Insomnia ([info]insomnia) wrote,
@ 2004-12-26 12:46:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Iraqi militants release video of attack on Mosul base.
Ogrish has the video, in which they show the planning of the attack, the attacker's knowledge of our base's layout, etc.

CBS has a partial transcript of the video, which identifies the bomber as an Abu Omar al-Musali.

"He will take advantage of the change of guards. We have been observing their schedule for a long time. This lion will then proceed to his target and we will take advantage of lunch time. He will storm the dining room where the crusaders and their (Iraqi) allies are gathered."

This email from a witness at Mosul indicates just why securing the base entirely is a hard thing to do.

(32 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]tlma0204114
2004-12-26 09:08 pm UTC (link)
*shudder*

(Reply to this)


[info]eqe
2004-12-26 10:25 pm UTC (link)
The email from Sgt Jensen is interesting, but it seems like poor OpSec to publicly describe the ongoing sniper missions you're involved in. I wonder how much LJ the resistance read.

(Reply to this)

Of course what isn't being said....
[info]cuivenar
2004-12-26 10:59 pm UTC (link)
It seems you missed to point out that "infiltration" of an enemy unit is a clear violation of the Geneva Convention, and will only result in more innocents dying since it further confuses the identification of friend from foe.

But I forgot, only the West can commit War Crimes. To the rest of the world, it's just the way they live (or die as the case may be).

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]byzantine_ruins
2004-12-27 02:31 am UTC (link)
Yeah, we use helicopters and armed drones rather than man or car pack bombs to dispense our death. You get high tech gun camera footage for geeks to whack off to rather than fuzzy propaganda films for jihadists to whack off to. We're so much cleaner and more upright.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]insomnia
2004-12-27 03:30 am UTC (link)
There have been statements made by individuals in the UN who basically state that using terms in the UN peace treaty for the Gulf War without UN approval is an illegal war, so the issue of war crimes at this point is almost a moot point... hell, our Attorney General called the Geneva conventions "quaint" and "obsolete" when he said that the Taleban weren't entitled to Geneva Conventions privs unless a military review on a case-by-case basis afterwards decided otherwise. Kill 'em / torture 'em first -- but not too badly -- and offer them their rights later?! That, of course, means that they can happily violate the Geneva Conventions too.

That said, are you certain that no U.S. soldiers have infiltrated or passed through enemy lines by disguising themselves as locals, or wearing local clothing or other clothing associated with the other side of the conflict?

I understand the frustration, but I don't believe that the indignation is justified. To me, this seems a bit like Redcoats complaining that the enemy fires behind rocks and trees, and then runs away.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]cuivenar
2004-12-27 05:48 am UTC (link)
On the contrary, I just can't, for the life of me, understand how you can be so outraged at every death and Geneva violation by the Coalition, and then be so blase about a violation such as this.

And then on to your straw-man Redcoat argument, I have absolutely no problem blanket bombing cities, or even entire countries, as long as there is a military objective. I certainly don't have a problem hiding behind rocks and trees. I do, however, understand that the actions of the IGM (Idiot Guided Missile) suicide bomber will only result in more civilian casualties in Iraq since they refuse to separate themselves from the civilian population. I do understand that you do not criticize the "insurgents" for their use of indiscriminate killing methods such as carbombs, nor their choice of targets such as churches, mosques, and hospitals, as much as you do the Coalition.

Naturally, I wonder why you choose to criticize the Coalition, and not their foes? Why do you implicitly end up supporting this enemy? And finally, I wonder if you can accept what world will be left should the Coalition fail?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]byzantine_ruins
2004-12-27 07:00 am UTC (link)
How are you different from "this enemy"? You support all sorts of inhumane things for a military objective? They have a military objective too. They're preserving their force integrity by not revealing their operational structure to your surgical destruction. Oh boo hoo, they make it hard for you to massacre them. Hiding in the civilian populace is just a form of camoflague. They attack civilian targets because it's a form of interdiction that denies you the ability to establish a government that can identify and arrest them. Did we stop attacking command and control assets recently? They would be gigantic retards to do other than what they're doing, especially because most of the people making real decisions aren't Iraqis, they're just people here to fight America, and they don't fucking care how much the Iraqi people suffer.

Face it dude, you're a bunch of bitches murdering one-another in the desert until someone runs out of money or people willing to die. That's the way it is because that's what war is. If you want topretend that puff the magic dragon or a jdam is morally cooler than a carbomb, you can do that, but it's your own private fantasy. That you have to call it an "idiot guided missile" just means they're nettling you successfully, and getting you to bring your emotions into the battle.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]cuivenar
2004-12-27 08:21 am UTC (link)
I would agree with the part the statement that we (all combattants) are just a bunch of bitches murdering one another in the desert. True. But once a combattant (and the passive non-combattants) allow the use of civilians as camouflage then they can't also claim the right to sob about civilian casualties. And the apologists can't cry about the bombing of Fallujah, and then pass over a carbomb as if it's just another method of war. If they are equivalent, then proclaim them so. That is what I'm bitching about. We are as bad as them, right? So why aren't you implying that we should be the ones to give up? Why are we (meaning the Coalition) the criminals? Zarqawi, a Jordanian, has no more right to be here than we do. And Saddam, from Tikrit, had no more right to rule Kurdistan or Basra than we do. If there is no moral distinction between the two then force should rule the day. Is this what you're advocating? Then what exactly are you advocating?

Possibly the main difference is what would happen after the war. A war, by definition is inhumane. I was not complaining about our enemy. I was complaining about the people of the West. Folks like insomnia, yourself and others that can't separate the necessary brutality of war from its possible outcomes. I don't agree with the way this war has been conducted either. I think we could have, and still could do, a lot better. But we're missing the boat not in how inhumanely we kill them, but in how we fail is in how we (meaning the US, you, insomnia, France, EU and the world) are failing to help as much as we should because we disagree with GW Bush. I've been to a lot of conflicts, and I've done & seen a lot of things. But I can see the difference in how we left Bosnia versus how the Serbs or Croats would have left it. I saw the difference between the brutality the Saddam's army unleashed during the first Gulf War compared to what the we are trying to do now. Are you really trying to say that there was a moral equivalence between the Soviet Army smashing Eastern Europe and the other Allies liberating West Europe?

I get what you are against. I just don't get what you are for?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]insomnia
2004-12-27 08:42 am UTC (link)
"Folks like insomnia, yourself and others that can't separate the necessary brutality of war from its possible outcomes. . . I can see the difference in how we left Bosnia versus how the Serbs or Croats would have left it."

Yes, but if, in order to achieve that outcome, it required the death of, say, 300,000 Serbs over 10 years and approximately 3000 dead US soldiers, another 30,000 WIA, and countless more medically evac'ed for other reasons or basically fucked up from what they've gone through -- *PLUS* enormous damage to our economic wellbeing and to our political and military influence worldwide -- would it be worth it to the U.S.?

Obviously, the value you place upon a pro-US Iraqi government is far more than I do. I think we can still get out of this mess without facing the kind of Ayatollah Khomeni-level fanaticism and hatred we faced in the past, but it would require deescalation and a dedication to making it clear, in both words and deed, that we aren't there as long-term occupiers, and that we will allow the Iraqis to decide their own future.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]insomnia
2004-12-27 08:49 am UTC (link)
In other words, yes, Iraq is breeding terrorists, and yes, leaving Iraq early would let those terrorists go free... but odds are good we can avoid an Iraq that mirrors revolutionary Iran's state-sponsored, international terrorism.

We need to distinguish between local fundamentalists and those who would try to take the conflict to America again.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]cuivenar
2004-12-27 09:09 am UTC (link)
Having been in southern Iraq, having spoken with the local leaders & people, I say if we stay in the war, adopt more proper methods, and stop spreading misleading and vitriolic enemy propaganda, the chances are good for an Iraqi federal republic. I don't think you can understand the ground swell for such a thing here. Most, and I mean a huge majority, want peace. They are not sure how to go about it, but they hate Iran's "republic" and they despise the Saudi Kingdom and wahabism. There are pro-republic graffiti all over Basra & Nasyria.

The US made mistakes, just as we did by abandoning the Iraqi people in the first Gulf War. Let's not condemn another generation because we lack the courage to stand up for what is right.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]insomnia
2004-12-27 11:54 am UTC (link)
I don't deny the desire in southern Iraq for this, but I think that this aspiration is fundamentally based on the tyranny of the majority model that I mentioned. While that's better than a tyranny of the minority, (i.e. Saddam) it's still not good. It's a great way to encourage an endless cycle of violence, under the circumstances.

While many in southern Iraq have discussed ideas of a government that would work for them, and even the religious leaders say that they want a secular government, they're also the ones getting the voters out to the polls. That's disconcerting, especially in the long term. I suspect that many of them are telling us what they think we want to hear, playing the game so that they get the power. Once we leave, though... watch out.

I doubt that these people can make a government that works for Mosul, Baghdad, Ba'aquba... and the Kurds. For this reason, I think that the most stable, least repressive model in the long run is biting the bullet and letting the country divide into its respective parts if that is what they truely wish to do, rather than trying to force them to stay together.

I don't think it's a matter of condemning another generation of Iraqis, necessarily. To some extent, I think the threat of a "hot" civil war is somewhat overrated, so long as de facto regional autonomy exists before our departure.

Forcing peace through an extended occupation -- say 4-10 years -- will just as arguably condemn another generation of Iraqis. It will also weaken the U.S. militarily and economically. Either way, there's a high price to be paid. I would just assume that the U.S. not pay for it by ourselves, though. There *should* be an exit strategy.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]cuivenar
2004-12-27 12:51 pm UTC (link)
Well, beyond arguing over the details.

I think it's important that each person realize the stakes here, and realise that the "occupation" will end quicker if America and her Allies and form a unified front against the kind of people who would bomb a market.

That doesn't mean I expect any of you to condone torture or shooting of prisoners, for I certainly don't. Nor do I plan to forget when I return to the States. But you should also pound the enemy for their constant abuses of both human rights and the rules of war. They don't have the right to behave like animals.

And here on the ground, there are at least twenty times more abuses a day for every one slip on the American side. It only serves to tear down the moral of our men to constantly be reminded of the same photo of a girl holding a prisoner on a leash, or a Marine shooting a man in the head, while they look at the torture chambers and executions on the road, and think, "What the heck is going on in the States? Have they lost their minds?"

These guys, the insurgents, are not fighting for freedom, or against oppression, they are fighting for the power to oppress, which is not the same thing. Just a recognition of that once in a while would be enough for me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]cuivenar
2004-12-27 09:19 am UTC (link)
On the coalition deaths.

I would say, if it's worth one life it is worth what it would take to finish the job. My father died in Vietnam. I know what it is like to grow up an orphan. I had brothers wounded in the very same war. My mother never cried as hard as she did when Saigon fell. It was useless, all the sacrifice and the suffering, the pain and the crippled wounded. Only to have the communists in Cambodia and Vietnam slaughter 2.5 million people while we washed our hands of the affair. She still cannot mention the name of LBJ or Nixon without spitting on the ground.

Not this time. We can do this, we just have to roll up our sleeves and get to it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]insomnia
2004-12-27 12:49 pm UTC (link)
I can understand your loss and your mother's feelings... but if our nation had chosen to stay in Vietnam, we'd *still* be fighting that war.

You seem to think that if people in this country were to stop reporting on the deaths and violence over there and on "misleading and vitriolic enemy propaganda" such as how some Iraqis snuck a man in and detonated a bomb in one of our camps, that the U.S. military would have the time and the ability to turn Iraq into a thriving democracy.

I think what you're fundamentally asking for is that we should severely curtail free speech and a free press in this country for five years or so, in order to bring about democracy in Iraq. We should ignore the cost to our society and our military.

But you can't expect the Arab press / street to do that. It's just not realistic. As bad as some of the news has been in Iraq, it has often led to improvements and reform, such as in the case of Abu Ghraib, or in the level of armor for our military's vehicles. In that context, being a "squeaky wheel" is a very positive thing in many respects.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
That was not said....
[info]cuivenar
2004-12-27 01:23 pm UTC (link)
Using judgement to effect a cause is not "curtail" free speech. Asking you to be honest is not a curtailing of free speech. Just as you justifiably railed against a Marine shooting a prisoner in the head, you should also rail against such ruses de guerre as this that endanger civilians and friendly troops alike. When Reuters publishes a picture of Iraqi election officials being executed in the streets, why should that get a pass? Are not they as much a war criminal as they Lance Corporal? Have they not murdered more people? Caused more suffering by not letting this darned war end? Don't they realize that we'll leave as soon as this war is over? Why can't you tell them?

And I don't expect the "Arab press" to do anything but what they do. They spin, as is the favored word, in order to affect the outcome of the war. Their half truths, unfortunately, are not being countered in the West because so many of us appease the animal instincts in third world cultures while hammering on every weakness of the Western.

I guess I'm just surprised to find you, an American and erstwhile Brit, spewing information and opinion that is so damaging to your (our) countrymen, when even you say you don't espouse the cause of these terrorist and murderers. Yet these murderers get a pass on the same rules that you hammer us on. I don't get it, that's all.

And it's not a matter of "stop reporting" it's a matter of balance. And look through your own website, and tell me that you are being as hard on the "insurgents", who commit tens to hundreds of murders a day here in Iraq, as you are on the Coalition. I don't want anyone to stop reporting on the casualties, I just want the world to realize that this cause IS worth dying for. To report the things that are worth dying for.

And if you don't think this is worth dying for then what the heck can be?

Gotta trip to go on. Have to run.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: That was not said....
[info]insomnia
2004-12-27 02:01 pm UTC (link)
"When Reuters publishes a picture of Iraqi election officials being executed in the streets, why should that get a pass? . . . Don't they realize that we'll leave as soon as this war is over? Why can't you tell them?"

Because I'm not sure I believe that. I'm not sure at all. I suspect that if our government is given half a chance, we will be there indefinitely.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: That was not said....
[info]insomnia
2004-12-27 02:31 pm UTC (link)
"I guess I'm just surprised to find you, an American and erstwhile Brit, spewing information and opinion that is so damaging to your (our) countrymen..."

Spewing information that damages our countrymen?! I'm sorry, but I completely don't accept that statement, as it's both loaded and irresponsible.

I mean, I'm not telling you that you're an advocate and active participant in war crimes which have killed over 100,000 Iraqis, am I? No. I don't believe the war is your fault, nor do I feel it is your job to moderate your posts and comments to include equal time and sympathetic treatment for the insurgents.

So stop blaming me for having the temerity to discuss things that happen in Iraq with my online friends, and for choosing to discuss attacks on U.S. soldiers rather than how many schools we've painted today.

Stop blaming me for talking with my online friends in my personal journal about all the bad things that happen in this world. Rest assured, I didn't do them myself.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: That was not said....
[info]cuivenar
2004-12-27 06:40 pm UTC (link)
I'm not blaming you as much as asking why. I think I've been quite clear on that point that I didn't understand the purpose. But perhaps now reading your last paragraph, I do. And I'm also very sure you didn't do them yourself.

But you did tell me that I'm an advocate and a participant in war crimes. You said that the current war is illegal and therefore a crime. My participation in it is well known. The rest is just logic.

Finally, to reiterate a point, I'm not blaming you for anything. Just as you point out when you feel or believe someone is wrong or as a group causing harm, so do I. That is called free speech. I understand this is your journal, and perhaps in my haste, I did fail to bow to courtesy. However, my question, being answered, need not be asked twice.

Thank you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]byzantine_ruins
2004-12-27 02:45 pm UTC (link)
>>>I get what you are against. I just don't get what you are for?<<<

I'm a New American Century type Imperial Cult neocon, actually. Just saddened the people in charge of things are such second stringers. They talked about an asymmetric world and then showed themselves to be the purest creatures of the mid-century nation-state.

I'm currently making a record of the decline of our nation as a reference for future literary efforts and am openly contemptuous of the poor skill we've shown in fighting this war. My opinion is that even if we win tomorrow and the insurgency throws up its hands, this is really just a sideshow in a much larger struggle. It's not a war, it's a theatre in a war.

Of course we're going to prevail, it's a vastly asymmetric battle. We're going to impose our will on the battlespace. Unfortunately, it's a fully asymmetic conflict, not just an asymmetric correlation of forces, and the real enemies in the war long ago won decisively. We betrayed how flimsy our hegemony was and spent the flower of our strength in an essentially pointless endeavor to liberate a nation that, however impressive it would have been as the conquest of a few weeks, is simply not worth the effort we've devoted to it in a larger sense.

Now our enemies are in the exploitation phase and just seeing how much they can sap us. Eventually, you will kill them or chase them off and then we will claim our own victory and go back to a country that can no longer afford nor stomach foreign wars and there you can reckon up if the game was worth the candle.

You want to ask what the world will be like if we lose, how about what will the world be like if we win? What state do you think our national treasury and national spirit will be after Iraq? How well do you think that clapped out counter-insurgency army you're supporting will do in Iran or the Caucasus or defending Taiwan? Do you think that Putin's expanding power and China's increasingly bellicose words towards Taiwan and the ramshackle state on the international financial system aren't directly related to the pursuit of this campaign?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]insomnia
2004-12-27 03:49 pm UTC (link)
I am most definitely not a New American Century type Imperial Cult neocon, but it's interesting that my concerns and yours regarding the cost/benefit of this war and what it does to our military are essentially the same -- we both cited Taiwan as serious issue, for instance.

All I can say is this -- it sure would be nice if we were in a position to influence the nations of the world based on our economic dominance again, wouldn't it?!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]byzantine_ruins
2004-12-27 04:40 pm UTC (link)
>>>I am most definitely not a New American Century type Imperial Cult neocon, but it's interesting that my concerns and yours regarding the cost/benefit of this war and what it does to our military are essentially the same.<<<

I think that it's one of those things where it doesn't matter what you *wanted* to do with the resources we had, you just get to join the big group of folks watching the big bonfire in the desert.

"Hey, isn't that the furniture?"
"Yep, we just threw the rent money on it too."
"Where are we sleeping tonight?"
"Isn't it a cool fire? It feels like the Fourth of July."

It really makes differences over what the nation should do with its position as global hegemon pretty moot. My feeling is we should prepare for one hell of a kicking when we go down.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]cuivenar
2004-12-27 06:44 pm UTC (link)
To be answered on another page, at another time, when I have time, Signore.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]byzantine_ruins
2004-12-27 07:21 pm UTC (link)
No problem man, be safe in Fallujah.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]byzantine_ruins
2004-12-27 04:09 pm UTC (link)

To answer your post directly --

>>>But once a combattant (and the passive non-combattants) allow the use of civilians as camouflage then they can't also claim the right to sob about civilian casualties.<<<

Who, the combatant? They don't care. In fact, they like when you cause civilian casualties trying to get at them because you and your enemy have asymmetric war aims. The civilians? On a one-for-one basis, no, you can't really bitch. If you want to impute collective responsibility, it never worked for anybody else but you can certainly try.

>>>And the apologists can't cry about the bombing of Fallujah, and then pass over a carbomb as if it's just another method of war. If they are equivalent, then proclaim them so.<<<

They are equivalent acts, yes, but they are not carried out by equivalent armies in a symmetrical struggle. For Abu Musab, destructive bombing is smart, after all, it's our infrastructure. He breaks it, we bought it. For us, destructive bombing is stupid. After all, it's our infrastructure. We break it, we bought it.

>>>That is what I'm bitching about. We are as bad as them, right? So why aren't you implying that we should be the ones to give up? Why are we (meaning the Coalition) the criminals?<<<

Criminals? Criminally inept maybe.

>>>Zarqawi, a Jordanian, has no more right to be here than we do. And Saddam, from Tikrit, had no more right to rule Kurdistan or Basra than we do. If there is no moral distinction between the two then force should rule the day. Is this what you're advocating?<<<

If you think that that is an answer to this problem, you are certainly welcome to pursue it. I think the enemy will welcome you pursuing it too.

The moral distinction is the one you create. The world is uncaring, it won't enforce a moral order. The international community is toothless, the idea of them creating a moral order is laughable. The moral order has to spring from the people attempting to propagate it. The nature of the war you're fighting is that it is asymmetric. We have every incentive to demonstrate the utmost restraint, while the enemy has every incentive to be as destructive as possible. When we are goaded into destructive combat, we are acting as the enemy's weapon. It doesn't matter if it's intuitive and emotionally fulfilling to match blow for blow, it's still a counterproductive strategy. The guy on the other side of the hill is simply in a much better position to say their atrocities were the unavoidable exigencies of war or caused by someone down the way they've never heard of, while yours are bestial excesses of a conquering power.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]insomnia
2004-12-27 08:07 am UTC (link)
I pointed out in the past my horror at the execution of foriegn workers in Iraq, and I certainly don't condone carbombs, especially when their targets seem to only have the goal of killing innocent Iraqis. That said, I don't see suicide attacks against American troops as particularly outrageous, any more than I would have seen Japanese kamikaze attacks.

Arguably the worst, most inhumane horrors of this war, in my opinion? The carbombings of Shi'ite religious sites. They were purely hate-filled, senseless acts of violence, perpetrated by either extreme foriegn terrorists or the worst, most hateful Sunnis. The killing of Margaret Hassan, an aid worker and a tireless friend to Iraqis.

U.S. bombing of mixed Iraqi military/civilian targets or the torture / execution of POWs come in second in my book... but a close second. The end result is the same, however. More horror, killing, and inhumanity. When you're in a world of death, it is hard to say that one form of death is necessarily better than the other. Only one's choice of targets is clearly better.

That said, I personally have less to say about issues like Iraqi on Iraqi violence and execution of aid workers, in general, than about U.S. violence when it hurts the innocent or kills indiscriminately. I think the reason for this, however, is that I'm not Iraqi. I don't feel like it is my place to judge violence they do against themselves to the same degree as the violence we do against others. I think this is a natural and healthy reaction, however.

"finally, I wonder if you can accept what world will be left should the Coalition fail?"

If I can accept the fall of South Vietnam, the fall of the Shah of Iran, and the retreat of U.S. troops from Lebanon after the bloodiest attack against a U.S. military target in history, I think I can accept what would happen to Iraq should the U.S. pull out, yes.

No, the results wouldn't be all positive, and yes, the Iraqis would probably fight amongst themselves, much like the Indians and Pakistanis feuded after the British left... but I can accept the outcome as perhaps a necessary step towards Iraq's future. I suspect what we'd see is Iraq dividing into three sections. I don't think that Iraq would become the global center of terrorism you'd expect, however.

The truth is, Iraq is an artificial country. Keeping it together isn't a picnic, and was certainly a contributing factor to Saddam's brutal, repressive acts. If the only option for Iraq staying whole is the use of repression to keep minorities in check, I'm all in favor of us letting Iraq break itself into pieces, even if it's a costly and temporarily destabilizing affair.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]cuivenar
2004-12-27 08:58 am UTC (link)
Our treatment of EPWs is deplorable. Someone, everyone, including Rumsfeld & Bush, should hang by the neck until dead for that. But I noticed that you didn't condemn the "insurgents" for cutting off the heads of the ING, who are also, by definition, POWs themselves, nor Coalition civilians who should be treated as POWs.

But I don't see how you can equate, even as a close second, the storming of Fallujah with the carbombing of Najaf. We gave the citizens of Fallujah two months to evacuate if they wanted to. 250,000 of them did. We avoided or seized by infantry rather than bombs where we could without causing unecessary casualties to ourselves. When the suicide bomber in Najaf realized that cars blocked his path to the mosque, he steered into a bus station to kill as many innocents as possible. No warning, no mercy. The people in Najaf were clearly there to worship. It still isn't clear what so many young Iraqi males decided to stay in Fallujah for, if it wasn't to fight. And we actually took about 4,000 prisoners as of last count. How many prisoners to they take? I just don't see how you cannot see the difference. I'm not saying we are perfect.

In any war you are going to have civilian casualties. If you allow an enemy to hide in a civilian population and therefore escape attack, then what would stop every military (regular and irregular) from doing it? There has to be lines drawn and prices paid for these actions. Otherwise, they would become commonplace and the prohibition against openly attacking civilians would become meaningless. While it is unfortunate that civilians pay the price, they always have and they always will. We cannot stop and allow anyone to use this ruse as an attempt to paralyze all military operations.

I think the reason for this, however, is that I'm not Iraqi. I don't feel like it is my place to judge violence they do against themselves to the same degree as the violence we do against others. I think this is a natural and healthy reaction, however.

Many in Iraq cursed America because of the very opinion you have here. Is it okay in Dafur as long as Sudanese kill Sudanese. Bosnian/Croat/Serb killing. Furthermore, just as we are a foreign force backed by Iraqis, the "insurgents" are also a foreign force backed by (some) Iraqis. Again, if there is no moral prohibition nor price to pay for this type of warfare, it will be used by all, or at least the winners.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]insomnia
2004-12-27 01:15 pm UTC (link)
It's oversimplifying it to say that Iraqis cursed American apathy for allowing Saddam to go on the rampage. Rather, that anger stemmed from the U.S. government breaking their promises. Bush called on the Iraqis to rise up and said we'd support them, but not only did we not support them, we actually lifted the no-fly restrictions to make it that much easier for Saddam to slaughter tens of thousands of Iraqis.

It's not that I don't care what Iraqis do to each other. It's that given the choice of U.S. troops or Iraqis doing the killing and the bleeding, I vote for Iraqis. If they want a pro-western democracy, they should pay the price to get it.

We should not take on the sole role as the world's policemen, nor is it our job to fight other people's wars. We could've worked with the UN to end the slaughter in Dafur already if it weren't for our overstretched military and weakened relations with other nations. I am concerned about what other costs we will have to pay because of our extensive focus on Iraq. We're in a poor position, for instance, to counter a decapitation strike against Taiwan.

Napoleon used to say that the side who commits his reserves last wins. What worries me is that we have no reserves left to commit.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]7threality
2004-12-27 03:22 pm UTC (link)
Well, I'm going to stick my nose in here.

given the choice of U.S. troops or Iraqis doing the killing and the bleeding, I vote for Iraqis.

I read a lot of posts where people missed the point (or seemed to), it's one that I've brought up before and is the central theme of cuivenar's posts: If a thing is morally wrong for one group, then it's morally for all groups.

If killing people is bad, then killing people is bad. It doesn't matter if it's Iraqi, American, male, female, child or old. It's still bad.

What makes an US life worth more than the life of an Iraqi? How can you turn a blind eye when it's one group doing the killing and not another?

If they want a pro-western democracy, they should pay the price to get it.

They were willing. You even referred to the time they tried to pay the price. They failed because they thought they'd have the backing necessary and they didn't. Without help, they couldn't (and didn't) win.

We should not take on the sole role as the world's policemen, nor is it our job to fight other people's wars.

I agree with this statement.

However, others do not.

We ended up in this role following WWII for various reasons.

We also have the role through guilt (and accusation). We are the richest country in the world, why aren't we using our resources to make things better for everyone else? We have that idea from within (people with upper class guilt for those less fortunate, along with those protecting financial interests overseas) and without (the people whose resources we are using).

If we weren't acting as the world's police, what would things be like now?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]insomnia
2004-12-27 04:07 pm UTC (link)
"What makes an US life worth more than the life of an Iraqi? How can you turn a blind eye when it's one group doing the killing and not another?"

It's not that one life is necessarily worth more than another. It's that we as Americans have more control over who we kill (amd a greater moral responsibility) than who Iraqis kill. We have the right to decide for ourselves whether it is worth sending Americans to other countries to kill and die. Sometimes, it is. Usually, it's not.

"They were willing . . . Without help, they couldn't (and didn't) win."

I agree with that statement -- though I don't believe their goal was a pro-US democracy. What we had to do following Gulf War I was to make it abundantly clear to Saddam that if his troops moved south to attack the Shi'ites, we'd blow their bridges and/or use our air to do to any ground offensive what we did to all those Iraqi army troops that tried to leave Kuwait... another "convoy of death" like Gulf War I.

The question is, do they have a Saddam breathing down their neck now that requires us to use troops on the ground to do their fighting for them? I don't think so.

"If we weren't acting as the world's police, what would things be like now?"

Somehow, I don't think it would be as hopeless as you'd think. I'm not saying that we should't act, but that we should try to avoid unilateral action.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]7threality
2004-12-27 05:35 pm UTC (link)
It's that we as Americans have more control over who we kill (amd a greater moral responsibility) than who Iraqis kill.

I agree we have a moral responsibility, but I may be picking nits at the use of the word greater.

How is it greater? Or why is their's less?

re: world police
US foreign policy tends to be a mire, with most things being done on a "what's good right now" basis, with no thought to what things are going to be like in even 5-10 years.
I couldn't really say what the difference would be in the world, there's too many factors, and I'd have to look back on what we've done. It wouldn't be bleak, but it definitely wouldn't be as good.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Of course what isn't being said....
[info]cuivenar
2004-12-27 06:46 pm UTC (link)
Thank you for seeing past some of my sordid details to a more elegant point.

I could not have stated it better myself.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(32 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…