quote: Clearly I don't have a military mind, as, to me, all of that sounds like common sense, not "extreme" measures.
Depends on the military culture and type of deployment. In this type of deployment those things are basically common sense; in WW2 they did not. the Iraq occupation is essentially an old style ColPol (Colonial Policing) deployment, although more akin to the various emergancy situations which accompanied the end of empire. The US Army has rarely had to fight this kind of war; it's interesting that old British Army training manuals were circulated to some US commanders prior to the war.
As for Pinter, yes it's quite a good polemic piece. But that's pretty much all it is.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
It also depends on the style of war being waged.
Iraq is without a doubt a limited war with both military and political goals. Well its an armed conflict if you will since only Congress can declare war in the United States and I�m starting to become very tired of the talking head media misusing the term.
In an unlimited war scenario a state does whatever it takes to win, including targeting the civilian population of a country to destroy their will to:
1) continue to fight 2) continue to support the regime in power
The British and American bombing raids over Germany in World War II, Sherman�s March To The Sea and Sheridan�s Shenandoah campaign during the American Civil War offer examples.
The Korean conflict offers and example of the conflict between limited and unlimited war. Douglas MacArthur wanted to bomb across the Yalu River into China thereby greatly escalating the war but was stopped by Harry Truman. Militarily attacking across the Yalu might have been the correct thing to do, but Truman didn�t see such an escalation as a goal of his in the conflict.
[ December 13, 2005, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Well, compare it to, say, WWII where the "greatest generation" certainly did not adhere to such restrictions.
My grandpa's always proudly telling that story where he opened up with his Thompson on that crowd of doe-eyed French villagers because he thought he saw Jerry. We all laugh and laugh at the good old days.
Though there have been I think there have been plentyof reportsof US soldiersfiring into crowds, it was specifically the aforementioned sub-accurate mortar deployment of white phosphorous rounds (in civilian areas no less). Which, I suspect, was the point initially. Well, perhaps not THE point, but a A point.
I do think we are arguing at cross purposes here. Bad things are happening to human beings on both sides in Iraq. We could argue all day about the level at which this is transpiring and never get anywhere.
I think what Pinter (and many of us) find offensive are the reasons why this is occuring. The suicide bombings, and the leveling of civilian infrastructure searching for insurgents--these acts themselves are reprehensible enough. The deaths are horror aplenty.
What I find truly terrorist are the mercenary motivations behind this 'armed conflict'. The transparent lies and subsequent revisionist history behind our motivations for the present conflict are, at best, dishonorable and ignoble--at worst putrescent and murderous. The craven use of ephemism and media manipulation to lessen the reality, to falsly justify the squandering of human life, and ultimately to conceal the ugliness of our corrupt intent only compounds our sins.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
"Clearly, that's horiffic, but it reflects problems with overall policy and strategy- not the actions of the troops in the field."
Well, that's what the whole thing is about in the first place : the administration's policies. I don't recall anything that Pinter said that was directed negatively at individual soldiers (even in a generalized "the soldiers" sort of way).
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I posted that in response to ypur post about "token gestures" not to the article.
From the linked article:
quote:Sgt Fargon Macksud said he was shot at by a lone gunman but at first held back from returning fire. "I saw the first muzzle flash . . . I didn't fire, I just put my cross-hairs on him," he told ITV News. "The second time he shot, I put a round in him and he fired at the ground. I put another round in him. He didn't move any more."
The army said it found two machineguns, a rifle and 2,500 rounds of ammunition on the roof of a neighbouring house, as well as some spent cartridges. There were bullet holes in two windows of a class room and some bullet marks on the walls.
Very tough situation- it would have probably gone down the same way in any riot situation where people are shooting at authorities and the crowd is violent -even if it's "only" stones- a soldier or cop that goes down will get torn apart by a angry mob- even in the U.S.
From the second linked article:
quote:Even so, al-Jazeera's Baghdad correspondent said on the air that "US forces opened fire around midnight after someone in the crowd threw a stone at them."
So, we see what actually happened in one news source, then Al Jeezera spins it, and this blog picks it up and repeats it like it's a fact.
Makes me doubt the validity of everything else on that site.
The third link (CNN) is the same senerao as the first- a gathering with soldiers near erupts in shooting at the soldiers, then the crowd starts trying to stone them (because not everyone can get their own gun, thankfully), and this time a news crew is stoned as well....after they stoned someone speaking his mind (without violence!) in favor of the americans. Pattern? Insurgents are mixing with crowds to encite violence- not a new ploy, but effective, I guess...not doing their own people any favors either.
Neither of these incidents looks like the troops were doing anything but defending themselves (though that last one is pretty sketchy on facts).
Note that "throwing stones" is a pretty broad term here- recall that the Taliban used to publicly execute people by stoning- they are not talking about the rock fights you might have had as a kid. A few dozen people slinging baseball sized rocks is going to be as lethal as a gunman.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Didn't you read TSN's previous post, Jason? This is splitting hairs, Pinter's point was that the whole campaign is questionable and that no matter how professional and courteous the troops would be, there is no question that they will make the lives of the iraqis worse.
I remember an interview with a former staff aide at the time of 9/11, who said that after the president had gotten news of middle-eastern involvement in the attacks, he called meetings to draw up plans for invading Iraq, before a connection had even been made. He and his gang had been planning for an occasion like this ever since the 90's, waiting for an excuse to launch the campaign and create something Bush will be remembered for. This is Pinter's core argument; the US has taken a new path in history, and as with their 'looking the other way' of Contras in Nicaragua, their view of the greater good has been twisted from that of the other countries in the "free" world. They are killing villages to save them.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
You're thinking of Dick Clarke, who was national security advisor to the president until 2003, and wrote Against all Enemies about (among other things) BushCo's obsession with Iraq post-9/11.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote: This is Pinter's core argument; the US has taken a new path in history, and as with their 'looking the other way' of Contras in Nicaragua, their view of the greater good has been twisted from that of the other countries in the "free" world.
As near as I can see, the US government's concept of the greater good is expanded democracy and rights by any and all means, whereas in many other areas it is simply stability, irrespective of the consequences for the local populations.
Personally, I'm half and half. Where democratic institutions can be encouraged or practically established, they should be. However, I do think where conflicts are initiated by the west there should be reliable, comprehensive planning and reasoning. Neither can be based on idiotic ideological assumptions, as they appear to have been in Iraq.
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Richard Clarke...Dick Clark is of American Bandstand fame.
No need to thank me for the correction.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
An additional book about our misadventures in Iraq.
I've been reading The Assassins' Gate : America in Iraq, or at least trying to but finding it harder due to post surgery fatigue...among other things.
George Packer, the author, starts the book with something of an intellectual history of the Neocons that is fascinating.
[ December 14, 2005, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
If you check Cartman's post, he did say "Clarke", not "Clark". And I assume you realize that "Dick" is a nickname for "Richard".
"I posted that in response to ypur post about 'token gestures' not to the article."
But my point is that the whole conversation up to that point, including my post, was about policies. It's impossible to have a generalized discussion about the individual troops' actions. They're all separate people who act differently. Some (most, perhaps) do their jobs properly and try not to endanger civilians. Others may not be so careful. And still others are reported to have actively gone about abusing random civilians.
Basically, the discussion stemmed from Pinter's speech, which criticized the Bush administration and its policies. The individual soldiers didn't enter into it until you brought them up.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
No, it was you that was dismissive of what wss going on- as much as the administration is at fault for the situation, it's being handled as well as any wartime situation.
Your exact words regarding civillian casualties were:
quote:I'd hardly say "extreme measures". "Token gestures", maybe. Sometimes "a complete lack of any attempt". But not "extreme measures".
and that's what I was replying to- it was a statement completely devoid of truth, but one which a lot of those critical of BusCo's policies seem to believe, so I responded.
Even the most scandalous report of prisoner abuse only details the actions of a dozen or so indivudals...among over 200,000 troops.
As for the speach itself, I already detailed my grievences with it, ...and it's not like topics dont normally stray from course here in the Flameboard.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
"Even the most scandalous report of prisoner abuse only details the actions of a dozen or so indivudals...among over 200,000 troops."
Yeah, but those actions are the ones that are a problem. And they're also the ones the administration are failing to properly not condone.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Er...I think they were pretty vocal in denouncing that treatment as both criminal and abbarant.
...though whatever they say is so much bullshit as long as Cheney insists on allowing for torture "in extreme cases". Whatever exreme means from day to day.
It's worth noting that media will endlessly focus on the worst news only- no headline reads "estimated one in 24,000 soldiers is abusive"...it just wont sell papers if it does not sound commonplace. Then, like the old game of "whisper", the facts distort untill every soldier is a bloodthirsty mainic (though the drinking of blood part is usually reserved for Al Jeezera and Moveon.org).
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:...though whatever they say is so much bullshit as long as Cheney insists on allowing for torture "in extreme cases". Whatever exreme means from day to day.
And so we're back to square one.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
