I’m quite certain that in every Robin Hood, from Richard Greene on TV (who among uis can sing the song?.."Riding through the glen…) right up to Mel Brooks, the point at which we really REALLY know that the sherriff is an asshole,is when he says, “Hmmm, take Maid Marion to the Tower, let’s see how long this Lockesley can keep away…Bwahahahah”
I think we should learn somethihg from our folklore here…
I wonder if there are any Iraqis who won’t believe these women are being raped. I’ll bet most of them will think that’s the real motive for taking them, anyway.
That major league asshole in the administration said that the plan to be followed in Iraq was the plan that it was followed in El Salvador.
Thing is, during the counter-insurgency campaigns, women, children and the elderly often fell victim to death squads, women were arrested and tortured even if they just protested the injustice.
Donald Rumsfeld said later that the idea of a Salvador option was “nonsense” and then I see examples like this showing that bits and pieces of the last option are becoming a sad reality. Do not forget that this is only what some members of the US army were doing; the El Salvador option means that the Iraqi forces trained by the US are doing worse things.
…there are a couple of other threads going on at the moment discussing how America is conducting the war on terror. In those threads, given a certain set of circumstances, there was a subset of people who declared a certain set of actions conducted by the US administration as justified because America was at war. In this thread, a different set of circumstances is presented by the OP, and the question asked again, is this justifiable? Do you contest whether or not the incidents really happened? Similar incidents have been documented, as far back as 2003…
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/01/12/usint6921.htm
…and of course, the famous case of the Late General Mowhoush…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201941.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/24/AR2006012401544.html
…so I take it you agree with the policy? If you do, that could lead to debate!
There are hardly any anti-US or any anti-US military posts on this board. You seem to mistake criticism of the war with anti-US behaviour-which is wrong. If you believe the truth to be otherwise, the floor is yours, feel free to prove it.
Welcome to the internet.
…3 out of 50 threads on the front page are about TWAT, by my reckoning. Considering the global impact of the war, is that really a surprise? Do you really think 6% is really too many threads?
Geez, really? Thanks for the lesson. Do you know how often this phrase is used in debates by people who really don’t have a point?
Good grief. You want us to name a war that *wasn’t * hell? Would that justify the tactics listed in the OP?
The insurgents have turned this war into what it is, not the US. If they followed some of the BASIC rules of war then the collateral damage over there would be GREATLY reduced. Identify themselves as “soliders” via uniforms, patches, headbands etc… so “the enemy” can clearly target these “soldiers”. If they choose not to do so then blame these insurgents for forcing the US troops on the ground to suspect everybody instead of risking their lives suspecting nobody. And if you are going to say “there are no rules of war” then don’t try to hold the US to imaginary rules.
Are you serious? I’m not even going to waste my time providing the pile of links anyone can find with even the most rudimentary search.
I love the internet only because it allows me to participate in spectacular parsed debates :rolleyes:
Maybe when you responded to this thread there were 3 GWOT (TWAT? WTF?) on the front page of the GD forum. There ain’t now. If some iraqi was to write in his weblog that a US soldier killed his dog I GUARUNTEE (i spell this word wrong everytime) that there would be a full thread devoted to slamming "those animalistic ,no discipline, insane American troops. That’s all it takes is one line off the internet to full the giant flame on this board. Even if it is questionable.
Or you choose to ignore the point (most likely) that every war in the history of time is chaulk full of questionable activity that is EASILY second guessed after the fact. It’s almost like people think that because the US is involved in this conflict that we should be sending gangs of kittens into the AOR to lick the insurgents out of Iraq.
2 things are wearing me out lately on this board:
The godawful search engine and seemingly random lack of responsivness of the board.
This being the first war of the internet age it is constantly under the microscope on the web and for some reason people think that this war is supposed to be different from past wars. Easier. Less violent. Less f’d up. This board is so far left leaning that it’s nearly impossible to find a decent debate on here about the war because 98% of the war threads are started with the intention of a giant pile on for US troops and US politicians.
Oh yes, if they would just accept the occupation and believe we are there to benefit them because we say so, everything would be hunky-dory. If you are talking about the foreign fighters who have come to Iraq to fight the infidels, I agree with you. If you are talking about Iraqis who object to having their country invaded, occupied and ruled by a foriegn power(please don’t try to convince me that the puppet government is in charge. We have the guns, bombs, tanks, soldiers on the ground. We are in charge) then I can’t agree with you.
And while their methods are reprehesible in the extreme, it could be argued that dropping a 500lb bomb on an apartment building to take out one sniper isn’t very nice either.
I get very tired of the argument that ‘if they won’t play by the rules, we don’t have to either.’ Civilization is about rules. Human progress is about laws. Every time we toss them out the window because they are inconvenient or difficult we take a step backwards towards the Dark Age belief that might makes right, and that states, governments or even individuals should have the right to do anything they want if they are powerful enough to get away with it. I don’t want to live in such a world. Do you?
You go to war with the army you have, not the army they wish you had. It’s not their fault they weren’t in uniform when you attacked them.
Incorrect. If an uprising had taken place against a peaceful American presence such as those in England or Germany or something, then such would be the case. As it is, Iraq was invaded and occupied. It’s expected that there will be resistance. Since the invasion was completely unjust, it is not only expected but good and right that there is resistance. The US is responsible for the consequences of its actions; an armed resistance is one of those consequences. Blaming them is like a rapist blaming a rape victim for her own black eye: “If she hadn’t fought back, I wouldn’t have had to smack her around. So it’s her fault” Yeah, right.
In the interest of heading accusations of my being anti-this and anti-that off at the pass, I expect American soldiers to die in this war, but I don’t wish it. I’d be quite happy if every single American left Iraq tomorrow (it’d have to be a large plane) and arrived home safely to live long, peaceful lives.
Now, as far as I can tell, there are at most five threads on the front page of the GD forum that are about GWOT (“Global War on Terror”, aka TWAT = “The War Against Terror”). That’s still not a huge percentage, out of 50 threads that are mostly devoted to a variety of other topics, such as whether Adams or Jefferson was a better person and whether it’s ethical to tell somebody how to commit suicide and why academia or the film industry is left-leaning, etc. etc. etc. When the current war is over (and I hope to heaven we’ll all live to see that), I don’t think you need worry that we won’t be able to find other things to talk about.
And I think you underestimate the willingness of most posters here to engage in honest debate. If someone comes in with a sincere, intelligent defense of the policy of hostage-taking by coalition troops, it’ll get a respectful hearing, at least from many people. But storming in with pre-emptive laments about how anti-US this board is and how it’s impossible to get a fair debate about the war doesn’t really count as an argument.
Who’s saying “there are no rules of war”? ISTM that the whole point of this thread is that there are such rules, that the US is breaking them in this instance, and that it’s probably not a good idea, either ethically or strategically. If you disagree on any of these points, then by all means say so and let’s debate it.
I don’t think you can overestimate the effect this will have on people in the Middle East – they will very prone to believe that the women will be raped, evidence or no, and given the behavior of US forces with male prisoners, we’re not going to have much credibility with ANYONE, ANYWHERE in the world (except the credulous conservatives of the US) in denying it. And given the weird, supercharged emotionalism of Middle Easterners wrt to women and sex and rape, it’ll infuriate the hell out of them.
I swear, for every terrorist we kill over there, we create another 10 through bone-headed actions such as this. It’s kind of hard to win the War on Terror if we keep creating new terrorists at an exponential rate. Dumbasses.
I don’t think anyone in this thread is arguing that there shouldn’t be/aren’t rules of war. Likewise, I don’t think anyone here would disagree with the statement that whatever the rules of war are, the insurgents/terrorists have not, will not follow them.
The problem I think many, including myself have, is that regardless of whether or not terrorists or any other enemy follow the rules of war, we [as in the US] should. Why? Because we’re better then them. Our principles should not be determined in relation to the principles of others but rather, by the intrinsic value of our principles. Our standard for our behavior as a nation can’t be “well, we’re still not as bad as them so I guess that wasn’t too bad.” It must be, that was not/was not in accordance with our principles as a people and a nation.
In this case, the jailing of otherwise innocent family members in order coerce wanted suspects is clearly in violation of our principles and should not be done. Regardless of the intentions behind it, this was wrong.
Now, there is a heartening aspect to this. Along with hearing about the violations we also hear about the intelligence officer decided that this was in violation of both his training and his principles and tried to get it stopped. Now, I’d prefer that it never happened at all but it’s still a reminder that we have a lot of good people over there trying to do the right thing as best they can.
The other main point I take away from this is not a new one. As I’ve said before, this shows we clearly need much more effective oversight when it comes to handling prisoners.
We didn’t attack them, we attacked their country. And at present they are actively fighting against, what is seen by almost the entire world, as the legitimate government of Iraq.
Of course a good many of them were in uniform as many ex-Baathists are part of the insurgency.
Luckily it’s not nearly that bad or the insurgency would number everyone in Iraq right now.
As it is, this is a bad thing, the taking of wives as leverage. In the two confirmed cases as presented by the OP’s news article though, I think we can all take some solace in the fact that this is not a policy, and that it is apparently the action of people far down the chain of command who are working against the rules.
It’s still bad, but it’s a whole lot better than if this was systematic.
In the first case in the news article someone involved with the procedure actively complained and opposed the taking of the wife. It was done anyways in a fairly “cowboy-esque” move, but after this man complained further she was released. It’s bad enough she was taken up at all, but at least in that case it shows there are good people in the system who do believe in justice and wasn’t going to see that happen.
In the second case it appears the woman who has been detained may be being used as leverage, BUT it also appears she is involved enough in the insurgency that even sans husband she would probably have been held anyways.
One of the stupidest statements ever made. We didn’t bomb empty landscape and shoot trees; we killed people. Including, it’s safe to say, many of the friends and relatives of the people we are now fighting.
Really ? You have polls on that ? There’s an inherent questionability about a government created under the thumb of a foreign conquerer.
Last I heard, killing Americans had between 40 to 60 percent support, depending on where you polled. That’s fairly close. Under the circumstances, I suspect the real percentage is even higher; if I were an Iraqi, I expect I’d want to smash America to a wasteland and sow salt in the ruins.
The overwhelming majority of insurgent attacks, 80%, are against Coalition Troops. Who do you think they should attack?
(Iraq, Measuring Security and Stability, 10/13/2005, PDF document about two thirds down the page. Page 23)
Sure. Smart idea. Of course, it wouldn’t be much of an insurgency then, would it. It would be more like Coalition Troops vs burnt cinders in uniform. There is a pretty plain reason why the insurgency adopt the tactics they use: the US troops have more training, air support, more accurate and reliable personal weaponary, tanks, night vision googles, and a War Room with real-time computerized updates. The typical Iraqi insurgent is armed with an outdated AK47 and the occasional RPG. The typical Coalition soldier has a myriad of advantages over the Iraqi insurgent: it is no surprise that the insurgent uses what advantages they can.
Which is really beside the point. It would appear that General Mowhoush had nothing to do with the insurgency-but his son’s were held hostage until he turned himself in. General Mowhoush was allegedly tortured, then “negligently killed” when he was placed into a sleeping bag and someone sat on his chest. “Fishing Expeditions” do not work in law enforcement, and I’ve yet to see an arguement where it could be shown that the tactic is an efficient way to fight an insurgency. The International Red Cross estimated in 2004 that between 60 and 90% of prisoners in US custody in Iraq where there either by mistake or by malice. Holding innocent people hostage to get innocent people to turn themselves in doesn’t seem like a smart tactic, does it?
…for the first year after the invasion, the United States and its Coalition partners were designated the Occupying Forces. The obligations of an Occupying Force are clearly spelled out by the Geneva Convention. They are by no means “imaginary.”
Concession Accepted.
You obviously support the US tactic in Iraq. What’s stopping you debating?
Hmmm. According to Kimstu, there are now five threads on the front page about TWAT. I think that qualifies as “no big deal.”
…and posting strawmen really doesn’t help advance your case.
…whatever. Do you have any basis to question the facts in the OP? If the posting habits of Dopers offends you so much, why don’t you open a pit thread?
So what? I don’t get where your coming from: do you support the tactics used by US troops in the OP? Do you think they are helping the war in Iraq? Was detaining General Mowhoush’s son a constructive move?
Why do you keep posting this strawman crap? It is most certainly not my belief, and while there may be some people out there in the internetasphere who may hold your belief, it is not the overwhelming feeling of most of the people on the board. Military Experts suggest that the US didn’t have enough troops on the ground to prevent the insurgency. After three years and 20 billion dollars there is less electricity available in Baghdad than there was prewar. 9 billion dollars is missing. Reconstruction funds will soon run out and Iraq will shortly be left with a foreign owned economy full of stuff that doesn’t work. 30% of that money was spent on Private Security. Iraqi deaths and injuries from the insurgency have increased from 30 per day in April 2004, to 65 per day in November 2005. In November of 2005, one-hundred thousand people were still displaced from their homes in Fallujah. This is the legacy of how the US has handled the War Against Terror in Iraq. This is why we are debating the topic, and despite your non-fact-based rhetoric is why the OP of this thread is entirely valid.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/
http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html
I strongly opposed the war in Iraq. But once the decision was made to invade, then the United States had the obligation to do it properly. They needed to occupy the country with enough troops to secure it (with many pundits estimating that up to 500 000 troops were needed) and then the country needed to be fixed. If Baghdad had running water in all of its homes and had electricity 24 hours a day seven days a week, how strong do you think the inusurgency would be? Instead, the security of many of the reconstruction projects was farmed out to Private Security Contractors, eating up huge chunks of the reconstruction budget. Even more of that budget got eaten up corruption, inefficency and outright theft. I’ll say it again, nine billion dollars of reconstruction funds went missing. That’s three times the amount of money that went missing in the “oil for food” scandal, yet it is a virtual non-issue with the US Senate.
…well, you know, you better get used to it. The internet isn’t going away, and the facts don’t change just because you don’t like them.
Well gosh, maybe because it is different from past wars.
In the days of Pentagon propaganda and “precision guided munitions” it is no wonder people are confused.
…and I must say that your contribution to this thread has really helped to improve the tone… :rolleyes:
…the death and injury rate of Iraqi’s due to the insurgency has doubled in a year, From 30 per day in 2004 to 65 per day in late 2005. ( Iraq, Measuring Security and Stability, 10/13/2005, PDF document about two thirds down the page. Page 23)
So while Frostillicus’s comments were obviously hyperbolic, you have to admit that the situation is not improving.
There are five further cases cited in my first post to this thread, and the Human Rights Watch Report allude to many more. What makes you think that it wasn’t policy? Why put the blame on the people down the chain of command? With the Abu Gharib disaster, a Red Cross report that estimated between 60 and 90% of detainees were innocent, allegations of torture and internal rendition, and now hostage taking, you really have to ask yourself who the hell is running things over there. To constantly put the blame on “those far down the chain of the command” is excusing the incompetence of the the people who planned the war and the negligence of those who were put in charge of running it.
There is certainly nothing in the article I quoted to support this. I do not consider the self-serving statement by the U.S. command spokesman in Baghdad, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, to be persuasive:
It is anything but clear, he proffers no additional details to support this conclusion, and it smacks of simple denial by some whose job it is to defend the military command structure no matter what.
Deja vu all over again. Anyone remember the Anglo Boer War ?
Can this US tactic be justified? Not in our modern western sense of morality. But on a larger scale it has worked and ended a war in four years in favour of the government that ultimately resulted in a democracy for the insurgents who denied democracy and freedom to the rest of their countrymen for nearly a century only to eventually concede to a democracy for the entire country. But it took a lot longer than a couple of US presidential terms.
And the pro-war crowd has now reached the apex, the very pinnacle, of Doublespeak.
If only this wonderful excuse had been thought of before.
“We didn’t attack Americans, we attacked their country.”
The legitimate government of Iraq is presently located in Washington, D.C. A government propped up by a foreign invader is not a “legitimate government” in any sense that matters. I hope it does turn out to be a legitimate government, since the alternative is probably not a good one, but at this point it cannot be said to be anything of the sort.
Oh, please, drop this “Ba’athist” nonsense. “Ba’athism” is not a geniune political philosophy; it’s a political party of the most loose sort, using a generalized mishmash of socialist ideologies, and was a mere flag of convenience for two dictatorships (now one.) The Saddam Hussein regime was not “Ba’athist,” nor was it any other particular ideological stripe; was was just Saddam Husseinist. The Syrian and Iraqi Ba’ath parties had ceased to be a unified party, and had merely become a convenient term for those dictatorships, a good thirty years before this war began.
I know they are considered “quaint” by certain members of this administration, but the Geneva conventions ensure civilians in occupied territories certain rights, among them:
In other words, the actions are illegal under the GC and, if I’m correctly informed, under the UCMJ. Court-martials have so far not taken place, but I’m sure this oversight will be taken care of directly.
The US decided to occupy another nation. Armed resistance should not come as a surprise.
Yeah, always such an annoyance when the enemy doesn’t act according to plan. Here’s the thing: Armed resistance against an occupying force has never, ever lived up to those basic rules of war. The Maquis didn’t. The Mujahideen didn’t. Incidentally, in modern war, the eyeball ID of the enemy is rarely possible, anyway. According to the conventions, the insurgents are most certanly criminals and the occupation authorities have every right to fight them and to prosecute them upon capture. That is no freakin’ excuse for the occupiers to turn criminals themselves.
The US is the occupying force and is obligated to protect the non-combattants. Sorting out who and how is their job, and if they’re not prepared to tackle it, they shouldn’t have gone into the occupation business in the first place.