"There has never been an American army as violent and murderous as the one in Iraq”
This statement was made by Seymour Hersh. Seems a bit over the top, but I don’t know you measure the relative “violent murderousness” of an organization whose legitimate job description includes killing people and blowing stuff up, if necessary, to achieve a goal. Does he have a leg to stand on?
I think a certain Mongolian Khan might have to disagree.
What part of Nebraska was he from again?
I just love objective journalists.
It’s unfortunate to see a respected journalist like Hersh sink to this type of behavior. And he’s still trying to peddle his (failed) forecasting about Iran:
Which American army was he in charge of?
Without historical records, I can’t imagine any way to state with confidence that one incarnation of the army is more murderous than another. That said, what Hirsch describes is so grotesque that I’d be willing to forgive the possible overstatement.
Yes, the famous Mongolian-American Hordes. 
To be fair, even if he’s correct, it’s not as though he’s saying “all American soldiers are rapists, killers of the innocent” etc etc, but just that the current army as a whole is the worst in this regard when compared to the U.S. army at any other time. I’m just saying this to forestall any comments along the lines of “Other armies are worse!!” or “U.S. soldiers aren’t all bad!!”.
Other than that, not knowing much about the conduct of the U.S. military in the past, I have no dog in this fight.
Are you willing to forgive the lack of any evidence he has to back up his depiction of the events?
To be serious, there’s no way to know if Hersh has legs or not from only his speech, because it’s his sole testimony. I guess if what he’s saying is truthful and widespread, then it might be accurate to describe the way American forces are prosecuting the war as “murderous”. Murder is unlawful killing, after all, and in war, the killing of an enemy combatant is not considered “unlawful”, while the wanton killing of non-combatants is. Thing is, if one can be defined as a “combatant” merely by their mode and/or direction of locomotion, I’m not sure where the line between lawful and unlawful can be drawn. Is that a legitimate way to determine who the enemy is? Seems fishy to me, but I’ve really no idea.
Given the alleged lack of such evidence, then, may one conclude that what has been reported over the past three-or-so years is what is deemed “normal behaviour” for the US army?
Out of curiosity, has he made predictions in the past on the subject wich turned out to be faulty? I don’t see a timeline here, which seems to make his “prediction” seem to me not so much “failed” as hopelessly imprecise. Has he proposed specific timeframes which have come and gone without meeting his forecasts?
He weasels his way out of making a clear prediction, but it’s close enough for my money:
Besides, all one need do is look at WWII and the deliberate targeting of civilians (Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagaski to name a few instances), and the quote in the OP is preposterous.
As depicted in The Conqueror.
That’s why I worded my post the way I did, but I should have said it more clearly: if what he’s describing is accurate and it’s clear from the video that the soldiers run out and open fire on a soccer game, then it’s grotesque and I’d forgive the possible hyperbole. If he’s leaving things out or not accurately describing this video, then no. I doubt I’ll ever see the thing myself, so ultimately it’s hard to say.
Loopydude, Hersh (spelled it wrong before) has been pretty specific about an American invasion of Iran. I think he first predicted in early 2005 that it was definitely going to happen by summer that year.
Yeah, but Dresden, Hiroshima, etc. were all attacked in the context of “total war”, in which it is purported, at least, that the civilian infrastructure has been so coopted by the military that it becomes a legitimate military target. It’s arguable that Vietnam and Iraq are different kinds of wars, and perhaps different standards for targeting civilians will therefore apply.
Thanks also to JM and Marley for the background on Hersh.
In Omaha did Kublai Khan,
A stately pleasure dome decree…
Perhaps he reads the neocon literature:
Joshua Muravchik, wrote today about turning things around for his ilk; Operation Comeback
Of course, then he goes all Crazy:
Who could ever believe that Joe’s not a Democrat? 
I don’t recall an article about an invasion. In the article about the air strike, and in your quote, he is talking about preparations, and not predicting that a strike will happen. If you recall, he also reported that the military was dead set against a nuclear option. I heard him later, on Fresh Air, say that the military succeeded in getting that ruled out - possibly due to the article.
Clearly something like this is not like an earthquake or the second coming where the reporting has no impact on the event. From the Fresh Air interview, I got the impression that no one was happier that the “prediction” (which I’ll need a better cite for) did not come true.
As mentioned, I don’t think these count. I’d suggest Sherman’s march or some of the massacres during the Indian Wars as better candidates.
I’m not sure if that whole post was tongue-in-cheek, but there is a world of difference between a pundit saying what he thinks we should do, and administration officials saying what we will do. Hersh was talking about the latter.
Okay, okay. My mistake. I misread the OP.
Then again, he could have been from Battle Creek, Nebraska.