Which, as some commentators have already pointed out, could make cluster-bombing a village because it has a military target a war crime.
One of either the US or Iraq did not sign this extension though, can’t remember which. The UK certainly has though.
That is an extremely unfair and distasteful thing to say, to put it mildly.
One wish the answer to that would be self-evident. Sadly, it is not.
Randy I have, up to this point, ignored your paraphrase of the Geneva Convention, if you would like to discuss it further, it deserves a thread of its own, but since you seem to make such a big deal out of the word shall, I direct your attention to this.
The meaning of shall is seldom clear.
'T wasn’t I that started slinging Nazisms around, but rather our good German friend. My point was simply to show how stupid his invokation of the “Ubermenschen” was. I guess you missed it.
The use of ubermenschen is hardly an invocation of Godwin. The concept predated Naziism by quite a bit, and was even widely used in the U.S. long before Hitler was born. I believe we called them white folks or first class citizens. I’d hazard a guess that the concept goes back to when we were living in caves.
Not everything that is German is Naziism.
So yes, it was a rather fucked up thing to say.
Gee, DMC, I guess invoking the swastika wouldn’t be Godwin’s either, since, you know, it was around long before the Nazis.
FYI, the Ubermensch comes from Nietzsche but I think Oliver H was using the term figuratively rather than attributing a literally Nietzschean agenda to Rhum Runner or to the United States.
Rhum. I have read some articles in the British press in which US tactics are called into question and contrasted to British. These specifically entailed the use of cluster bombs–the use of which recently resulted in another terrible civilian tragedy; a family basically wiped out by the use of these bombs, and in a very gruesome way. Supposedly the British use these bombs more cautiously, and only where they will not threaten civilians. My sense from these articles is that British methods of urban warfare are seen as superior to American in the sense that they are more successful in expressing humanitarian principles and, therefore, winning over civilians. The downside is, perhaps, that such methods result in greater loss of British lives than would American methods.
Putting entirely aside whether this is true or not–b/c that is not really the subject of this thread–I question how much this issue should be superimposed onto the discussion of this particular tragedy which involves so-called “rules of engagement” at checkpoints.
I still think it’s premature for us to assume we know the events that led up to the tragic and inadvertent killing of 11 (for I gather that is now the figure) family members. While in previous posts I’ve been urging some–and continue to urge some–to remember how “tragic,” I’d like now to urge some others to remember how “inadvertent.”
It’s obvious from what we do know that checkpoint procedures can and should be improved to avoid this kind of tragedy: e.g., posting signs in Arabic. And we don’t know whether the soldier fired warning shots in time, or, if he did not, what can be done to make sure that others do. But I don’t think we can ignore the strong evidence that this was a blunder that is very much regretted by those involved. And so I don’t think that we should rush to lump this example–which seems to be about failed communication with civilians–in with the use of cluster bombs. That is, it’s not clear to me that this episode stands as evidence of the extent to which US military tactics privilege soldiers’ lives over civilian lives to an egregious extent.
OTOH, it still continues to disgust me that there is so much eagerness to try to disavow this tragic event by attributing it to Iraqi conspiracy when there is no credible evidence of that. I am not so much speaking of the OP or even of those who are attempting to keep the hypothesis alive, in spite of strong journalistic evidence in the form of two articles, that the hypothesis is remote at best.
I am speaking more about Fox News (although I never did see a link to what they allegedly reported), and of a press conference I heard yesterday morning in which a spokesperson for the US military responded to a question on this topic. He took the occasion to mention the cleric who claimed that these kinds of supposed tragedies might be occurring “under durress.” In other words, he was trying to blow smoke: to suggest some kind of hostage situation I gather.
Speaking from the heart: for me that was one of the most shameful American moments I have ever experienced. It seems to me that the actual soldiers involved in this event want to make whatever amends and take whatever precautions they possibly can. Indeed, I can’t imagine but that the soldiers quoted in those articles haven’t themselves been emotionally damaged by their involvement in this horror. The official military response to this specific event should take its cue from that remorse. It should not involve callous ass-covering and blowing smoke through ambiguous references to remote conspiracy theories. It should involve a straightforward and heartfelt apology–such as that articulated by the soldiers themselves, and a thorough account of how procedures are or soon will be improved.
Instead of encouraging Americans to suspect that foul Iraqi tactics–though there are no shortage of these–were to blame for this specific episode, Americans should be allowed to acknowledge and mourn the tragic consequences of war–which no one can deny are unpreventable, however good the intentions or vigorous the precautions. Americans–who can be incredibly caring about other people’s suffering when they are informed about it–should be allowed to publicly regret, mourn and attempt to make amends for this kind of unintentional atrocity, like a thinking people, and not like the dupes of propaganda.
Anything that the press does, or that US officials do to encourage Americans instead to deny the impact of their violence–however necessary some may believe that violence to be–is , to my mind, worse for the cause of this war than any amount of protesting by the anti-war camp.
I didn’t read any further than the first page, so if anyone else on subsequent pages has already said this, I apologize now.
Military checkpoints, at least those in a hostile or combat zone, tend to be a bit more substantial than a few orange traffic cones.
In a hasty tactical checkpoint, sandbags would be employed, and stacked in such a way as to force any approaching vehicle to weave through them at a crawl in order to maintain control. Several rifle and/or machinegun pits would be positioned to provide clear lanes of fire upon anyone attempting to force the checkpoint.
In a more prepared checkpoint, K-rails are used. Big honking highway dividers that need a crane (or a team of about a dozen really strong men) to move and position. Like a tactical checkpoint, the K-rails are positioned in such a way that anyone approaching the checkpoint must weave in-and-out at a very slow rate of speed. Actual machinegun towers might be erected, along with sandbag bunkers constructed right at the “stop” point, also with machineguns.
In either case, signs in english and the local language explicitly state for any vehicle driver to clearly see that they are approaching a military checkpoint, and that deadly force will be used against any vehicle or person who fail to comply with posted and verbal instructions.
This van may or may not have been a bomb-filled suicide run; it may or may not have been a “martyr” mission, that is a deliberate provocation designed to allow the Iraqi regime to claim some sort of moral high ground against US forces.
In any case, it was clearly a case at least one person, the driver of that van, deliberately ignoring several posted signs and deliberately weaving in-and-out of obstacles to approach a military checkpoint.
Granted, that checkpoint may not have been there the day before, when that same driver drove down that same road; but only an idiot or a man on a mission could ignore the signs in a country at war (right or wrong) and ignore warning shots, as the basic human reaction, military or civilian, to being shot at is not to run or continue to advance towards your attacker, but to either hit the ground and take cover or to run away from them.
So, in my admittedly limited and ever increasingly out-of-date military opinion, this “incident” was not an accident or misunderstanding on the part of the driver, or the soldiers stationed at the checkpoint.
If the soldiers did panic (a situation I will readily concede), it is because few people in uniform have any experience with things like suicide bombers and a populace with an unknown percentage of people willing to hide behind human shields (especially women and children) in order to approach enemy soldiers to blow them up or otherwise attack them.
And when you, as a civilian, decide to attack enemy soldiers, under any circumstances, by any means, regardless of your moral pretext for doing so, you are no longer a civilian noncombatant.
You are a combatant, and subject to all the perils that implies.
Agree completely. Just to reiterate, all I’ve been trying to discuss here was whether or not the van incident might have been a ploy. Any innocent death is a tragedy. No argument from me on that.
[quote]
It’s obvious from what we do know that checkpoint procedures can and should be improved to avoid this kind of tragedy: e.g., posting signs in Arabic. And we don’t know whether the soldier fired warning shots in time, or, if he did not, what can be done to make sure that others do. But I don’t think we can ignore the strong evidence that this was a blunder that is very much regretted by those involved. And so I don’t think that we should rush to lump this example–which seems to be about failed communication with civilians–in with the use of cluster bombs. That is, it’s not clear to me that this episode stands as evidence of the extent to which US military tactics privilege soldiers’ lives over civilian lives to an egregious extent.
[quote]
Increasingly I agree that this was a tragic misunderstanding. Clearly more should be done to prevent a similar situation. Agree too that more information is needed. I still haven’t seen that fox news report… (I don’t have a TV)
Would agree completely, were it not for Iraq’s behavior in other situations. Therefore, a qualified agree.
[quote]
Instead of encouraging Americans to suspect that foul Iraqi tactics–though there are no shortage of these–were to blame for this specific episode, Americans should be allowed to acknowledge and mourn the tragic consequences of war–which no one can deny are unpreventable, however good the intentions or vigorous the precautions. Americans–who can be incredibly caring about other people’s suffering when they are informed about it–should be allowed to publicly regret, mourn and attempt to make amends for this kind of unintentional atrocity, like a thinking people, and not like the dupes of propaganda.
[quote]
Agree, to a point. Given the actions of the Iraqis in the past, I don’t blame the Gov’t for being reluctant to admit responsibility for the situation before more evidence is gathered. Clearly, if no evidence of a conspiracy emerges, and it appears none will do so (though there is the cleric…) an apology is in order and I don’t doubt one will be forthcoming.
ExTank - This ‘checkpoint’ doesn’t sound nearly as elaborate as what you describe. Not having a TV, I have not seen any pictures, but my impression is that the checkpoint may have only consisted of a couple of Bradleys pulled across the street. If the checkpoint was as you describe, then I think the conspiracy theory gets new life. If they were weaving through sand bags etc. then it is hard to understand how they couldn’t have known to stop. But, I don’t think that was the case here. Does anyone have a link to a picture?
Rhum: even if it was just a couple of Bradley IFVs pulled across a road, that’s a pretty big “STOP” sign right there. Since Eric Westerveldt (sp) of National Public Radio (embedded as part of a Bradley crew) was in a Bradley that was rammed by a suicide squad in a civilian auto, it is not unreasonable to assume that anyone failing to stop at a checkpoint of even Bradleys is Up To Something.
Another point: Iraq is a military dictatorship. I seriously doubt that there are many people in Iraq who don’t know what a military checkpoint looks like.
People With Guns waving for you to stop is fairly “international.” If you are scared for whatever reason and don’t want to stop, continuing to advance upon the People With Guns is officially a Very Bad Idea. I think that that is fairly “international,” too.
I had heard that the driver was a seventy year-old man; if true, some confusion, panic or lack of coordination in operation of a motor vehicle might be understandable. After the fact.
To the Guy On The Ground, who just had four comrades blown to bits by a car bomb a few days before, an approaching vehicle refusing to stop is a Hostile Act. Their response is natural. It’s human nature, and may not be able to be “trained out” of any military force comprised of actual human beings.
Ex - you’ll get no argument from me on that. You may have missed it on pp 2-3, but I believe 100% that the troops were justified to shoot as they did. It is tragic that civilians died, but I don’t blame the troops. Hopefully, it can be avoided in the future through better signs etc.
I can’t find the cite now, but earlier today, on both MSNBC and Foxnews.com, there was an AP article that indicated the people in the van were under duress…seems that their families were being held by the Iraqi military and the people in the van were told to crash the barricade or harm would come to their families.
Did anyone else see this? If true, it makes this discussion more or less moot.
I believe that was mentioned a while back in this thread DirkGntly. The statements were from a (rather high up IIRC) Shiite cleric who cited his connections to Iraqi colleagues as the source of the allegations. I caught the interview with him on FoxTV but I was unable to find a cite for the story on their website.
It’s pretty tenous evidence and there are some here who will don their “good guy badges” and light into you for even considering it. :rolleyes:
I still consider duress to be a possibility but given the context of the situation I have no problem conceding that it is one among many. War is unpredictable, confusing and fatal. And in any case what happened was tragic whoever the the instigator was; pointing the finger at the Fedayeen certainly won’t bring those people back.
ExTank, why don’t you read the Washington Post article which appears on p.1 of this thread. Your generalizations are completely out of line with the facts as we know them. For example, you talk in your first post about signs in Arabic; but there were not such signs. That was part of the problem! There’s also a second article somewhere on page 2 or 3.
Rhum: “I don’t blame the Gov’t for being reluctant to admit responsibility for the situation before more evidence is gathered. Clearly, if no evidence of a conspiracy emerges, and it appears none will do so (though there is the cleric…) an apology is in order and I don’t doubt one will be forthcoming.”
I think under the circumstances a provisional apology is in order. The government has nothing to lose by showing compassion for dead children, or for mothers whose children die in their arms–whatever the circumstances. It also has nothing to lose by making the strongest statement possible about the measures it is taking to prevent all such further confusion on the part of civilians. At the same time the government can make clear that it is investigating the possiblity that foul play of some kind might have been involved.
Dirk, missed your small post the first time I caught up. If you find that cite I’d like to see it. I find it very odd that Fox News keeps reporting this (supposedly) but doesn’t put in in writing (apparently). I can find no sign of an AP article on the subject in my haunts.
Mandelstam, here’s a cite. I don’t vouch for its accuracy, but there it is in writing, FWIW.
Thanks, Desmostylus. That’s about what I’d expected.
Mandelstam: I may stand corrected as to “signage” in my first post, but I’ll stand by my basic human truisms in my second. Both are on this page for easy reference.
Regardless of race, religion, color, creed, sex, or sexual orientation, a 25 ton armored vehicle armed with a 25mm cannon, parked in the middle of a road, with armed soldiers waving you to a stop, is its own STOP sign.
I know I would stop.
I’m pretty sure you would stop.
I’m almost dead certain that anyone without nefarious intentions or otherwise compelling reasons (like, say, your country’s security forces holding guns to your family’s heads?) would stop.
Nature of the beast: Armored Vehicle With A Big Gun in front of me, wants me to stop. I guess I’ll stop.
Even if my brakes were shot, I’m sure that blowing the tranny by slipping my vehicle into reverse as I yank on the parking brake will bring my vehicle to a stop, before the Armored Vehicle With Big Gun in front of me can decide that I’m a threat and open fire.
Even if, as a last resort, I have to run off the damned road, or into a sandbag or concrete barricade to do so.
Because I know my car will lose in a pissing contest with an Armored Vehicle With A Big Gun, and I don’t want to die.
I’m pretty sure that your car will lose in a pissing contest with an Armored Vehicle With A Big Gun, and you don’t want to die.
In fact, just about any sane***** human being who wants to continue to draw breath, when confronted with an Armored Vehicle With A Big GUn, will stop and obey the instructions of the soldiers with guns that the Armored Vehicle With A Big Gun is backing up.
So I have a very difficult time faulting those all-too-human soldiers, even as I also feel a great deal of pity and remorse for the women and children killed by their actions. If the soldiers erred criminally, I fully support bringing the full weight of law against them; otherwise, this is just a tragic incident that clearly illustrates the evil that is Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party.
And anyone who can defend them is morally as bankrupt as anyone who could defend a child molester, or an abuser of women.
[sub]*****People on a mission to wipe out the “Great Satan,” or otherwise compelled under duress, (like, say, your country’s security forces holding guns to your family’s heads?) are exempted from my personal definition of sanity. The second case, IMO, is tragic, and basically unavoidable to the essentially human soldier on-the-ground, who also doesn’t want to die.
YMMV.[/sub]
Yup, I am sure that armchair experts like you know everything about such situations, and that people who actually have experience operating checkpoints under similar situations are a bunch of complete morons.
How please does it illustrate the evil that is Saddam Hussein that GIs violate their obligations under the Geneva convention?
If you’re afraid to get killed, I suggest not invading another country.
This is probably stretching things a bit far. Why assume that ExTank has no such experience? He clearly implies in this thread that he does have such experience.