You’re Columbian?
In case I wasn’t clear, I am not saying it was OK because the terrorists disregard the Red Cross. It is probably ineffective because the terrorists disregard the Red Cross.
Presuming that the soldier put on the bib because he didn’t want to get shot at, then he might want to try something that terrorists don’t shoot at. IYSWIM.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m sorry, was I mistaken in the part where we supported and helped plan this? It is possible as I only heard it on the radio.
I think this was a completely Columbian operation.
From today’s Democracy Now! headlines (which are generally excerpted from other news outlets, don’t know the original source of this one):
Waitaminnit – Uribe is making it sound like the guy just happens to carry a Red Cross patch in his pocket, perhaps as a personal eccentricity, and put it on his vest, like on impulse, in a moment of fear. Does he really expect anybody to buy that?!
It could be true. Not that he just happened to carry a patch, of course, but that it was the officer’s initiative. How could we know?
I think the appropriate question to ask, was the pilot court martialed or in the process of going through a military version of the grand jury.
Declan
I could be lighthearted and say that it’s a lot like Americans pinning the Maple Leaf flag to their backpacks, but this really concerns me.
The IRC but the organization serves an important function in intra- and international conflicts. Some day soon the IRC will legitimately attempt to ascertain the condition of Colombian prisoners and will be fired upon because of this bonehead’s action.
Colombia has tried to play this off as intelligence coup, saying that the infiltration team simply pretended to be in with the rebels. If (big if, granted) the IRC insignia in any way influenced the rebels on the ground the party line is moot.
Look, I know a lot of people are pissed off at the Red Cross, but it’s usually because the IRC is so impartial (I hate them cos they’re not on my side!). In some cases that basic tenet of impartiality is the only thing the org has going for it. Any action that screws with that principle is damaging.
No, the mistake comes in with the assumption that the US is responsible for this soldier putting on the Red Cross. There is no indication that anyone told him to do so, American or Columbian.
If you are saying that any mistake committed by anyone in any operation with which the US is connected in any way forfeits any moral authority America has, well, you are entitled to your opinion, but it strikes me as a bit of an over-reaction.
No doubt if Obama becomes President, no mistakes will ever happen anywhere in the world and we will no longer have to worry about it.
Regards,
Shodan
This is worth quoting again for emphasis. The first couple of times you ferry arms in ambulances, you gain a strategic advantage. But then your opponent (e.g., the Israelis) catch on and are compelled to delay all ambulances crossing checkpoints. Victims? The civilians. Short term, small gain; long term, large cost. Exhibits a total disregard for the welfare of humans other than yourself, and is cause for revocation of your human race card.
At least we know GW had nothing to do with it, Colombia and France have not declared war.
OK, I hope this is true. I would prefer to think we had nothing to do with this stupidity.
The operation itself was a remarkable success. This particular tactic, perhaps taken on by a single participant, was unwise, but IMO fails to rise to the level of stupidity.
Since when have human beings exhibited any skill in thinking beyond the short term?
I’m not saying that masquerading as the Red Cross is a good long-term strategy, or that its use in this case is acceptable. I’m saying that I understand why small rebel groups would use it. To them, there is no long-term strategy: their options are limited to Win Now by any means necessary, or be extinguished. It would be no comfort to them, as they lose their battle, to think that they followed all the rules properly. They cannot afford to wring their hands over moral decisions with long-term consequences.
We can. We can afford to obey the rules of war as we define them, because this incident was not a threat to our existence. Not really and truly.
I just don’t get the reverence for the rules of war. All nations that have ever made war have probably done things that they found repugnant at the time: kill, murder, hurt civilians, bomb buildings, destroy food and infrastructure, assassinate leaders, take prisoners, discipline unruly soldiers who crossed the line, put enemy leaders on trial, and so forth. After the war is over the survivors can wash their hands of it and justify it by saying, “Well, that was ugly, but at least we did it mostly by the rules.” (The losers say nothing.) Why is one wartime killing acceptable and another atrocious? We just like to pretend that certain types of war are civilized.
So, question…what were they supposed to do instead of using the Red Cross symbol?
Ingrid Betancourt, BTW, while praising Uribe for his role in her rescue, has not ruled out challenging him for the presidency next election.
The initial reporting was that they used a white helicopter with no insignia. The rebels expected to see an NGO helicopter and didn’t notice that the helicopter didn’t have the NGO insignia.
It’s hard to say what exactly happened now. From the story linked above, one of the rescuers was photographed wearing Red Cross insignia, and Columbia is claiming he disobeyed orders when he did so. Could be that several other rescuers also wore the insignia but weren’t photographed doing so, and it could be that using the insignia was authorized by someone at some point in the chain of command.
Contrary to What Exit’s laments, I doubt that person was George Bush.
Reverence for rules of war is important because without it, where are you? Somebody blew the whistle on Abu Ghraib because they knew it was wrong. If everybody just said, “Ah, fuck it; everybody knows war is hell,” then nobody would have bothered to complain, and even worse things would have happened (and would have continued to happen). Of course people violate the rules of war; but they do so less often than they would if that reverence weren’t there. Just look at the Iraq war–when there are publicized cases of US soldiers murdering civilians, there is a shitstorm of bad publicity; I can’t help but think this puts pressure on officers to keep things in check–after all, it’s their ass if they don’t.
No war is civilized. But it’s important for decent people to demand that it not descend into sheer barbarism, and to demand action when it does. Don’t you think the US was right to punish the perpetrators of My Lai, for example? And what would it say about us as a nation if we hadn’t? (Hell, what does it say about Nixon that he sprung Calley from prison?)
I heard this was a joint mission and I doubt the veracity of one rescuer disobeying the orders from higher up.
If the US had nothing to do with this despicable part of the plan, then I am very happy and I will only condemn the Colombians that planned it. As a proud American I also tend to hold us to a higher standard. We should know better than to do something this stupid and I strongly hope that we did know better and had nothing to do with it.
As **Shodan ** pointed out in his backwards way, my expectation for the current administration not sinking to some new depth is pretty minimal. Bush/Cheney have already violated much of what I thought the US was suppose to stand.
So my apologies if I jumped to the wrong conclusion but I think I had reasonable reasons to do so.
Jim
Where did you hear this and why do you doubt people disobeying orders (or simply using their own misguided initiative)?
So, it’s Bush’s fault that you didn’t take the time to find out if you had the facts straight? Not buying that.