Dave, I missed your post as I posted or I’d have begun with “What Dave said…”
500-1,000 soldiers set up a forward base in the middle of hostile territory. A convoy of troops and heavy equipment begins to move towards them from the enemy lines. And the soldiers, surrounded on all sides by enemies who have sworn their destruction, are supposed to fucking ask what their intentions are before blowing them to hell and back?!? Are you high?
There have been no war crimes happening that the US protested in the past. Logic is unpersuasive if it is without any basis in reality.
Except that you don’t. The mentality is nothing alike. The biggest similarity is that the wars happened in the same place.
I notice that you suggest that we use Harry Truman as a model for ethics. Theres only one problem. If we nuked a city or two and demanded the Taliban to surrender there would be an actual reason to protest.
Mandelstam the only facts you gave at all were that world opinion agrees with America. And yet you ask “Does world opinion matter not at all?”
Mandelstam, exactly how is my country helping the Northern Alliance commit war crimes? First, you have no evidence that the battle with the prisoners was a war crime, and second you have no evidence that my country helped to commit that war crime.
Perhaps you are laboring under the apprehension that dropping bombs and shooting at enemy soldiers is a war crime. No it is not. Even if the war against the Taliban is unjust, it is still not a war crime to shoot enemy soldiers. If enemy soldiers surrender then it is a war crime to shoot them. But if they are fighting they aren’t surrendering, see?
If the incident was a massacre of unarmed Taliban then that would be a war crime. But that is not what happened. Yes, I’m sure that most of the prisoners at that jail had tried to surrender for real. But once the fighting started the surrender is over. Exactly what do you imagine should have been done at the POW camp? If Taliban soldiers are attacking the guards then it is not a war crime for the guards to shoot back. In fact, it is a war crime to pretend to surrender only to attack your captors.
So why aren’t you outraged that your Taliban are war criminals? Why don’t you angrily call for a war crimes tribunal against the Taliban?
How exactly do you expect us to fight a war “from the moral high ground”? Didn’t you understand that war means killing people? Shooting them with guns and dropping bombs on them? With blood and body parts and such? No, you (and your kind) are simply upset that the war is succeeding. The fact that we are battling enemy soldiers and killing them MUST be a war crime, since killing people is a crime, right? But no. It is not a war crime to blow up enemy soldiers or to shoot enemy soldiers.
Now, Dave Stewart, please explain to me again how America has abandoned its principles in this war. Because from where I stand I don’t see it. Perhaps it is all the biased, censored, anti-American news you are getting. You think we should be helping more Talibs to surrender? Well, if they want to surrender then we shouldn’t shoot them. But we aren’t obligated to beg them to surrender either.
How exactly has Cheney cast himself in the same mould as Osama? Please explain, or perhaps you should simply retract what you wrote. Put up or shut up. Show how American officials have ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent Afghans in this war, or admit that you were babbling nonsense.
But of course there is no way that America could run this war to suit you and your kind, since you don’t want this war to happen anyway. To you the whole war is a war crime, ergo any action US soldiers take is a war crime. Well, it doesn’t exactly work that way.
Sterra:
“There have been no war crimes happening that the US protested in the past. Logic is unpersuasive if it is without any basis in reality.”
Please see the excerpt I cited above. Those were the protests I was referring to. Are you denying them? Quibbling about whether these qualify as war crimes or not? Please be more specific.
I had written: “The irony here is that if this were the Cold War period and the enemy were the Soviets you could substitute “NA” for “Osama bin Laden,” or “Islamic fundamentalist regimes” and you’d have exactly the mentality that helped to get us to where we are right now.”
Sterra’s reply:
“Except that you don’t.”
I don’t what?
“The mentality is nothing alike.”
Why not?
“The biggest similarity is that the wars happened in the same place.”
Of course.
“I notice that you suggest that we use Harry Truman as a model for ethics. Theres only one problem. If we nuked a city or two and demanded the Taliban to surrender there would be an actual reason to protest.”
Okay, let me try to read into this somewhat obscure remark. I’m gonna guess that it’s bugging you that I pitted the morality of a Democratic president against that of the present Republican occupant of the Oval Office. So much so that you’re ready to imply that the use of nuclear weapons is immoral. Well, congratulations. Use of nuclear weapons would indeed be immoral. And if Truman’s decision to use nuclear weapons had been under discussion I’d have very different things to say. But however troubling Truman’s readiness to use nuclear weapons in two Japanese cities at the end of WW II (a war in which about 70 million people died)–and I do believe it was troubling–it doesn’t change the fact that he took the position he did about trying German leaders in a legitimate court. So, no, actually I don’t suggest that Harry Truman was “a model for ethics.” Rather I suggest that Harry Truman’s decision regarding just trials for German leaders was “a model for ethics.” Do you disagree?
*"Mandelstam the only facts you gave at all were that world opinion agrees with America. And yet you ask “Does world opinion matter not at all?” *
Either you’re drinking or your missed the excerpts and links I posted above. I’ve re-read the post you’re responding to and I don’t see where it testifies to world opinion agreeing with America. Perhaps you’re confusing me with someone else.
Lemur: “Why don’t you angrily call for a war crimes tribunal against the Taliban?”
Who says I don’t? That is, prior to 9/11 I had signed several petitions protesting the Taliban’s treatment of women and others. Why assume that because I criticize the US that I don’t hold other countries to the same standards? Make no mistake: I hate everything that the Taliban stands for.
As to the use of the term “war crime” see the link I posted. The title of the piece is “We are the War Criminals Now.” I’ve seen other articles describing the same events in similar ways.
“But of course there is no way that America could run this war to suit you and your kind, since you don’t want this war to happen anyway. To you the whole war is a war crime, ergo any action US soldiers take is a war crime. Well, it doesn’t exactly work that way.”
Well, I’m not sure who you’re talking to just now, but I’ll assume myself. Actually, prior to the war I wasn’t absolutely opposed to the use of military force and, back then, I posted several things I’d read describing a) multilateral police-style actions against specific terrorists and b) guidelines for a “just” war. Either approach would, IMO, be preferable to what we’ve got now.
However I wouldn’t say that the “any action US soldiers take is a war crime.” War crimes are fairly specific. Nor would I say “the whole war is a war crime”–for the same reason. This particular war is: brutal, responsible for killing and starving too many civilians, and is now degenerating into slaughter (war crimes). If the US and its allies want to prevent that kind of thing, they can: or at least try. Obviously they’re not. Most of all I think this war is counterproductive. I’m sorry if my feelings about these issues are spoiling your righteous rage (a feeling I can sympathize with) and your complacency (which I can’t sympathize with).
There has never been a war fought that did not involve things that could be construed as war crimes by either side. There never will be.
Human rights have never been at the top of the US foreign policy agenda. Many things come before it. Many things will always come before it.
The US government’s job is to look out for the best interests of US citizens, just as the French government’s job is to look out for the best interests of the French people and the Nigerian government’s job is to look out for the best interests of the Nigerian people. The only difference is the US has the power to project its will onto other nations, something most other governments lack. The only obligation the US has to practice what it preaches is if the benefits of this outweigh the costs. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t.
As for Harry Truman, he certainly overlooked any war crimes committed by our ally the Soviet Union (Count 4). He also conveniently did not indict any British or American or Soviet officers for committing some of the same acts that German soldiers were indicted on (Count 3).
To put it bluntly, in war, everyone is a criminal and very few are innocent. To believe otherwise is to live in a different reality. There has been no change in policy. The object of war is to win. Period. The only ones who get tried for breaking the “rules” are the losers.
In case anybody has forgotten what we are debating, here are couple of facts:
1- The basic rule (in Arabic: Al Qaida) of this forum is to eradicate ignorance.
2- Does anyone in this forum disagree that the Taliban and the Northern Alliance guys are comprised of mostly ignorant people?
Conclusion: What is wrong with eradicating them from this planet? Where do you draw the line between “Eradication of Ignorance” and the very people that perpetuate it?
I think we should be thankful that two tribes of ignorance are getting rid of each other.
Next. Let the Iranian Basijis and Pasdaran go after the supporters of Saddam Hossein in Iraq. Wonderful. What a lovely way to eradicate ignorance.
Anyone who is following my participation in the threads about military tribunals and about extraditions knows there is nobody here more in favor of the rule of law than I am, but I cannot see in any way how you can call the prison riot a war crime. The prisoners revolted and were fighting. This was an act of war in all senses nd fighting back was more than justified. If it was the NA massacring defenseless prisoners, how come so many NA troops, and even Americans, were killed or wounded? They were shooting themseleves? How come it took them two days to regain control? Gimme a break. This was an act of war however you look at it.
To those here who defend attrocities as part of war: you are wrong. The killing of defenseless prisoners is a crime always.
To those who say this was the killing of defenseless prisoners: You are wrong. This was an act of war and fully justified.
Actually I just wanted to know what war crimes you were talking about. Its hard to argue against something that you never mention. Why would we not shoot prisoners that are trying to kill us?
If the only thing you give are blanket generalized assertions then the only thing I can give are blanket generalized denials of them. To have a why not, you must first have a reason why.
I think that had the Germans staged an armed revolt after being captured that they would all have died. His decision on what to do with prisoners is that he wants us to kill all the leaders. Bush’s decision is that we only want to kill Osama Bin Laden and maybe the leaders. The model seems to be working well enough for Bush to use it.
Your earlier source is ranting about how world opinion is on America’s side.
sailor and others: I’m not interested (though others might be) in debating whether the prison riot was or wasn’t a war crime. I don’t have sufficient access to the facts. If I did I might decide that it wasn’t, technically, a war crime either: but in either case I feel on the alert. The Northern Alliance is in control of certain areas, the US and its allies are their allies. I believe that in this war–for reasons I will explain below–the US has to hold itself to a higher standard than ever before.
**Neurotik **:
“There has never been a war fought that did not involve things that could be construed as war crimes by either side. There never will be.”
I’m sorry Neurotik, but this kind of statement is insufficient. Even if I believed it were true (and I actually don’t entirely), it would be of very little help as to the question of what we’re dealing with today. Normative statements about what is or what isn’t reality always serve the powerful. The world is hip to this fact. More on this in a moment.
“Human rights have never been at the top of the US foreign policy agenda. Many things come before it. Many things will always come before it.”
Agreed, but with a proviso on the last. That’s gonna have to change and it should.
“The US government’s job is to look out for the best interests of US citizens, just as the French government’s job is to look out for the best interests of the French people and the Nigerian government’s job is to look out for the best interests of the Nigerian people. The only difference is the US has the power to project its will onto other nations, something most other governments lack. The only obligation the US has to practice what it preaches is if the benefits of this outweigh the costs. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t.”
Well, you’ve just described the “realist” view of international relations. (For those who aren’t familiar with it, the idea is that nations act in their own self-interest, not according to a higher morality.) As a matter of a fact, I think the realist school is too important to ignore (though I don’t often find the conclusions of realists consistent with their assumptions).
For argument’s sake, let’s accept these premises. The US is the world’s only superpower in a world in which the job of every nation is to look after its own interests. Under the US watch globalization has favored the elites of the world’s developing nations while decimating the middle classes, and impoverishing the poor (or, sometimes, just leaving them impoverished).
European nations are important allies for the US. Because of competition they too are being forced–whether they like it or not (and there are some supporters)–to adopt US-style economic policies. Stripping down the social safety net, keeping middle-class business managers under the gun (or downsizing them if they fail), reducing the autonomy of professionals in the non-corporate service sector, and, most of all, reducing the standard of living of the working classes (eliminating well-paid factory labor and shifting it overseas; reducing these people in effect from middle-class to struggling working people, often working poor). (This is actually a recipe for an eventual world recession once the US credit card, as it may well be doing now, maxes out and can’t buy up the stuff that no one else can afford to purchase. But that’s another thread.)
In the meantime, in the developing world the great mass of people are living at the subsistence level; they have no access to political participation; they don’t have decent quality of life for themselves or their children. Millions of people are working in sweatshop conditions to earn a few dollars a day. And in some instances the US is helping the (often hated) elites of these countries to stay in power. These elites very often run brutal regimes that crush political resistance, don’t permit trade unions, etc.
We already know (from other threads) how this pattern relates to the particular history of the Middle East, with the special importance of oil, the cozy relation to US-friendly rulers as in Saudi, and the US’s historic allegiance to Israel.
Conclusion: terrorism is the war of the powerless against the powerful. I don’t condone it; I don’t justify it. But I’m not surprised when it happens because the asymmetries of power and wealth are what they are. Any level-head realist would deduce it from the conditions as they are.
Remember, the US absorbs (from memory) about 50% of the world’s resources with something like 5% of the world’s population.
Some would say that the world was more stable during the Cold War b/c when there were two superpowers vying for influence over various regions. Indeed, realists were, by and large, the ones to say that this was a good balance of power; and they were worried when the US became the world’s only superpower. It was the liberals (in the political theory sense) who cheered the triumph of Western democracy and capitalism–not the realists. And guess what: liberalism is premised on a moral stance. On delivering freedom, autonomy, democracy and the benefits of trade to the largest number of people. As a neo-liberal, globalizing superpower the US has talked the talk but they haven’t walked the walk. If it wants to rule the globe under a professed reign of liberalization, it had better get down to some liberalizing. (This could actually be a very good thing: for the US and the world.)
The world is too small a place these days for gunboat diplomacy–while the whole world looks on–to work as a way of repressing fundamentalist movements turned into terror organizations.
As to Truman, as I said in my reply to Sterra, I was not suggesting he was perfect or morally consistent. Not by any means! The man knew how to walk the liberal’s walk when it counted. As you and I have agreed in another thread, US actions after WWII (trying war criminals, the Marshall Plan) were, perhaps, the US’s finest hour. Now the world is looking on. Walking the walk counts now. Bush claims to be fighting “evil” and then perpetrates it. Here in the US, alas, that might fly: but this war isn’t (only) about what’s popular in the US.
“The only ones who get tried for breaking the “rules” are the losers.”
Exactly. And you just assume the US will “win.” Will they succeed in getting rid of the Taliban? Sooner or later, yes. (And good riddance.) But will this cure the problem of terrorism in the 21st century? Or the larger problem of how to keep in place a status quo that–in an age of instanteous communication, fast travel and permeable boundaries–expects the great majority of people to live miserably?
I wouldn’t be too fast to judge who the winners and losers are at this moment in history. This is not a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan so much as a war about the future geopolitics of the 21st century.
You seem to think that I’m naive and have an unrealistic view of moral possibilities. Actually, I think I’m more realistic than you are.
Sterra, remaining “gutlessly silent” is far from supporting. Thanks for your post.
Brief addition to my last. This may have given the impression that US policy/dominance is good for the great majority of US people. Its certainly good for a small strata who own major stocks in multinational corporations, or run these corporations. But for people who just work for a living it’s not necessary good at all. A US government that worked to serve the interests of the US population (rather than of US-based multinational corporations) would do very different things.
In other words, Mandelstam, you think that the only way to eliminate terrorism is the adoption of world-wide socialism and the elimination of capitalism. If that’s your point, I don’t see that we have much to debate w/r/t war crimes and terrorism, and I’m sure most people would prefer not to have this thread hijacked and crashed into a tower of purely economic debate. Perhaps another thread would be more appropriate?
World-wide socialism??? Minty–I often like your posts so ask you in earnest–do you perceive yourself as living in a socialist country at the present moment? Or is prosperity something that only Western people are meant to enjoy: and when others try to enjoy it, it’s called “socialism.” If you would like to open a thread and link it to this one, please go ahead. But please, don’t use the word “socialism.” Conservatives like Frances “End of History” Fukuyama have been talking about liberalization as the future of the planet for years.
I’m sorry if it seemed like a hijack but I couldn’t possibly respond to Neurotik’s post in any other way. He was implying (as were others) that the only reason to protest dubious acts of war was grounded in starry-eyed moral idealism. I needed to show why I believe otherwise.
Fine, liberalization it is then. I’m just saying it isn’t especially germane to a debate about war crimes in Afghanistan and would best be left to a different thread. But then again, IANAM.
I’m glad you feel so certain of the circumstances. I’m sure, therefore, you wouldn’t object to a full inquiry to confirm what you feel is already established. You know, just for the rest of us.
BTW, this is the most comprehensive assessment of the events I’ve so far seen in the public domain:
No, and what’s more I try quite hard to divorce wrapped-in-the-flag, knee-jerk emotional reaction from hard-headed analysis. You, one assumes, wouldn’t agree that’s the right approach…
I’m sure Mandelstam has a different perspective but here’s mine – I’m also sure you’ll appeciate this. Of course the issue isn’t one of adopting Socialism but rather, IMHO, one of investing naked, amoral Capitalism – as practiced by successive US Administrations through 50 years of Foreign Policy ‘goals’ – with a degree of responsibility and ethics. That cannot be done, IMHO, while every President is indebted not to the electorate but to the Corporate interests who continue to exert their shareholder agenda on Foreign Policy long after election campaigns via the Lobby system.
The issue centres on establishing a separation of powers as between State and Corporations, IMHO, and, at the same time, re-establishing a transparent link between elected representatives practicing Foreign Policy and the electorate.
So you deny being high, but you still apparently think that the Marines should have inquired into the intentions of the Talilban’s soldiers in that aremored column heading straight for their positions before blowing their armored column to hell? If so, you’ll have to pardon me while I fail to take anything you say in this thread seriously.
London: "I’m sure Mandelstam has a different perspective but here’s mine – I’m also sure you’ll appeciate this. Of course the issue isn’t one of adopting Socialism but rather, IMHO, one of investing naked, amoral Capitalism – as practiced by successive US Administrations through 50 years of Foreign Policy ‘goals’ – with a degree of responsibility and ethics. That cannot be done, IMHO, while every President is indebted not to the electorate but to the Corporate interests who continue to exert their shareholder agenda on Foreign Policy long after election campaigns via the Lobby system."
Just curious why you feel sure my perspective is different. I don’t disagree with this view (though there’s certainly more to it). Anyway, I’ve got to run. But if you or Minty or anyone else wants to start a thread called something like “Terrorism and Globalization,” I’d be happy to participate later so as not to hijack this one.
MandelstamYep, I have to run too but I was trying to say I wouldn’t presume to speak for someone else…Christmas shopping…
>> Its all well and good to fight a war and win it. Its another thing to fight a war from the high moral ground. The United States has been losing that for a while now. People like Cheney have cast themselves in the same get-down-and-dirty mould as bin Laden. That would be fine if they were the leaders of some backwater country with no influence, but this is the government of the nations which likes to describe itself as the “leader of the free world”.
I am not going to say America is perfect as I am criticising in another thread the military tribunals, but I have to say the way they have been fighting has been very restrained by concerns for innocent civilians and by other ethical concerns. There was recently an article in the news about this, about how many targets were not attacked because of minimal doubts.
>> This was an act of war and fully justified
>> I’m glad you feel so certain of the circumstances. I’m sure, therefore, you wouldn’t object to a full inquiry to confirm what you feel is already established. You know, just for the rest of us.
London_Calling, I have no objection to a full inquiry, in fact, I think it is very necessary and, of course, I will accept their findings. But, for now, all the evidence I have points the other way and a number of people are already condemming the USA with evidence that looks very exculpatory to me. That is my point.
>> sailor and others: I’m not interested (though others might be) in debating whether the prison riot was or wasn’t a war crime.
Mandelstam, I think this is crucial to the OP, and therefore to the thread.
>> I believe that in this war-- the US has to hold itself to a higher standard than ever before.
We could not agree more. Noblesse oblige.