Joel Stein, LA Times, January 24:
"I don’t support our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.
"I'm sure I'd like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas.
"I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I'm tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel.
"But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam.
"And sometimes, for reasons I don't understand, you get to just hang out in Germany.
"I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.
"Seriously, the traffic is insufferable."
"I don’t support our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.
"I'm sure I'd like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas.
"I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I'm tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel.
"But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam.
"And sometimes, for reasons I don't understand, you get to just hang out in Germany.
"I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.
"Seriously, the traffic is insufferable."
28 Comments:
How should Violet know the particulars of the thousands of courtmartials that occur every year? Let alone the 1000's of non-juducial trials that occur?
All you know is what appears in public.
But it is nice to see that you are as ignorant as ever.
The point that gets overlooked when governments demand that citizens 'support the troops' is that this means everyone has the right to do so.
That makes it 'right' for Germans to support their Nazi troops, no matter what they did; it makes it right for the Cambodians to support Pol Pot's troops in their genocide; it makes it right for the Russians to support their troops as they slaughter Chechens to maintain occupation; it makes it right for Israelis to support the IDF as they murder Palestinians to maintain occupation ....
In this world of 'my military right or wrong' we end up with a great many acts of evil.
That's why it is important to be selective about why and when we support our army.
Governments, when they commit us to war, particularly illegal and immoral wars, want to find legitimacy for their actions through public support.
They draw upon memories (and fantasies) of justifiable wars like World War 1 and World War II, when a closer look reveals that in terms of the Iraq war we are the bad guys ... German or Nazi invaders ... and the Iraqis and Afghans are the good guys.
The Germans as they marched off to war both the first and second time were also told that they were going to war to 'liberate.'
Governments may change but the lies remain the same.
When we support our soldiers in illegal and immoral wars we compound the evil.
And let's not forget, these 'brave' soldiers are not milk-skinned adolescents, called to fight to save their country .... they are professional soldiers, people who have chosen to take up the profession of war. These are people who are trained to kill and who are prepared to kill.
They are big guys who knew what they were doing when they joined and why. I feel sorry for many of the US soldiers who are kids who did not know what they were getting into. In the US system the poor, read black and hispanic, have no chance of getting a university education unless they join the military .... it's an unpleasant little tool of manipulation that America uses.
But, even with this, the best support that anyone can give these kids in particular and soldiers in general is to not support them so Governments will be forced to bring them home.
Thanks leftveg
I'm impressed you can use bold type. For some reason the blog page I get doesn't allow such things, nor cut and paste which makes it easier to post links.
Any hints
David
You conveniently overlook the fact that British and American planes were being shot at by the Iraqis because Iraq was being bombed, certainly by American planes, consistently, long before any invasion.
Name me one country that would not shoot in the same situation?
David,
So did these same regulations apply to the Germans, who, like the US and its allies in Iraq were the aggressors and invaders?
Or does it just apply to the guys fighting against invasion? Like the Iraqis and Afghans.
As to 'those responsible for attacks against the US,' wouldn't that be Saudi? There were no Iraqis or Afghans involved in 9/11. In fact, even the CIA admits that Iraq and Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
So, Iraq, not only had no weapons, it hadn't attacked anyone. Not only that, it didn't have any jihadists until it was invaded and occupied.
Would you like to explain then how this congressional resolution applies to Iraq?
David,
That would be to protect those Kurds which the US and others failed to protect when they rose up against Saddam, at the behest of the US Government, and he slaughtered them with chemical weapons bought from the US and others.
Ah, those Kurds. The same Kurds that were then left to survive as best they could because the US and others were prepared to do nothing to help them. And so the years passed. Saddam did yet more awful things and nothing happened, until, ah yes, until people came to the conclusion that Iraqi oil was not only necessary to the US economy it was vital.
This would be the same Saddam Hussein, you know the bad guy, who was armed by the US and encouraged to attack Iran because it suited US interests.
Would you like to explain why it was that Saddam was an okay bad guy when it suited US interests .... for decades actually ... and that he was an okay enough bad guy to supply him with military hardware and chemical weapons to use in his genocidal practices .... until a few years ago?
The hypocrisy level is astonishing. Saddam was another favourite thug of the US for decades, as long as it suited the US. No-one gave a damn about who he killed.
in fact, the only reason he invaded Kuwait, was because, working on precedence, as in Iran, he figured the US wouldn't mind him attacking someone else.
The records show that he 'floated' the idea past the then US ambassador, who, far from reacting with horror, hardly reacted at all. No, she didn't say yes, but she didn't say no, which, in that part of the world is pretty much a yes.
Given how good the US was at turning blind eyes to such things Saddam thought he had the green light. Wrong, as we know, but an understandable mistake in the circumstances.
By all means condemn the actions of Saddam but have the honesty and decency to admit that the tyrant only existed for as long as he did because he was supported actively by the US and the international community.
david,
Don't be precious. Iraq did not attack the US or any of its allies who subsequently invaded it. If they were fighting against US forces it's because US forces were attacking them.
The US was bombing Iraq that's why they were fired on. The US was killing Iraqis long before the invasion and that's forgetting the murderous sanctions.
You did not answer. Which nation would not fire upon planes which bombed it?
I don't actually care what Congress passed. What the US does is only ever in US interests and often illegal. It does not have any legality anywhere else in the world.
The United Nations and the international legal community judged the invasion of Iraq to be illegal. It was and remains so.
I would hardly be quoting the US congress given America's long record of human rights abuses both within the country and without. This is a country, the only developed one mind you, that sanctions capital punishment... and I might add, of juveniles and the mentally ill! That's a pretty fine system they have there.
It's also a country that sanctions torture, outsourced of course and one that sanctions the appalling human rights abuses of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.
Sadly, these days, Congress doesn't have much of which to be proud and a great deal of which to be thoroughly ashamed.
david,
The story of April Glasby is not urban legend. It is recorded in her reports to Washington. It's easy enough to find. The US is still a free country, sort of.
Also, Saddam Hussein, like more than one South American dictator, was trained and armed by America. Again, historical record. I don't know why you bother denying it.
And even the Brits and the French admit they sold weapons to Saddam. It's also public record that the US helped arm Saddam to attack Iran. Even the Americans don't deny that they backed him in the past. They can't because it is public record.
And yes, you cite the Stalin alliance. It just supports my case that hypocrisy prevails when it comes to Government. The fact is the US did nothing about Hitler either for a long time.... they didn't care. There's a good case that they would never have become involved if it had not been for Pearl Harbour. But that's a digression.
You also forget, as is your wont, that the battle against Hitler came when he DID invade and even then, only after he had done quite a bit of that invading. A little bit of invading, it seems, can be tolerated.
In the case of Ayatollah Kohmeini there is no case. There was what he said.... lots.... and what he did.... nothing.
If the US were to go to war against every nation that said things it did not like it would be at war all the time. Which, come to think of it, it often is.
As to any principles of morality and there is very little of that around I don't actually believe in war full stop.
But what I truly dislike is deceit and hypocrisy.
Iran, even with a rabbiting religious leader was never a threat to anyone. No more so than some of the religious lunatics in America, Saudi and Israel.
Much of the world considers George Bush a religious lunatic and he has invaded a sovereign nation.
The majority of people in the world, following a survey done last year, see the United States and George Bush as the greatest threat to world peace.
By your critera we should be prepared to 'go to bed' with anyone, even the Chinese and North Koreans, in order to defeat the evil that America has become.
David,
All those 'legitimate military targets' pretty much equate with what the Nazis defined as 'legitimate military targets."
Take the French for example. Germany invaded and occupied and the French Resistance fought back from schools, churches, offices...
then we have the Iraqis. The US and its allies invaded and occupied and the Iraqi resistance fights back from schools, churches, offices...
Funny about that isn't it. I guess that is how people do fight when they are fighting against occupiers. The Palestinians do the same thing.
Again, by your criteria you justify some of the worst slaughters carried out by the Nazis against civilian populations.
Or would that be one rule for us and another for everyone else?
And you talk about principles!
As the phosphorus strips the flesh from the bones of Iraqis, as napalm destroyed Vietnamese you try to make the case that people who have been invaded and who live under occupation have no right to fight back?
As a pacifist I wish they wouldn't but you are no pacifist and would be fighting from the office, the church or the school yourself if your country were invaded.
Correct me if I am wrong.
There's a case to be made that the White House, the Pentagon and Congress are buildings used by terrorists so they are legitimate targets.
david,
The difference is that you divide the world into evil and good and I do not.
The Hitlers and Saddams and Bushes for that matter, come to power because people sacrifice principle on the altar of self-interest.
There are peaceful ways of controlling nations, even the US.
Do I believe people have a right to fight when attacked or invaded? I believe people have a right to live life by their own values.
i don't actually think there are enough real pacifists in the world to make any of my solutions possible. That hopefully may change.
Do I think the Nazis should have been overthrown? It was never that simple. The Nazis did a lot of good things in the early days and Germans turned a blind eye to the nasty things because of self interest.
Would the Nazis have gone as far as they did if the world at large had seriously tried to intervene earlier? No.
Would as many Jews have died of the international community had interfered earlier? No. Neither would they have died if rich Jews had helped poor Jews get out of Germany when Hitler said they could. They didn't.
There are many thing which could have been done in order to avoid war. They were not done.
There were things which could have been done to control Saddam Hussein. They were not done.
War is only ever a sign of utter failure and a lack of moral integrity in human beings.
david,
Dresden was a crime against humanity. The Russian rape and slaughter when they entered Berlin was a crime against humanity. The allies did pretty well on the 'crimes against humanity stakes' as well.
War is not noble although noble acts may take place as a part of it. War is filthy, barbaric, cruel and always morally bankrupt.
War should only ever be a last resort and even then it is a sign of failure.
You might have a case if there were a war on this planet that had ever taken place where one side was absolutely innocent and the other side completely guilty.
It is never that simple. borders are fluid and much conflict has arisen from the wrongs of colonisation throughout the world. Even Kuwait, an artificial creation like Iraq, was seen as a target by Saddam for far more complex reasons than most people know.
The question I would like answered is why the United States spends so much on the military? Do you buy a car if you don't plan to drive it> Or a gun if you don't plan to shoot with it?
The most heavily armed, most aggressive nation on the planet today is America. The question is Why? The answer is a given.
addamo,
Yes but there is a lot of fear at work in the world these days... particularly the developed world. It is worse in America but there is greater ignorance there and while John Howard has worked hard to make Australians fearful, the Americans have been far more successful.
I think that is because the US has major literacy problems and instead of news it has infotainment. Also, the Americans are much more religious and therefore easily buy into the good and evil, God and Satan, right and wrong and Armageddon stuff.
But, the reality is that fear is very much a part of the modern world. This is something I noticed after many years living in Africa and India where people really do have things to fear like poverty, illness and war.
Returning to Australia I was always struck by the fear-mongering. Having lived in war zones I couldn't see the reason for people to have bars on their windows.... having lived in Johannesburg it almost seemed a joke.
People are encouraged to fear illness and the nanny state and media are forever advising us to have this test, don't eat this, do eat this...and then we had the Howard Government pumping up fears of invasion by refugees and attacks by terrorists.
It all becomes a bit surreal. The fact is that Australians, and anyone who lives in a developed nation has so little to fear it is not funny and yet in many ways people seem far more fearful than they are in the Third World.
Maybe we just have too much time on our hands.
david,
Perspective is all. The Nazis helped to stablise the economy and improved the quality of life for Germans. They did a lot of good things from the German perspective and in terms of government.
Their excesses are well documented. That is not the point. The point was they did not start out as bad as they became.
The signs that pointed in the direction they would possibly take were ignored both by the German people and the international community.
A bit like America today. My point was that action could have been taken earlier and should have been taken earlier.
No Government is ever all bad, certainly at the start. Even Saddam Hussein did good things. Iraqis are amongst the most highly educated of Arab nations, well they were until the invasion and occupation. Women had the greatest freedom, well they did under Saddam but no longer under the occupation.
Nothing is ever all good or all bad. That is life. I realise that you and others like you want to divide it into neat piles of good and evil but it doesn't work like that. Never did. Never will.
The capacity for good resides in those who commit acts of evil and the capacity for evil resides in those who commit acts defined as good.
A classic example of this mixed bag is the removal of Aboriginal children from their families if they were considered at risk. It was done from good intention in the main but it resulted in acts of evil at times.
Such complexities of life tend to mess with the minds of some people.
david
You didn't answer me. On your criteria, which you have posted above, it was okay then for the Germans to blow up civilians when they thought French Resistance fighters were inside?
Or would you like to explain the difference to me in terms of people fighting against occupation?
When people fight against occupation they are the army. That's the whole point. that's the only way they can fight.
Or shouldn't they fight?
david
Wasn't 'no I was just following orders' the defence from the Abu Ghraib soldieres?
You are being obtuse. Nazism as it manifested was the source of great evil.
That does not mean that everything that every Nazi did was evil nor that there were not 'good' things within it.
Just as their is evil in the actions of the US and Australia for that matter, so that does not deny the good.
Some things are evil but we need to condemn the act, not the individual. We also need to understand why 'evil' happens. In addition, at different times there are different concepts of 'evil.'
Is it evil to cause pain? Yes. Unless you are a doctor treating a patient when often it is No. Pain being a part of the process.
Is it evil to smack a child? Yes unless you are trying to stop a very small child from touching a hot fire when you could get away with a no.
Is it evil to kill? Yes, unless you are helping someone who is suffering terribly to die, as doctors and nurses often do unofficially.
The greatest evil is ignorance.
I also have better things to do.
I see you refused to answer my questions again David. No doubt because there is no answer you can give.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Apart from the following, I have nothing more to add because David's done a fine job of arguing the point.*
Regarding one of the URLs Addamo posted, the Vietnam era quote is incorrectly attributed to a special forces colonel describing the town Ben Tre. The actual quote was "we had to destroy the village in order to save it". A serviceman was quoted by journo Peter Arnett as saying this regarding the flattening of a village believed to be harbouring VC. Trouble is, the quote is bogus. Everyone around him at the time remembers the soldier saying something much more like "it was a shame we had to destroy the village", and there is no video or audio proof that such a statement was ever made. To believe an adult would utter such an obvious contradiction displays a fervent credulity of anything that shows American forces in a bad light - no matter how ridiculous.
However, there are plenty of credulous people around, and the phrase has sunk into popular culture, destined to be abused and moulded into any anti-American diatribe or trimmed to fit any scenario where American forces are involved.
*Incidentally, DBO, David did provide clear and absolute refutations of Addamo's claims that the US violated the Geneva convention in Iraq. In response, he got opinions, conjectures and a bunch of URLs linking to dubious quality op-eds. Nothing concrete.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
It's an issue of the credibility of the websites you source from, Addamo. When you link to articles posted by people with a blatant axe to grind, then yes, I do think you could have found a better source and I will discount its validity markedly. No where did I assert that the only credible links come from the mainstream media - the word I mentioned was "quality". Do you think the MSM is a symbol of quality? Do you think some of the conspiracy- theorising, paranoia, ideologically blinded websites you sometimes choose to lift info from are symbols of quality? Also, if you're honest, you'd admit you too would discount the credibility of my source if I utilised the above kind of websites from the other side of the fence, huh? How's that for realistic?
As for David's argument - I must concede that I only read the first few fusillades between you, DBO et al and him. During that time I have to say he made mincemeat of you all. Addamo was reduced, for the time in question, to conjecture, opinion and dubious URLs (as I said earlier). DBO was blethering on about something that I don't care to remember. David, on the other hand, actually used the Geneva Convention document as his source and pointed out where and how those that opposed him were wrong to assert the USA has some policy of ignoring the rules of war. In regards to the latter posts in the discussion - well, I lost interest. So I suppose I should make it clear that I'm only talking about what I've read.
Another major misconception to clear up - you'll love this, DBO - Saddam was never a particularly close American ally, despite the erroneous assertions of some commenters here. He was a tangential ally for a relatively short period of time. He was such an insignificant ally that the US sold arms to both Iraq and Iran during the war between those two countries. And if you're interested, no I don't have a problem with this.
Addamo - did you find the fact about the phoney "we had to destroy the village to save it" quote interesting?
"You seem to think this is just a phenomenon that afflicts the left."
Not at all, as I plainly stated in my last post - if I used the ranty right wing sources (ie, they exist) to provide some factual basis for a claim you would probably - and certainly should - cry foul.
"you are the first to demand links from those you are debating."
Sorry - where have I done this recently? I may have asked for some proof for a claim I fing particularly outlandish, but to say I "am the first to demand links" is obviously incorrect. I demand evidence to back up assertions. As you do and should.
"seeing as you use links very sparingly"
I believe I use them appropriately.
"So you? Based on the performance of the past 4 years, you would be daft to suggest it."
That's not the point I was driving at - I was making clear that it was you who jumped to the conclusion that I was referring to the MSM. Also, there is still plenty of worthy content to be found in the MSM.
"David’s idea of debate was sticking to his guns that the existence of these documents in itself was proof that the US has not flouted the Geneva Conventions."
Take what you consider to be an American warcrime - the engagement of civilian buildings in Fallujah. David pulls a quote from the Geneva Convention stating that if the enemy utilises a civilian building during hostilities, the building loses its GC protections. You claim this to be irrelevant - the Americans did what they did to avoid bad PR. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. It's still a strawman. There's obviously a degree of interpretation of motives, but on a literal reading, the Americans didn't break the Geneva convention in this case. David was right about that, but you countered with your analysis of the US's motives and a WSWS (oh, come on, you can surely find better than that!) URL. Both of which mean nothing to the overarching truth that David made clear - the civilian buildings the terrorists were holed up in lost their Geneva Convention protection. And thus were legitimate targets. No warcrime.
"Yes I did and I stand corrected."
I apologise - I wasn't trying to be pedantic by asking that question. I genuinely thought it interesting because it's such an oft-mentioned quote.
I too enjoy these discussions.
"What straw man? By denying medical aid to the Fallujans..."
But that wasn't the example I was talking about. I was talking about the example where you claimed the US had contravened the GC by attacking civilian buildings like hospitals. Anyway, I think you've missed the point. I was saying that you retaliated against David's QED refutation of your claim about the US breaking the GC by targeting hospitals - which you responded to with a bunch of irrelevant conjecture. Here, you're doing it again; shifting the goalposts by bringing in irrelevant information to the point at hand. If you want to open a new discussion about a different point, fine. But you need to compare apples with apples.
A few other thoughts -
"it was knows to all that the primary targets had already left Flalujah prior to the commencement of the attack"
No, that's not right according to your source - for starters, I don't see anywhere (credible) stating Zarwaqi was the major goal leading up to the attack on Fallujah. However, it's possible he may have been a target - albeit an overarching one not specific to this attack - the Americans probably figured there was a chance he was still in the city, and the potential to capture/kill him was raised. So he may well have been a target. That's tar-get. Not plural, like you claim. Nor is there any proof from your source that the Americans knew he'd left the city prior to the attack. Even if they did know, it would be immaterial if the main aim was to wrest control of the city from the insurgents, which is (going on what I've gleaned from a brief Wikipedia/Google search) what the sane analysts claim.
That globalsecurity.org site* you quoted from also seems to disagree with you about denying medical aid to citizens; it clearly states that a hospital taken early on in the conflagration was kept open to handle injured civilians. So your assertion that the Americans denied medical aid to the Fallujans is starting to look pretty wobbly. Which makes me wonder - how do the rest of your claims, which you assert "there is no debate about", stack up in light of this inconsistency?
*Now that's the kind of quality site I'm talking about when sourcing info. No discernable bias. A good source. WSWS etc are really bad sources when it comes to impartiality and the information contained there will only be accepted by members of the choir. When refuting my argument, would you accept analysis or facts that from me that I'd dug up from a website like Ann Coulter's (or similar)? There's my point.
"OK, so I take it that what you're saying is that if my sources were reputable, you would agree with me. "
No, you've completely missed the point. You use a lot of conjecture when arguing your case, and more often than not it's a very activist-type left wing analysis you offer. That's fine - if you can support it with some firm evidence. Even if you do argue your case well and have good solid evidence to back it up, that doesn't necessarily mean I'll agree with you. Your source/s - despite its credibility - may have missed points that I believe are important. I may also think that you've misinterpreted your source. Sometimes you may have a killer source that might make me stop and say - okay, I accept that. But there's no guarantee of this. My original point about the flaky sources you often post to support your analysis is that you're wasting your time posting them, because I'll discount them entirely. And I'd expect you to do the same thing if I, when arguing my position, starting quoting those righty folks and sources the left loves to hate. Axe-grinding sources are worthless. Incidentally, if I'm supposed to accept you're right if only you post credible sources when backing up your statements, does this mean that when I post a whole lot of rebuttals to things you've previously said (like I did above) and you don't deal with these rebuttals, you're tacitly admitting I am right regarding them?
"As far as Zarqawi goes, the Fallujah campaign was being marketted very much under the banner of getting Zarqawi."
Really? Sounds like editorial spin to me, considering the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. From that same article you linked to:
"We have come close to Zarqawi before. But our main priority was not Zarqawi, it was defeating the insurgents for the people of Fallujah."
Which is precisely what I said in a previous comment. So yes, I can deny that because - once again - you're inserting your conjecture and treating it as fact. Even the Guardian quote you posted agrees with my analysis -
"are determined to clear insurgents, most notably Zarqawi, from Falluja to allow elections to take place in Iraq in January." (my emphasis added)
Of course if Zarqawi was there, they would have arrested or killed him. But do you truly, seriously think that the Americans thought they had a hope of catching Zarqawi - considering they gave Fallujan residents advanced warning of the attack so they could leave? Do you truly believe that the Americans thought Zarqawi would be so dumb as to stick around? Of course they would have arrested him if he was there. But they must have known he would leave town. That's why they said they wanted to clear the city of insurgents - most notably Zarqawi, because he's such a high profile figure.
Regarding your yahoo news source, it is inconclusive if you're aiming to prove that the Americans broke the GC. The Americans clearly stated that the women they detained were enemy combatants (which, as the wives of insurgents, wouldn't be that far fetched). I agree - this might not be the case, and maybe they were using them as bait. But maybe they weren't. You or I will never know. Point is, you can't use that as evidence that the US broke the GC there, because you can't prove anything. You're relying on your instinctive distrust of American military action to make this logical leap of faith.
I think that the MSM is biased - some for the war and the American administration and some against. It's all relative - some are more biased than others. I don't think it's possible to find a completely unbiased source. If you provided me with a strong source (not necessarily MSM) that presented a scenario that left little doubt in my mind of impropriety committed by American troops, then of course I would condemn such impropriety. But you haven't provided me with such an article. Take the Yahoo one you posted. There is a good possibility that the women held were not enemy combatants. There's also a good possibility they were. So, even though an Iraqi commission decided that the women were not enemy combatants, I am not convinced. Who sits on the commission? How impartial is it? What are its motivations, its interests? Is it like an Australian senate committee? Because I discount their findings wholesale all the time. So I am not going to pass judgement on the strength of this article because I think the evidence presented by both sides is inconclusive. You got me?
As for the globalsecurity site, I haven't seen much evidence of editorialising there. It seems pretty dispassionate. I'd say it's a credible source.
Yikes, Addamo, I thought you were in a hurry :)
"you are assuming that the status quo (i.e. pro war position) is commanding the middle ground"
Not at all. I'm just not instinctively suspicious of American military action. I'll admit that I'm more likely to assume that the US military does the right thing - however I wouldn't say that they *always* do the right thing.
Regarding the specific instance of David's argument that I used (the one about the US targeting of hospitals in Fallujah being a war crime), he didn't provide links to justify his case - he gave a QED answer of why targeting hospitals in that particular circumstance wasn't against the GC.
"how are we to believe that any significant number of fighters remained behind"
I imagine by the reception the Americans received when they rolled into Fallujah?
"Are you now saying that Zarqawi was smart enough to get out of harms way, but he other insurgents were not?"
Oh come on, Addamo. The insurgency is not a loose coalition of free agents working together whilst it suits them. It's a militant organisation with a chain of command. Zarwaqi left Fallujah because the movement wouldn't take the risk of his capture - because he's their leader. They need him in the field. He's much more important than the footsoldiers. Do you think that Rommel and Monty duked it out on their respective frontlines in Africa? Of course not. For the same reason, Zarwaqi left Fallujah whilst other insurgents stayed behind to defend it. And why wouldn't they? They probably thought they had a pretty good chance of repelling the Americans - they'd done it before when Vigilant Resolve petered out.
Fallujah was heavy shit for the Americans - the casualty rate proves that. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe this was inflicted by a small unorganised rabble of those "seeking personal vengeance against the US, or those remaining behind to defend their property."
"Either the GC say it’s legal to do this with the wives of enemy combatants or it’s not."
I suppose it comes down to the information they hold. I wouldn't be surprised if they did hold useful knowledge of various details of enemy combatants - if so then their capture and interrogation seems justifiable. And I'd imagine legal. Though perhaps David could help me out on this one - he seems to know a lot about the LOAC.
However, maybe they were used as bait. This could be the case - there is motive for such action and it might work. The same can be said for the other side of the argument. I suppose it comes down to who you (don't) believe, because we will never know for sure in this instance. That's why it's not a conclusive example of a warcrime.
"it’s a matter of 2+2=4"
It is if you view American military conduct suspiciously.
"While the US has recently argued that WP is not a chemical weapon, the Pentagon referred to WP as a chemical weapon when Saddam allegedly used it against the Kurds."
I think the difference lies in how it's used.
"The US Army Field Manual specifically prohibits the use of WP against human targets"
This requires a deeper explanation. Of course WP is going to be used against human targets - they aren't going to set it off just for the pretty fireworks. It comes down to *how* it's used against human targets. I'm sure that it's permissable to use it as a shock device - which is what the Americans stated they used it as - to scare the insurgents out of their holes where they can be killed with conventional devices (I'm failing to see a great distinction here, but anyway...). There is no conclusive evidence that they fired it into crowds of enemy combatants with the aim of incapacitating them.
"But hopefully you got my dilemma also."
Yes, it is a dilemma.
"If you consider it legitimate, then percetion will differnt dramatically from one who regrds the occupation as illgal."
I'm not sure it comes down to the legitimacy of the occupation, rather more the conduct of American armed forces. I'm more inclined to think they act within the confines of acceptable standards of warfare. You apparently see things differently. As always, evidence can be led one way or another.
"Actually no. They are very much comprised of dispersed pockets, which is why the US military has had come a difficult time infiltrating them. The fact that there is no chain of command has frustrated the coalitions efforts to divide and conquer them"
AND
"Zarqawi is a figurehead at best. He is not issuing orders or commands of any kind"
This is somewhat irrelevant to the case in point - ie. why Zarwaqi would flee and other insurgents would stay and fight. Seems pretty logical to me - an insurgent that never engages the enemy isn't much of an insurgent, eh? And a city like Fallujah strikes me as a theatre that would level the odds considerably in favour of insurgents, who would know the town far better than the Americans. Your point about Zarwaqi does nothing to support your assertion that the forces the Americans were fighting were simply disgruntled residents. The ferocity of the fighting and the American casualty rate would suggest a trained, specialised enemy, not a bunch of pissed off citizens.
"In fact, they warned that Arab reporters would be shot."
Where? By whom? Reliable, non conspiracy-theorising source please.
"The fact that Mosul fell almost immediately after the assault on Fallujah is evidence that the co-ordinated element of the resistance (what there was of one) had already moved on."
Huh? That doesn't make sense. Who was defending Fallujah, then? Maybe Mosul fell so quickly because so many insurgents had been killed in Fallujah? I think the official number is approx 1200. Dead men don't move on to defend other towns. Unless you believe in ghosts, that is.
"The US destroyed 30-40 thousand homes during the assault on Fallujah. "
Eh? How could they have destroyed so many homes? That would constitute a thumping majority of dwellings in the town with an estimated prewar population of 350 000, according to Wikipedia. Wikipedia also claims that between 7000-10000 of the town's circa 50000 buildings were destroyed. This is a lot, but I don't know where you're getting the 30-40000 homes figure from. It was buildings, not homes, and it wasn't 30-40000. That also puts paid to your "home defenders" theory of resistance.
Post a Comment
<< Home