  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
DIG DIRECTOR
Nir Rosen is a fellow at the New America Foundation and a free-lance writer. His book on postwar Iraq, "In the Belly of the Green Bird: The Triumph of the Martyrs in Iraq" was published by Free Press in May 2006.
His articles from Iraq and elsewhere are available on www.nirrosen.com.
|
|
|||||||
The Occupation of Iraqi Hearts and MindsA Dig led by Nir RosenEditor’s note: Truthdig contributor Nir Rosen, an American reporter who has lived for the last three years in Iraq and who can pass as Middle Eastern, describes what it’s like to live under the boot of a culturally callous—and sometimes criminal—occupying force in Iraq. “The occupation has been one vast extended crime against the Iraqi people, and most of it has occurred unnoticed by the American people and the media.”
Three years into an occupation of Iraq replete with so-called milestones, turning points and individual events hailed as “sea changes” that would “break the back” of the insurgency, a different type of incident received an intense, if ephemeral, amount of attention. A local human rights worker and aspiring journalist in the western Iraqi town of Haditha filmed the aftermath of the massacre of 24 Iraqi civilians. The video made its way to an Iraqi working for Time magazine, and the story was finally publicized months later. The Haditha massacre was compared to the Vietnam War’s My Lai massacre, and like the well-publicized and embarrassing Abu Ghraib scandal two years earlier, the attention it received made it seem as if it were a horrible aberration perpetrated by a few bad apples who might have overreacted to the stress they endured as occupiers. In reality both Abu Ghraib and Haditha were merely more extreme versions of the day-to-day workings of the American occupation in Iraq, and what makes them unique is not so much how bad they were, or how embarrassing, but the fact that they made their way to the media and were publicized despite attempts to cover them up. Focusing on Abu Ghraib and Haditha distracts us from the daily, little Abu Ghraibs and small-scale Hadithas that have made up the occupation. The occupation has been one vast extended crime against the Iraqi people, and most of it has occurred unnoticed by the American people and the media. Americans, led to believe that their soldiers and Marines would be welcomed as liberators by the Iraqi people, have no idea what the occupation is really like from the perspective of Iraqis who endure it. Although I am American, born and raised in New York City, I came closer to experiencing what it might feel like to be Iraqi than many of my colleagues. I often say that the secret to my success in Iraq as a journalist is my melanin advantage. I inherited my Iranian father’s Middle Eastern features, which allowed me to go unnoticed in Iraq, blend into crowds, march in demonstrations, sit in mosques, walk through Falluja’s worst neighborhoods. I also benefited from being able to speak Arabic—in particular its Iraqi dialect, which I hastily learned in Baghdad upon my arrival and continued to develop throughout my time in Iraq. My skin color and language skills allowed me to relate to the American occupier in a different way, for he looked at me as if I were just another haji, the “gook” of the war in Iraq. I first realized my advantage in April 2003, when I was sitting with a group of American soldiers and another soldier walked up and wondered what this haji (me) had done to get arrested by them. Later that summer I walked in the direction of an American tank and heard one soldier say about me, “That’s the biggest fuckin’ Iraqi (pronounced eye-raki) I ever saw.” A soldier by the gun said, “I don’t care how big he is, if he doesn’t stop movin’ I’m gonna shoot him.” I was lucky enough to have an American passport in my pocket, which I promptly took out and waved, shouting: “Don’t shoot! I’m an American!” It was my first encounter with hostile American checkpoints but hardly my last, and I grew to fear the unpredictable American military, which could kill me for looking like an Iraqi male of fighting age. Countless Iraqis were not lucky enough to speak American English or carry a U.S. passport, and often entire families were killed in their cars when they approached American checkpoints. In 2004 the British medical journal The Lancet estimated that by September 2004 100,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the American occupation and said that most of them had died violently, mostly in American airstrikes. Although this figure was challenged by many, especially partisans of the war, it seems perfectly plausible to me based on what I have seen in Iraq, having spent most of the postwar period there. What I never understood was why more journalists did not focus on this, choosing instead to look for the “good news” and go along with the official story. My first direct encounter with American Marines was from the Iraqi side. In late April 2003, I was attending the Friday prayers in a Sunni bastion in Baghdad. Thousands of people were praying and the devout flooded out of the mosque and laid their prayer rugs on the street and the square in front of it. A Marine patrol rounded a corner and walked right into hundreds of people praying on the street and listening to the sermon, even approaching the separate section for women. Dozens of men rose and put their shoes on, forming a virtual wall to block the armed Marines, who seemed unaware of the danger. The Marines did not understand Arabic. “Irjau!” “Go back!” the demonstrators screamed, and some waved their fists, shouting “America is the enemy of God!” as they were restrained by a few cooler-headed men from within their ranks. I ran to advise the Marines that Friday prayers was not a good time to show up fully armed. The men sensed this and asked me to tell their lieutenant, who appeared oblivious to the public relations catastrophe he might be provoking. He told me: “That’s why we’ve got the guns.”
A nervous soldier asked me to go explain the situation to the bespectacled staff sergeant, who had been attempting to calm the situation by telling the demonstrators, who did not speak English, that the U.S. patrol meant no harm. He finally lost his temper when an Iraqi told him gently, “You must go.” “I have the weapons,” the sergeant said. “You back off.” “Let’s get the fuck out!” one Marine shouted to another as the tension increased. I was certain that a shove, a tossed stone or a shot fired could have provoked a massacre and turned the city violently against the American occupation. Finally the Marines retreated cautiously around a corner as the worshipers were held back by their own comrades. It could have ended worse, and a week later it did when 17 demonstrators were killed by American soldiers in Falluja, and several more were killed in a subsequent demonstration, a massacre that contributed to the city’s support of the resistance. I believe that any journalist who spent even a brief period embedded with American soldiers must have witnessed crimes being committed against innocent Iraqis, so I have always been baffled by how few were reported and how skeptically the Western media treated Arabic reports of such crimes. These crimes were not committed because Americans are bad or malicious; they were intrinsic to the occupation, and even if the Girl Scouts had occupied Iraq they would have resorted to these methods. In the end, it is those who dispatched decent young American men and women to commit crimes who should be held accountable.
Dig last updated on Jun. 27, 2006Advertisement
Elsewhere: .
CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
Comment Pages:
«1
2
»
By M Henri Day, July 24, 2006 at 11:44 am # I expected to be outraged by Nir Rosen’s report, but to my surprise, I found myself profoundly saddened instead. If this is what big-brained H sapiens sapiens is all about - and if you don’t think so, perhaps you need to take a longer, harder look in the mirror - perhaps it’s just as well that by the look of things, our species won’t be around so very much longer. Pity, though, that we seem to be taking so many other species who don’t share our particular capacity for screwing things up on a major scale with us....
By skyreader7, July 22, 2006 at 11:29 pm # A Little Question Which one of these men did not achieve a solution to a large world or national problem through peaceful means? A. Mahatma Gandhi B. Nelson Mandela C. Martin Luther King, Jr. D. George W. Bush Gosh, you can solve problems through peaceful means? Of course, if your motivation is greed and power, you might not want peace. It’s all about the motivation.
By Bukko in Australia, July 22, 2006 at 1:17 am # I realise I’m a bit late to the discussion, but add me to the people thanking you for printing this. My pulse is racing and my breathing is shallow due to my horror after reading this. I’m an American who emigrated to Australia because my wife and I couldn’t stay in the U.S. with clean consciences any more because of the atrocities that were being committed with our tax dollars. It wasn’t easy leaving a middle-aged, middle-class life behind. Stories like this affirm our decision. Good onya to all the people who are concerned about the horrors being done. I’d say shame to the ones who defend this intimidation and murder, but they have no shame.
By Blueboy1938, July 21, 2006 at 11:22 am # Fadal Abdallah has apparently forgotten that one group of passengers did risk immediate death in order to prevent the plane they were on from doing damage, apparently intended to flatten the U. S. Capitol building. One must remember that, until the second plane hit the second World Trade Center Tower, no one had yet figured out that there was a multi-pronged terror attack in progress. It is to the immense credit of those brave passengers on United 93 that they did figure it out, put aside their personal fears, formed a plan, and courageously carried it out. Minimizing the threat of “mere box cutters” to un-armed people in such dire circumstances is unworthy. Oh, re: my last post: it was Caruso that last recorded on September 20, 1920.
By Fadel Abdallah, July 20, 2006 at 5:47 pm # To Janice A. # 14474: You’re vey smart Janice. You’re one of the few thousands in America and around the world who believe 9/11 was an inside evil job, to create the atmosphere of fear in preparation for the the trauma and mind control you talked about. I simply could not believe and will never belive that some people living in caves and constantly on the run, could have carried out such sophisticated operation. This is not to say that Al-Qaeda had not enough hate for America to attempt hurting it in a big way when they could; but from a scientific point of view, know-how and sophisticated human resources, they did not have that, and no small group of enemies will ever have what it takes to prepare and carry on such operation. And imagined that!! The hijackers had only box-cutters as their weapons! From all those on board the highjacked planes, wasn’t there a few courageous enough who were willing to get injured and possibly die to prevent a bigger disaster?!!
By Blueboy1938, July 20, 2006 at 11:23 am # Well, Janice A, so far, after checking several sites, what I’ve been able to come up with for September 16, 1920, (in addition to: “Enrico Caruto made his last recording for Victor Records.") is: “[9- 16 -1920]—US: Bomb explosion outside the J.P. Morgan Company on NY’s Wall Street kills 30, injures over 100, & does $2 million worth of damage in the ensuing fire which destroyed Morgan’s offices. Authorities blame “anarchists,” many who subsequently flee to Russia.” http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/AnarchistTimeline3.htm Is that what you are referring to? If so, it looks like the “obvious” answer to your question is: Unspecified “anarchists,” some of whom apparently fled to Russia. So, I guess that also puts some indirect blame on the new Bolshevik regime there. What do you think?
By Janice A., July 20, 2006 at 6:48 am # 9/11 was a false flag operation, to get the American people full of fear....a bit of trauma and mind control. The government should prove they and the ones benefitting from the deed DID NOT do it. History repeats itself, 9/16/1920. What was covered up then and who benefitted? People who lie and keep ‘secrets’ have much to hide.
By zenseeker, July 20, 2006 at 6:45 am # Take a look at the new flash game Slap Newt Gingrich before he starts WW3, and there is also a great say no to war flash presentation at http://zenwire.com/flashmedia.php
By Mother of US SPecial Forces Soldier, July 17, 2006 at 11:16 am # And so it goes ON and ON......tick .... tick tick..tick.tick !!!! Sincerely, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2 006/07/16/AR2006071600774.html?nav=rss_world Corruption Cited in Iraq’s Oil Industry By Walter Pincus U.S. Comptroller General David M. Walker told Congress last week that “massive corruption” and “a lot of theft going on” in Iraq’s government-controlled oil industry is hampering the country’s ability to govern itself. “It took me about, you know, a second and a half to realize that, obviously, there was massive corruption going on, because the numbers just didn’t add up,” Walker said, referring to a trip he took to Iraq this year in which he was shown figures on oil production and revenue. He said about 10 percent of Iraq’s refined fuels and 30 percent of its imported fuels are being stolen, in part because the subsidized Iraqi price of gasoline, about 44 cents a gallon, is less than half the regional price of 90 cents a gallon. “That provides a tremendous incentive to be able to steal these fuels and be able to sell them for whatever purposes, corruption or otherwise,” Walker said. Walker noted that oil production, which was to provide prime support to the new government, is below prewar production and distribution levels, complicated by the insurgency and difficulties in maintaining the aging oil infrastructure. Another GAO official, Joseph Christoff, director of international affairs and trade, pointed out that the Iraqi budget is paying for “what some could contend to be a bloated bureaucracy, primarily because oftentimes you don’t know who is working in the different ministries—there are ghost employees.” Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), chairman of the subcommittee on national security, said the hearing was held to determine “whether we had and have a strategy and to what extent that strategy is meeting the needs of our engagement in Iraq.” The GAO report criticized the administration’s strategy for not identifying which U.S. agencies are responsible for implementation, for not integrating U.S. goals and objectives with the Iraqi government and for failing to identify future costs. James Jeffrey of the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs also testified at the hearing. “The organization roles have been as clear as I have ever seen,” he said, but he acknowledged, “Of course there are disputes.” He said the GAO was correct in saying that “we haven’t been able to align our goals, our resources and such fully with the Iraqis,” but he added: “That’s because we have not had a long-term Iraqi government.” He said the reconstruction program, which involved the Defense Department, the State Department and the Agency for International Development, was, at $21.9 billion, “the largest . . . since the Marshall Plan.” He said that prewar assumptions that “there would be a permissive security environment that would allow reconstruction to go forward” turned out to be wrong along with the estimate “that the Iraqi government would make important contributions to the reconstruction effort.” As a result, Jeffrey said, “we shifted billions of dollars from longer-term infrastructure into shorter-term projects—primarily security, but also democracy programs.” But “without security,” he said, “you really can’t do anything or enough on the political and economic tracks. However . . . the solution to the security situation is not military but political.” Walker’s GAO report criticized the administration’s failure to identify “current and future costs” or “the sources of funding needed to achieve U.S. political security and economic objectives in Iraq.” The report concludes that neither the Defense Department nor Congress “can reliably determine the costs of the war, nor do they have details on how appropriated funds are being spent or historical data useful in considering future funding needs.” He said it costs about $1.5 billion a week for U.S. military operations, reconstruction and support for Iraqi forces. Walker said that although the administration “has resisted for several years providing cost estimates longer than one year in advance, there is a basis to come up with some estimates.” The Congressional Budget Office last week released its estimate of potential spending requirements for Iraq in the fiscal years 2007 to 2016 based on scenarios where there was either a rapid or slow drawdown of U.S. forces. In the case of rapid withdrawal—troops out by 2009—the CBO estimated an additional $166 billion would be needed for military operations, on top of $290 billion already allocated. For a slower withdrawal, where 40,000 troops stay through 2016, it would cost $368 billion, said the CBO.
By Friedenschaffen, July 17, 2006 at 8:55 am # Excellent response by iraqvet on the matter of the US in Iraq. #14017 Any nation hoping to have a US style democracy has to understand that the cash layout for acquiring all of those Diebold vote-rigging machines is not going to be chicken feed. At present it appears that generally speaking, folks were better off under Saddam (some were, some were not, like always in politics), along with the entire Middle East. He committed various alleged atrocities, right? Maybe, maybe not, how can you believe anything anymore? Murderous regime? What do they have now? Compared to what? Stalin? http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html In any case, it was an internal matter and the reasons given for the invasion are all phony. In Guatemala, around 1956, the US did the flip side, dumped a legitimate head (ako Hugo Chavez), and installed a dictator for the benefit of the United Fruit Company. All depends on what is good for US business interests. (Of course, this practice has never stopped.) Oh, the benefits are not handed down to the folks (minimum wage constant), but rather the CEO and buddies get a raise. What is an atrocity? Confusing. Was it classified as “military” when the Germans were sending V2 Bombs into London in WWII? Like terrorists (versus soldiers), “atrocities” is convenient when it suits. Seems like when one is blown to smithereens, it’s all the same. The words terrorist and atrocity had not yet been invented when the Partisans were mutilating German soldiers trying to escape back to Germany from the Eastern Front. Korean War Vet
By iraqvet, July 16, 2006 at 12:28 pm # As a veteran, I wanted to comment on John’s post # 13294 **John, you said : “In regards to comment #13408 by Paul Kibble, I’m still noticing how you liberals fail to mention the atrocities committed on a daily basis by the insurgents while condemning the U.S. military for a few sporadic incidents” First, I’m not a liberal and second, this is childs logic. Just because the evil enemy does something, does that mean we have to do it also? We expect evil people to commit atrocities, we also expect the American military to behave with honor, even in the face of atrocity. **You also said: “Now, about how the war is being fought. Maybe it is just my common sense, but I don’t know if I would walk down to the New York Times and tell them how to print a newspaper. They’ve been doing it since 1851, and they are probably pretty good at it by now. So, I’m not real sure where all you liberals that have never served a day in the military come in criticizing the warfighting ability of an institution that has existed for over 200 years for one purpose: to fight wars. Sure, you might have a couple of liberal ex-generals toeing your line. That could be the reason they are ex-generals. “ Your logic is completely flawed on this. First, the newspaper is a private entity, the military are PUBLIC SERVANTS who swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. We are not a law unto ourselves, we have a code of conduct and rules we are to follow. You are using the presidents tyrannical interpretation of war as a license to do as you see fit and worse, insinuating that only the military can tell the military how to behave. We saw what this administration did to anyone in the military who was not a bootlicking sycophant, they showed them the door. Do you really expect, in this sort of climate, we will have any real objective review from within? It’s sad when a man has to wait to retire before he can voice a criticism because the president and his administration are notorious for vincitively abusing their power to retaliate against those who tell the truth. **You also said: “Now, I’m finding it very very interesting that liberals are dropping the hammer on the Republicans over the war on terror, and Iraq in particular. I guess the collective memory of liberals doesn’t reach back far enough to remember that there were Democratic presidents in office that got us into World War 2, Korea, and Vietnam. World War 2, I can forgive Roosevelt for that one. Now, I’d like to hear the liberal justification for Korea and Vietnam, oh, and guess what guys? Since Bush catches the rap for all the atrocities committed by a few deranged joes in Iraq, the Democrats get to take credit for everything in Korea and Vietnam, to include the huge casualty count suffered by the Americans. “ This is more childs logic John, you are attempting to excuse Bush’s lying us into the Iraq invasion by simply saying “the liberals did it too”. Sorry John, wrong is still wrong, just because liberals did it doesn’t make it right. **You said: “As to comment #13387 by Hallelujah Jones, I can assure you, they are cowards. Met any of them lately? I didn’t think so.” This comment makes me question whether you are one of those 18Xray SF soldiers, a kid who has no actual experience, little education or experience on the art of war and think that the SF tab makes them consumate experts on war when in fact you are a rank amateur. Having survived combat does not make you an expert on war John, it makes you a veteran. An expert is one who is both practiced AND is a perpetual student of his art. Actually John, having been there, I did “meet” them or at least dealt with them and the results of their operations. John, do you have the guts to blow yourself up for a cause you believe in? The quickest way to get beaten in a fight is to not respect the capabilities of your enemies. calling people who are fanatical and will die for what they believe in “cowards” is foolish. I heard soldiers accuse the enemy of cowardice from time to time, they were frustrated at fighting guerilla war which TE Lawrence likened to “eating soup with a fork”. They believed that the guerillas should come out in the open and fight againt our armor, tanks, aircraft and massive firepower with light arms. You must have been asleep during your guerilla warfare training. The objective for the guerilla force is not just to kill the enemy, it is to make him react in such a way that the local populace will rise up against him and conversely, support the guerillas. Mao said that the guerilla is a fish and the people are his ocean. Clearly they are achieving that objective in spades, they know exactly how to push our buttons and get us to over-react. **You also said: “comments on the cowardly nature of Bush and Cheney, perhaps you should look in the mirror. Since I’m noticing you aren’t in uniform and in combat, perhaps calling the president and vice president cowards is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.” First, this is rathe bizarre John; it would be like saying that until you vote for John Kerry, send in a large campaign contribution to the DNC and work on the Kerry re-election campaign, you can not call Kerry a liberal. Further, neither Bush or Cheney have ever been in combat and the only time GW was in uniform was to be in the Texas Air National Guard specifically to avoid service in Viet Nam (Texas was one of several states that declared they would NOT send troops to VietNam). I’ve been in uniform and i’ve been in combat. They are cowards John, let me assure you. Worse still, they are America hating traitors who despise the Constitution and have contempt for the military. Didn’t you ever question why we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq and yet a pittance of it goes to things like adequate armor for the vehicles? Didn’t you ever wonder why we had shortages of body armor, indeed shortages of everything imaginable? These things could be rectified for less than a billion dollars and yet they are consistently ignored. John, just because a politician says something doesnt’ make it the truth. How sad that you are so easily swayed by flag waving symbolism and don’t look for a shred of substance. Although I don’t support Kerry because I hate liberals, I have to say that Kerry VOLUNTEERED to serve in Swift boats in VIET NAM while Bush was AWOL in Texas. Kerry has a Silver Star and 3 purple hearts and despite malicious accusations by paid partisan hacks, no credible proof has been offered that he did not earn them (else they would have been revoked). ***You said: “By “morally brave” you must mean those who would rather desert than serve. Fine. Let them go. I don’t want a quitter with me. John you have confused the courage of ones convictions with cowardice, they are vastly different. I’ve seen soldiers who claimed Conscientious Objector status simply to get out of a deployment or to get out of the military. But when a soldier has to go to prison and have his life ruined with a felony conviction for standing on his principles, I call that courage. I am saddened to see people with such virtue railroaded out of the military because the president and his cronies committed us to an immoral invasion of a country that was no threat to us. And quitting isn’t a bad thing. If you accidentally shoot yourself in the foot, are you a quitter because you stop doing it? Doing something stupid, repeatedly and endlessly isn’t courage John it’s arrogant pig headed stupidity. It is immoral cowardice when that activity hurts someone else. **And here you go again: “I figured I would save the best for last. To quote you directly: “defending their country and their own people from an evil, raping, looting, murderous, criminal invading army.” Now, genius, do you really think the Iraqi people were better off when Saddam was in power?”
By Friedenschaffen, July 16, 2006 at 8:31 am # Response to 13986. Blueboy:intended “semantic issues” (was sloppy typing) but “issues, semantically” is better.
By Tim, July 16, 2006 at 6:33 am # In response to Comment # 13846: It is true that the current US military force is not the largest in history in terms of men in arms. But in terms of fire power, it is most likely true. The US spends almost as much on “defense” as all the other nations combined. The fiscal year 2007 budget request for defense was nearly 500 billion (half a trillion) dollars. Iraq’s defense budget was abour $2 billion at the time of the invasion.
By Blueboy1938, July 16, 2006 at 6:29 am # Well, Friedenshaffen, here I go again, raising “semantically issues” - or did you mean, “issues, semantically” - or maybe, “semantic issues” - once again regarding this statement by you: “Curiously, the Bolsheviks were very unpopular, for example in the Ukraine, and would have welcomed the Germans as emancipators.” What it says: “the Bolsheviks . . . , would have welcomed [etc.]” What I think you meant: “the inhabitants of Ukraine, hating the Bolshiviks . . . , would have welcomed the Germans as emancipators.” You see, semantics isn’t just “nit-picking” as you put it. It’s the basis for clear communication. Either one takes some care with it, or the meaning intended may become distorted beyond the ability of the reader to “figure out” what the writer meant. My prior little lesson about the relative size of American forces, however, was not just semantic nit-picking. It was meant to correct a matter of fact, not merely to clarify muddy writing.
By Friedenschaffen, July 15, 2006 at 7:54 am # The alleged reason for invading the Soviet Union, given by Hitler, was to gain “Lebensraum” (living space). But, simultaneously, the troops were given standing orders to have no mercy on mischief-makers, guerrillas, saboteurs, and Jews. Needless to say, the S.S., following the German army, commenced to hang folks for almost any reason, under such a mandate. Curiously, the Bolsheviks were very unpopular, for example in the Ukraine, and would have welcomed the Germans as emancipators. However, as in the present situation in Iraq, the reasons given for the war were phony.
By Friedenschaffen, July 15, 2006 at 4:59 am # Nit picking on semantically issues seems inappropriate and demeaning to the underlying theme of the article. For example, the statement “largest military force know to man” is mostly figurative and the “force” is the largest as far as destructive power is concerned. But acrimony and a dichotomy seems to characterize society in the US today, perhaps a means of venting of the frustration brought on by the “Pearl Harbor” effect. Most unfortunate when we should stand together against the sort of thing described in the ariticle.
By Asa Simmons, July 15, 2006 at 4:56 am # Does service in WWII allow opposition to the Iraqi mess? Even if one was in the Marine Corps? In my experience as a Marine, one must always critique authority objectively if one want to succeed in one’s mission. There are always plenty of biased and blind people, whose stupidity and arrogance are dangerous, so one must always thry to nullify that stupidity. At least two distinguished Marine Corps officers have published excellent critiques of fighting a guerilla war. One facts that has been known to all military people since Julius Ceasar is that they cannot be “won”, in the normal sense of the word. If one can completely isolate the population in the subject territory, so that no outside contact can exist, one can wear down the opposing fignters, if one can effectibely repulse attack. This involves winning the hearts and minds of the locals by offering them help in their own efforts to revitalize their own communities. The money given by a Marine and an Army general to local people that allowed them to rebuild local infracstucture like an electric plant is a powerful aid in winning this kind of conflict. Always! The assaults to find and eliminate possible terrorists, when one neither understands or respects the local language and culture, is a certain way to make the loss of the fight faster and more brutal. Any knowledgeable commander knows this. As Bush said (as usual misquoting things, and getting them in reverse): “They know they can’t defeat us by military means.: Of course. They also know that they can always beat us by guerilla means, just as Russia was defeated in Afghanistan, and both France and the US were defeated in Vietnam. Unfortunately, all populations contain a rather large group of people who think that violence is the best (or only) way of solving problems- especially when they feel insulted about their actions or intentions (read “manhood"). There are always hidden attitudes and agendas. Back in the 2000’s to 0 BC, the quick and final answer was always annihilation and erasure of all traces of the losers in a dispute. How much better can one prove one’s lrecrtitude than the death of those who disagree and cannot be convinced. After all, Saint Dominic understood this. After preaching to the people of Southern France and being rejected, he said (approximately): “ I have tried earnestly to convince you to accept the true religion, and you have rejected me. Therefore, I am returning to Rome. But I will return with an Army, and you will be converted”. He received the blessing of the Pope to start the seventh, and last Crusade, targeting the people of South France (who later were again assaulted militarily for not only becoming Protestants, but also almost succeeding in convincing the king to become Protestant.). On pain of torture and death, Saint Dominic succeeded in converting all who did not flee.
By Blueboy1938, July 14, 2006 at 4:49 pm # First of all, Le Stylo, the United States does not currently have the “largest military force known to man.” That would be China, and if the paramilitary forces in India are combined with the regular armed forces, they would have the second largest in terms of overall numbers. If you mean historically, the numbers under arms during WWII were far greater, with 10+ million for the U. S., 12+ million for the Soviet Union, for instance. Next, by far the bulk of the deaths and other atrocities in Iraq are being visited by Iraqis on other Iraqis of differing ethnicities in what is beginning to look a lot like a civil war, or at least an endless cycle of vengeance killing. You’re right that our armed forces are unlikely to quell this escalating violence. Of course, your proposal to arm the non-terrorist Iraqis is basically a good one, but unfortunately, the ones getting the arms are primarily Shiites, and some, not all, are using them for precisely those vengeance killings.
By Gina, July 14, 2006 at 9:07 am # The first thing we need to realise is that Iraq belongs to the Iraqi’s . IT DOES NOT BELONG to America. Second is that people in Iraq are human beings just like us. We need to leave the country now!! not in 6 months now!!! We were able to send 250, troups there in less than a week we can bring them back just as easily. We were decieved from day the military went in there to stay, construction of 14 miltary basesstarted in 2003. WHERE DID THIS lAND come from? Ordinary Iraqis are not allowed in the GREEN ZONE Sadams ex-place. So we took away places from a dictator so that Americans couuld lkive there. Imagine how this looks to The Iraqis
By Le Stylo, July 14, 2006 at 8:21 am # John writes: “Someone once asked me if I would fight Mike Tyson. I said sure, as long as he gets to play the part of the U.S. and I get to play the part of the insurgents. See, Mike would have to play by the rules of boxing. I’d bring a baseball bat, a chainsaw, and a whole array of instruments dedicated to the defeat of the enemy. I wouldn’t have to play by any rules. Anyone want to make a bet on who would win?” This is indescribably twisted logic. To intimate that the U.S. is playing by any rules at all, or that they are somehow defenceless in the face of the insurgents, is ludicrous. The U.S. continues to flout the Geneva convention at every turn. They have far and away the deadliest weapons and largest military force known to man. I have no doubt that those such as John have seen horror and atrocity committed by their enemies. It cuts both ways however. The problem is John, you needn’t be there at all - there is no “chicken and egg” argument to be made - the U.S. started this war, and kicked off the bloody cycle. It won’t stop until you leave or kill every Iraqi. Consider, as the article notes, what your reaction would be if you and your family were terrorized needlessly because of some incompetent and ignorant foreign invader who didn’t speak your language or understand your culture. You are creating enemies John. There was NO Al-queda in Irag IN Iraq until YOU invaded THEIR home. Even somebody who sympathized with your cause would be your enemy by the time you were done killing their families and terrorizing their children. Terrorists in Iraq are small in number - but you have angered an entire nation. Are they after your head now? Hell yes. I would be too, and I would use any means at my disposal. You want a fair fight? Then equip the Iraqi people - the majority that aren’t terrorists - with the same weaponry you have at your disposal, and win the war based upon having better soldiers. Until you do, don’t blame them for their choice of weapons or their tactics - it’s all they have to fight back with. Your country was BORN of a revolution that used guerrilla tactics to defeat their oppressors, so I find your comments and opinions ironic and hypocritical - reflective of your country’s administration and this folly of a war you have entred into.
By Tim, July 14, 2006 at 7:47 am # I’ve read some very well thought-out comments here, particularly Comment #13574 by David. The administration’s justifications for invading Iraq have been discredited: There were no weapons of mass destruction, and no Iraqi ties to Al Queda or 9/11. The only thing left is bringing democracy to Iraq. It sounds good on the surface: granted, Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, who beat or killed his political opponents. But what about all the other despots in the world? In Myanmar (formerly Burma), a human rights activist was imprisoned for telling citizens they had a right to refuse to be conscripted by the government for a labor project. There are other examples. Perhaps Iraq was a convenient target in an effort to divert the public’s attention from Bush’s failure to deal with Osama bin Laden and Al Queda.
By David, July 13, 2006 at 5:47 pm # In reference to John’s post # 13355. It looks like John is in enemy territory or rather a place where that “Fair and Balanced” dribble doesn’t work. I am not a liberal but rather a conservative Republican who voted for Bush in 2000. I voted for his father in 1992. I can say that you have pretty much stooped to the lowest level possible to try to win this debate. You bring up 9/11 as an excuse for a strategic blunder of catastrophic proportions in going to war in Iraq. Today the news from the Middle East is as best dire and at worst on the brink of a regional war. The world stands on the precipice of a cliff and I am one person who doesn’t want to see what is on the other side. We have destabilized the entire region (which is vital for economic stability throughout the world because of the oil). I supported going after Al Qaeda and Afghanistan but my support was not a blank check and it was not open ended. I thought a focused and narrow effort directed against the people who attacked us was smart and prudent. Unlike you I do not become a war junky. I think war should be the last resort and only should be attempted when there is a viable and direct threat. And it should be planned in a thorough and clear manner and with all of the relevant data available and with no idealogical bias. Lastly, a war should be planned with a clear timeframe and an exit strategy. As for the discussion of atrocities, how about the 14 year old Iraqi girl who was raped and murdered along with her family. As well, how about the killings in Haditha. I guess to a person like you murdering “Terrorists” is acceptable? Right? Like when we were murdering “Vietcong” in Mei Lai, Vietnam? I guess that innocent 14 year old girl was threatening our troops because otherwise they would have killed her for no reason. And that would be considered cold blooded murder and a war crime. As well, you said that the insurgents in Iraq and the Vietcong were committing atrocities and they probably were. So I guess because we are fighting an enemy who does not fight like professional soldiers we should act like them? Then we should be targeting and killing civilians. Correct? Is that what you are saying? My question to you: how do you fight for your values by shunting them aside? I beleived the garbage that was used to build support for this insanity and I will always feel guilty for that but at least I have learned from my mistake and I hope you will someday. Condemning the moron’s who started this damn war does not translate to supporting Terrorism or the Insurgents. That kind of brain dead logic does not work in the real world. Thanks
By Mother of US Special Forces Soldier, July 13, 2006 at 3:52 pm # TO the author: Comment #13294 by John STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREED However, I strongly suggest that you educate your mind relative to bills in the senate and house that have been passed. The records speak volumes: republicans are AGAINST soldiers benefits and issues. “ They plan on being as cruel and inhumane as they can, both to the Iraqis and Americans, hoping to drive us out. After all, according to the liberals, there is no way that country would collapse into chaos after we left. “ Incorrect, sadly YOU will NEVER WIN an Insurgent - civil war. NEVER. Just ask Robert Strange McNamara and or any General that reported to him directly. I did. Secondly, they are using this as a training camp. What do you think for? Don’t you realize they aren’t staying in Iraq? What do you think they will do with these skills? YOU HAVE CREATED A FINANCIAL NIGHTMARE IN THE USA and THIS WILL CAUSE DEFAULT / collapse! “country would collapse into chaos after we left. “ As for Iraq YOU WILL NEVER change anything more than the day of Saddam! And lastly but most important, I wish you a Sincerely,
By Mother of US Special Forces Soldier, July 13, 2006 at 2:41 pm # Hello RED voters: So like are YOU RED VOTERS enjoying YOUR gas prices yet? How about the YOUR food prices? Oh I see YOU have NOW realized that “the best is yet to come “ and it will soon. Can you say Zoooom in the commodity indices. And just how much do YOU think YOUR little “IN GOD WE TRUST” is going to buy the above? Do I hear rice on the menu? Yeap BUSH did a GREAT JOB! More Incompetence by the day. So open YOUR wallets another 35 % RED VOTERS as BUSH BLEEDS you dry. Tick...tick tick. Hello .....H Y P E R _ I N F L A T I O N Bye bye middle class american RED VOTERS. Just remember who planted YOU in these financial times. Bush needs a little Thank You note. Come on RED Voters pony up. As for the IED IRAQ Ritz Carlton, come on over it’s a cake wake. Just hope YOU red voters come home with ALL YOUR body parts. I’m sure YOU can mengle in with the suicide bombers that YOU have created! YOU Foolish people when will YOU realize that we have CREATED M O R E terrorists in Iraq. They have used IRAQ as a training camp and then leave to set up in other countries. Duh. Great planning! Most Sincerely Hope YOU red Voters are around for the US DEFAULT in the XXXXXX market!
By Geo1671, July 12, 2006 at 6:11 pm # God fearing nation--balony!
By Blueboy1938, July 12, 2006 at 11:44 am # Oops! Just re-read Archer’s post and must apologize for the “it’s” spelling lesson. It was spelled correctly for the possessive context.
By Blueboy1938, July 12, 2006 at 11:25 am # Just so you’ll know, Archer, the posessive of “it” is “its” while “it’s” is the contraction of “it is.” Now for your point: I believe that you’ve confused America, with Australia regarding early settlers. England did initially send some “convicts” to Australia and operated “New South Wales” as a penal colony for a time, but for the most part, the American colonists were either people of means who paid for their passage or indentured servants and apprentices who worked it off. The notable exception, of course, were the Africans brought as slaves, who could not “work off” their servitude, but were not necessarily criminals either. James Oglethorpe had originally planned to liberate people from debtors’ prison to colonize Georgia, but had abandoned that plan by the time his patent was granted, and he proceeded to hand pick a group of 116 as the initial party to settle Savannah. So it would seem that you think the religious groups that came to Plymouth in Massachusetts colony, and the Quakers that Penn brought to Pennsylvania, among others, were “natural born killers” from whom we in the U. S. all share murderous genes. How incredibly misinformed can one get?
By Osmond, July 12, 2006 at 9:00 am # Re Rick’s comment..... your question why U.S. took no military action against the Pakistan government is a valid one, although the answer to that is easy. Pakistan, under President Zia, supported al-Qaeda & Taliban with the whole-hearted support (not to mention the massive funding!) from the U.S.
By Rick, July 12, 2006 at 7:12 am # RE: Comment By John “Now, I’m interested in your definition of atrocity. Abu Ghraib? Gitmo? Damn, I went through tougher stuff during S.E.R.E. school. An atrocity is 9/11.” Yes, 9/11 was an atrocity. So why are you bemedalled buffoons in the Republican party’s pathetic military combing the internet for expressions of thought crime rather than combing the mountains of Pakistan for Osama bin Laden? Why did you not take military action against the government of Pakistan, which had been supporting al Qaeda and the Tabliban, rather than Iraq’s inept and unarmed (albeit brutal) dictator? And no, I am not a “liberal”. I guarantee that I am far more conservative than you are.
By Lucille K. Brothers, July 12, 2006 at 6:56 am # Thank you Nir, for the revelation of the true atmosphere in Iraq. Do you know anything about a young reporter named Mohammed al Zanoun who submits pictures of destruction and civilian deaths occurring in Gaza as I write? He was recently wounded by the Israeli army while taking pictures. His pictures appear with his commentaries on website: rafah.virtualactivism.net. Would it be possible for Antiwar.com to run one of his stories?
By Tim, July 12, 2006 at 6:40 am # This story illustrates an unfortunate phenomenon: With the abolishment of the draft, the military is left with the lowest intellectual element. The soldier who threatened to shoot Nir Rosen if he didn’t stop moving probably couldn’t have located Iraq on a map before he went over there. During the Vietnam war, when the draft existed, there was a prominent anti-war movement. That’s what happens when you try to force middle-class college kids to do something they don’t agree with.
By Charlie, July 12, 2006 at 5:22 am # As someone who has been to Iraq three times and spent a considerable amount of time on the ground with Iraqi families and U.S. boots on the ground (all independent, outside of the Green Zone), I can say quite clearly that this is an unmitigated disaster. The “hearts and minds” are turned against the occupation and there is no way to “win” the war. For those who claim to support the military there is only one answer. Bring them home and prosecute those who sent them in the first place.
By iraqvet, July 12, 2006 at 4:11 am # I was there as a soldier in special operations (Civil Affairs) and saw much of the same. We went out the wire every day and saw it first hand. I thank you for pointing out things which the MSM and especially the propaganda spewing ones are dutifully ignoring. Ignore the ignorant who claim that “because you aren’t a soldier, you have no right to criticize”. I’ll bet the soldier who posted such nonsense wouldn’t have a single problem complaining about police tactics if a cop roughed him up and trashed his car during a routine traffic stop, even though he is obviously not a cop. Your most salient point was that “commanders are a law unto themselves”. I saw the wannabe Pattons, Napoleons and “I am GOD” types in droves and believe they are not only criminally liable for the misdeeds of their soldiers, they should at the very least be relieved of their commands. Sadly the administration seems to condone such counter-productive behavior even though it is destroying the overall mission and the stated goals of the Commander in Chief. We were often denied security because the commander wanted to instead send his troops on “kick some ass” raids. These raids were often sent into neighborhoods that had been made safe and allied to us with much expense and effort. I will never forget the day a government building, full of loyal locals whom we had carefully vetted and installed, was trashed by a local infantry unit. Seems they saw an Iraqi with an AK-47 and went ballistic, destroying much of the property, seizing his weapon and arresting him. The S-2 had sent them into the neighborhood on nothing more than a tip. The tip was not investigated, instead it was acted upon immediately. had they investigated, they would have found it was done by a Shiite who was trying to cause trouble for the Kurds and Turcomen. The man with the AK-47 was a guard we had hired and had papers and an ID card to prove his case. The infantry unit ignored it. He never got the AK back, it apparently went up on the wall of the barracks of the infantry unit as a “war trophy”. And more importantly the soldier, John, indicates a level of ignorance that should not be allowed in specops, namely he presumes all who disagree with him are liberals (what’s next John, are we all traitors and terrorist sympathizers too?). I’m a true conservative and have been one for many years, I volunteered for Iraq and can see that it is a first class disaster, especially the occupation and rebuilding phase wihch apparently was the most poorly planned operation ever conceived for our military. The truth must be told and thank you for doing so.
By James, July 12, 2006 at 3:54 am # Hi Believe me all the people who are responsible for Iraq and Afghanistan will pay for long time to come wither they are directly involve or it’s done in their name, (have you heard of the sins of the fathers). you just need to look at the history of these two regions to know that ones could not have picked worse enemy that is near impossible to get away from even when you giving up fighting them. Oh dear, dear me you are in trouble. Try to look at the US government with open mine you might be able to see why they use their population as pawns for their self gain and arrogance......America and (subservience) your suppose protectorates is your enemy, please thinks freely. Friend..
By archers, July 12, 2006 at 3:50 am # biggest problem with Americans--they don’t teach history at all in class. To the John’s in this world----here is one history point not to overlook---Europe dumped all it’s most violent prisoners and gathered alll the prostitutes--into America. It’s in the Genes johnny boy--born Baby Killers. It’s not as if we don’t have a history. When the paras moved into Camp Price just outside Gereshk in May and their commander had his first meeting with local officials, it took the Afghans just 10 minutes to bring up the battle of Maiwand. One of the worst defeats ever suffered by the British Army in which more than 1,000 men were slaughtered by the side of the Helmand River, the battle may have happened in 1880 but Afghans in Helmand talk about it as if it were yesterday and all claim that their forefathers were there. If any further reminder were needed that one gets involved in Afghanistan at one’s peril, the Kabul headquarters of the Nato-led peacekeeping force is on the site of the old British cantonment. Its entire strength fled from here in January 1842 after a tribal revolt against the British-imposed ruler. Of the 16,000 soldiers, wives, children and camp followers who left, only one got away; the rest were massacred or taken prisoner by Ghilzai tribesmen. Only Dr William Brydon was deliberately left alive to tell the tale and warn people back home of the consequences of getting involved in Afghanistan. In a country that has ended up as a graveyard for so many thousands of British soldiers, why don’t we learn from history?
By Yentil, July 11, 2006 at 10:54 pm # Amazing how quickly a buffoon can ruin a nation. Not only is Bush destroying Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of ‘freedom and democracy’ but he is also destroying America. He has poisoned the American mind with racism, xenophobia and paranoia. Americans have forgoten about respect for other cultures, and they now need to be re-educated about what ‘freedom and democracy’ actually mean.
By Blueboy1938, July 11, 2006 at 7:10 pm # When Karmic metaphysics enter the argument, Freedem, then concrete, factual logic pales into insignificance, I guess. I don’t agree with all that much of what John said, and I believe that I’ve made it abundantly clear that we are fighting the wrong war, in the wrong place, for the wrong (trumped up) reasons, while the real targets, bin Laden and the al Quaeda, are basically ignored. That being said, trashing our troops is beside the point. They are doing a difficult job in an impossible situation, and for the most part, doing it well. The mattress tramplers should be more careful, if possible, and the baby bringers and wise NCOs reported by Mr. Rosen need to be commended. The Haditha type perpetrators, on the other hand, should be, and are being prosecuted as appropriate, depending on what the investigations show. Meanwhile, stop blaming the troops and get busy activating the already disenchanted electorate to wrest control of Congress from the craven Republican majority come November.
By paul kibble, July 11, 2006 at 1:22 pm # • Re Comment #13432 by John As to your major points: 1. I’m fully aware of “the atrocities committed on a daily basis by the insurgents.” But once again, you’ve avoided the central question: why are they being committed? Didn’t Rummy assure us that we’d be greeted as liberators? Are all the insurgents Al Q. fighters who have recently infiltrated Iraq? Hardly. Take Boushra Khalil, one of Saddam’s defense lawyers who was recently profiled in the L.A. Times. A Shia Lebanese, she has good reason to hate Saddam since her Iraqi cousins were killed for rebelling against his “Sunni-dominated regime.” Yet, according to the Times, “Khalil views her work as an epic assignment on behalf of the pan-Arab ‘nation’---a cause Hussein espoused during his years in power.” Khalil explains that Hussein “never surrendered. . .If he’d quit, then the whole Arab nation would have been handed to America on a gold plate.” The Times then notes, “. . . .In ways both subtle and blunt, Hussein and his lawyers have repeatedly compared Iraq’s fate under his heavy thumb to the blood-spattered security vacuum created by the U.S. invasion.” “. . . .The Arab public didn’t have much love for Hussein during the years of his notoriously bloody rule. . .Hussein was seen as a particularly ruthless leader. . . .But once the United States pushed into Baghdad, Hussein was held in a slightly more sympathetic light by Arabs leery of U.S. intentions in the region. “To people who often complain angrily of their own governments’ acquiescence to Washington’s wishes, Hussein was, if nothing else, an Arab leader who had fought the United States.” And Khalil? After angering the judge at Hussein’s trial by showing pictures of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, she explained, “I wanted to make a comparison between the democracy of America and the dictatorship of Saddam Husein. . .America has done much more than he has done.” So here you have an Arab whose cousins were killed by Saddam defending a mass murderer against the supposedly “worse” atrocities perpetrated by the U.S. Is she wrong? Of course! But a region blinded by nationalist and tribal loyalties won’t be able to see this. What it will see is an occupying army that is acting as the opening wedge in a larger plan to expropriate the oil supplies of that region. For the record, I detest Islamic fundamentalists even more than I detest Christian fundamentalists. And that’s saying a lot. Christian fundamentalists are somewhat less willing to behead those who don’t share their beliefs, but with the rise of our American theocracy, who knows? Ten years from now, it may be decapitation for feminists, abortionists, gays, etc. 2. Your inference that the burden of my post was “I’m obviously educated so therefore I am a higher moral authority than the knuckle dragging grunts” is likewise erroneous. You’ve obviously put some considerable thought into your post, and I have no “authority,” moral or otherwise, to dismiss you as a “knuckle-dragging grunt.” My father and grandfather began as Army grunts (knuckles well off the ground) and later moved up in the ranks and, I’d like to think, served their country honorably. My father, who also earned a purple heart, thought Vietnam was bullshit that ended up wasting the lives of over 50 K U.S. soldiers and thousands more Vietnamese lives. By the way, he was a life-long Republican. Disagreeing with the policies of a particular administration doesn’t make you any less of a patriot. In any case, our respective educational levels are irrelevant to any questions of moral authority. Robert McNamara, Sec. of Defense under Johnson, and Henry Kissinger, Sec. of State under Nixon, were two hypereducated, supersmart guys. They were also architects of mass murder. 3. I’m not arguing with over “how the war is being fought;” I’m arguing with you over why it’s being fought---and what the long-term consequences of that fight may be. But since you brought it up, why did the Bushies fail to have a realistic scenario about how a highly nationalistic people would react an invading/occupying army? Why did Rummy at the start of this thing consistently oppose sending in more troops to get the job done right? Why did he fail to supply those troops with adequate body armor----or even, in some cases, food? And, stateside, why did the Bushies campaign aggressively to reduce G.I. benefits and services for our returning heroes? I’ve seen how this country has fucked over Vietnam vets and I fully expect it to do likewise to our Iraq vets. As for the N.Y. Times, they may have bee around since 1853, but that still doesn’t mean they always know what they’re doing. Judith Miller, their key Iraq reporter, was a willing shill for the administrations horseshit about those nonexistent WMD’s until overwhelming evidence to the contrary forced them to apologize for her misleading their readers. 4. Do you really want to Swift-Boat those generals who dared to oppose this insane Iraq adventure? How do you know what their political views or party affiliations are. Maybe they just didn’t want their soldiers to die for a lie. 5. I fully recognize the disastrous policies---foreign and domestic---that Democratic presidents have helped author. A. I am not a fan of “Give ‘em hell, Harry.” Yes, “liberal” President Truman was responsible for the Korean [undeclared] War debacle. Much of the rationale for that “police action” [nice euphemism!] was articulated in a National Security Council report (NSC 68, 1950) that urged abandoning “containment” of Communist aggressors with an active “rolling back” of Communism. In the process of implementing these recommendations, Truman helped create the National Security State [see A Cross of Iron : Harry S. Truman and the Origins of the National Security State, 1945-1954, by Michael J. Hogan]. “How can we prepare for total war without becoming a ‘garrison state’ and destroying the very qualities and virtues and principles we originally set out to save?” asked a New York Times military-affairs columnist in 1947 as the Cold War was commencing. Almost 60 years later, the original Cold War (along with the Soviet Union) has vanished, but the underlying mentality and its policy justifications remain intact (hence the continued erosions of civil liberties in the name of Homeland Security). Ironically, it was a Dwight D. Eisenhower---former WWII general, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, and 34th (Republican)President of the U.S.---who, despite authorizing all those covert interventions abroad, at least had the foresight to warn us against the depredations of the “military-industrial complex.” B. Since I spent many of my late teen and early adult years opposing the Vietnam War, I am fully aware of the role two Democratic presidents (Kennedy and Johnson) played in of the creation and escalation of that little adventure. 6. Final point: I am not a “liberal,” much less a Democrat, at least as you seem to define those terms. Unlike you, I’m not strapped into some ideological straitjacket that forces me to divide the world of politics into a Manichean struggle between the Forces of Light vs. the Children of Darkness. Years ago, Gore Vidal pretty much summed up my feelings about our sacred two-party system: “. . .[t]here is only one party in the United States, the Property party. . .and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt---until recently. . .and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.” My distaste for many conventional liberals is temperamental and is largely a matter of style rather than substance, since I tend to agree with many of their social and political goals. What I don’t agree with is the wussy-pussy manner in which those goals are expressed. Liberals are just so goddam nice. When it comes to debate, liberals by and large have become overdomesticated---groomed out of their fighting instincts in the name of some illusory standard of civility. Of course, Ann Coulter is a relentless self-promoter, not to mention a lying psychopathic cunt. Then why not just say “Ann Coulter is a relentless self-promoter, not to mention a lying psychopathic cunt” rather than offering her a forum for flogging her latest one-word-title hack job and wasting everyone’s time by pretending she has something serious to say? Answer: because oh-so-polite-and-fair liberals believe in “dialogue,” the free exchange of ideas, and good manners. But Coulter is interested only in her one-person monologue, has no ideas to exchange, and behaves like Attila the Hun on crack. So where, say, Allan Colmes would murmur, “Really, Ann, I have to respectfully disagree with your statements about the Jersey Girls,” I’d cut to the chase and say, “Oh, fuck off, bitch” and find an adversary worthy of my attention. 7. Forty years ago Norman Mailer wrote a book titled Why Are We in Vietnam? We never got a satisfactory answer. So, John, forty years later: Why Are We in Iraq?
By Freedem, July 11, 2006 at 3:48 am # Blueboy & John You make my point better than I did, Indeed I was not aware lower ranked officers still had to come from college first, but sadly that does not mean a good education in social understanding, much less the special understanding of such an alien culture, much less a good grasp of the language. You describe well the dangers and fears you have in busting into peoples’ houses. And those dangers and fears are no different if the house is of a major player, or just some poor shlub of a similar name or just pissed off your informant somehow. My main point was(as Mr Rosen pointed out)that boy scout chior boys could not help but make more terrorists than they kill under such circumstances. Indeed the tv show “cops” is very enlightening. These guys are ON TV! They know it. The tv guy is standing there, and still I have watched the level of human rights degrade over time from when the show first aired. I have to keep reminding myself “these guys are on their BEST behavior”. Indeed they are trained to “be nice” in a civil society. That is what makes a civil society(!) If the cops, or soldiers forced to be cops, are brutal, PEOPLE WON’T LIKE THEM. They will do all they are able to make their life difficult, and give aid and comfort to those who oppose them, and the society will decend into barbarism. One doesn’t need metaphysics to see Karma at work, it is just that the actual bad guys aren’t always the ones taking the punishment.
By John, July 10, 2006 at 8:17 pm # In regards to comment #13408 by Paul Kibble, I’m still noticing how you liberals fail to mention the atrocities committed on a daily basis by the insurgents while condemning the U.S. military for a few sporadic incidents. I don’t condone what those soldiers have done, and I make no excuses for them. Liberals, on the other hand, seem to have a history of excusing such things. I’ll grant you, it was a well thought out column. However, if you wish to continue with your “I’m obviously educated so therefore I am a higher moral authority than the knuckle dragging grunts” attitude, I will continue with my “Until you have been there, keep your mouth shut” comments. I’ve been shot at. I’ve chased bad guys. I’ve cleaned up the sites of car bombings. Now, about how the war is being fought. Maybe it is just my common sense, but I don’t know if I would walk down to the New York Times and tell them how to print a newspaper. They’ve been doing it since 1851, and they are probably pretty good at it by now. So, I’m not real sure where all you liberals that have never served a day in the military come in criticizing the warfighting ability of an institution that has existed for over 200 years for one purpose: to fight wars. Sure, you might have a couple of liberal ex-generals toeing your line. That could be the reason they are ex-generals. Now, I’m finding it very very interesting that liberals are dropping the hammer on the Republicans over the war on terror, and Iraq in particular. I guess the collective memory of liberals doesn’t reach back far enough to remember that there were Democratic presidents in office that got us into World War 2, Korea, and Vietnam. World War 2, I can forgive Roosevelt for that one. Now, I’d like to hear the liberal justification for Korea and Vietnam, oh, and guess what guys? Since Bush catches the rap for all the atrocities committed by a few deranged joes in Iraq, the Democrats get to take credit for everything in Korea and Vietnam, to include the huge casualty count suffered by the Americans. As to comment #13387 by Hallelujah Jones, I can assure you, they are cowards. Met any of them lately? I didn’t think so. As for your comments on the cowardly nature of Bush and Cheney, perhaps you should look in the mirror. Since I’m noticing you aren’t in uniform and in combat, perhaps calling the president and vice president cowards is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Yes Miss Jones, I can tell the difference between right and wrong. I am also noticing that your comparison to Ireland means nothing. England was trying to dominate Ireland, whereas we are slowly turning Iraq over to the Iraqi military. Maybe if you had been there, you would know that. I’ve been on a number of missions where there were only 2 of us Americans and an interpreter. All we did was observe and advise the Iraqis. As to your uneducated soldier argument, those of us in Special Forces are required to do 6 months of intensive language training. Watch Discovery channel, maybe you will learn something. They’re always doing specials on us. By “morally brave” you must mean those who would rather desert than serve. Fine. Let them go. I don’t want a quitter with me. To be quite honest, that is the kind of person who is going to think about shooting back while his friends are being shot at. I want someone I know will return fire, not sit there and debate the moral implications of killing an armed man who happens to be emptying a gun in your direction. I figured I would save the best for last. To quote you directly: “defending their country and their own people from an evil, raping, looting, murderous, criminal invading army.” Now, genius, do you really think the Iraqi people were better off when Saddam was in power? Nevermind the fact that he had murdered 300,000 of his own people. Or that he had actual detention facilities for the sole purpose of raping women. I guess that since he had a proven formula for dealing with insurgents (he simply destroyed the entire family, or village) you could say that he was more effective than we are. Or, perhaps maybe you think that whole using chemical weapons on the Kurds was just an accident using commercial pesticide. I’ve been to those places, and I have talked to those people. You liberals are big fans of “The man on the street” kind of stuff. Go on over there and talk to the Kurds about life under Saddam. See what they have to say. To screw up your end quote a bit, “I am disappointed to know that there are those who think they are decent human beings in America yet can’t tell the difference between right and wrong.”
By paul kibble, July 10, 2006 at 2:39 pm # Re:Comment #13355 by John I’ve never seen a more perfect embodiment of the old couplet: “Ours not to reason why/ Ours to simply do or die.” You obviously know what you’re doing when when it comes to CQB. You just as obviously have no idea why you’re doing it. As payback for 9/11? Sorry, wrong target---although thanks to our occupation of Iraq, there are now plenty of Al Q. recruits in Saddamland.(With your vast mlitary expertise, you should be familiar with the real-world concept of “blowback.") WMD’s? “Humanitarian” intervention to topple a dictator? Of course that last faux-rationale ("They’ll welcome us as liberators!") is the one currently favored by the Bushies since the previous casi belli have been exposed as bullshit. But, alas, this high-moral messianism is belied by your brutal Realpolitik. Here’s my favorite passage: “You want to know why there are so many civilian casualties? It is because until the bad guys grab a gun, they are civilians. It’s not like they put on a uniform, go to basic training, and get listed as part of a foreign army. They dig up their AK and RPG launchers in the back yard, and they go ambush a convoy. Or they drop an IED by the side of the road on their way to the market. Or they drive a VBIED into a checkpoint. Welcome to the world of paranoia and overreaction, but it keeps your ass alive.” And if you wind up with a few Iraqi dead asses---hey, as we used to say of all those collaterally napalmed Vietnamese 30 years ago, “Sorry about that.” Since all civilians are potential bad guys, then we their American counterparts just have to understand that the stresses of war are going to make incidents like Haditha inevitable. But since Haditha isn’t “really” a My-Lai style atrocity, our outsider’s opinion doesn’t matter, any more than the alleged rape/murder by Pfc Green of that Iraqi woman, or the abuses at Abu Ghraib that so upset those wussies from the Red Cross, etc., matter. We pussy-ass liberals Just Don’t Get It. But apparently some of those military tribunals don’t get it either, since all of these inconvenient charges are being filed against some of the alleged perps (obviously to placate these whining liberals and their ivory-tower idesas about justice.) Odd that under even extreme combat conditions most of our guys behave homorably and---unlike you---don’t use the you’d-have | ||||||||
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article