This is absolutely appalling! I’ve read a lot of vitriol about Bush, Chaney and Rumsfield recently, but if this is true then Rumsfield is, indeed, a very, very evil bastard.
You do realize that the air strikes weren’t aimed at civilians, but at military targets in civilian areas, and that it was ESTIMATED that they might cause 30 casualties or more and that this is what had to be approved, correct? This is pretty standard military proceedure actually. As to all being approved…well, maybe all the military targets were thought important enough that it over rode the projected cost in civilian lives. Do you guys think war is a game? In real war you have to make hard decisions…and those decisions will mean the loss of life, whether it be your own soldiers, the other sides soldiers or even civilians caught in the crossfire…or most likely a combination of all three of those things.
Rumsfield may very well be an ‘evil’ man…but I don’t see how this shows that he is. Would you care to elaborate on exactly why making such decisions makes him ‘evil’?
-XT
I am having trouble finding the line in that article which says that only 50 such strikes were proposed. It says, “Commanders were required to obtain approval from the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, if any air strike was likely to kill more than 30 civilians. More than 50 such strikes took place.” It is entirely possible that hundreds of such strikes were proposed and that only about 50 were approved. Did I miss something?
Also, in response to the same article,
This seems to be a very odd interpretation of the story. What it says, in effect, is that commanders in the field could not approve air strikes which could be expected to kill more than 50 people without a review of the strike. This means the America took extraordinary precautions to avoid civilian casualties. Can you name 2 other conflicts where such analyses were even performed prior to such strikes?
Didn’t you read the whole article? It claims the the strikes in question allowed the coalition to move ground troops in without a prolonged air war. When you criticize this procedure, do you mean that we should have sent in tanks instead? Perhaps more large scale tank battles in the urban centers of Iraq would have satisfied you. It seems to me that the article describes a procedure which was quite effective in avoiding just such a thing.
Look, I’m no military expert or anything, but even I realise that it’s hard to prosecute a war without causing some civilian causalties. Plenty of politicians and military comanders have ok’ed things that they knew would cause 1000’s, hell, 100,000’s of civilian casualties (Hamburg, Dresdon, Hiroshima, Nagasaki).
Tough choices, sure, but losing the war could mean losing everything. WTF did we stand to lose if Rummy had nixed all those missions that had a damned good chance of killing 30+ civilians? WTF did we stand to lose if we left Iraq the fuck alone in the first place?
That’s why I think Rummy is an evil bastard. He ok’ed the killing of civilians to help win a war that never needed to happen in the first place.
Is it any wonder that some of these Middle Eastern dudes would give their best camel for a few nukes? Maybe they think having a nuclear capability is their best defence against American led aggression?
I’d like to squeeeeeeze in here for a moment and address the OP.
The question, although trivially interesting in a gruesome way, is not relevant. In fact, it is, at best, almost insultingly short-sighted to compare Osama’s and al Qaeda’s strategy to the goals of a solitary President of the United States. And I know that while we don’t conventionally talk about “strategy” and “goals” when we refer to corpses, these two words form common ground between Messrs. Bush and bin Laden, particularly when it comes to Worldview.
Here’s an off-the-cuff example: An early audio tape from al Qaeda included a segment from Osama, in which he promised to right the wrongs his African brethren suffered under the whip of American slavery. President Bush, on the other hand, waited until after New York and Washington were attacked before he pledged to smoke the terrorists out.
The Economist has a bit more to say:
This is a battle of ideology, which for many Americans, I know, extends only as far back as a sunny Tuesday morning in 2001. In reality, the back-story to a great deal of the terrorism we see started more than 1,500 years before we were even a twinkle in Thomas Paine’s eye. Even if Iraq were somehow connected to al Qaeda, a fight against an ideology cannot be evaluated by a body count. To do so is only demonstrative of a view that is lacking in historical perspective, and a particularly arrogant view, at that.
Couple of things here legion. You are working at a couple of distinctly different levels IMO. First off, you seem to be against the war in Iraq in general. Fine by me, I’m with you all the way there. The war was a stupid waste for America that needlessly distracted us from hunting down and putting a bullet into each and every AQ member out there. The US is not the savior of the world…and the world does not want the US to save them. Iraq should have been left to rot on just like North Korea should be left to rot. Its terrible for the people trapped in misery in such hell hole nations, but its not the US’s responsibility to fix all the worlds problems…and they don’t WANT us to fix them at any rate (demonstrated by the world going ballistic when the US unilaterally went to war in Iraq).
However, once combat forces were committed to Iraq (something neither you nor I had a say in…thats why we have a president after all, and a Congress for that matter) the ball game changes. Once American troops are committed to battle, I’d be the very first to scream if they were put at risk when they didn’t have to be.
Maybe its different for you, but for me its a bit more real…see, I have several cousins and assorted other family that are in the military…several of which were and are actually IN Iraq (and one 3rd uncle that was in Afghanistan). If those missions (of which you and I know nothing about) were designed to shorten the war, to save US soldiers lives in a combat situation, then I’d have to say it was the right move. You simply CAN’T have a war, unfortunately, in which civilians are not at risk, especially when your enemy choose deliberately to put military targets in civilian areas…as Saddam did.
I see this as a strategic vs a tactical arguement. I can blame the President for the war over all, and say that I think we, as a nation would have been better off all around if we had NOT gone to war in Iraq. However, once we were committed to a war, I can’t fault the tactics described…they were the best compromise available. When you go to war, you MUST go to war to win, and win as quickly as you possibly can. Thats exactly what they did IMO, and at that level I think they did as good a job as could be done. Do you see the difference?
-XT
Of course I can understand your point of view, especially in the light of your having family members in harms way. I just would like you to be able to see it from my perspective, a totally neutral observer, if you like.
I see the most powerful military force on the planet engaging in a war against a vastly inferior foe. The outcome of this conflict can never be in doubt. Your foe did not bring war to you, you brought war to them. Regardless of the reasons, you started the war, a war against a foe that was no threat to you, your family or your nation.
Understandably, you wish to prosecute this war with as few casualties to yourselves as possible. Less understandably, you seem to find it easy to accept civilian losses to the enemy.
Allow me to describe an imaginary scenario. A target is identified that can be taken out with a “smart” bomb from 30,000 feet with no casualties to your forces, but will almost certainly result in 30 civilian casualties. Alternatively, a company of ground troops could be sent in to neutralise the target, but there is a good chance that they may incur 5-10 casualties.
In your view, taking the 30,000 foot option make sense, while in my, dispassionate observer view, I wonder if there is a kind of “super racism” at work. I see perhaps 10 lives lost rather than 30. You see 10 Americans rather than 30 innocent Iraqi civilians. Perhaps this “super racism” has filtered through to the troops. They already know that they are not under any international law regarding their behaviour while serving abroad. Perhaps that is why they are involved in so many “friendly fire” incident against their coalition colleagues. If in doubt, shoot. So what if you kill 3,4,5 Brits or Canadians. Take no chances, it’s more important that 1 American gets home than 3,4 or 5 of your allies.
OK. My imaginary scenario was very glib, but the fact remains that the more you believe you can wage war with little or no casualties to yourselves, the more civilians you are going to kill, and the more attractive war will become. I refuse to believe that a country a great as America really believes in the “kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out” philosophy.
Anyway, nothing I say is going to amount to a hill of beans, so just chalk my rantings down to “Disappointed - from London”.
And this historical perspective you mentioned matters because?..
I’m not sure how to answer this. With which are you struggling, the phrase or the concept?
All you have to do is relate your statement to the OP in such a way that your assertions are supported. I will be clear and state that I don’t think you have done so sufficiently. I am not struggling with a phrase or a concept.
Let me highlight the assertion you made once again:
Perhaps a more pointed question will work. Why do you say “a fight against an ideology cannot be evaluated by a body count”? Specifically, what is the logical connection between the historical perspective of an ideaology and a body count?
I am trying to understand your ideas, but I will add that I am not trying to examine Bin Laden’s ideology or Bush’s motives. I am analyzing the results or Bush’s policies.
bottom line nobody in USA gives a fck about people who died in Afghanistan or Iraq just like nobody over there gives a fck about how many people died on 9/11.
its not Bush who killed those people, its the americans who supported those wars.
i supported them too, even though i knew we’re going to Iraq for OIL and that iraq has no connection to OBL. but so what, we need OIL and the army must be kept busy with something or else they turn into a bunch of little girls.
sure the soldiers got screwed but they have been stupid enough to sign up, they brought it upon themselves. ( i mean i support the troops and all, cuz its not their fault we sent them there ).
vasyachkin: I’m going to assume that your post is sarcastic because I would hate to think anyone really thinks that way. (It’s alright for the U.S. to act like a rogue state and invade another country because we want their resources?)
Of course, why even have a military at all, since peace is always the answer? No matter what a government of thugs and fascists does to their own people, it’s still just their internal business, right?
What amazes me is how despotic regimes manage to tread the world stage and carry an air of legitimacy and decency. Just by trading his cammos for natty suits and gentlemanly umbrellas, Saddam transformed himself into a “statesman”. Iraq sent teams to the Olympics, who marched into the arenas behind their colors just like any other country’s team. But many of those athletes got imprisoned and tortured for losing, after returning home. Frankly I’m glad we got those guys out of power; it’s the one of the few things on which I actually agree with GWB, whom I otherwise dislike.
(I’m using my husbands account…this is Mrs. xtisme)
My problem with this is, it’s not the US’s job to do such things. Not only does it cost us lives (on both sides), but it costs us boat loads of money, and it pisses everyone off at us. The World™ frankly goes nuts when the US does anything like this…and maybe they should. Maybe the fact that the US CAN do such things on its own is frightening to other people out there…and again maybe with good reason. Maybe we WILL invade a Belgium next, after all…you never know with people like this…
If you think about it, Saddam was pretty much a monster, and his people were definitely suffering badly overall under his ‘rule’. It’s pretty hard to dispute this IMO. The UN wasn’t really doing anything about it, nor were they ever likely too…even the sanctions were being circumvented (well, to the profit of Saddam anyway…there are all kinds of varying numbers as to how many people died from lack of food and medicine while Saddam made billions). And I think the sanctions were something the US was mainly pushing for, more than The World™ in any case…I think given their druthers, The World™ would have just let the sanctions go.
However, look at The World™s reaction to the US taking him out…all out of proportion to the actual event. From the vitriol tossed at the US over this thing you’d think we invaded Belgium or some peaceful nation and deposed Gandhi or something. Yes, maybe the US’s motives weren’t all that altruistic (ok, they weren’t), but so what? Is it really such a bad thing that the guy is gone now and Iraq at least has a chance (even if it’s a slim chance) to be better off? After all, with Saddam there they had NO chance. From my perspective the invasion of Iraq was a stupid waste for the US…but I guess I don’t understand why the worlds reaction isn’t more Tom Sawyerish…paint my fence, it will be good for you, and fun too! We (and the Brits) did the dirty work, we paid the expenses. Were I a European I’d be laughing my ass off, not howling at the moon.
Does it really matter what the US’s real motivations were, when the end result is that Iraq at least has a chance for something better? Would the world not be better off if, say, China decided enough was enough and took Little Kim out? After all, the UN isn’t likely to do anything about him unless SOMEONE decides to take him out. Or, say, if a coalition of European states stepped in and prevented ethnic cleansing in their own backyard, even without UN permission? Err, nm…that happened already. How about a coalition of EU nations going into some of the Northern Africa hell hole nations and restoring order, even if they did it on their own? Wouldn’t the world be better off without all those poor people dieing?
The consensus (of The World™) seems to be that hell hole nations should be left to rot and fall apart on their own though, regardless of the suffering this may cause, rather than any action being taken. Because frankly, if you rely on the UN (or any committee), no action will ever be taken. When was the last time the UN rallied support and invaded a nation to depose a tyrant or prevent thousands or even millions of innocents from dieing? None that I’ve ever heard of. Sure, they can go in as ‘peacekeepers’, and even do a decent job sometimes (even more than sometimes…I think they normally do a fine job in this role).
So, my conclusion is that its not the US’s job to save the world, the world doesn’t want the US to save them, so the US should bow out and mind its own business. Let the UN deal (or not deal as the case seems to be unless it’s to a horrific crisis situation) these kinds of problems in future. Everyone (except those in these hell hole countries of course, and hell, probably even them as evil as the US is) will be much happier.
Why my husband likes this board is beyond me. 
Of course it does. The ends do not justify the means.
Whoa! Don’t just pull numbers out of your butt. For all you know, it could have been 300 troops that might have had to die on the ground war. I think we need to have a little more than that before we start calling people ‘evil’.
[/Quote]
(by rjung)
[/Quote]
Originally Posted by xtisme
Does it really matter what the US’s real motivations were, when the end result is that Iraq at least has a chance for something better?
[/quote]
Of course it does. The ends do not justify the means.
[/quote]
Not ever? You could use that line of reasoning to disagree even with our attacking Germany in WWII, because when it comes right down to it, Hitler might actually not have been out to conquer the U.S.
I’m having a hard time reconciling the above statement with the one below:
None that you’ve heard of? What about these?:
http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/pko.html
Well what exactly is it you want the U.N. to do? Depose every leader in the world who has ever been accused of civil rights violations? I hope you realize that the United States would be one of the governments that would have to get overthrown. Of course I’m not saying the U.S. is as bad as some of the other countries out there, but where do you draw the line? Do you really want the U.N. to just start assassinating despots left and right? It’s nice to think that we can just scoop up all the evil leaders in the world and banish them to Never Never Land, but from what I understand, the times that the U.N. has gone with more force, it hasn’t worked out very well.
I don’t think anyone but the morst hardcore Bush-apologists really believes that the Iraq invasion was a benevolent war only for the purpose of liberating the Iraqi people. The U.S. Government has been just as happy in the past to use its military might to support repressive rulers (including Saddam himself). Are we supposed to believe that benevolence in the only motivation all of a sudden? Puh-leeze.
I don’t believe the rest of the world wants any country to “rot”, they just don’t want the cure to be worse than the disease.
Well…yes. Why can’t or couldn’t the UN be more pro-active in some of these terrible places like in Africa? Don’t you feel bad for all those poor people? What exactly is the UN for if not to right wrongs and fix problems like that?
Well, I like Bush. A lot actually. But I’m not going to say that I think his motives are pure and benevolent. There were certainly reasons for going into Iraq that weren’t benevolent, but there were some that were good too. On balance I think that the Iraqi people are better off. However, I was against the war because I don’t think America should get involved with the worlds problems. Iraq had nothing to do with the US, so I think the US should have stayed out of it.
As to the second part of your statement, its the way all countries function. Name a nation that HASN’T played real-politic games in the past. Again, I sense a dual standard when its the US that does this, than when its France, or Germany, or England, etc. Why is that?
How could it be worse in some of these situation? Millions have starved to death in countries like North Korea. Millions have died in Africa from disease, starvation and execution because men with guns decided they want to be the boss and don’t care who has to pay the price. Its chaos there…why can’t the UN help, or seemingly do anything about it?
I think this is wrong. Sometimes the ends DO justify the means. And I don’t think you agree all the time either. I would bet that you think that ends of stopping ethnic cleansing in Bosnia justified the means of NATO going in without SC approval…don’t you. I know I sure do. It was one of the few things Clinton did that I whole heartedly approved of. The thought of all those innocents dieing there tore my heart and I cheered when NATO did something about it.
I don’t think the ends justify the means. You may have different feelings, which is your right, but my ethical values forbade such an open-ended approach to situations.