we completely eliminate the beliefs which fuel the other side of this "war?" No, there will be those who continue to call for "martyrdom operations" against the "Great Satan." However, we can make it look like anything but a glamourous act, something to be sought out by all. While it is not a matter of mathematics, we can ensure the equation will not be "martyrs" 20, their victims 3000.
We must respond to an attack made by ideological enemies who see us as a thing that must be swept aside if not destroyed outright. To paraphrase von Clausewitz, war is diplomacy by other means.
James, I doubt any courts martial is going to accept the legal arguement the United States is not allowed to make war on other countries without international approval (i.e. the UN which in my opinion suffers from quality control, I love reading about representatives for autocratic nations complaining the UN needs to be more democratic). I equally am skeptical of the boards buying into the splitting of hairs regarding whether the bill which Congress inacts to give the President "war powers" MUST be named "US declares War on 'Country X'" to be a bona fide Decleration of War. Beyond those two arguements, I must admit to a failure of imagination regarding how the war in Iraq can be classified "illegal."
Now as to the regret SPC Anderson expressed for his actions in Iraq, does anyone know what his M.O.S. was? I am aware that some of the "insurgents" shot at checkpoints in the early stages of the war were people who were avoiding the cp's in fear they were traps by insurgents. The Army had failed to put out a press release to the Iraqi people telling them what cp's looked like and to stop for them or risk being fired upon. If SPC Anderson was in an incident of mistaken identity leading to his unit firing on civilians, I understand the regret. If he is merely expressing reget for being over here, then I think he is letting his angst get the better of him.
I love my country's penchant for beating ourselves up over everything. Everything turns into a crisis of faith. It will hopefully keep us from truely taking a headlong plung down the slippery slope into barbarism (#22). But to label us as barbarians now when we are discussing what is and is not acceptable behavior boggles my mind. I have talked to locals who were tortured by the previous regime. In one instance, the fellow was beaten and waterboarded on a daily basis for eight months while being held and questioned for desertion from the Iraqi Army (or more acurately for his statement to his CO that he would desert at every available opportunity).
Such harsh questioning has proven to be a matter of course in numerous countries the world over. Many of these same countries would hunt us down and silence us for good if we were their citizens discussing their regime in such a manner. To state we are already at that point here in the US is at best unfounded paranoia . We should be careful to cry foul when such things as the Patriot Act are enacted, but we are definitely not at the point where disident voices are disappeared overnight never to be heard from again (#83 & #85).
This current fight has definitely caught us flat footed. On the one hand we are facing an ideology that will stop at nothing to force us out of the region. Those so inclined are hidden amongst a population which does not bear us this ill will (though they definitely don't love us either). We have tried to face this as a law enforcement problem and got blindsided with the deaths of 3000 people in New York. Now we are looking at this as an ideological "war" which will last until we defeat those ideologues who espouse violent jihad (not to be confused with the internal spiritual struggle to perfect one's self more often meant when an Arab or Muslim mentions jihad). In the past we have fought to win. When we have failed to follow the Spartan ideal ("Come back with your shield or on it") we have gotten more than a bloody nose. This is not the first time we have faced suicide attackers. In that conflict, we used two bombs on two seperate days to wipe out two cities (with the implied threat there was a third bomb) to end the war. Both targets were civilian and meant to shock our foes into capitulation, incidentally not the first time in that conflict we targeted a non military area (e.g. the Dresden fire bombing which took weeks, multiple sorties, hundreds of planes and thousands upon thousands of bombs). Now we must decide what we are to do about it. How far are we willing to go? Those who say their opponents want to "cut and run" are oversimplifing and misrepresenting their opponents position. Those who state "staying the course" is a misguide, muddle attempt at saving face for lack of planning are forgetting that using colonialism to instill Democratic ideals (not to be confused with the political party of the same name) takes DECADES, not weeks/months/years. So where do we go from here? Do we accept 50 years of staying in Iraq to see them become a stable country? We are only now leaving Germany after the spectacular collapse of the Weimar Republic (i.e. WWII). They are now at the heart of a going concern people call the EU and incidentally now lap dog to the US. Not bad for a nation that had a half @$$ed attempt at democracy which collapsed under threats and back room deals.
Speaking as a war criminal, I would like a definition of Outrages on personal dignity. I have been near den Haag once, for the North Sea Jazz Festival. I would rather not go as a defendant (though if things ever got to that point, I'm sure I would be waaaaay down on the list).
Now that I have your attention:
Yes, I said "as a war criminal." Depending on how much one would want to push the issue, I would have to stand trial for violating Article 3 to truely settle whether or not I was a war criminal. However, based on some of the legal precedents the US Supreme Court cited when it told the White House to fall in line with international consensus on giving a narrower definition of "Outrages," I would definitely go to trial.
So, oh gentle reader, you must be asking yourself, "Self, what vile acts did this evil man commit?" I'll tell you in explicit, excruciating detail. I made a 35 year old, Iraqi male of Sunni descent cry when I confronted him with documentary evidence he had committed a crime and lied about it to gain employment on a Coalition Forces base camp. In front of witnesses. In an airconditioned room. In a comfortable chair (his was more comfortable than mine darn it). With nary a weapon in sight.
I recommended he be fired from his job for lieing during his screening interview. He drove home to his family, and there were no other consequences from the interview. However, I committed an outrage against his personal dignity. So I hope the cell I'm headed for is nice and clean.
Miles
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2006 | 12 |
Total: 12 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by miles c:
Show all comments by miles c.