The prediction wasn’t correct. Whether it was crazy or not is another matter.
Did he say when? I don’t recall. E.g., did Hersh predict we would be at war with Iran before the midterm elections?
See post #11. The prediction was made almost 2 years ago. Is he supposed to get a 7 year statute of limitations on that? 
At any rate, whether something is “crazy” or not is a matter of opinion. Whether something happend or not is a matter of fact. And Mother Jones isn’t my idea of a credible journalistic source, btw. We can all find articles supporting any thesis if we cast a wide enough net.
The thing is, if Hersh wants me accept his articles in which he quotes anonymous sources, and unnamed Pentagon officials, he can’t go giving speeches where he calls Bush King Geroge II. I have every reason to suspect that he is filtering his information thru a very partisan viewpoint. Same thing goes for someone who calls Hillary Clinton a communist.
It’s a horrible tactic that violates not only the laws of war and common decency, but it obviously kind of stupid. All sane humans run from explosions.
But Hersh should provide the evidence, if he has any, that this happened. For one thing, if it DID happen, getting such evidence out there would help in opposition the Bush administration’s policies that lead to the atrocity.
“I saw this videotape” is worthless hearsay. Hearsay may be good enough for a Bush kangaroo court, but not for thinking people to draw conclusions from.
This CNN report seems to contradict the idea that US soldiers fire willy-nilly after an IED incident. I can’t find it right now, but I read another article with similar information this week. It was a series of emails from a slain US soldier to his family and friends. (Hopefully someone else can find the article.) He was frustrated by the lack of professionalism in the Iraqi army. The Iraqi’s are allowed to fire on anything that moves, while the Americans are required to identify a legitimate target. US Soldiers, by and large, follow the rules.
Hersch is being overly dramatic. If the video he mentions exists and becomes public, does anyone really doubt the incident will be investigated and criminal charges filed, if warranted. (Maybe that’s a dumb question around here.) One thing that sets the American army apart in Iraq is the willingness to prosecute soldiers who willfully commit crimes.
Saw this today from a TR speech in 1901:
[qoute]Barbarism has, and can have, no place in a civilized world. It is our duty toward the people living in barbarism to see that they are freed from their chains, and we can free them only by destroying barbarism itself. The missionary, the merchant, and the soldier may each have to play a part in this destruction, and in the consequent uplifting of the people. Exactly as it is the duty of a civilized power scrupulously to respect the rights of all weaker civilized powers and gladly to help those who are struggling toward civilization, so it is its duty to put down savagery and barbarism. As in such a work human instruments must be used, and as human instruments are imperfect, this means that at times there will be injustice; that at times merchant or soldier, or even missionary, may do wrong. Let us instantly condemn and rectify such wrong when it occurs, and if possible punish the wrongdoer. But shame, thrice shame to us, if we are so foolish as to make such occasional wrongdoing an excuse for failing to perform a great and righteous task.
[/quote]
No it should be completely rejected. How can it be true. Get real. You would say the video does not prove anything to you either.
This is the ugliest kind of war. There is no way to identify the enemy. In order to keep alive you have to develop a shoot first and ask questions later. mentality That is the horrible reality.Horrors will and have happened. There will be more. Busting down doors in the middle of the night will not endear you to the people.The whole modus operandi will guarantee our hatred.It is a lose lose.
I didn’t get what you did out of that testimonial. What the American soldier clearly states is that after an attack (the nature of which is not specified), Iraqi soldiers are in the habit of firing their weapons indiscriminately until they are empty. Certainly, the soldier cites a cavalier attitude toward civilians shown by these Iraqi troops, but provides no insight into the criteria used by Americans to differentiate cobatants from innocent bystanders.
Unlike many political magazines which are mostly collections of commentary, MJ at least is a journalistic source; and AFAIK the magazine has never yet been caught out in a lie or a serious distortion or an embarrassing major factual mistake. And it won the 2001 National Magazine Award in General Excellence, FWIW.
What I saw was the Americans were frustrated with the Iraqis *because * they fired indiscriminately. The implication being the US soldiers weren’t allowed to, or trained to do that sort of thing. I’m still searching for the other article that makes this more explicit.
It would be interesting to hear from an actual soldier Doper on their experience with this kind of training. Are there any?
Ah yes, the old “spray and pray” technique I’ve seen Paul in Saudi post about.
If a soldier is ordered to shoot anyone fleeing from the vicinity of a detonated IED, and does so, there is nothing indiscriminate about that. After all, those who do not flee are not fired upon, so there’s a clear means of differentiating those deemed to be suspected combatants from those who are not. I think the real crux of this particular debate is that this does not appear to be a legitimate criterion for discriminating combatants from non-combatants, and, if actually employed, might lead to the comitting of war crimes.
It echoes a ghastly joke from That Other War: “If a Vietnamese runs, he’s Viet Cong, shoot him. If he doesn’t run, he is a very disciplined VC.”
Mmm. And from out of Gaza today, the joke might be “Easy! You just don’t lead them as much.”