Is it time to pull out?

[CSM]

New York Times
June 2, 2006
Pg. 1

Iraqi Accuses U.S. Of 'Daily' Attacks Against Civilians

By Richard A. Oppel Jr.

BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 1 — Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki lashed out at the American military on Thursday, denouncing what he characterized as habitual attacks by troops against Iraqi civilians.

As outrage over reports that American marines killed 24 Iraqis in the town of Haditha last year continued to shake the new government, the country's senior leaders said that they would demand that American officials turn over their investigative files on the killings and that the Iraqi government would conduct its own inquiry.

In his comments, Mr. Maliki said violence against civilians had become a "daily phenomenon" by many troops in the American-led coalition who "do not respect the Iraqi people."

"They crush them with their vehicles and kill them just on suspicion," he said. "This is completely unacceptable." Attacks on civilians will play a role in future decisions on how long to ask American forces to remain in Iraq, the prime minister added.

The denunciation was an unusual declaration for a government that remains desperately dependent on American forces to keep some form of order in the country amid a resilient Sunni Arab insurgency in the west, widespread sectarian violence in Baghdad, and deadly feuding among Shiite militias that increasingly control the south.

It was also a sign of the growing pressure on Mr. Maliki, whose governing coalition includes Sunni Arabs who were enraged by news of the killings in Haditha, a city deep in Sunni-dominated Anbar Province. At the same time, he is being pushed by the Americans to resolve the quarreling within his fragile coalition that has left him unable to fill cabinet posts for the Ministries of Defense and the Interior, the two top security jobs in the country.

Military and Congressional officials have said they believe that an investigation into the deaths of two dozen Iraqis in Haditha on Nov. 19 will show that a group of marines shot and killed civilians without justification or provocation. Survivors in Haditha say the troops shot men, women and children in the head and chest at close range.

For the second day in a row, President Bush spoke directly about the furor surrounding the case. "Obviously, the allegations are very troubling for me and equally troubling for our military, especially the Marine Corps," President Bush said Thursday, in response to a question from a reporter after a meeting of his cabinet. Referring to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, he added, "I've spoken to General Pace about this issue quite a few times."

Investigators are examining the role of senior commanders in the aftermath of the Haditha killings, and trying to determine how high up the chain of command culpability may rest.

Marine officials said Thursday that Maj. Gen. Stephen T. Johnson, who was the top Marine Corps commander in Iraq during the Haditha killings, had been set to be promoted to become the service's senior officer in charge of personnel, a three-star position.

General Johnson is widely respected by the Marine Corps' senior leadership, yet officials said it was unlikely that the Pentagon would put him up for promotion until the Haditha investigations were concluded.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that a parallel investigation into whether the killings were covered up has concluded that some officers reported false information and that superiors failed to adequately scrutinize the reports about the two dozen deaths.

The newspaper said that the inquiry had determined that Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, a squad leader present at Haditha, made a false statement when he reported that a roadside bombing had killed 15 civilians. The inquiry also said that an intelligence unit that later visited the site failed to highlight that civilians had gunshot wounds.

In Baghdad, senior Iraqi officials demanded an apology and explanation about Haditha from the United States and vowed their own inquiry.

"We in the ministers' cabinet condemned this crime and demanded that coalition forces show the reasons behind this massacre," Deputy Prime Minister Salam al-Zubaie, one of the most powerful Sunni Arabs in the new government, said in an interview.

"As you know, this is not the only massacre, and there are a lot," he said. "The coalition forces must change their behavior. Human blood should be sacred regardless of religion, party and nationality."

Mr. Zubaie, also the acting defense minister, acknowledged that Iraqi officials would probably not be able to force the extradition of any troops suspected of culpability in the Haditha killings. But he said a committee of five ministers, including defense, interior and finance, would investigate the killings with the expectation that American officials would turn over their files. "We do not have the security file because it is in the hands of the coalition forces," he said. "We hope there will not be obstacles ahead."

The crisis over Haditha and other disputed killings in Sunni areas comes just as it appears that military operations may be needed to retake some Sunni areas at risk of falling to the insurgency.

This week American forces ordered 1,500 troops from Kuwait into Anbar Province, a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency, in the latest sign that insurgents and terrorist groups including those led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi control much of the sprawling desert region.

In interviews on Thursday, two senior Republicans — Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Senator John McCain of Arizona, who is next in line to be committee chairman — both said it was too soon to tell whether the episode would undermine support for the war. Still, both expressed concern.

Senator Warner, who has promised to hold hearings as soon as the military completes its investigation, said he had been urging Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to wrap up the inquiry as swiftly as possible.

"In the interim, frankly, the public opinion on this matter is being influenced by misinformation, leaks and undocumented and uncorroborated facts," he said.

Mr. McCain, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for more than five years, said the incident harked back to the My Lai massacre during the war in Vietnam. He added, "It certainly is harmful, but I can't assess the extent of the damage."

Neither he nor Mr. McCain would say whether Mr. Rumsfeld should be called as a witness.

"I think it depends on what we find out," Mr. McCain said. "I can't say until we really know what happened. There are allegations, and I emphasize allegations, that there was a cover-up. If so, then obviously more senior people would have to be the subject of hearings."

On Wednesday, American troops near the restive city of Samarra shot and killed two Iraqi women, including one who might have been pregnant and on her way to a hospital, after their car did not heed what the American military command said were repeated warnings to stop.

At a news conference in Baghdad, a senior American military spokesman, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, said that "about three or four, at least," allegations of wrongdoing by American troops were being investigated and that anyone found guilty of offenses in those incidents or in the Haditha case would be punished. "This tragic incident is in no way representative of how coalition forces treat Iraqi civilians," he said.

In Baghdad, the top American ground commander in Iraq ordered that all 150,000 American and allied troops in the country receive mandatory refresher training on "legal, moral and ethical standards on the battlefield."

In a statement, the officer, Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, did not specifically cite the civilian deaths in Haditha as the reason for the unusual order.

But he said commanders would be provided with training materials and sample vignettes to use to instruct on professional military values and conduct in combat, as well as Iraqi cultural sensitivities.

Is it time to gt the hell out? Are the Iraqis now going to start blaming the US military presence there for all their problems? I think they are. Instead of exposing our troops to (evil as they are) more charges of murder, should we get them the hell out of that environment?

 

[insein]

Yes and no. By now, it would be time to pull out with a REAL Mission accomplished. Since we've had to fight a media war though for the past 4 years, the insurgency gathers enough strength to continue onward. They are interviewed and say that they lose tons of people daily and moral is low but they continue to fight on because they know that they can sway the American Media to show their story in a positive light. Therefore, this mission has taken much longer then neccassary.

 

[CSM]

Yes and no. By now, it would be time to pull out with a REAL Mission accomplished. Since we've had to fight a media war though for the past 4 years, the insurgency gathers enough strength to continue onward. They are interviewed and say that they lose tons of people daily and moral is low but they continue to fight on because they know that they can sway the American Media to show their story in a positive light. Therefore, this mission has taken much longer then neccassary.

I think that is certainly true, but that is not the only reason I ask the question. It has gotten to the point where our military is fast becoming the scapegoat for every ill found in Iraq: the media doesn't support military operations and in some cases does their best to undermine them, the Iraqiis themselves won't help alleviate their own misery (they wont even turn in people they KNOW are terrorists), a large portion of the US citizenry doesn't support the troops or the operations in Iraq (proving that the terrorists are right...the US is soft and has no stomach for war and no will to see the mission through) and even Congress second guesses, criticizes and even convicts the military at every turn (mostly without knowing ANY of the facts).

It seems to me the troops are the ones who end up bearing the brunt of of all the above. Putting troops in harms way is one thing, then pulling the rug out from under them is another.

 

[jasendorf]

And as the country devolves into a safe haven for terrorists and militant extremist Muslims, what does one tell the families of those who have already died in the liberation of Iraq? Or, are we suggesting that we'd rather just not have to tell any MORE families that their loved ones have been killed over there?

I'm all for getting our troops out of Iraq as soon as is humanly possible. But, I don't think we honor the sacrifices of those who have died there by pulling out now.

For only the right reasons do I stand with the President on this one. What's a better option? Stand outside the White House shouting, "hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"

 

[Gunny]

And as the country devolves into a safe haven for terrorists and militant extremist Muslims, what does one tell the families of those who have already died in the liberation of Iraq? Or, are we suggesting that we'd rather just not have to tell any MORE families that their loved ones have been killed over there?

I'm all for getting our troops out of Iraq as soon as is humanly possible. But, I don't think we honor the sacrifices of those who have died there by pulling out now.

For only the right reasons do I stand with the President on this one. What's a better option? Stand outside the White House shouting, "hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"

YOur points have merit, but are irrelevant. If the situation is untenable, one does what is best for the living, not sacrifice even more fo them to honor the dead.

That is not to say I favor pulling out. I favor getting off this moral high horse we tie ourselves to and fighting fire with fire. When we adhere to an arbitrary set of rules the enemy does not, it just ties our tropps' hands behind their backs.

 

[insein]

YOur points have merit, but are irrelevant. If the situation is untenable, one does what is best for the living, not sacrifice even more fo them to honor the dead.

That is not to say I favor pulling out. I favor getting off this moral high horse we tie ourselves to and fighting fire with fire. When we adhere to an arbitrary set of rules the enemy does not, it just ties our tropps' hands behind their backs.

Exactly. People keep crying that the terrorists arent fighting fair. War isn't fair. We need to do what it takes to eliminate the enemy as fast as possible. This, IMO, would have been accomplished faster with a media that reports the news as it is without a bias. If they simply reported on Abu Gharib after all the facts were known and treated it as the anomoly that it is, then alot of innocent civilian lives COULD have been spared from terrorists needing the excuse of the day to kill people. More then likely they would have found another excuse to kill people, but the media didnt help by fanning the flames. Same thing with this Haditha story. They are reporting the mass murder of civilians by soldiers without all the facts being known. If it turns out (which is growing more and more likely from the evidence being released) that this isnt a cold-blooded mass murder, the media has intentional hurt the military in that the American people have already convicted these men in their minds based on what the media has told them. So if and when its proven that this wasnt what they portrayed, will the media correct itself or will they stand by the story as they see it (Memogate, Dan Rather)?

 

[T-Bor]

In essence gunny you want to stoop to their level. I disagree, our values are what in my opinion makes us better than them. If we stoop to their level we lose who we are and we in turn become no better than them. Do you want us to recruit suicide bombers as well who will blow themselves up to take out some iraqis ?

YOur points have merit, but are irrelevant. If the situation is untenable, one does what is best for the living, not sacrifice even more fo them to honor the dead.

That is not to say I favor pulling out. I favor getting off this moral high horse we tie ourselves to and fighting fire with fire. When we adhere to an arbitrary set of rules the enemy does not, it just ties our tropps' hands behind their backs.

 

[T-Bor]

Yeah, your right, the media has caused the war to go on longer than expected. Its all the medias fault. </Saracasm> Get a grip.

Yes and no. By now, it would be time to pull out with a REAL Mission accomplished. Since we've had to fight a media war though for the past 4 years, the insurgency gathers enough strength to continue onward. They are interviewed and say that they lose tons of people daily and moral is low but they continue to fight on because they know that they can sway the American Media to show their story in a positive light. Therefore, this mission has taken much longer then neccassary.

 

[Hobbit]

Doesn't the NYT know that pulling out isn't an effective form of contraception.

 

[Gunny]

In essence gunny you want to stoop to their level. I disagree, our values are what in my opinion makes us better than them. If we stoop to their level we lose who we are and we in turn become no better than them. Do you want us to recruit suicide bombers as well who will blow themselves up to take out some iraqis ?

"Stoop to their level?" You need to get off your idealistic cloud, bud. That "no better than them" crap is old and irrelevant when it comes to conducting war.

Our morals do not vanish because we apply reality to warfighting. The reality is, we hold our armed forces to a set of arbitrary rules based on our Judeo-Christian morality that the enemy not only has no notion of adhering to, but exploits as often as possible.

Setting oneself up to lose and/or die because you can't get in the mud and wrestle with a pig for fear of getting dirty is suicidal, and stupid.

 

[Gunny]

Yeah, your right, the media has caused the war to go on longer than expected. Its all the medias fault. </Saracasm> Get a grip.

Try a re-read. That isn't what he said at all. Not even close.

 

[CSM]

YOur points have merit, but are irrelevant. If the situation is untenable, one does what is best for the living, not sacrifice even more fo them to honor the dead.

That is not to say I favor pulling out. I favor getting off this moral high horse we tie ourselves to and fighting fire with fire. When we adhere to an arbitrary set of rules the enemy does not, it just ties our tropps' hands behind their backs.

Thanks for expressing thoughts that I cannot seem to express to some peoples satisfaction.

As you probably can tell, my frustration level is pretty high right now. That, coupled witht eh recent news of the death of a friend this past Monday has really gotten me up in arms. I really, really want to hurt somebody...irrational I know.

I am angry that the media protrays speculation as fact, angry that libs take every opportunity to bash this country, its military, the current administration and just about anything they can think of without any facts to support their position (most of it based on generalizations and some sort of pseudo-intellectualism based on their version of moraltiy) and angry most of all at the politicians who care more about their own position in life and the power they wield than actually trying to do something effective to address the critical issues facing this country.

/rant on:

A good man died this week. A wounded, disabled vet who sacrificed a lot for this country and its people. He believed in the US, he loved the military and the people in it and he believed in what they did. All the recent crap about atrocities and such broke his heart as it is breaking mine. For some group of assholes to try and convict the Marines without the investigations being complete while listening to Iraqiis, libs, and even the terrorists belittle and berate the sacrifices of those who DID NOT commit any atrocities is almost insufferable. To hear our own citizens trying to paint the US as evil, give aid and comfort to the enemy and listen to them bleat about morality while they sit on their asses and reap the benefits that far better people have secured for them really, really pisses me off.

:rant off/

 

[Annie]

I think that is certainly true, but that is not the only reason I ask the question. It has gotten to the point where our military is fast becoming the scapegoat for every ill found in Iraq: the media doesn't support military operations and in some cases does their best to undermine them, the Iraqiis themselves won't help alleviate their own misery (they wont even turn in people they KNOW are terrorists), a large portion of the US citizenry doesn't support the troops or the operations in Iraq (proving that the terrorists are right...the US is soft and has no stomach for war and no will to see the mission through) and even Congress second guesses, criticizes and even convicts the military at every turn (mostly without knowing ANY of the facts).

It seems to me the troops are the ones who end up bearing the brunt of of all the above. Putting troops in harms way is one thing, then pulling the rug out from under them is another.

I agree. Let's see, whether or not there was the crime committed at Haditha, which is under investigation, our troops once again are going to be put through more 'sensitivity training', at what point to they become sensitive enough to stop being effective? As has been pointed out numerous times by posters on both the right and left, in any war there are going to be 'incidents' that shouldn't have happened, committed by a few individuals that either snap or shouldn't have been in the military in the first place.

What's pissing me off is that somehow allegations, or even 'proven' incidents we are allowing the entire military to be condemned. For some reason however, it's 'only a small number of extremists' that are causing the IED plantings, the terrorists attacks on virtually every continent, and the prejudices against Islam.

Anyone else notice the 'different standards', not only by the MSM but also the Commander in Chief?

 

[Gunny]

Thanks for expressing thoughts that I cannot seem to express to some peoples satisfaction.

As you probably can tell, my frustration level is pretty high right now. That, coupled witht eh recent news of the death of a friend this past Monday has really gotten me up in arms. I really, really want to hurt somebody...irrational I know.

I am angry that the media protrays speculation as fact, angry that libs take every opportunity to bash this country, its military, the current administration and just about anything they can think of without any facts to support their position (most of it based on generalizations and some sort of pseudo-intellectualism based on their version of moraltiy) and angry most of all at the politicians who care more about their own position in life and the power they wield than actually trying to do something effective to address the critical issues facing this country.

/rant on:

A good man died this week. A wounded, disabled vet who sacrificed a lot for this country and its people. He believed in the US, he loved the military and the people in it and he believed in what they did. All the recent crap about atrocities and such broke his heart as it is breaking mine. For some group of assholes to try and convict the Marines without the investigations being complete while listening to Iraqiis, libs, and even the terrorists belittle and berate the sacrifices of those who DID NOT commit any atrocities is almost insufferable. To hear our own citizens trying to paint the US as evil, give aid and comfort to the enemy and listen to them bleat about morality while they sit on their asses and reap the benefits that far better people have secured for them really, really pisses me off.

:rant off/

I agree with your sentiment.

A salute to fallen comrades, known or unknown. Lost a few buddies in this war myself.

 

[Annie]

Looks like we're not alone in being sickened by how the military is being treated:

Having been burnt more than once, I thought *satire alert* is in order:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-gutfeld/no-flowers-on-graves-mem_b_21799.html

My niece Sarrah Jessika just graduated from high school, and was asked to do the commencement address. But instead, she decided to read this essay to her classmates. It's about Memorial Day. When I heard it, I thought - WOW. This would fit in perfectly at the Huffington Post.
WHY I DON'T PUT FLOWERS ON SOLDIER'S GRAVES
By Sarrah Jessika

Forgive me if my speech sounds jumbled, but I was planning to talk about coping with my father's inguinal hernia, but then I realized that it was Memorial Day. (pause)

I have noticed that Memorial Day is not a holiday outside the USA. I think this is weird.
Don't you think that's it's kind of arrogant that we continue to celebrate it, even though the rest of the world doesn't? Haiti doesn't do it. Or Darfur. Celebrating Memorial Day while the rest of the world doesn't makes us look like idiots. No wonder they hate us. I would too...

According to the Encyclopedia, Memorial Day is a holiday that honors "the men and women who died in military service for the United States."

Notice how it's not "gay" men or women. (pause, look up)

This is just one reason why I don't honor Memorial Day.

But isn't it right to honor the people who gave their lives so we can enjoy the freedoms we hold so dearly today?

No, it isn't. These people did not give their lives so we can enjoy the freedoms. They fought in wars because they enjoyed killing people. Innocent people. Gay, innocent people. Gay innocent people of color. And their pets as well.

Here is a fact that Condaliar Liceface doesn't tell you: "our" soldiers have callously abandoned hundreds of pets to go "fight for their country." Since 19,000 troops were sent to Iraq in January from a Georgia, animal control officers had to pick up over 300 dogs. Over a third have them have been put to death.

This has become a war directed not at so-called terrorists, but terriers.

I shudder to think about the housecats, hamsters, and sugargliders that have also gone missing. I have a sugarglider. It's a lot like a flying squirrel (but more adorable) and its name comes from the fact that they like to eat sweet sap that drips from wounds in trees.

Wounded trees. (pause) There's another casualty of war. War wounds trees and probably kills them too. But do we have a special day that honors trees that have fallen during a time of war?

I doubt it. Or if we do, we certainly don't get it off from school. And that's wrong too.

I think Memorial Day is only good for one thing: allowing us to ponder the hundreds of millions of innocent civilians that our fathers, grandfathers, great grandfathers, great-great grandfathers and great great great grandfathers have maliciously murdered or wounded. Memorial Day is also good for reminding communities that when opening their swimming pools, they should also remove the bloody Band-Aids from the shallow end. It grosses me out.

But not as much as the war grosses me out. And soldiers gross me out the most. Dead soldiers are even grosser. My mother told me we have to go visit a cemetery on Memorial Day. But why should I place flowers on "white" stones that represent killers and torturers who have done nothing but cultivate a mindset that glorifies war and the killing and torturing of people and abandoning their pets? My sister's says there's a National Moment of Remembrance that is supposed to take place, and the US Flag must be flown at half-staff. I think the flag should always be flown at half-staff - not to mark dead soldiers, but to mark the My Lai massacre, which happened in Vietnam. If it is possible to burn a flag at half-staff, I would do that too. I would need to set it on fire first, and then put it up a flagpole, which could be dangerous. I would use a ladder but I don't like heights.

My sister is going to have a picnic down at the local park. I'm not going.
The inmates at Guantanamo Bay don't get ambrosia salad. So why should I? My aunt always brings ambrosia salad. She puts sour cream, fruit chunks, mandarin oranges, pineapple tidbits, cherries and tiny marshmallows into her recipe. She spoons it all over a bed of lettuce leaves. This sounds a lot like Bush's evil foreign policy in Iraq - the fruit being our army, and the lettuce leaves being the innocent citizens of Iraq. The sour cream is basically blood, I think.

That's why I hate ambrosia salad. Almost as much as I hate Memorial Day.

Memorial day began when the Civil War ended. All war is evil but the Civil War was especially evil because it was racist - many blacks, for example, weren't allowed to fight. Women and gays - too. Don't get me wrong: war is evil. But what's eviler is not allowing people to fight in them. I hate war, but I hate people who won't let me fight in them.

A long time ago, ancient Greeks honored their dead by decorating the grave of every soldier with flowers. Ancient Greeks were bad, which is why you don't see them around anymore. As for putting flowers on graves, people still do that today.

That is evil. All you are doing is lining the pockets of corporations who make millions off people who are lining their pockets. I am referring specifically to Dole Foods, who I know for a fact has not honored its pledge to negotiate with the independent flower unions in Columbia. Because of this, many work-related health problems will go untreated, which include: headaches, nausea, impaired vision, conjunctivitis, congenital malformations, and respiratory and neurological problems.

I am not talking about the flower workers. I am talking about the insects. As you know, growing flowers requires the use of pesticides, which kill insects - which is genocide, at least from the perspective of the insects. Sadly, insects are incapable of forming unions against this fundamentally racist act. Because of this, millions of innocent insects suffer nausea and impaired vision. And so they end up jobless, and almost always homeless.

The next time you see an insect on the street, you will know why.

So I urge all of you not to buy flowers and put them on the graves of dead soldiers. In fact, I urge you not to buy flowers ever again.

(except you, Bobby Hafner: for the prom I want Champagne Moment Floribunda roses. They were awarded Rose of The Year 2006, and they have these champagne colored blooms displayed on shiny green foliage. If you expect to get anywhere near second base, bring two dozen. )

Thank you everyone, and feel free to circulate my speech among the internet!

 

[jasendorf]

YOur points have merit, but are irrelevant. If the situation is untenable, one does what is best for the living, not sacrifice even more fo them to honor the dead.

That is not to say I favor pulling out. I favor getting off this moral high horse we tie ourselves to and fighting fire with fire. When we adhere to an arbitrary set of rules the enemy does not, it just ties our tropps' hands behind their backs.

I guess I don't see our rules as "arbitrary." I see them as the culmination of and an acknowledgement of our country's superior moral values. Call it a "high horse" but I think that the honor and integrity espoused by the vast majority of our troops is what definitively sets them apart from the terrorists.

Accidents happen, and when they happen it is necessary for the the DoD and the commands of each of the armed forces to be transparent in their exposure of these accidents. That transparency is what mitigates the damage done by those who would lie about our troops. I have absolutely, positively no doubt that the incident involving the death of a pregnant woman in Iraq was a horrible accident with the vast majority of the fault laying with the woman's brother driving the car and the rest with the procedure in place determined by someone with enough rank that they should have foreseen the potential for this horrible accident and set up a procedure to help keep it from happening. In this case, the military has made every effort to be as forthright in explaining what happened and why... which is why it hasn't gotten nearly the attention that the events in Haditha have.

The very fact that we lament and mourn the death of this Iraqi woman is what sets us apart from the terrorists who don't care who they kill or why they killed them. And, I think that that is important to the soul of United States.

 

[Gunny]

I guess I don't see our rules as "arbitrary." I see them as the culmination of and an acknowledgement of our country's superior moral values. Call it a "high horse" but I think that the honor and integrity espoused by the vast majority of our troops is what definitively sets them apart from the terrorists.

Accidents happen, and when they happen it is necessary for the the DoD and the commands of each of the armed forces to be transparent in their exposure of these accidents. That transparency is what mitigates the damage done by those who would lie about our troops. I have absolutely, positively no doubt that the incident involving the death of a pregnant woman in Iraq was a horrible accident with the vast majority of the fault laying with the woman's brother driving the car and the rest with the procedure in place determined by someone with enough rank that they should have foreseen the potential for this horrible accident and set up a procedure to help keep it from happening. In this case, the military has made every effort to be as forthright in explaining what happened and why... which is why it hasn't gotten nearly the attention that the events in Haditha have.

The very fact that we lament and mourn the death of this Iraqi woman is what sets us apart from the terrorists who don't care who they kill or why they killed them. And, I think that that is important to the soul of United States.

It's nice to have ideals, values or whatever when one is living in peace. They have no place in a fight to the death unless both sides agree to and adhere to them.

The "soul of the United States" doesn't mean jack to Pvt Jimmy walking an open post in Iraq or Afghanistan. You have the luxury of philosophizing. He just wants to win, and come out alive.

 

[Annie]

It's past time for more people of the US to understand where the 'criticism' is coming from and what it's about. Links at site:

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008654.php

Greg Djerejian And My Hard Heart
by Armed Liberal at May 31, 2006 06:04 AM

[Edited for clarity.]

I've always admired Greg Djerejian, over at Belgravia Dispatch. He's intelligent, well-read, and thoughtful - qualities that are wider-spread than most of us fear but are still rare in the visible world of blogs and the media.

I've watched his change of heart about Iraq and worried, more than a little, over my own heart's unwillingness to budge. I worry about that solidity, and about the fact that the events which drive him into what - for him - passes as vein straining paroxysms of rage only elicit a sad shake of the head when I read about them.

I've been amused at his attacks on the 'six monthers' - those who think the next six months will see all as well. But then again, I've always been more of a 'six yearer' myself. I do think, with some confidence, that the next six years will determine the outcome of this conflict.

In a way, I believe this because I think that the comic novels of George McDonald Frasier - the Flashman books - are closer to the truth of history than the neatly packaged, inevitable histories we all learned from and hang so much of our understanding - of ourselves and of others - upon. In the Flashman universe, incompetence, cowardice, and ignorance contest regularly with courage, skill and luck to decide the outcome of things. Frasier highlights the mess underneath the events we think we know, and in so doing renders them more real I'll argue, than the historians who manage to edit it out.

My professor Page Smith (famous for his book on chickens) wrote what is to me the best work of history that I know - his 'People's history ' of the Revolutionary War "A New Age Now Begins" (I sent my copy to the ITM brothers). What I love the most about this history is reading the contemporaneous accounts of the people who lived through the events and the sense of confusion, fear, and doubt that they felt and the overwhelming sense of contingency - of uncertainty about outcome - that they experienced.
Djerejian's core position on Iraq today is best summed up, I think, by this paragraph from this post:

But, if you are like me, and you believe Baghdad is the strategic epicenter of Iraq, and that a Baghdad descending into Beirut like civil war means that the country will likely mostly disintegrate, then I'm afraid I am less optimistic than West. And so, again, on this Memorial Day, when we thank and remember the sacrifice of our troops over the decades, we must also ask, painful as it is, what precisely they are accomplishing at the present hour in Iraq? Yes, here and there they are making progress. Yes, they are staving off total anarchy. But, if you fear it's a slow grind that we are losing, rather than winning, particularly given the continued lack of credible leadership at the Pentagon, the continued incorrectly placed concerns on 'dependency' theory, the continued dearth of troops, you must, at least to some extent if you are honest with yourself ponder, would it be worth my life (or the life of my son or daughter)? And the answer, it seems to me, is a very, very, very close call indeed.

We're not clearly winning, so we must be losing. Boy, I've got to believe that sentiment would have made sense in the taverns of New England back in the day - but they pressed on regardless.

Why is the response to this uncertainty so different today? In no small part, I'll suggest that it's because of three things.
First, our sense of invulnerability. This was a war of choice, a war of revenge. We have nothing at stake, people would argue. We can't really be harmed by our enemies. At worst, there is a kind of simple arithmetic (Greg again):

The bottom line is that more U.S. and Iraqi Army/Police forces (I'm not counting civilians, many of whom have died via generalized civil strife more than the insurgency, per se) have died since Cheney's comment than perished on 9/11.

What's really at stake there? Greg goes on to discuss why it is that America is so badly regarded in the world today. He cites Roger Cohen in Times Select:

The image of the United States is in something close to a free fall.

There are lots of reasons, beginning with the fact that any elephant this big bestriding the world's stage is going to irk people, especially when George W. Bush is riding it. But I suspect a basic cause is that in the 65-year period of 1941-2006, the United States has been at war in some form or another for all but 14 years.

There was World War II and then, after a two-year break, the Cold War, which ran until 1989, and then, after an interlude of a dozen years, the war on terror. These were different sorts of wars, of course, and among them were Korea and Vietnam. But somewhere along the way, most acutely in the past few years, people got tired.

They got tired of America's insatiable need for an enemy; suspicious of the talk of freedom and democracy and morality in which every struggle was cast; forgetful of the liberty preserved by such might; alarmed at the American fear that appeared to fire American aggression; and disdainful of the distance between declarations and deeds.

In short they stopped buying the American narrative.

What's missing from this, of course, is any sense of context at all for that narrative, any sense that - for example - there was an expansionist and brutal Soviet Union who would have gladly conquered all of Europe - and kept it conquered had we not opposed them. Or that there was a brutal China led my the mad, bad, and dangerous Mao Tse Tung who would have gladly enslaved all of Asia had we not opposed them. I'm more than a little puzzled by Greg's failure to point out that gaping hole in Cohen's logic.

So in that view, why is there war? Because America fights, of course.
I mentioned this in an email to neo-neocon:

I've thought for a while that this was a form (forgive me for stepping on your turf) of narcissism - they think that we (our culture, the West) are so powerful that we are, in effect, omnipotent. So of course we can get the bad guys without hurting them; of course we need rules to contain our strength. Because we're so strong that everything that happens anywhere in the world is a reflection of something we do or have done.

And I do think it's the strongest influence on our behavior and attitude toward this war. And, I believe that once it is gone - once the delusion of invulnerability slips away - we will be more brutal and bestial than the worst opponents of the wars today imagine us to be in their fevered dreams.

I'm reminded of the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles - when my devoutly liberal friends suddenly spouted a core of racist invective and anger, and when they were enraged that I wouldn't lend them guns because I thought they were unhinged with fear and rage.

Second, because we have no direct experience of loss. I've wondered how it is, isolated from the blood and meat of death, that we have become so fascinated with a pornography of violence in our arts. Things which were everyday to a farmer in the 18th century - privation, disease, death - the crushing hand of Necessity - are strangers to us. But not to most of the people in the world.

That means that we are shocked by it when we see it; we don't accept it as a part of the natural context of life.

My father (as I've written) built high-rise buildings. Construction work - particularly heavy construction work - is dangerous. Height, tools, heavy steel, cranes lifting buckets of concrete all combine to make up a hostile environment to the unlucky or careless. I think there were seven or eight deaths on his jobs in his career. The days that happened were the lowest I ever saw him. Was it worth it? To build an apartment building for rich people or an office building for lawyers?

Would it be different if they'd fallen of a barn roof? Or been maimed by a thresher and bled to death in a field?

Bad things happen all the time as an inevitable part of the human condition; of society. Somewhere today in Iraq, a U.S. soldier is abusing an Iraqi. Somewhere in Iraq this month, a U.S. soldier is murdering an Iraqi (I'll write about Haditha soon).

Do I forgive them and consider what they did understandable? No, of course not. They are vile criminals, and worse for being criminals in the uniform of our country. I think that our greatness as a society is that we self-correct better than any society that there has ever been.

Should we do it better? Of course we should.

Will we ever be perfect? Will we ever be able to point to anything we do, whether go to war, go to the moon, build a building, or cure a disease without waste, death, and folly? I know we won't and I've got to believe that Greg does as well. Does that make those things not worth doing?

Which brings me to the final point, and to me the most frightening. It's an adjunct to the first two, and simply put, it suggests that everything that happens isn't really about the thing itself - the war in Iraq as an example - but it's about us; how we feel about ourselves, who has political advantage, who profits and who loses in the courts of power, prestige and wealth.

I'm genuinely afraid that the ruling cohort, and those who enable it by participating in the political process, have so much lost touch with the realities that we face that they are incapable of looking at an issue like Iraq, or 9/11, or the economic straits we have spent and borrowed ourselves into as a nation except as a foothold in climbing over the person in front of them. I imagine a small table of gentlemen and -women, playing whist on a train as it heads out over a broken bridge. The game, of course maters more than anything, and the external events - they're just an effort to distract they players from their hands.

 

[jasendorf]

It's nice to have ideals, values or whatever when one is living in peace. They have no place in a fight to the death unless both sides agree to and adhere to them.

The "soul of the United States" doesn't mean jack to Pvt Jimmy walking an open post in Iraq or Afghanistan. You have the luxury of philosophizing. He just wants to win, and come out alive.

But will accidently killing innocent civilians due to a change of rules which allow him more leeway in fighting terrorists help him win and help him come home alive?

There's a point of diminishing returns when fighting an insurgency when it comes to brutalism. And, yes, the guy fighting over there doesn't have the luxury I have to spend time philosophizing about it. At what point is the balance even between killing terrorists and the colateral damage of accidently killing civilians? We can look at previous wars including our own Revolution for instances where excessively brutality (for lack of a better word) caused a fervor unteneble by the those who were brutal. Heck, Tarleton's main disaster was against soldiers and he still raised such a ruckus that we were able to raise three armies to fight Cornwallis in the south.

I don't where the point of diminishing returns is reached. Honestly, I don't know. But, somebody should probably figure it out... soon.

 

[Redhots]

So what, exactly, do you invision us doing when we "take the gloves off"?