US Soldiers killing Afghani civilians.

Great Debates
141

I’m not sure he’s right. I don’t know that we question the right or wrong of the Afghans who kill Americans. They’re viewed as a military enemy I think, and I don’t think most Americans think much about what happens to them after the fact. I think a lot of the ones who have been members of the Afghan military and who take shots at American soldiers end up eating their own gun or getting killed in their blaze of glory.

I think we only question why an American does something like this because we have to think about it and deal with it. Same reason we question why people like the Virginia Tech shooter or the Columbine students did what they did. We only think about enemy combatants in the term of military solutions, whereas when it’s a member of our society we have to think about them in terms of policy initiatives, societal behavior etc.

142

It’s not a widely held view, but I’ve always looked upon anyone, be they illegal combatants operating in violation of the GC or legal combatants, who attempt to kill American soldiers as men doing something they believe to be right fighting for a cause they believe to be right. That doesn’t mean I think they’re doing right, but I was a soldier and I recognized the full ramifications of that. Soldiers are not just the shield of the state and its people, but also its sword, and it’s unrealistic to think that other entities be they other States or quasi-states will not have soldiers who will have military goals that can only be achieved through killing their enemy. Their enemy might sometimes be the United States.

In the context of their greater mission, I don’t question Taliban sleeper agents or Taliban soldiers in the field for their motivations. Their motivation is to fight for their group, their cause, their society. I don’t think it’s intrinsically wrong. I think some of the ideology the Taliban believes in is intrinsically wrong. But if we have a right to wage war against them they sure as hell have a right to wage war back, all rights only exist by being settled in such a way in any case.

This Sgt. Bales is different to me materially than a Taliban fighter. A Taliban fighter has goals to advance the power of the Taliban, expand its reach, destabilize and weaken the enemies of the Taliban. So I don’t question a Taliban soldier who ambushes an American patrol, or a Taliban soldier who infiltrates the Afghan military to carry out attacks against us behind the lines.

However, an area under Taliban control, with a pro-Taliban population, I would question a solitary Taliban soldier walking out one night and killing 15-16 of those people. Sgt. Bales mission was to protect the villagers in that region, so his actions are not the same at all as a Taliban soldier attacking us, but rather a Taliban soldier attacking civilians in the Taliban’s area of control. Based on some blog entries he’s made I think Sgt. Bales understood the theoretical framework of such a mission very well, so I definitely question what could have motivated him to take such an action.

143

I don’t, actually. A war journalist will certainly prove their personal bravery and courage in being in an active war zone. But it’s a different thing from having to pull the trigger with another human being in your sights. It may look the same to a casual observer, but the missions are very different, and I don’t necessarily think Fisk would have any idea about the mission of the military coming from the perspective he does.

144

That’s fair enough. I have neither your experience nor his, so my own judgment on this issue is also perhaps suspect. I find it hard to believe that he could spend 35 years in war zones and not know how soldiers think, though.

145

Soldiers aren’t monolithic so I don’t know that one man can speak intelligently about how they think without reducing them to very simplistic sketches.

Looking back over what you said I’m not actually sure why Robert Fisk’s experience as a war correspondent is a reason we should give his view any kind of nod. He’s not talking about how soldiers think, he’s talking about how society evaluates the actions of our soldiers versus how we evaluate the actions of Afghans. He’s no more an expert on our society from his time spent as a war correspondent than you or I.

I’d argue that our society thinks differently about a soldier who kills people he is supposed to protect than we do an Afghan is killing people they view as “the enemy.” I view the latter as being engaged in a military conflict, the former is something else, a lot closer to a spree killer domestically like Breivik, Cho, Hasan etc.

146

If you read the article, he’s not really talking about society. He’s talking specifically about how the media have couched the killings. He’s probably supremely ill-equipped to opine on how Western society treats this stuff; he’s been living in Beirut since 1970-something.

147

Yeah, I’m not so sure I really care at all what a British guy who chooses to live in Beirut and per his Wiki article seems to latch on to some of the 9/11 truth movement talking points (while disavowing complete Trutherism.)

As I said, I think it’s a totally false point. An American shooting villagers who it is his mission to protect is different from Taliban shooting Americans they view as a military enemy. Americans shooting Taliban they view as a military enemy is also different from this.

The only thing they all have in common is all three are different types of shootings in Afghanistan, but they are different materially. It’s the difference between a police officer shooting a criminal that has pulled a gun on him and a police officer shooting the neighborhood he patrols on his beat. Would we really expect the reporting on those things to be the same?

I wouldn’t really expect people to question the motives of Taliban/et al soldiers that shoot Americans–they are at war with us, their motive goes without saying. Bales wasn’t shooting at people that were waging war against him, and that makes it a very different thing worthy of a different discussion. The fact that Fisk thinks they are similar actions suggests to me he doesn’t have a properly formed view of this.

148

I find it somewhat disconcerting how the US places more emphasis on a soldier killing outsiders vs. soldiers causing the death of a fellow soldier (Danny Chen). There was no statement from the President about Chen. Neither was there a SD thread.

149

I find it disconcerting that there are people in the US that find the death of one of their soldiers more disconcerting than the death of innocent children.

150

How else do you think the war machine and the “support the troops” show can sustain itself?

151

For what it’s worth, I’d never head of Chen until you mentioned him, but since the cause of death hasn’t yet been officially reported it would be odd for the President to make a statement about him.

152

I had heard of Fisk being rather biased before but didn’t think that article really was.

He had a good point about if the soldier really were so “deranged” that he didn’t know right from wrong then it’s strange that he went out and shot Afghanis rather than letting fly on his base. This wasn’t something that occurred in the heat of a battle - he left the base and travelled a long way between the different locations. There’s decision-making involved there.

The burning is… well, did he actually do that himself? Did he burn the people after he killed them? I’m not sure, from the reports I’ve read. If he did, that might point more towards insanity, but definitely not the kind of insanity you ever want let out of prison.

It’s also weird to see posts in this thread saying that perhaps he was driven to this state of mind by going on lots of combat tours and, the day before, seeing a friend’s legs blown off. I thought that was what front-line soldiers lived with. Not that they’ll all see their friends die every day, but that it happens.

I’m not saying that such experiences can’t drive a man crazy, but there has to be something else too, or every soldier with his combat experience - which must be quite a lot of soldiers - would be off shooting children.

And if he was driven mad by the horrors he’d seen and been a part of, then doesn’t that also mean that the Afghans who killed the Koran-burning soldiers are also excused? It’s not like they would never have seen their friend’s legs blown off and far worse. And what about the families of the people this soldier killed? They - especially the ones who’ve lost their children - have far more excuse to become “deranged” and run off killing lots of people too. So far, at least, they haven’t done it.

FWIW: IMO, life in prison is the right thing. The trial being on a US base in Afghanistan would help it be a fair trial by making witnesses available; if he really is insane, then they’ll need to know what he actually did.

If he chooses a civilian attorney then surely it would be far easier for one attorney to go to Afghanistan than fly a whole village to the US to give witness statements.

Why do you find it more shocking that a country would “place more emphasis” on institutional bullying and possible manslaughter on one signed-up soldier than on a man who admits to murdering numerous random people, including children? But if there isn’t a thread, you could start one.

153

It would seem to me that because we are fighting a war in Afghanistan, that it should be the military, in a way, isn’t that like he is a citizan of the military while he is there? We don’t demand that the Afghaistan people who kill our soldiers be tried here,or by our military! THe Justice in Afghanistan is just kill them,(as I see it),Since a man can kill his wife or daughter if they choose to, and if the reporting of such things are true, then he wouldn’t stand a chance of a fair trial there.

154

We generally don’t give people who kill our soldiers a trial at all, so I’m not really sure what you’re getting at here.

155

Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear,I meant that during a war our military is responsible for what our soldiers do,in a case such as this our military will disipline the soldier if he/she does not act as they should. What the soldier did was not acting as the majority of our soldiers do, and the trial should be done by our military,our law is innocent until proven guilty, and a trial by the Taliban would not be just; they don’t seem to have to have a reason to kill their own people, there would be no trial if turned over to the Afghanistan people, he would just be (maybe torchered) then shot!

There have been people in Afphagistan who just came in and shot some of our soldiers,and they were not being attacked. I am not saying what the soldier did was right,I was not there, nor do I know the man’s state of mind. I will leave it to the people who know more than I do to check the facts.

We do take prisioners of war,and hold them,just as we did in WW2.

156

Who are you to judge the Afghan justice system? You apparently don’t even know the difference between the Taliban and other Afghans. The Afghans really have no more reason to trust our military justice system than we have to trust their civilian system.

157

Well, we do know he made a decision not to kill Americans on the base and instead to leave the base - which he was seemingly allowed to do despite a history of Americans being kidnapped in those circs - with his rifle and go find some locals to kill instead. That demonstrates a judgement, permission or persuasion, and clear decision-making.

158

I do know the difference,the Taliban took over the Afghan people and mistreated the women,the Taliban were living in Aphgan so i figure they were a part of that society.The Taliban were the one’s who allowed the al Quida to train in their country and were warned to stop letting them train there,that is one of the reasons we went to war there after 9/11.
The Aphgan government is considered to be corrupt by the other countries, and I can only judge on what is reported and shown on the TV.Do you live in Aphgan? If not, then I guess we both don’t know the situation any better than the other.

159

Of course what he did was terribly wrong, and I do believe he should stand for trial, no matter what his state of mind. He didn’t help his cause by his own actions just made things worse, for him self,andall involved, and I do feel bad for the families of the victims. Nothing can bring them back.

160

Afghan villagers say shootings were revenge

As horrible as this is, doesn’t counterinsurgency usually end up like this? I am reminded of all of the times in the conflicts between native Americans and white settlers/US Army where there were massacres on both sides. Sometimes these were strategically planned by officers or chiefs but often they consisted of young hotheads running off to take revenge in spite of the authority figures’ attempts to reign them end and limit the violence.