Rape, murder--it's just a shot away...
June 30, 2006 9:42 AM Subscribe
Five U.S. Army soldiers are being investigated for allegedly raping a young woman, then killing her and three members of her family in Iraq, a U.S. military official told The Associated Press on Friday... The killings appeared to have been a "crime of opportunity," the official said. The soldiers had not been attacked by insurgents but had noticed the woman on previous patrols.U.S. Troops Accused of Killing Iraq Family
A brief look at the 3rd Brigade, 502nd Infantry Unit, 101st Airborne...
formerly 502nd Parachute Infantry Regiment - 101st Airborne Division
see also AP Embed Gets Scoop on Latest Alleged U.S. Atrocity in Iraq
The Oct. 18, 1969, issue of The New Yorker carried an article by Daniel Lang called "Casualties of War." It told the story of the kidnapping, gang-raping and murder of a teenage Vietnamese girl named Phan Ti Mao by four American soldiers on patrol in the Central Highlands of Vietnam in November 1966. Atrocities were not uncommon in Vietnam. Lang's article cites a soldier describing Mao's fate as unremarkable, almost routine. Reporter Seymour Hersh's revelations of the My Lai massacre, where 347 civilians were murdered by the men of Charlie Company, began appearing 25 days after Lang's article.posted by matteo at 9:51 AM on June 30, 2006
Is the title referencing Gimme Shelter?
posted by The Jesse Helms at 9:57 AM on June 30, 2006
posted by The Jesse Helms at 9:57 AM on June 30, 2006
nevermind, of course it is.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 9:57 AM on June 30, 2006
posted by The Jesse Helms at 9:57 AM on June 30, 2006
I hate to think how Liberals will use this against America.
posted by fleetmouse at 10:06 AM on June 30, 2006
posted by fleetmouse at 10:06 AM on June 30, 2006
This is shameful behavior on the part of our troops. I hope they're going to be made an example of.
posted by bshort at 10:13 AM on June 30, 2006
posted by bshort at 10:13 AM on June 30, 2006
Hadji girl?
can't our politicians see how this occupation is corrupting us?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:13 AM on June 30, 2006
can't our politicians see how this occupation is corrupting us?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:13 AM on June 30, 2006
I don't understand your comment fleetmouse. I'm a liberal and in favor of having a standing military, but certainly not stupid enough to think that basic decency to non-combantants ends at the door.
This "liberals" you speak of... You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
posted by eatdonuts at 10:13 AM on June 30, 2006
This "liberals" you speak of... You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
posted by eatdonuts at 10:13 AM on June 30, 2006
I hate to think how Liberals will use this against America.
Well, uuh...just as it should be used--as one more example of what happens because we fucked up, and one more reason as to why we need to leave.
posted by oflinkey at 10:18 AM on June 30, 2006
Well, uuh...just as it should be used--as one more example of what happens because we fucked up, and one more reason as to why we need to leave.
posted by oflinkey at 10:18 AM on June 30, 2006
eatdonuts, based on fleetmouse's posting history, I believe that comment was facetious.
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:20 AM on June 30, 2006
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:20 AM on June 30, 2006
Hm. Ok, taken back. But it wasn't as openly obvious to me.
posted by eatdonuts at 10:22 AM on June 30, 2006
posted by eatdonuts at 10:22 AM on June 30, 2006
It is war, get used to it. In America we have this false sense that we are the civilized uplifting the uncivilized and when we hear about something barbaric committed by our own, its a natural reaction for us to either reject it completely or be shocked by it. The real offense is not that American soldiers committed these crimes, but that their likelihood of being tried in an international court (like all war criminals) is unlikely. This is an injustice. These incidents probably say something more about the nature of war than any particular country or soldier.
posted by j-urb at 10:29 AM on June 30, 2006
posted by j-urb at 10:29 AM on June 30, 2006
This speaks strongly to the idea that the misuse of the US military has left it in a perilous, largely directionless position of increasing corruption and breakdown of discipline. This occupation has from the beginning been an insult to the loyalty and hard work of the fighting men and women of this country and the leadership vacuum, has left them floundering and looking for direction. It's a disservice to the military to continue to insist that "staying the course" is even an option. These men and women deserve the kind of leadership worthy of their loyalty and inspires the discipline that organized military endeavors so desperately need.
How's that for liberal?
posted by shagoth at 10:30 AM on June 30, 2006
How's that for liberal?
posted by shagoth at 10:30 AM on June 30, 2006
can't our politicians see how this occupation is corrupting us?
. . . as if we were innocent to begin with.
posted by j-urb at 10:31 AM on June 30, 2006
. . . as if we were innocent to begin with.
posted by j-urb at 10:31 AM on June 30, 2006
can't our politicians see how this occupation is corrupting us?
of course they do. but this kind of stuff is what passes for "freedom" in the pidgin english of those who benefit from it. the thugs beating on the little guys and taking whatever they can get--or better still, tricking them, stabbing them in the back or ganging up on them. might makes right, right? whoever wins, wins and damn the losers for whining about it. that's anarchy; that's natural law. whatever you want to call it; it's the same enemy we've been fighting since day one, isn't it?
posted by saulgoodman at 10:38 AM on June 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
of course they do. but this kind of stuff is what passes for "freedom" in the pidgin english of those who benefit from it. the thugs beating on the little guys and taking whatever they can get--or better still, tricking them, stabbing them in the back or ganging up on them. might makes right, right? whoever wins, wins and damn the losers for whining about it. that's anarchy; that's natural law. whatever you want to call it; it's the same enemy we've been fighting since day one, isn't it?
posted by saulgoodman at 10:38 AM on June 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
Hm. Can't wait for another round of 'everyone who puts on a uniform is evil, the entire military is responsible for this...'
A U.S. military official told the press.Their C.O. initiated a criminal investigation.
I suppose I can’t wait for another of oversimplification.
But yeah, it is horrible.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:39 AM on June 30, 2006
A U.S. military official told the press.Their C.O. initiated a criminal investigation.
I suppose I can’t wait for another of oversimplification.
But yeah, it is horrible.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:39 AM on June 30, 2006
It is war, get used to it.
No.
Then prevent war from happening in the first place. My point is that there is no such thing as a war which is "played by the rules" for example. Whats been happening in Iraq goes far beyond these incidents. The only reason these incidents get publicity is due to the fact that the media can put a face on those involved. What about all those who have no faces because they were torn apart by a misguided American missile? The number of people killed in this war who wouldn't have died otherwise is atrocious. All these people who talk about how wonderful our military is, how they are the protectors of the house on the hill, should reexamine what a military's basic function is. An American military is no morally better than any other military regardless of the expensive killing toys at their disposal.
posted by j-urb at 10:44 AM on June 30, 2006
No.
Then prevent war from happening in the first place. My point is that there is no such thing as a war which is "played by the rules" for example. Whats been happening in Iraq goes far beyond these incidents. The only reason these incidents get publicity is due to the fact that the media can put a face on those involved. What about all those who have no faces because they were torn apart by a misguided American missile? The number of people killed in this war who wouldn't have died otherwise is atrocious. All these people who talk about how wonderful our military is, how they are the protectors of the house on the hill, should reexamine what a military's basic function is. An American military is no morally better than any other military regardless of the expensive killing toys at their disposal.
posted by j-urb at 10:44 AM on June 30, 2006
smedleyman: i agree with you that hopefully it doesn't come to that, because that would just waste time better spent digging out the root of the problem.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:44 AM on June 30, 2006
posted by saulgoodman at 10:44 AM on June 30, 2006
Can't wait for another round of 'everyone who puts on a uniform is evil, the entire military is responsible for this...'
It isn't the person, but the institution. Understand the difference. If you were put into a soldiers uniform, you would do no better. The military, a necessary evil though? Maybe.
posted by j-urb at 10:48 AM on June 30, 2006
It isn't the person, but the institution. Understand the difference. If you were put into a soldiers uniform, you would do no better. The military, a necessary evil though? Maybe.
posted by j-urb at 10:48 AM on June 30, 2006
Then prevent war from happening in the first place.
So just get used to murder then, eh, because it happens? So if I were to kill you or someone you love, it would be okay because murder happens? That's the kind of reasoning four year olds use, you know.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:48 AM on June 30, 2006
So just get used to murder then, eh, because it happens? So if I were to kill you or someone you love, it would be okay because murder happens? That's the kind of reasoning four year olds use, you know.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:48 AM on June 30, 2006
What do you expect when the commander in chief is breaking the law in much more serious ways. "This is not the America I know". Yeah.
posted by stbalbach at 10:48 AM on June 30, 2006
posted by stbalbach at 10:48 AM on June 30, 2006
personally, i'd love to prevent war from happening whenever possible, but since even so much as expressing that sentiment instantly makes me a target for twisted-up, self-hating jerks who thrive on "being where the action is," i'll leave that challenge to you.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:50 AM on June 30, 2006
posted by saulgoodman at 10:50 AM on June 30, 2006
What about all those who have no faces because they were torn apart by a misguided American missile?
Clearly, that missile's parents should've read more books with it as a kid.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 10:50 AM on June 30, 2006
Clearly, that missile's parents should've read more books with it as a kid.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 10:50 AM on June 30, 2006
It's really frustrating hear people to continue to erroneously call our present condition "War."
War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups.^
The United States is not at war with any other nation, so please stop using this to justify, well, anything. However, we are occupying Iraq, and after killing at least 38,000 innocent people^ we are now in conflict with groups of Iraqis who want us to leave.
When we're really, really at war you'll know it because kids will be getting drafted, the body counts will be six figures, and there will be rationing. More people will be killed by bullets than by auto accidents. Until that happens, please stop with the hyperbole, OK?
posted by mullingitover at 10:51 AM on June 30, 2006
War is a conflict involving the organized use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups.^
The United States is not at war with any other nation, so please stop using this to justify, well, anything. However, we are occupying Iraq, and after killing at least 38,000 innocent people^ we are now in conflict with groups of Iraqis who want us to leave.
When we're really, really at war you'll know it because kids will be getting drafted, the body counts will be six figures, and there will be rationing. More people will be killed by bullets than by auto accidents. Until that happens, please stop with the hyperbole, OK?
posted by mullingitover at 10:51 AM on June 30, 2006
'everyone who puts on a uniform is evil, the entire military is responsible for this...'
no, i'd rather point the finger at those who decided for war in the first place ... i might point out that it wasn't just people in one party that did so
posted by pyramid termite at 10:53 AM on June 30, 2006
no, i'd rather point the finger at those who decided for war in the first place ... i might point out that it wasn't just people in one party that did so
posted by pyramid termite at 10:53 AM on June 30, 2006
Okay, we aren't at war with Iraq. Instead our military is butchering their civilians. Great point. Yes, enough with the hyperbole!
posted by j-urb at 10:56 AM on June 30, 2006
posted by j-urb at 10:56 AM on June 30, 2006
This is an entirely volunteer army. The "they're all too stupid to know they're hired killers" argument was never very good to start with and after 3+ years of war is threadbare.
The Bush government takes a lot of the blame; the soldiers take a lot of the blame too for *actually performing the killings*. There's more than enough blame to go around!
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:58 AM on June 30, 2006
The Bush government takes a lot of the blame; the soldiers take a lot of the blame too for *actually performing the killings*. There's more than enough blame to go around!
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:58 AM on June 30, 2006
If you were put into a soldiers uniform, you would do no better.
j-urb: Speaking as someone who wore that uniform for five years of my life: Fuck you.
posted by adamgreenfield at 11:11 AM on June 30, 2006
j-urb: Speaking as someone who wore that uniform for five years of my life: Fuck you.
posted by adamgreenfield at 11:11 AM on June 30, 2006
no, i'd rather point the finger at those who decided for war in the first place ...
That's only half the equation. The other half has to do with having a lot of soldiers stand around with no overall plan, while periodically being shot at, in an environment where, every time they shoot back it tends to create more enemies than it can possibly eliminate.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 11:16 AM on June 30, 2006
That's only half the equation. The other half has to do with having a lot of soldiers stand around with no overall plan, while periodically being shot at, in an environment where, every time they shoot back it tends to create more enemies than it can possibly eliminate.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 11:16 AM on June 30, 2006
.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 11:22 AM on June 30, 2006
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 11:22 AM on June 30, 2006
To clarify: I am at least as upset by stomach-turning atrocity stories like this as your garden-variety antiwar activist, and to the degree that it makes any sense to draw such distinctions, probably still more so.
From where I stand, not only have the individuals responsible committed acts that in any situation would qualify as the most heinous and antihuman crimes imaginable, they have done so in a specific circumstance that brings (further?) disgrace and dishonor on the uniform they wear and the institution for which it stands as synecdoche.
And not that you'd know, j-urb, but hundreds of thousands of men and women wear that same uniform and somehow manage not to commit acts of rape, torture and murder. (I will leave aside, for the moment, the perfectly valid question of whether state-sanctioned violence is any more moral than any other sort of violence.)
The US military has fallen on hard times. It has had some exceptionally bad fortune regarding the civilian leadership to which it is subject and the policies it has been tasked to support. Nevertheless I would insist that, for all that the Wounded Knees, My Lais and Hadithas exist, and are both shameful and thoroughly inexcusable, it does not need to be like this. We are made of better stuff.
posted by adamgreenfield at 11:22 AM on June 30, 2006
From where I stand, not only have the individuals responsible committed acts that in any situation would qualify as the most heinous and antihuman crimes imaginable, they have done so in a specific circumstance that brings (further?) disgrace and dishonor on the uniform they wear and the institution for which it stands as synecdoche.
And not that you'd know, j-urb, but hundreds of thousands of men and women wear that same uniform and somehow manage not to commit acts of rape, torture and murder. (I will leave aside, for the moment, the perfectly valid question of whether state-sanctioned violence is any more moral than any other sort of violence.)
The US military has fallen on hard times. It has had some exceptionally bad fortune regarding the civilian leadership to which it is subject and the policies it has been tasked to support. Nevertheless I would insist that, for all that the Wounded Knees, My Lais and Hadithas exist, and are both shameful and thoroughly inexcusable, it does not need to be like this. We are made of better stuff.
posted by adamgreenfield at 11:22 AM on June 30, 2006
If you were put into a soldiers uniform, you would do no better.
posted by j-urb
I am an army brat, veteran and parent of a serving soldier. You speak from abysmal ignorance.
posted by taosbat at 11:26 AM on June 30, 2006
posted by j-urb
I am an army brat, veteran and parent of a serving soldier. You speak from abysmal ignorance.
posted by taosbat at 11:26 AM on June 30, 2006
j-urb: Speaking as someone who wore that uniform for five years of my life: Fuck you.
Name: j-urb
Occupation: Student
posted by chef_boyardee at 11:26 AM on June 30, 2006
Name: j-urb
Occupation: Student
posted by chef_boyardee at 11:26 AM on June 30, 2006
and I spent nine years in the service.. hearing that kind of shit really pisses me off.
posted by chef_boyardee at 11:26 AM on June 30, 2006
posted by chef_boyardee at 11:26 AM on June 30, 2006
This is as surprising as when some priest rapes some kid. Or when a rockstar is caught doing drugs.
posted by signal at 11:27 AM on June 30, 2006
posted by signal at 11:27 AM on June 30, 2006
It is war, get used to it.
No.
Then prevent war from happening in the first place.
I've been working to prevent war most of my life, but I'm unfamiliar with the "get used to it" strategy for preventing war. I'd be curious to hear how that's helped you in your work to prevent war. It seems very counter-intuitive.
posted by scottreynen at 11:28 AM on June 30, 2006
No.
Then prevent war from happening in the first place.
I've been working to prevent war most of my life, but I'm unfamiliar with the "get used to it" strategy for preventing war. I'd be curious to hear how that's helped you in your work to prevent war. It seems very counter-intuitive.
posted by scottreynen at 11:28 AM on June 30, 2006
adamgreenfield - do you really mean to equate anti-war activism to rape and murder? I'm all for not painting with too broad a brush, and I believe that the situation on the ground for any soldier of any era is impossibly complex - and that, all things considered, we do a VERY good job. (I also think that we were led to an illegal war by some murderous ideologues who ought to be... well, you know...)
But anti-war activists, while some of them may suffer from a deficiency of intellectual subtelty, are surely MUCH less offensive - to their "victims", to those they represent, and to humanity at large - than the soldiers who allegedly committed these crimes.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 11:29 AM on June 30, 2006
But anti-war activists, while some of them may suffer from a deficiency of intellectual subtelty, are surely MUCH less offensive - to their "victims", to those they represent, and to humanity at large - than the soldiers who allegedly committed these crimes.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 11:29 AM on June 30, 2006
"It is war, get used to it."
Funny definition of war, scAmerica has.
Bomb the shit out of poor people halfway around the world, then shrug your shoulders when innocent people are killed and say "Eh, it's war."
posted by rougy at 11:30 AM on June 30, 2006
Funny definition of war, scAmerica has.
Bomb the shit out of poor people halfway around the world, then shrug your shoulders when innocent people are killed and say "Eh, it's war."
posted by rougy at 11:30 AM on June 30, 2006
Liar, lawyer,
Mirror for ya,
What's the difference?
Kangaroo be stoned
He's guilty as the government
~Tool - 10,000 Days Album
posted by Unregistered User at 11:30 AM on June 30, 2006
Mirror for ya,
What's the difference?
Kangaroo be stoned
He's guilty as the government
~Tool - 10,000 Days Album
posted by Unregistered User at 11:30 AM on June 30, 2006
Yanqui go home.
posted by stinkycheese at 11:31 AM on June 30, 2006
posted by stinkycheese at 11:31 AM on June 30, 2006
do you really mean to equate anti-war activism to rape and murder?
I have absolutely no idea how you get that from anything I've written, here or elsewhere, now or ever.
posted by adamgreenfield at 11:32 AM on June 30, 2006
I have absolutely no idea how you get that from anything I've written, here or elsewhere, now or ever.
posted by adamgreenfield at 11:32 AM on June 30, 2006
I tend to think both sides of arguments about events like these somewhat miss the point. That is, it is true that if you put together a large bunch of young men, cut them off from their normal social context, subject them to the uncertainties and occasional random brutalities of combat etc., then, sure, it is entirely predictable that horrible crimes of this kind will occasionally occur. Do you think that soldiers fighting in a "just war" get magically infused with an ardour for moral purity? Lots of innocent French and German women got raped and murdered by allied troops, but surely WWII was largely a "just war."
But at the same time that doesn't in any sense "excuse" their behaviour. We can similarly say that it is "predictable" that a certain percentage of CEO's will practice malfeasance, a certain percentage of priests will molest their parishoners, a certain percentage of auto mechanics will overcharge their customers--in no case does that "excuse" the behaviour of the individual.
Where the more complex question arises is what relationship these criminal actions have to any questions we may raise about the wisdom or justification of the overall endeavor. If you want to argue that a My Lai or a Haditha by itself proves the illegality or injudiciousness of an entire "war" (or "police action" or whatever) then you would by extension be arguing that in practice military force is never permissible--it would simply be too difficult to ensure that none of your troops would ever commit such an act. On the other hand, if you are contemplating military action, you need to take into account the probability that acts like this will occur. When you weigh up the costs and benefits of military action, one of the costs you need to be aware of is the cost to your country's reputation, to the general perception of its cause, that acts like this will exact. In the case of this utterly misguided "war on terror," which should be conceived of almost entirely as a war of ideas, a war for hearts and minds, rather than a shooting war, the cost of (predictable) actions such as this is far, far greater than any benefits that I can see having come from the action (and that includes the removal of Saddam Hussein).
posted by yoink at 11:34 AM on June 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
But at the same time that doesn't in any sense "excuse" their behaviour. We can similarly say that it is "predictable" that a certain percentage of CEO's will practice malfeasance, a certain percentage of priests will molest their parishoners, a certain percentage of auto mechanics will overcharge their customers--in no case does that "excuse" the behaviour of the individual.
Where the more complex question arises is what relationship these criminal actions have to any questions we may raise about the wisdom or justification of the overall endeavor. If you want to argue that a My Lai or a Haditha by itself proves the illegality or injudiciousness of an entire "war" (or "police action" or whatever) then you would by extension be arguing that in practice military force is never permissible--it would simply be too difficult to ensure that none of your troops would ever commit such an act. On the other hand, if you are contemplating military action, you need to take into account the probability that acts like this will occur. When you weigh up the costs and benefits of military action, one of the costs you need to be aware of is the cost to your country's reputation, to the general perception of its cause, that acts like this will exact. In the case of this utterly misguided "war on terror," which should be conceived of almost entirely as a war of ideas, a war for hearts and minds, rather than a shooting war, the cost of (predictable) actions such as this is far, far greater than any benefits that I can see having come from the action (and that includes the removal of Saddam Hussein).
posted by yoink at 11:34 AM on June 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
I love how j-urb has no idea what he's talking about.
posted by shmegegge at 11:34 AM on June 30, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 11:34 AM on June 30, 2006
~Tool - 10,000 Days Album
"Has it come to this?" - The Streets.
As one regularly guilty of it, applicable pop culture references != discourse
posted by yerfatma at 11:34 AM on June 30, 2006
"Has it come to this?" - The Streets.
As one regularly guilty of it, applicable pop culture references != discourse
posted by yerfatma at 11:34 AM on June 30, 2006
adamgreenfield - my bad. I mis-read your words. I'm really sorry.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 11:36 AM on June 30, 2006
posted by fingers_of_fire at 11:36 AM on June 30, 2006
Raping and killing a muslim woman.
This war was failed before it began.
posted by bardic at 11:37 AM on June 30, 2006
This war was failed before it began.
posted by bardic at 11:37 AM on June 30, 2006
fingers: no problem 'tall.
I was just on the cusp of considering, anyway, that this issue is far too big and fractal for our bleatings here - that, in a sense, we further dishonor the dead by pretending that anything we might say scales to the enormity of what was done to them.
posted by adamgreenfield at 11:44 AM on June 30, 2006
I was just on the cusp of considering, anyway, that this issue is far too big and fractal for our bleatings here - that, in a sense, we further dishonor the dead by pretending that anything we might say scales to the enormity of what was done to them.
posted by adamgreenfield at 11:44 AM on June 30, 2006
Please don't view this in the context of politics or the war in Iraq. It has nothing to do with that, except for the fact the crime happened to occur in Iraq, which is a political hotspot.
Humans from time to time do fucked up things to one another.
Military persons stationed in peaceful areas like Germany or Okinawa have committed rapes and murders before. Are those crimes a reflection of all soldiers?
People who immigrate to the United States have committed rapes and murders before. Is that a reflection of all immigrants?
Regular US citizens have committed rapes and murders before. Is that a reflection of all US citizens?
Etc, etc, etc
posted by b_thinky at 11:47 AM on June 30, 2006
Humans from time to time do fucked up things to one another.
Military persons stationed in peaceful areas like Germany or Okinawa have committed rapes and murders before. Are those crimes a reflection of all soldiers?
People who immigrate to the United States have committed rapes and murders before. Is that a reflection of all immigrants?
Regular US citizens have committed rapes and murders before. Is that a reflection of all US citizens?
Etc, etc, etc
posted by b_thinky at 11:47 AM on June 30, 2006
b_thinky writes: Please don't view this in the context of politics or the war in Iraq. It has nothing to do with that, except for the fact the crime happened to occur in Iraq, which is a political hotspot.
You, sir, have won the most ridonkulous assault on logic award for the year. Carry on.
posted by bardic at 11:49 AM on June 30, 2006
You, sir, have won the most ridonkulous assault on logic award for the year. Carry on.
posted by bardic at 11:49 AM on June 30, 2006
“If you were put into a soldiers uniform, you would do no better. “
- posted by j-urb
Yeah, well, about that....
*whips out DD-214, various medals*
I was trained to kill. I excelled in what I did. I didn’t rape anyone. I haven’t shot any civilians. What we did saved far more lives than we took. I haven’t harmed anyone since coming home and I’ve done a good deal of work in the name of peace.
“the soldiers take a lot of the blame too for *actually performing the killings*. There's more than enough blame to go around!” -posted by lupus_yonderboy
Yeah, those soldiers should never kill anyone...no, wait, they should kill people only in good wars....er...only when lupus yonderboy tells them it’s ok....
Say - when should a soldier fight? Should he just ignore the orders of the civilian government when he feels like it? Or shouldn’t we have them?
saulgoodman- Yeah, at heart at least part of it is training and selectivity. I have no problem with (e.g.) homosexuals in the military. I’d far far rather have a well trained and honorable - but completely flaming gay man - in my unit than some pseudo-tough wannabe psycho who goes off and rapes someone or indiscriminatly kills civilians.
That endangers everyone.
One or two guys like this - well the results and damage are obvious.
But they’re taking pretty much any warm body they can get.
This apart from the initial circumstances of the war and war in general.
While I grant j-urb has a point about war being evil - rapes happen all the time among civilians. And these bastards (if they are in fact guilty) are rapists.
What is scary about this is that they’re also soldiers. If you have a division of men with assault rifles in your town, and two of their group decide to rape someone, there isn’t a whole lot the local cops can do to stop them.
And there is where it gets a little political. Because either that group is going to be self-policing or they aren’t.
But it gets even more political - because those local cops are members of their government.
And you get back to the basic struggle over sovereignty - a topic in which rape metaphors abound.
But as to the solution or what’s to be done? That’s simple, investigate and prosecute them and if found guilty sentence and punish them.
War is horrible, this one was unneccessary, but there is no larger political situation nor is there any kind of training which can mitigate a crime like this.
All other considerations aside (they’re mostly obvious, no one defends rape) this harms their unit and their fellow troops. That alone is unforgivable from a military POV.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:52 AM on June 30, 2006
- posted by j-urb
Yeah, well, about that....
*whips out DD-214, various medals*
I was trained to kill. I excelled in what I did. I didn’t rape anyone. I haven’t shot any civilians. What we did saved far more lives than we took. I haven’t harmed anyone since coming home and I’ve done a good deal of work in the name of peace.
“the soldiers take a lot of the blame too for *actually performing the killings*. There's more than enough blame to go around!” -posted by lupus_yonderboy
Yeah, those soldiers should never kill anyone...no, wait, they should kill people only in good wars....er...only when lupus yonderboy tells them it’s ok....
Say - when should a soldier fight? Should he just ignore the orders of the civilian government when he feels like it? Or shouldn’t we have them?
saulgoodman- Yeah, at heart at least part of it is training and selectivity. I have no problem with (e.g.) homosexuals in the military. I’d far far rather have a well trained and honorable - but completely flaming gay man - in my unit than some pseudo-tough wannabe psycho who goes off and rapes someone or indiscriminatly kills civilians.
That endangers everyone.
One or two guys like this - well the results and damage are obvious.
But they’re taking pretty much any warm body they can get.
This apart from the initial circumstances of the war and war in general.
While I grant j-urb has a point about war being evil - rapes happen all the time among civilians. And these bastards (if they are in fact guilty) are rapists.
What is scary about this is that they’re also soldiers. If you have a division of men with assault rifles in your town, and two of their group decide to rape someone, there isn’t a whole lot the local cops can do to stop them.
And there is where it gets a little political. Because either that group is going to be self-policing or they aren’t.
But it gets even more political - because those local cops are members of their government.
And you get back to the basic struggle over sovereignty - a topic in which rape metaphors abound.
But as to the solution or what’s to be done? That’s simple, investigate and prosecute them and if found guilty sentence and punish them.
War is horrible, this one was unneccessary, but there is no larger political situation nor is there any kind of training which can mitigate a crime like this.
All other considerations aside (they’re mostly obvious, no one defends rape) this harms their unit and their fellow troops. That alone is unforgivable from a military POV.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:52 AM on June 30, 2006
/just one POV - obviously there are many other quite valid ways of looking at it.
(and some not so valid, but, meh)
posted by Smedleyman at 11:56 AM on June 30, 2006
(and some not so valid, but, meh)
posted by Smedleyman at 11:56 AM on June 30, 2006
It is hard to relax when the soldier in the Humvee in front of you aims his machine gun at you.The Occupation of Iraqi Hearts and Minds
It is hard to be patient when mosques are raided, when protesters are shot, when innocent families are gunned down at checkpoints or by frightened soldiers in vehicles. It is hard to be patient in hours of izdiham, or traffic jams, that are blamed on Americans closing off main roads throughout Baghdad. The Americans close roads after “incidents” or when they are looking for planted bombs. Their vehicles block the roads and they answer no questions, refusing to let any Iraqi approach. Cars are forced to drive “wrong side,” as Iraqis call it, with near fatal results. Iraqis have become experts in walking over the concertina wire that divides so much of their cities: First one foot presses the razor wire down, then the other steps over. They are experts in driving slowly through lakes and rivers of sewage. They are experts in sifting through mountains of garbage for anything that can be reused.
It is hard to relax when the soldier in the Humvee or armored personnel carrier in front of you aims his machine gun at you; when aggressive white men race by, running you off the road as they scowl behind their wraparound sunglasses; when soldiers shoot at any car that comes too close. Iraqis in their own country are reminded at all times who has control over their lives, who can take them with impunity.
An old Iraqi woman approached the gate to Baghdad international airport. Draped in a black ebaya, she was carrying a picture of her missing son. She did not speak English, and the soldier in body armor she asked for help did not speak Arabic. He shouted at her to “get the fuck away.” She did not understand and continued beseeching him. The soldier was joined by another. Together they locked and loaded their machine guns, chambering a round, aiming the guns at the old woman and shouting at her that if she did not leave “we will kill you.”
...Imagine. The American occupation of Iraq has lasted over three years. The above stories are based on my two weeks with one unit in a small part of the country. Imagine how many Iraqi homes have been destroyed. How many families have been traumatized. How many men have disappeared into American military vehicles in the night. How many crimes have been committed against the Iraqi people every single day in the course of the normal operations of the occupation, when soldiers were merely doing their duty, when they were not angry or vengeful as in Haditha. Imagine what we have done to the Iraqi people, tortured by Saddam for years, then released from three decades of his bloody rule only to find their hope stolen from them and a new terror unleashed.
My friend wanted to begin his recounting of his time in Iraq by discussing “the character of the American men fighting this war.” He joked that “it might be a shock to some of the architects of this war that our fighters don’t read magazines like The Weekly Standard or The New Republic or give a rat’s ass about where our occupation in Iraq is headed.” He continued: “The reason most of them signed up for service (me included) was to get some action, destroy Al Qaeda and come home with a body count to brag about at a local bar. Who gives a fuck about the rest? I think it can be best summed up in a conversation I overheard at my recruitment station. When one kid was asked why he joined the infantry, he didn’t have any doubts: ‘I enlisted to kill towelheads.’Ugly Americans in Iraq
“The very nature of special operations and the infantry is to kill and/or capture dangerous people, destroy shit and prevent attacks. Creating rapport with the local population isn’t really part of the vocabulary—especially if the local population is as insanely dangerous as Iraq. In the eyes of many fellow soldiers who signed up because of 9/11, and because of the Bush administration’s portrayal of Iraq as part of the ‘war on terror,’ many of the guys fully believed that they were in a hunt [for] men responsible for the blood bath in lower Manhattan.” My friend added that regardless of where soldiers are, “be that a foreign country or a local bar in a military town, they usually wear out their welcome anywhere they go—they’ve perfected the skill.”
...My friend was rare in that he had somehow overcome the necessary brainwashing soldiers undergo and was able to critically assess his role in Iraq. “In hindsight,” he said, “I have often asked myself what my reaction would be like if I were on the opposite end of this equation. After years of living under a harsh dictatorship, 150,000 soldiers of Sharia show up and offload into Georgetown from boats on the Potomac River after shelling the Capitol. They have a simple mission, they say: transplanting Islamic enlightenment in the decadent land of Kafir. They take over the D.C. Mall and throw a wall around the Smithsonian buildings; they call it the ‘Halal Zone.’ The White House becomes the embassy of Iraq. Some asshole like John Walker Lindh (Ahmed Chalabi), who has lived in the Middle East while the U.S. suffered under dictatorship, is Iraq’s favorite child for taking over the peacock throne of the U.S. My house gets raided and my mother patted down by hygiene-deficient Wahhabis, so I go to Georgetown to force the humiliation off my mind. A group of wirey majahedin show up at Haagen Daaz while I’m enjoying a cone of cookies and cream—a rare moment of bliss in a country going to shit—and grab the owners while taking their ice cream. I return to my home, after walking through one foot of raw sewage water, to turn on the radio and hear the Arab ‘viceroy’ declare in a fatwa that all Christian values should be erased from our governing culture. Meanwhile my dad is laid off from his paycheck for the crime of serving in the U.S. Army to provide for his struggling family.” My friend concluded that “without much doubt in my mind, if I were an Iraqi under the U.S. occupation, I’d be an insurgent.”
posted by y2karl at 12:00 PM on June 30, 2006
Liar, lawyer,
Mirror for ya,
What's the difference?
Kangaroo be stoned
He's guilty as the government
was this supposed to make sense somehow?
"kangaroo be stoned"? jesus, that's some bad shit.
has maynard been taking night classes at the anthony kiedis international school for retarded rock lyrics?
please explain to me, because i'd love to see the explanation, how the lyrics you cite have anything to do with the topic at hand.
posted by Hat Maui at 12:00 PM on June 30, 2006
Mirror for ya,
What's the difference?
Kangaroo be stoned
He's guilty as the government
was this supposed to make sense somehow?
"kangaroo be stoned"? jesus, that's some bad shit.
has maynard been taking night classes at the anthony kiedis international school for retarded rock lyrics?
please explain to me, because i'd love to see the explanation, how the lyrics you cite have anything to do with the topic at hand.
posted by Hat Maui at 12:00 PM on June 30, 2006
This crime (alleged) wasn't committed by soldiers. It was committed by criminals in soldiers uniforms.
Don't stereotype the "troops" based on the proverbial bad apples.
USAF CCT 1992-1997 Veteran of the psychic wars.
/newsfilter
posted by a3matrix at 12:03 PM on June 30, 2006
Don't stereotype the "troops" based on the proverbial bad apples.
USAF CCT 1992-1997 Veteran of the psychic wars.
/newsfilter
posted by a3matrix at 12:03 PM on June 30, 2006
nor is there any kind of training which can mitigate a crime like this.
Training for mitigating such crimes is supplied on a regular basis. Heck, aren't we having another round of "sensitivity training" for Marines who thought it was a good idea to murder civilians earlier?
I agree with Smedleyman - they need to be tried quickly and effectively. If they indeed committed such a horrible act, then punishment should be equally swift.
As to whether this ties into our political environment, well, of course it does - they are a reflection of our society and culture, both good and bad. The very fact that they thought torturing, raping, and killing a girl was an "opportunity" reflects on us all, and we need to respond. If our response is weak or accepting in any way, then this just confirms the worst impressions of our culture to those who would then exploit that confirmation for their benefit.
posted by FormlessOne at 12:07 PM on June 30, 2006
Training for mitigating such crimes is supplied on a regular basis. Heck, aren't we having another round of "sensitivity training" for Marines who thought it was a good idea to murder civilians earlier?
I agree with Smedleyman - they need to be tried quickly and effectively. If they indeed committed such a horrible act, then punishment should be equally swift.
As to whether this ties into our political environment, well, of course it does - they are a reflection of our society and culture, both good and bad. The very fact that they thought torturing, raping, and killing a girl was an "opportunity" reflects on us all, and we need to respond. If our response is weak or accepting in any way, then this just confirms the worst impressions of our culture to those who would then exploit that confirmation for their benefit.
posted by FormlessOne at 12:07 PM on June 30, 2006
I think a culture of not seeing Iraqis as really being people probably has a LOT to do with this, and that seems to be becoming the dominant culture in the armed forces.
posted by Artw at 12:21 PM on June 30, 2006
posted by Artw at 12:21 PM on June 30, 2006
Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 17 -- that [proconsul Paul Bremer] signed on June 27, 2004, just one day before he scuttled out of [Iraq] ... is not a "Status of Forces Agreement" (SOFA) like the ones we have with our NATO allies or Japan or other countries where U.S. forces might be based. Those have to be negotiated, and the talks are tough, because truly sovereign countries think sovereignty truly is important. They never like the idea that American soldiers who commit crimes on their territory are not subject to their laws.The Rule of Order 17
But Order 17 was not negotiated with the Iraqis, it was promulgated by the Americans, and it's purely of the people, by the people and for the people that the United States brought into Iraq. Under its provisions, they are exempt from Iraqi laws, cannot be arrested, prosecuted, tried or taxed. Nor do they have to pay rent for the buildings and land they turn into bases. Ambassador Barbara Bodine, who served in Baghdad immediately after the invasion and subsequently negotiated military agreements with other countries before leaving the State Department in 2004, describes what Bremer pulled off as "a SOFA on steroids." It's all about what the Americans get to do, and what the Iraqis get to do for them.
Order 17 applies not only to soldiers but to the rest of that vast, motley array of foreigners that originally came in with Bremer and stayed, under different guises and in ever-growing numbers, after he left: consultants, contractors and the "security contractors," known in other places and times as mercenaries. Under Order 17, as long as they're working on U.S. government contracts and subcontracts they are immune to arrest and prosecution, taxes and duties imposed by Iraqi law. (I would invite readers to look at the text.) Implicitly and in fact, Order 17 has given these characters a license to kill.
posted by y2karl at 12:22 PM on June 30, 2006
I think a culture of not seeing people as people has a lot to do with this.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:25 PM on June 30, 2006
posted by saulgoodman at 12:25 PM on June 30, 2006
Good posts, Smedleyman & yoink. And Artw, depersonalisation is the first step towards killing people, and this is pretty evident any time you have a lot of killing going on. If anyone's interested, Roy Baumeister's book Evil: Inside Human Violence & Cruelty has some excellent insights into this phenomena.
Also, I just have to add (because it drives me nuts): WTF is with all the mental gymnastics going on in this thread with posters asking us to "please don't view this in the context of politics or the war in Iraq" (b_thinky) or "this crime (alleged) wasn't committed by soldiers" (a3matrix), etc., etc.?
You know, I don't think you're convincing anyone here, except perhaps yourself. I mean, goddamn, what the hell do you expect? Grok if you will: American troops decided with forethought to rape a woman, kill her & her family, and then burn the evidence. In the year 2006. These are your representatives, and this is how they're representing you.
Now the cognitive dissonance is getting so bad that you're able to look right at something, and still not see it. Remarkable! Seems like a lot of people are just trying desperately to avoid getting any mud on their clothes. Whatever helps you sleep at night? (puke)
posted by stinkycheese at 12:36 PM on June 30, 2006
Also, I just have to add (because it drives me nuts): WTF is with all the mental gymnastics going on in this thread with posters asking us to "please don't view this in the context of politics or the war in Iraq" (b_thinky) or "this crime (alleged) wasn't committed by soldiers" (a3matrix), etc., etc.?
You know, I don't think you're convincing anyone here, except perhaps yourself. I mean, goddamn, what the hell do you expect? Grok if you will: American troops decided with forethought to rape a woman, kill her & her family, and then burn the evidence. In the year 2006. These are your representatives, and this is how they're representing you.
Now the cognitive dissonance is getting so bad that you're able to look right at something, and still not see it. Remarkable! Seems like a lot of people are just trying desperately to avoid getting any mud on their clothes. Whatever helps you sleep at night? (puke)
posted by stinkycheese at 12:36 PM on June 30, 2006
Editor & Publisher Special Report: Haditha, My Lai and the Media
posted by y2karl at 12:38 PM on June 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by y2karl at 12:38 PM on June 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
Now the cognitive dissonance is getting so bad
The particularly weird form this cognitive dissonance takes on issues like this is that the very same people who will say "hey, it's war, atrocities always happen in war, what are you going to do?" are the people who are most likely to work themselves into a lather about the atrocities committed by those evil terrorists.
O'Reilly, for example, can turn on a dime from "Hey, even our boys in WWII did all sorts of unspeakable things" to "look how sick and depraved the muslim mind must be to allow these people to do these unspeakable things."
posted by yoink at 12:43 PM on June 30, 2006
The particularly weird form this cognitive dissonance takes on issues like this is that the very same people who will say "hey, it's war, atrocities always happen in war, what are you going to do?" are the people who are most likely to work themselves into a lather about the atrocities committed by those evil terrorists.
O'Reilly, for example, can turn on a dime from "Hey, even our boys in WWII did all sorts of unspeakable things" to "look how sick and depraved the muslim mind must be to allow these people to do these unspeakable things."
posted by yoink at 12:43 PM on June 30, 2006
It is war, get used to it.
It is inexcusable evil: get used to that and you become part of it. You might; I won't.
posted by Decani at 12:44 PM on June 30, 2006
It is inexcusable evil: get used to that and you become part of it. You might; I won't.
posted by Decani at 12:44 PM on June 30, 2006
Humans from time to time do fucked up things to one another.
For instance, drop enough bombs to kill 100,000 people.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:45 PM on June 30, 2006
For instance, drop enough bombs to kill 100,000 people.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:45 PM on June 30, 2006
"Please don't view this in the context of politics or the war in Iraq."
I included that message in the sympathy card I sent the family, along with some tickets for Six Flags Water World.
posted by 2sheets at 12:53 PM on June 30, 2006
I included that message in the sympathy card I sent the family, along with some tickets for Six Flags Water World.
posted by 2sheets at 12:53 PM on June 30, 2006
You, sir, have won the most ridonkulous assault on logic award for the year. Carry on.
posted by bardic at 11:49 AM PST on June 30 [+fave] [!]
So why is it different than any other rape/murder committed all over the world? Just because it gives you another excuse to hope your country loses a war?
posted by b_thinky at 12:53 PM on June 30, 2006
posted by bardic at 11:49 AM PST on June 30 [+fave] [!]
So why is it different than any other rape/murder committed all over the world? Just because it gives you another excuse to hope your country loses a war?
posted by b_thinky at 12:53 PM on June 30, 2006
stinkycheese: I guess you would have to have served to understand the difference between the two. The branches of service are sometimes not quite as picky as they should be on their recruitment drives.
I think what I was leaning to, is that the individuals accused here, are criminals, who just happen to wear the uniform. I think it takes a particular kind of person to do what these soldiers are accused of, and if they did it, it says more of them then of the US Military. After all, how many people have served in conflict zones and NOT raped and killed the local populace?
The military should act on this very quickly and if they are found guilty they should be punished with all due haste as an example to any other troops who might find the opportunity to act out criminal behavior too tempting to resist.
posted by a3matrix at 12:54 PM on June 30, 2006
I think what I was leaning to, is that the individuals accused here, are criminals, who just happen to wear the uniform. I think it takes a particular kind of person to do what these soldiers are accused of, and if they did it, it says more of them then of the US Military. After all, how many people have served in conflict zones and NOT raped and killed the local populace?
The military should act on this very quickly and if they are found guilty they should be punished with all due haste as an example to any other troops who might find the opportunity to act out criminal behavior too tempting to resist.
posted by a3matrix at 12:54 PM on June 30, 2006
Perhaps one factor to look at is the drastic lowering of recruiting standards necessary to support the war in Iraq. The Army now allows more high school dropouts than before the war. It also allows more Category IV recruits -- those who score in the lower third on the armed forces aptitude test. The army's own studies show that these lowered standards have real performance effects in the field.
The Army has also lowered their moral standards, allowing more recruits with criminal records. In 2005, more than 17% of recruits were admitted using a loophole know as a waiver that allows recruiters to sign up men and women who otherwise would be ineligible for service because of legal convictions, medical problems or other reasons preventing them from meeting minimum standards.
It can't be comforting to veterans to see the dumbing down of the armed forces.
posted by JackFlash at 12:55 PM on June 30, 2006
The Army has also lowered their moral standards, allowing more recruits with criminal records. In 2005, more than 17% of recruits were admitted using a loophole know as a waiver that allows recruiters to sign up men and women who otherwise would be ineligible for service because of legal convictions, medical problems or other reasons preventing them from meeting minimum standards.
It can't be comforting to veterans to see the dumbing down of the armed forces.
posted by JackFlash at 12:55 PM on June 30, 2006
Can't we all agree that the troops who did this are victims, too? Remember, if you say anything bad about the troops you don't Support Them With All Your Heart and you are a bad democrat and the democrats will never get the White House back.
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:56 PM on June 30, 2006
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:56 PM on June 30, 2006
Just because it gives you another excuse to hope your country loses a war?
What are you, retarded?
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:57 PM on June 30, 2006
What are you, retarded?
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:57 PM on June 30, 2006
"So why is it different than any other rape/murder committed all over the world?"
You already know the answer and you're just pretending to be dumb, but I'll play along.
The alleged perpetraters in this case wear uniforms and carry weapons and have established that they are the authority. Failure to comply with their orders will result in death. They represent you and me and we bought the guns and uniforms and pay their salaries. We elected the people that sent them there.
So these are acts carried out in our name, on our dime. That makes us accountable, and I know you believe in accountability. Right?
posted by 2sheets at 1:05 PM on June 30, 2006
You already know the answer and you're just pretending to be dumb, but I'll play along.
The alleged perpetraters in this case wear uniforms and carry weapons and have established that they are the authority. Failure to comply with their orders will result in death. They represent you and me and we bought the guns and uniforms and pay their salaries. We elected the people that sent them there.
So these are acts carried out in our name, on our dime. That makes us accountable, and I know you believe in accountability. Right?
posted by 2sheets at 1:05 PM on June 30, 2006
I know you believe in accountability.
Oh yes, the right are hot on accountability. That is, unless it somehow pertains to anything that they or their supporters do.
How is this different from any other rape or murder? Well, in any other case, if somebody says "well, we should consider the harsh conditions that the perpetrator came from, we should try to understand their motivations, we should try to comprehend the larger social framework in which this event took place etc. etc." they will get dismissed by the typical enthusiast for the Iraq war (please note I say "typical") as a bleeding heart liberal who is SOFT ON CRIME (tm).
But in this case...
posted by yoink at 1:12 PM on June 30, 2006
Oh yes, the right are hot on accountability. That is, unless it somehow pertains to anything that they or their supporters do.
How is this different from any other rape or murder? Well, in any other case, if somebody says "well, we should consider the harsh conditions that the perpetrator came from, we should try to understand their motivations, we should try to comprehend the larger social framework in which this event took place etc. etc." they will get dismissed by the typical enthusiast for the Iraq war (please note I say "typical") as a bleeding heart liberal who is SOFT ON CRIME (tm).
But in this case...
posted by yoink at 1:12 PM on June 30, 2006
Regardless of whether this is a criminal problem or a militaristic problem, it is most definintely a diplomatic shitstorm that we don't need now, and one that will make life ultimately harder for the military personnel stationed in Iraq - and elsewhere. Yeah, if it's only natural that a certain segment of any population do this kind of shit, then the miliary leadership needs to get it together and make SUPER SURE that our soldiers keep it together. There was an interesting article in the New Yorker a few years ago about the toll of killing people - or training to kill people - takes on soldiers. It did not specificially address, though, the toll that being stationed for years and years in an incredibly hot climate, sexually repressive culture, and morally ambiguous war was.
posted by DenOfSizer at 1:30 PM on June 30, 2006
posted by DenOfSizer at 1:30 PM on June 30, 2006
It's different because an occupying military force has been placed in charge of a hostile, hostile populace (Can you blame them? How would you act if an Iraqi army occupied your home town?). Stuff like this is, of course, bound to happen--but to defend the action by an appeal to base human nature is to ignore the obvious. US troops are being told to do the impossible--both kill the very same people they're supposed to democratize. A rape/murder like this wouldn't happen if an occupying force wasn't there in the first place.
And don't even try to play the anti-war=hate America card you worthless fucking chickenhawk. I love my country enough to know that it shouldn't be throwing good lives and money after bad.
posted by bardic at 1:38 PM on June 30, 2006
And don't even try to play the anti-war=hate America card you worthless fucking chickenhawk. I love my country enough to know that it shouldn't be throwing good lives and money after bad.
posted by bardic at 1:38 PM on June 30, 2006
Just because it gives you another excuse to hope your country loses a war?
War's over b_thinky. Your side has already lost: Iraq is UNQUESTIONABLY worse off without Saddam Hussein.
Put Saddam back in power. He'll quell the insurgency, stabilize the country, and drive out the "terrorists" - just like he was doing before "your" side screwed everything up.
posted by three blind mice at 1:38 PM on June 30, 2006
War's over b_thinky. Your side has already lost: Iraq is UNQUESTIONABLY worse off without Saddam Hussein.
Put Saddam back in power. He'll quell the insurgency, stabilize the country, and drive out the "terrorists" - just like he was doing before "your" side screwed everything up.
posted by three blind mice at 1:38 PM on June 30, 2006
Put Saddam back in power. He'll quell the insurgency, stabilize the country, and drive out the "terrorists" - just like he was doing before "your" side screwed everything up.
I bet we can even sell him some WMDs to help in those difficult tasks. The money we make will help pay off the deficits we're running...
posted by spacewrench at 1:48 PM on June 30, 2006
I bet we can even sell him some WMDs to help in those difficult tasks. The money we make will help pay off the deficits we're running...
posted by spacewrench at 1:48 PM on June 30, 2006
Guys - I don't see anybody here defending the people who raped that woman, but a lot of the people arguing seem to be pretending that people are trying to explain it away and make it OK.
I'm 1,000 % against this war. I was against Afghanistan too, so I'm way out there on the fringe since most people will at least say they supported that action.
I think that the prison scandal and the accusations of torture are a top down problem that start with those who should be in charge.
In this case though, I don't think that's a factor. You have some criminals. They would have been criminals if they never put on a uniform, but they did, to they're criminals in uniform.
That in know way means that all people in uniform will do the same thing.
The military needs to punish these people if they are guilty of what they are charged, and I think they will. But everybody saying that all soldiers are guilty of this aren't thinking very clearly, and if you go back and read this again in a couple of years, I think you'll feel a little silly for the things you're saying or for so completely missing the point of what the people you're arguing with have been saying.
posted by willnot at 1:59 PM on June 30, 2006
I'm 1,000 % against this war. I was against Afghanistan too, so I'm way out there on the fringe since most people will at least say they supported that action.
I think that the prison scandal and the accusations of torture are a top down problem that start with those who should be in charge.
In this case though, I don't think that's a factor. You have some criminals. They would have been criminals if they never put on a uniform, but they did, to they're criminals in uniform.
That in know way means that all people in uniform will do the same thing.
The military needs to punish these people if they are guilty of what they are charged, and I think they will. But everybody saying that all soldiers are guilty of this aren't thinking very clearly, and if you go back and read this again in a couple of years, I think you'll feel a little silly for the things you're saying or for so completely missing the point of what the people you're arguing with have been saying.
posted by willnot at 1:59 PM on June 30, 2006
Just how many babies does someone have to kill before we can call him a baby-killer?
posted by Balisong at 2:04 PM on June 30, 2006
posted by Balisong at 2:04 PM on June 30, 2006
everybody saying that all soldiers are guilty of this
"Everybody"? Willnot, can you show me one person who is saying that "all soldiers are guilty of this"?
posted by yoink at 2:27 PM on June 30, 2006
"Everybody"? Willnot, can you show me one person who is saying that "all soldiers are guilty of this"?
posted by yoink at 2:27 PM on June 30, 2006
Humans from time to time do fucked up things to one another.
And, from time to time, sometimes with alarming frequency, say fucked up things to one another. Case in point:
So why is it different than any other rape/murder committed all over the world? Just because it gives you another excuse to hope your country loses a war?
posted by b_thinky at 3:53 PM EST on June 30
Thanks for the example.
posted by juiceCake at 2:32 PM on June 30, 2006
And, from time to time, sometimes with alarming frequency, say fucked up things to one another. Case in point:
So why is it different than any other rape/murder committed all over the world? Just because it gives you another excuse to hope your country loses a war?
posted by b_thinky at 3:53 PM EST on June 30
Thanks for the example.
posted by juiceCake at 2:32 PM on June 30, 2006
When I say "It is war, get used to it." what I mean is that there are a lot more of these incidents than what's being reported. Maybe what I should say is that "It is an occupation, get used to it." I have nothing against the military, they're doing what they are trained to do. I don't see how a military can be moral when its most imperative purporse is to destroy human life. On the other end of the spectrum, I don't know if I want a military to be moral. The fact that the military is in a foreign country (incidents of numerous rapes in Okinowa for example) is a cause for concern.
Speaking as someone who wore that uniform for five years of my life: Fuck you.
I can see it didn't do your critical thinking or rhetorical skills any good. I'm not saying that I'm right, or wrong for that matter, but rather how I view things. My mind can be changed, but a "I wore a uniform, fuck you" isn't going to do it. It makes you sound rather childish.
posted by j-urb at 2:41 PM on June 30, 2006
Speaking as someone who wore that uniform for five years of my life: Fuck you.
I can see it didn't do your critical thinking or rhetorical skills any good. I'm not saying that I'm right, or wrong for that matter, but rather how I view things. My mind can be changed, but a "I wore a uniform, fuck you" isn't going to do it. It makes you sound rather childish.
posted by j-urb at 2:41 PM on June 30, 2006
does the fact that all U.S. armed forces are trained to obey the rules of engagement sway your view of things?
posted by shmegegge at 2:48 PM on June 30, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 2:48 PM on June 30, 2006
Put Saddam back in power. He'll quell the insurgency, stabilize the country, and drive out the "terrorists" - just like he was doing before "your" side screwed everything up.
Yes, and things will be just fantastic unless you're a Shiite, a starving Iraqi baby, a regular Iraqi who looks at a Baathist the wrong way, an athlete who fucks up a goal in a soccer match, a Kurd, a Marsh Arab, a Kuwaiti or anyone who just happens to get on Saddam's bad side.
We can go back to righteous diplomats, U.N. administrators and foreign politicians making a killing off of kickbacks from oil deals while the civilians starve, and we can all just turn our backs and pretend it never happened.
Hey, you can complain about the plight of a handful of a Guantanamo detainees, but you don't seem to mind if entire minority groups in a nation get shitted on, right? If the U.S. can't be blamed, you can't quite work up that outrage, eh?
posted by Alexandros at 2:50 PM on June 30, 2006
Yes, and things will be just fantastic unless you're a Shiite, a starving Iraqi baby, a regular Iraqi who looks at a Baathist the wrong way, an athlete who fucks up a goal in a soccer match, a Kurd, a Marsh Arab, a Kuwaiti or anyone who just happens to get on Saddam's bad side.
We can go back to righteous diplomats, U.N. administrators and foreign politicians making a killing off of kickbacks from oil deals while the civilians starve, and we can all just turn our backs and pretend it never happened.
Hey, you can complain about the plight of a handful of a Guantanamo detainees, but you don't seem to mind if entire minority groups in a nation get shitted on, right? If the U.S. can't be blamed, you can't quite work up that outrage, eh?
posted by Alexandros at 2:50 PM on June 30, 2006
I'm just glad our boys are over there preventing future terrorist attacks.
posted by goethean at 2:55 PM on June 30, 2006
posted by goethean at 2:55 PM on June 30, 2006
There's no excuse for rape and murder. None.
There is absolutely no cannibalism in the Royal Navy.
posted by fusinski at 3:02 PM on June 30, 2006
There is absolutely no cannibalism in the Royal Navy.
posted by fusinski at 3:02 PM on June 30, 2006
I meant everybody who is saying this as opposed to everybody is saying this. Anybody might have been clearer, but then so would spelling "no" properly, so you take the grammar you get on these boards.
Anyway, to address this question:
Willnot, can you show me one person who is saying that "all soldiers are guilty of this"?
Yeah. Here are 3:
This is shameful behavior on the part of our troops
I read that as not the individual soldiers, but all of the troops.
It isn't the person, but the institution. Understand the difference. If you were put into a soldiers uniform, you would do no better.
That one by my reading is even less ambiguous. It's not the individuals, it's the institution.
I mean, goddamn, what the hell do you expect? Grok if you will: American troops decided with forethought to rape a woman, kill her & her family, and then burn the evidence. In the year 2006. These are your representatives, and this is how they're representing you.
Once again we're back to ambiguity. The use of troops seems to paint this as all of the troops, but it could be read as these specific troops or soldiers. Also, I'm not sure whether to read this as what one soldier does is a stain for all soldiers or we should have expected that any soldier might do this because that's what these soldiers do.
posted by willnot at 3:03 PM on June 30, 2006
Anyway, to address this question:
Willnot, can you show me one person who is saying that "all soldiers are guilty of this"?
Yeah. Here are 3:
This is shameful behavior on the part of our troops
I read that as not the individual soldiers, but all of the troops.
It isn't the person, but the institution. Understand the difference. If you were put into a soldiers uniform, you would do no better.
That one by my reading is even less ambiguous. It's not the individuals, it's the institution.
I mean, goddamn, what the hell do you expect? Grok if you will: American troops decided with forethought to rape a woman, kill her & her family, and then burn the evidence. In the year 2006. These are your representatives, and this is how they're representing you.
Once again we're back to ambiguity. The use of troops seems to paint this as all of the troops, but it could be read as these specific troops or soldiers. Also, I'm not sure whether to read this as what one soldier does is a stain for all soldiers or we should have expected that any soldier might do this because that's what these soldiers do.
posted by willnot at 3:03 PM on June 30, 2006
j-urb As another Uniform wearing in the last war being, member of this great land, I concurr, "Fuck you"
posted by Elim at 3:05 PM on June 30, 2006
posted by Elim at 3:05 PM on June 30, 2006
See, this was predictable right from the start.
The nature of armies dictate that if you don't want them to rape, pillage and plunder, don't use them on foreign soil.
Some countries have that as a part of their constitution - their armies cannot operate outside their national borders.
posted by spazzm at 3:06 PM on June 30, 2006
The nature of armies dictate that if you don't want them to rape, pillage and plunder, don't use them on foreign soil.
Some countries have that as a part of their constitution - their armies cannot operate outside their national borders.
posted by spazzm at 3:06 PM on June 30, 2006
Some soldiers sacrifice their lives, others only their humanity; others still their sanity or their characters.
I have a nephew over there. Before he went, I thought he was the most good-natured and kind boy of his age I knew. When I'm able to stop worrying about him getting killed, I start worrying about him being able to live with whatever he's done there when he finally does get home. The more I hear about conditions of service in Iraq, the more I think it would take a soldier of the moral stature of a Gandhi or a Mandela not to be twisted by it.
posted by jamjam at 3:10 PM on June 30, 2006
I have a nephew over there. Before he went, I thought he was the most good-natured and kind boy of his age I knew. When I'm able to stop worrying about him getting killed, I start worrying about him being able to live with whatever he's done there when he finally does get home. The more I hear about conditions of service in Iraq, the more I think it would take a soldier of the moral stature of a Gandhi or a Mandela not to be twisted by it.
posted by jamjam at 3:10 PM on June 30, 2006
Perhaps one factor to look at is the drastic lowering of recruiting standards necessary to support the war in Iraq.
Including gangs.
There is absolutely no cannibalism in the Royal Navy.
The only traditions of the Royal Navy are rum, sodomy and the lash.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:12 PM on June 30, 2006
Willnot, I think you're misunderstanding all three of those statements. I don't think anybody means "this is typical behavior that represents what most American soldiers do." What they mean is either "these soldiers are placed in a situation that systematically destabilizes their normal moral bearings, and predictably enough some of them crack" OR they are saying "whether it is fair or not, what one soldier does reflects upon the whole group, and this will be held up as a sign of the perfidy of the American army."
Although I'll grant you that j-urb's comment is a bit odd.
posted by yoink at 3:34 PM on June 30, 2006
Although I'll grant you that j-urb's comment is a bit odd.
posted by yoink at 3:34 PM on June 30, 2006
Hi jamjam, and some soldiers come back from war with a stronger moral sense and a deeper humanity than they had before.
The conditions of service in Iraq are certainly challenging. Yet, if one does a little math, fewer than 0.05% of the troops in Iraq (that is, at any one time) are implicated in criminal offenses.
That number will surely get worse the longer our troops are engaged in this political policy failure. Still, it's far more likely your nephew will return honorably than the opposite.
It doesn't take a Gandhi or a Mandela not to be twisted by it. It does require a more or less normally good character. And, a squared away chain of command certainly helps.
My best wishes for your nephew.
posted by taosbat at 3:35 PM on June 30, 2006
The conditions of service in Iraq are certainly challenging. Yet, if one does a little math, fewer than 0.05% of the troops in Iraq (that is, at any one time) are implicated in criminal offenses.
That number will surely get worse the longer our troops are engaged in this political policy failure. Still, it's far more likely your nephew will return honorably than the opposite.
It doesn't take a Gandhi or a Mandela not to be twisted by it. It does require a more or less normally good character. And, a squared away chain of command certainly helps.
My best wishes for your nephew.
posted by taosbat at 3:35 PM on June 30, 2006
Although I'll grant you that j-urb's comment is a bit odd.
posted by yoink
j-urb's comment is utter ignorance.
posted by taosbat at 3:37 PM on June 30, 2006
posted by yoink
j-urb's comment is utter ignorance.
posted by taosbat at 3:37 PM on June 30, 2006
Perhaps one factor to look at is the drastic lowering of recruiting standards necessary to support the war in Iraq.
Including gangs.
posted by kirkaracha
Yes, this is the second most important argument for a return to the draft.
posted by taosbat at 3:51 PM on June 30, 2006
Including gangs.
posted by kirkaracha
Yes, this is the second most important argument for a return to the draft.
posted by taosbat at 3:51 PM on June 30, 2006
rapes happen all the time among civilians. And these bastards (if they are in fact guilty) are rapists.
What is scary about this is that they’re also soldiers. If you have a division of men with assault rifles in your town, and two of their group decide to rape someone, there isn’t a whole lot the local cops can do to stop them.
As nice as it is to think that there are good men and there are bad men, and the difficulty is telling them apart (or preventing the behaviour when it happens), consider also that placing these young men in a position of absolute power versus the local population has its own corruptive influence. Would these men have done this at home? Maybe, but in many cases, probably not. This is not just about rapists who happen to be soldiers.
posted by dreamsign at 4:01 PM on June 30, 2006
What is scary about this is that they’re also soldiers. If you have a division of men with assault rifles in your town, and two of their group decide to rape someone, there isn’t a whole lot the local cops can do to stop them.
As nice as it is to think that there are good men and there are bad men, and the difficulty is telling them apart (or preventing the behaviour when it happens), consider also that placing these young men in a position of absolute power versus the local population has its own corruptive influence. Would these men have done this at home? Maybe, but in many cases, probably not. This is not just about rapists who happen to be soldiers.
posted by dreamsign at 4:01 PM on June 30, 2006
I think it takes a particular kind of person to do what these soldiers are accused of, and if they did it, it says more of them then of the US Military. After all, how many people have served in conflict zones and NOT raped and killed the local populace?
How many war criminals did not commit such crimes at home?
Gee this is fun. Let's play more often.
posted by dreamsign at 4:07 PM on June 30, 2006
How many war criminals did not commit such crimes at home?
Gee this is fun. Let's play more often.
posted by dreamsign at 4:07 PM on June 30, 2006
The problem of the American military is that its becoming a victim of imperial overstretch. The military would fit properly in its place if it actually served the defense of the American people instead of making a mess of the Middle East. As far as I'm concerned the war, occupation, situation in Iraq, whatever you want to call it, is a disaster for the common American and Iraqi people. In quoting the "Rules of Engagement":
"The need to use force effectively to accomplish the mission objectives and the need to avoid unnecessary force."
What happens when the mission itself is centered in unnecessary force? The Bush Administration has created just that, a mission of unnecessary force. The occupation of Iraq is a "lie wrapped in an illusion" to paraphrase a prominent Democrat Senator. Despite this, I don't feel that the soldiers themselves are criminals, they are just following orders from the commander in chief. Now no one told the soldiers to murder in these incidents, but what does really matter if an missile unintentionally kills civilians versus a soldier intentionally killing civilians. The civilians are still dead.
The thought of intent masks the true issue which is that America has no right to be in Iraq in the first place.
It is of my opinion that a military should be ruthless, but only in defense. Using a military for aggression I can't accept. Using the military to support a "just cause" is highly suspect.
posted by j-urb at 5:30 PM on June 30, 2006
"The need to use force effectively to accomplish the mission objectives and the need to avoid unnecessary force."
What happens when the mission itself is centered in unnecessary force? The Bush Administration has created just that, a mission of unnecessary force. The occupation of Iraq is a "lie wrapped in an illusion" to paraphrase a prominent Democrat Senator. Despite this, I don't feel that the soldiers themselves are criminals, they are just following orders from the commander in chief. Now no one told the soldiers to murder in these incidents, but what does really matter if an missile unintentionally kills civilians versus a soldier intentionally killing civilians. The civilians are still dead.
The thought of intent masks the true issue which is that America has no right to be in Iraq in the first place.
It is of my opinion that a military should be ruthless, but only in defense. Using a military for aggression I can't accept. Using the military to support a "just cause" is highly suspect.
posted by j-urb at 5:30 PM on June 30, 2006
What happens when the mission itself is centered in unnecessary force? The Bush Administration has created just that...Despite this, I don't feel that the soldiers themselves are criminals, they are just following orders from the commander in chief. Now no one told the soldiers to murder in these incidents, but what does really matter if an missile unintentionally kills civilians versus a soldier intentionally killing civilians. The civilians are still dead....intent masks the true issue which is that America has no right to be in Iraq in the first place...It is of my opinion that a military should be ruthless, but only in defense
Soldiers are not allowed to judge the worthiness of the mission.
If found guilty of rape and mirder, the soldiers in question are most assuredly criminals.
The CINC is most certainly a criminal who most likely shall never be found guilty.
Sometimes soldiers kill folks accidentally whom they never would have hurt if things had happened otherwise. It makes no difference to the victims, but it makes a difference to the soldier.
Our military used to be celebrated for not being ruthless.
You speak from ignornance.
posted by taosbat at 6:02 PM on June 30, 2006
Soldiers are not allowed to judge the worthiness of the mission.
If found guilty of rape and mirder, the soldiers in question are most assuredly criminals.
The CINC is most certainly a criminal who most likely shall never be found guilty.
Sometimes soldiers kill folks accidentally whom they never would have hurt if things had happened otherwise. It makes no difference to the victims, but it makes a difference to the soldier.
Our military used to be celebrated for not being ruthless.
You speak from ignornance.
posted by taosbat at 6:02 PM on June 30, 2006
Our military used to be celebrated for not being ruthless.
When?
posted by mischief at 6:04 PM on June 30, 2006
When?
posted by mischief at 6:04 PM on June 30, 2006
It only gets worse:
posted by y2karl at 6:24 PM on June 30, 2006
... being investigated for allegedly raping a young Iraqi woman, then killing her and three members of her family, including a child, according to US military sources.US probes Iraq rape and murder claim
posted by y2karl at 6:24 PM on June 30, 2006
Well, "world traveler," go someplace like Europe or the Phillipines were there are still those who remember and lay your callous bullshit on them. Hurry, they are dying out. Or read a history book. I don't really care how you educate yourself.
posted by taosbat at 6:26 PM on June 30, 2006
posted by taosbat at 6:26 PM on June 30, 2006
It only gets worse
It's only going to get worse, y2karl. NeoColonialism is a great evil.
posted by taosbat at 6:29 PM on June 30, 2006
It's only going to get worse, y2karl. NeoColonialism is a great evil.
posted by taosbat at 6:29 PM on June 30, 2006
According the ABC News, this all came out inadvertently during a grief counseling session for the same platoon--after two members were later kidnapped from a checkpoint by insurgents and then tortured and killed--when a soldier confressed to his part in the previous rape and murder. The article linked claims there was no connection between the two events. We shall see about that.
posted by y2karl at 6:31 PM on June 30, 2006
posted by y2karl at 6:31 PM on June 30, 2006
I concurr, "Fuck you"Oh, good grief. That's the best the two of you supposed ex-military types could come up? I guess the army really is made up of testosterone-crazed fools.
posted by nlindstrom at 6:34 PM on June 30, 2006
"What if it was revenge for my actions?" "What if I got my buddies killed?"
What horror upon horror.
posted by taosbat at 6:36 PM on June 30, 2006
What horror upon horror.
posted by taosbat at 6:36 PM on June 30, 2006
i highly suggest everyone copy and paste this thread and save it as a word processing file.
because something similar is going to happen in the near future if we remain in iraq. you'll then be able to just open your word file and read it, saving yourself some time.
and you'll be able to do it the next time after that, too.
and then the next time.
and then the next time.
and then the next time.
and then....
posted by lord_wolf at 6:42 PM on June 30, 2006
because something similar is going to happen in the near future if we remain in iraq. you'll then be able to just open your word file and read it, saving yourself some time.
and you'll be able to do it the next time after that, too.
and then the next time.
and then the next time.
and then the next time.
and then....
posted by lord_wolf at 6:42 PM on June 30, 2006
and then the next time.
and then the next time.
Santayana wept.
posted by ryoshu at 6:49 PM on June 30, 2006
and then the next time.
Santayana wept.
posted by ryoshu at 6:49 PM on June 30, 2006
For some, the military is a calling. For others, it is better than doing nothing, with the benefit of an automatic weapon and an enlistment bonus.
Right now, the US Army's standards are so low that they would get an overall better class of soldier from a draft of those without the intelligence to dodge it.
posted by mischief at 6:59 PM on June 30, 2006
Right now, the US Army's standards are so low that they would get an overall better class of soldier from a draft of those without the intelligence to dodge it.
posted by mischief at 6:59 PM on June 30, 2006
nlindstrom, I guess comments like smedleyman's and adamgreenfield's were the ones you skipped over because of all the big words?
posted by jacalata at 7:56 PM on June 30, 2006
posted by jacalata at 7:56 PM on June 30, 2006
nlindstrom: That's the best the two of you supposed ex-military types could come up?
It isn't the best that they could come up with. It was just all that was needed.
posted by a3matrix at 8:46 PM on June 30, 2006
It isn't the best that they could come up with. It was just all that was needed.
posted by a3matrix at 8:46 PM on June 30, 2006
Oh, good grief. That's the best the two of you supposed ex-military types could come up? I guess the army really is made up of testosterone-crazed fools.
yes, because only testosterone crazed individuals say "fuck you." seriously, there's only so much therapist style "let me take every word you say very very seriously" bullshit that a person can take. sometimes someone's just laying the shit on awfully thick, and a quick curt vulgar response is exactly what's merited. you may not think this is one of those situations, but you should very seriously consider taking your ignorant opinions of mefi's ex-soldier members and self-righteousness and shoving them up your ass.
posted by shmegegge at 10:07 PM on June 30, 2006
yes, because only testosterone crazed individuals say "fuck you." seriously, there's only so much therapist style "let me take every word you say very very seriously" bullshit that a person can take. sometimes someone's just laying the shit on awfully thick, and a quick curt vulgar response is exactly what's merited. you may not think this is one of those situations, but you should very seriously consider taking your ignorant opinions of mefi's ex-soldier members and self-righteousness and shoving them up your ass.
posted by shmegegge at 10:07 PM on June 30, 2006
From y2karl's last link from the FPP, a small detail:
"The killings appeared to have been a 'crime of opportunity,' the official said. The soldiers had not been attacked by insurgents but had noticed the woman on previous patrols."
A small detail, perhaps, but a significant one. It speaks to much that is wrong about the conduct of this action, that makes it, more and more as each succeeding day goes by, a revisitation of the Vietnam experience for the U.S., because of tactics and logistics strategies that are common to that era. To wit: "noticed the woman on previous [emphasis mine] patrols."
In the early summer months of 2003, when American casualties were mounting, there was much talk of "force protection" being a major responsibility of the area commanders, and the solution has been to get most units into secured basing situations, from which they sally forth usually in armored convoys to conduct "missions" against "insurgents." [PDF file linked]. The U.S. Army may have gone in "light and fast," but it has been digging in assiduously ever since, like it did in Vietnam, and is now anything but light or fast.
And that's part of the problem. The Americans generally stay on their FOB bases, unless they're running a mission, and the haji's stay outside the wire. Logistics and force protection issues, in addition to the desire to give as many American troops as practical an acceptable "quality of life" while deployed, and re-deployed, means this is another "war" fought "outside the wire" by guys who are counting the days until they get back to the world.
Once again, logistics and force protection issues govern our tactics, and we field angry, scared men who come to equate going "outside the wire" with risk, violence, and death. So if they see a haji girl a few times, enough to recognize her, and she raises her arms each time to show she's no threat, and they hoot back at her "waving," and there's a reason to stop one time, well, yeah, things happen, that shouldn't...
Like they did in 'Nam. We're handling this one with the Army we had when we went to war, which, apparently, thought a lot of what it accomplished in Viet Nam. But I think to myself, as I read the news reports, "Where are all the bright guys who were supposed to be thinking ahead, to be ready to fight this war?" Our tactics, our logistics, our abilities to control hostiles in occupied country all suck as much or more in this conflict as they did in Vietnam.
But at least we're not dropping Agent Orange all over the place...
posted by paulsc at 12:59 AM on July 1, 2006
"The killings appeared to have been a 'crime of opportunity,' the official said. The soldiers had not been attacked by insurgents but had noticed the woman on previous patrols."
A small detail, perhaps, but a significant one. It speaks to much that is wrong about the conduct of this action, that makes it, more and more as each succeeding day goes by, a revisitation of the Vietnam experience for the U.S., because of tactics and logistics strategies that are common to that era. To wit: "noticed the woman on previous [emphasis mine] patrols."
In the early summer months of 2003, when American casualties were mounting, there was much talk of "force protection" being a major responsibility of the area commanders, and the solution has been to get most units into secured basing situations, from which they sally forth usually in armored convoys to conduct "missions" against "insurgents." [PDF file linked]. The U.S. Army may have gone in "light and fast," but it has been digging in assiduously ever since, like it did in Vietnam, and is now anything but light or fast.
And that's part of the problem. The Americans generally stay on their FOB bases, unless they're running a mission, and the haji's stay outside the wire. Logistics and force protection issues, in addition to the desire to give as many American troops as practical an acceptable "quality of life" while deployed, and re-deployed, means this is another "war" fought "outside the wire" by guys who are counting the days until they get back to the world.
Once again, logistics and force protection issues govern our tactics, and we field angry, scared men who come to equate going "outside the wire" with risk, violence, and death. So if they see a haji girl a few times, enough to recognize her, and she raises her arms each time to show she's no threat, and they hoot back at her "waving," and there's a reason to stop one time, well, yeah, things happen, that shouldn't...
Like they did in 'Nam. We're handling this one with the Army we had when we went to war, which, apparently, thought a lot of what it accomplished in Viet Nam. But I think to myself, as I read the news reports, "Where are all the bright guys who were supposed to be thinking ahead, to be ready to fight this war?" Our tactics, our logistics, our abilities to control hostiles in occupied country all suck as much or more in this conflict as they did in Vietnam.
But at least we're not dropping Agent Orange all over the place...
posted by paulsc at 12:59 AM on July 1, 2006
Smedleyman, I'd be interested in your responses to Gary Brecher's writings on this topic.
posted by flabdablet at 1:59 AM on July 1, 2006
posted by flabdablet at 1:59 AM on July 1, 2006
Personally: it seems to me that stuff like this is (a) outrageous, indefensible, horrible, abominable, unacceptable (b) a predictable consequence of sending a large body of armed men who don't speak the local language to a country where the enemy is difficult to distinguish from the rest of the population (c) certain to be happening on a much wider scale than what's reported.
Which is one of the reasons why I am deeply opposed to the use of military force to address political problems, and have been ever since I started reading about Viet Nam as a child, and why I consider political leaders who actually exercise and/or support such actions to be evil and/or pig-ignorant and/or moronically, wilfully stupid.
To my way of thinking, George Bush and John Howard, as evidenced by their choice to beat up a security scare and send troops to Iraq, are every bit as evil as Saddam Hussein; and, just like Saddam, they don't seem to see this in themselves past the blaze of their own PR machines; and, just like Saddam, and just like Slobodan Milošević and like Radovan Karadžić and like the leaders of the Hutu Power movement in Rwanda, they have legions of ignorant, loudmouthed, deluded supporters.
It seems to me that this kind of view is often the subtext behind comments such as "It is war, get used to it."
It seems to me that what "Get used to it" means, in this context, is something like: "If you ever supported this war, you have no right to act all surprised when you hear reports like this; wtf did you think was going to happen?" It's absolutely not shorthand for "All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds."
The simple fact is that war is the worst thing that people can possibly do with themselves. Nowhere has there ever been a "clean, surgical" war. War is horrible. If you can't get used to it - and in my opinion you shouldn't get used to it - oppose it at every turn.
Which is, I think, what j-urb is getting at when he goes on to say: "In America we have this false sense that we are the civilized uplifting the uncivilized and when we hear about something barbaric committed by our own, its a natural reaction for us to either reject it completely or be shocked by it." Brecher (who writes like an angel, sick little motherfucker though he may be) has made this point repeatedly.
It's a short step from my way of thinking to another position, which is essentially this: any person who signs on as a soldier (for any country, or on any side of any conflict) is either themselves evil, or at the very least, willing to put themselves in a position where their skills will eventually be subject to evil misuse, upon the orders of evil people who will inevitably occupy at least one position somewhere above them in the chain of command.
I don't hold that position myself, but I suspect that j-urb (and many many others) are at least sympathetic to it. It does seem to me that a simple "fuck you" does not constitute a rebuttal.
Smedleyman writes: "I was trained to kill. I excelled in what I did. I didn’t rape anyone. I haven’t shot any civilians. What we did saved far more lives than we took."
Smeds, if you could give us some details about the ops you were involved in, it might help a few people come to a better understanding of why there is still a valid role for military force in the 21st century; and why we would not all be better off, on balance, if every army in every country were disbanded.
posted by flabdablet at 2:56 AM on July 1, 2006
Which is one of the reasons why I am deeply opposed to the use of military force to address political problems, and have been ever since I started reading about Viet Nam as a child, and why I consider political leaders who actually exercise and/or support such actions to be evil and/or pig-ignorant and/or moronically, wilfully stupid.
To my way of thinking, George Bush and John Howard, as evidenced by their choice to beat up a security scare and send troops to Iraq, are every bit as evil as Saddam Hussein; and, just like Saddam, they don't seem to see this in themselves past the blaze of their own PR machines; and, just like Saddam, and just like Slobodan Milošević and like Radovan Karadžić and like the leaders of the Hutu Power movement in Rwanda, they have legions of ignorant, loudmouthed, deluded supporters.
It seems to me that this kind of view is often the subtext behind comments such as "It is war, get used to it."
It seems to me that what "Get used to it" means, in this context, is something like: "If you ever supported this war, you have no right to act all surprised when you hear reports like this; wtf did you think was going to happen?" It's absolutely not shorthand for "All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds."
The simple fact is that war is the worst thing that people can possibly do with themselves. Nowhere has there ever been a "clean, surgical" war. War is horrible. If you can't get used to it - and in my opinion you shouldn't get used to it - oppose it at every turn.
Which is, I think, what j-urb is getting at when he goes on to say: "In America we have this false sense that we are the civilized uplifting the uncivilized and when we hear about something barbaric committed by our own, its a natural reaction for us to either reject it completely or be shocked by it." Brecher (who writes like an angel, sick little motherfucker though he may be) has made this point repeatedly.
It's a short step from my way of thinking to another position, which is essentially this: any person who signs on as a soldier (for any country, or on any side of any conflict) is either themselves evil, or at the very least, willing to put themselves in a position where their skills will eventually be subject to evil misuse, upon the orders of evil people who will inevitably occupy at least one position somewhere above them in the chain of command.
I don't hold that position myself, but I suspect that j-urb (and many many others) are at least sympathetic to it. It does seem to me that a simple "fuck you" does not constitute a rebuttal.
Smedleyman writes: "I was trained to kill. I excelled in what I did. I didn’t rape anyone. I haven’t shot any civilians. What we did saved far more lives than we took."
Smeds, if you could give us some details about the ops you were involved in, it might help a few people come to a better understanding of why there is still a valid role for military force in the 21st century; and why we would not all be better off, on balance, if every army in every country were disbanded.
posted by flabdablet at 2:56 AM on July 1, 2006
More details:
posted by y2karl at 6:07 AM on July 1, 2006
The suspects in the killing, which took place in March, were from the same platoon as two soldiers kidnapped and killed south of Baghdad this month, said the official, who is close to the investigation and spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case....American soldiers under investigation for alleged rape, killing of family in Iraq
One of the family members they allegedly killed was a child, said a senior Army official who also requested anonymity because the investigation is ongoing. Some of the suspects allegedly burned the woman's body to cover up the attack, the U.S. official said...
However, the U.S. official said the soldiers were assigned to the 502nd Infantry Regiment. The official told the AP that the suspects were from the same platoon as two slain soldiers whose mutilated bodies were found June 19, three days after they were abducted by insurgents near Youssifiyah southwest of Baghdad.
The military has said one and possibly both of the slain soldiers were tortured and beheaded. The official said the mutilation of the slain soldiers stirred feelings of guilt and led at least one member of the platoon to reveal the rape-slaying on June 22.
According to the senior Army official, the alleged incident was first revealed by a soldier during a routine counseling-type session. The official said that soldier did not witness the incident but heard about it.
A second soldier, who also was not involved, said he overhead soldiers conspiring to commit the crimes and then later saw bloodstains on their clothes, the official said.
Before the soldier disclosed the alleged assault, senior officers had been aware of the family's death but believed it was a result of sectarian violence, the official said.
One of the five suspects has already been discharged for unspecified charges unrelated to the killings and is believed to be in the United States, two U.S. officials said on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing. The others have had their weapons taken away and are confined to a U.S. base near Mahmoudiya.
The allegations of rape could generate a particularly strong backlash in Iraq, a conservative, strongly religious society in which many women will not even shake hands with men who are not close relatives.
posted by y2karl at 6:07 AM on July 1, 2006
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, said the attack appeared "totally premeditated" and that the soldiers apparently "studied" the family for about a week before carrying out the attack.GIs May Have Planned Iraq Rape, Slayings
posted by y2karl at 11:12 PM on July 1, 2006
"Where are all the bright guys who were supposed to be thinking ahead, to be ready to fight this war?" -posted by paulsc
Fired or resigned in disgust or still fighting to limit the horror of the situation.
flabdablet:
Brecher almost lost me on - "By the way, all you Mex-haters..."
*skipping ahead*
'Shame (for the Iraqis) is worse than death'
- yeah, I'm not sure why he's got such a hard-on for Murtha over a misread, but ok.
*skipping*
"Iraq duty is ruining the superb US Army we sent to the war" - unquestionably.
But I disagree that death squads are the only way to fight urban guerrillas.
Tactics are predicated on the objectives determined on the strategic level.They establish the national and multinational military objectives, define the limits, assess risks, develop theater war plans to achieve those objectives, and provide
military forces in accordance with strategic plans.
Someone hands you a saw and tells you to scuttle a ship with it, you're going to have some objections. (But - given it's a legal order - either obey orders or challenge the civilian government)
So given the current objectives, the risks, and the force levels in Iraq - then I'd agree death squads as he details in the piece are inevitable. That's obvious, but a lot is left out.
With better objectives (even greater clarity on the ones now), initiative sequencing, and a decent force level (which would mitigate some risk) - it wouldn't have to happen.
This is not to say it wouldn't because there's always someone who gets goofy when they have a weapon in their hands, and those aren't weeded out in training right now, there's no way to say it never would, but it wouldn't have the inevitability it has now.
And risk is a big chunk of this. At least part of the unfocused retaliation is that feeling of helplessness and no sense of safety anywhere. That should not be a tactical problem. Otherwise we just beach our men, airdrop them weapons and tell them to sort it out.
"The cold, scary fact is that there is no way for a conventional army to defeat an urban guerrilla force militarily"
Ridiculous. If that were the case no one in history would ever have taken a city.
He uses the term "hearts and minds" but apparently the depth of his understanding goes only as deep as Vietnam.
"Hearts and minds" comes from the Marine Corps Small Wars manual (quoting John Adams) Which is probably the most ignored document on the strategic level in history.
(As a primer for 'when/where' to intervene, it's useless, but insofar as tactics go, just swell)
"the whole Turd, I mean Third World"
Yeah, not winning points with me there. And the higher birthrate business is levels of stupid I don't even want to get into.
"...either wipe them out or buy them off. That's what the Romans and the Brits, the real pros, would have done"
Yeah, Gaul is still there....oh, wait, it isn't.
I dunno, Plutarch said Caesar conquered it, ate up 800 cities, 300-odd tribes. I missed where Caesar bought off the Helvetii.
(They were some of the best defensive fighters of their time; make the modern Iraqis look like pikers - burned their own villages and food so they couldn't turn back)
I'll admit the Romans and the Brits had the whole "Divide and Conquer" thing going, but in Iraq, that's sort of has us in this mess in the first place. The Brits designed it that way. (Long story)
But you can fight guerrillas - (British) Field Marshal Templer defeated the 'insurgent' rebels in Malaya in 1954 thanks to the "hearts and minds" strategy - he incentivized and rewarded surrender, focused on intelligence and training and tactics suited to the environment (jungle) and the culture - had his men learning the language (dunno whether he studied Musashi - but he "soaked in") in short, a lot of the things we should be doing in Iraq (ignoring the fact we
shouldn't be there in the first place and accepting the stated "democracy" goal), but aren't.
(Although we 'heart and mind' folks seem to be gaining ground)
Also, since we beat the hell out of the urban areas - building them back up might be a nice idea. I'd start with street signs, addresses, maps, etc. A grid overlay that everyone local can plug into. It's nice, it's friendly, people will like the order and we can track them better than we are now.
The "maximum response" Brecher says makes sense is roughly equal to Gen.Westmoreland's strategy of "firepower" in Vietnam. That worked out real well, didn't it?
"Brecher's Law of CI War: "Bribe'em, Nuke'em or Just Leave'em the Hell Alone!" "
Again - I'd agree with that last part, but the first two make no sense.
Total war does not have to mean a total payoff or scorched earth.
Col. John Waghelstein f'rinstance is a professor at the Naval War College, he agrees with the "total war" philosophy, but in terms of spectrum not firepower.
You have to use all elements of national power. Killing the enemy is not the only issue.
The Master I trained with taught me that if you are punching your opponant in the face in order to damage his face you are losing the fight.
This is a similar martial philosophy.
You need to instead eliminate the support your opponant has, economically support people who support you, and instill legitimacy in causes other than your opponants cause.
If you are only going after the guys planting the bombs or firing the rifles, you are losing the war.
Counterinsurgency is civics 101. Ignore that and you're losing because your opponant is playing poker while you're playing chess.
(And I agree with the stuff upthread - Bremer screwed that pooch)
...bit long, but, since you asked.
"why we would not all be better off, on balance,
if every army in every country were disbanded." - posted by flabdablet
I can't imagine we wouldn't. You find a way that would work and I'll be first in line. Plenty of violent men out there. That's no excuse tho. I don't initiate violence - oh, I've said harsh things, but I usually apologize for it when I cool off and/or try to walk away, but I've been in more than my fair share of fights. Many of those I'm not sorry for. I won't stand by and let someone get beat on because they're different. I won't let a man beat on a woman and just stand there. I might call the cops, but I'm going to act to protect the person, whether it's one on one or a bunch of folks. Getting my own ass kicked or killed isn't a factor - it's just not in me. I don't fault anyone for not being that way, many people have their beliefs, I live or die by mine. And I would die for that kind of peace, I'd love to see it. I just don't see any way of making it happen. Maybe someone smarter than me does. Dunno. I'm still learning those methods.
And I'm not pro-war. No sane man is. There are just folks who are good at it.
Gen. Douglas MacArthur was great at it.
Everyone remembers the "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away" bit of his farewell speech, few remember what else he said:
"I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me-- nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes."
The idea that troops, generals, etc. are pro-war is mostly pushed by armchair generals.
(In fact, there's a magazine - it's not bad except for the glory glory glory bullshit.)
(And it doesn't matter what I personally did. Service = service. I couldn't do what I did without buck private Joe Blow back in the warehouse loading gear, doing the
logistics, or someone like Gen. MacArthur planning the operation or any of the other service members and the ten thousand other things that they need to do right up and down the chain before I can get do my best to get my little piece of it to work. Maybe I'm a 15 year old military brat prodigy, doesn't matter, only the truth (or lack) of my words and ideas matter)
posted by Smedleyman at 12:07 AM on July 2, 2006
Fired or resigned in disgust or still fighting to limit the horror of the situation.
flabdablet:
Brecher almost lost me on - "By the way, all you Mex-haters..."
*skipping ahead*
'Shame (for the Iraqis) is worse than death'
- yeah, I'm not sure why he's got such a hard-on for Murtha over a misread, but ok.
*skipping*
"Iraq duty is ruining the superb US Army we sent to the war" - unquestionably.
But I disagree that death squads are the only way to fight urban guerrillas.
Tactics are predicated on the objectives determined on the strategic level.They establish the national and multinational military objectives, define the limits, assess risks, develop theater war plans to achieve those objectives, and provide
military forces in accordance with strategic plans.
Someone hands you a saw and tells you to scuttle a ship with it, you're going to have some objections. (But - given it's a legal order - either obey orders or challenge the civilian government)
So given the current objectives, the risks, and the force levels in Iraq - then I'd agree death squads as he details in the piece are inevitable. That's obvious, but a lot is left out.
With better objectives (even greater clarity on the ones now), initiative sequencing, and a decent force level (which would mitigate some risk) - it wouldn't have to happen.
This is not to say it wouldn't because there's always someone who gets goofy when they have a weapon in their hands, and those aren't weeded out in training right now, there's no way to say it never would, but it wouldn't have the inevitability it has now.
And risk is a big chunk of this. At least part of the unfocused retaliation is that feeling of helplessness and no sense of safety anywhere. That should not be a tactical problem. Otherwise we just beach our men, airdrop them weapons and tell them to sort it out.
"The cold, scary fact is that there is no way for a conventional army to defeat an urban guerrilla force militarily"
Ridiculous. If that were the case no one in history would ever have taken a city.
He uses the term "hearts and minds" but apparently the depth of his understanding goes only as deep as Vietnam.
"Hearts and minds" comes from the Marine Corps Small Wars manual (quoting John Adams) Which is probably the most ignored document on the strategic level in history.
(As a primer for 'when/where' to intervene, it's useless, but insofar as tactics go, just swell)
"the whole Turd, I mean Third World"
Yeah, not winning points with me there. And the higher birthrate business is levels of stupid I don't even want to get into.
"...either wipe them out or buy them off. That's what the Romans and the Brits, the real pros, would have done"
Yeah, Gaul is still there....oh, wait, it isn't.
I dunno, Plutarch said Caesar conquered it, ate up 800 cities, 300-odd tribes. I missed where Caesar bought off the Helvetii.
(They were some of the best defensive fighters of their time; make the modern Iraqis look like pikers - burned their own villages and food so they couldn't turn back)
I'll admit the Romans and the Brits had the whole "Divide and Conquer" thing going, but in Iraq, that's sort of has us in this mess in the first place. The Brits designed it that way. (Long story)
But you can fight guerrillas - (British) Field Marshal Templer defeated the 'insurgent' rebels in Malaya in 1954 thanks to the "hearts and minds" strategy - he incentivized and rewarded surrender, focused on intelligence and training and tactics suited to the environment (jungle) and the culture - had his men learning the language (dunno whether he studied Musashi - but he "soaked in") in short, a lot of the things we should be doing in Iraq (ignoring the fact we
shouldn't be there in the first place and accepting the stated "democracy" goal), but aren't.
(Although we 'heart and mind' folks seem to be gaining ground)
Also, since we beat the hell out of the urban areas - building them back up might be a nice idea. I'd start with street signs, addresses, maps, etc. A grid overlay that everyone local can plug into. It's nice, it's friendly, people will like the order and we can track them better than we are now.
The "maximum response" Brecher says makes sense is roughly equal to Gen.Westmoreland's strategy of "firepower" in Vietnam. That worked out real well, didn't it?
"Brecher's Law of CI War: "Bribe'em, Nuke'em or Just Leave'em the Hell Alone!" "
Again - I'd agree with that last part, but the first two make no sense.
Total war does not have to mean a total payoff or scorched earth.
Col. John Waghelstein f'rinstance is a professor at the Naval War College, he agrees with the "total war" philosophy, but in terms of spectrum not firepower.
You have to use all elements of national power. Killing the enemy is not the only issue.
The Master I trained with taught me that if you are punching your opponant in the face in order to damage his face you are losing the fight.
This is a similar martial philosophy.
You need to instead eliminate the support your opponant has, economically support people who support you, and instill legitimacy in causes other than your opponants cause.
If you are only going after the guys planting the bombs or firing the rifles, you are losing the war.
Counterinsurgency is civics 101. Ignore that and you're losing because your opponant is playing poker while you're playing chess.
(And I agree with the stuff upthread - Bremer screwed that pooch)
...bit long, but, since you asked.
"why we would not all be better off, on balance,
if every army in every country were disbanded." - posted by flabdablet
I can't imagine we wouldn't. You find a way that would work and I'll be first in line. Plenty of violent men out there. That's no excuse tho. I don't initiate violence - oh, I've said harsh things, but I usually apologize for it when I cool off and/or try to walk away, but I've been in more than my fair share of fights. Many of those I'm not sorry for. I won't stand by and let someone get beat on because they're different. I won't let a man beat on a woman and just stand there. I might call the cops, but I'm going to act to protect the person, whether it's one on one or a bunch of folks. Getting my own ass kicked or killed isn't a factor - it's just not in me. I don't fault anyone for not being that way, many people have their beliefs, I live or die by mine. And I would die for that kind of peace, I'd love to see it. I just don't see any way of making it happen. Maybe someone smarter than me does. Dunno. I'm still learning those methods.
And I'm not pro-war. No sane man is. There are just folks who are good at it.
Gen. Douglas MacArthur was great at it.
Everyone remembers the "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away" bit of his farewell speech, few remember what else he said:
"I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me-- nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes."
The idea that troops, generals, etc. are pro-war is mostly pushed by armchair generals.
(In fact, there's a magazine - it's not bad except for the glory glory glory bullshit.)
(And it doesn't matter what I personally did. Service = service. I couldn't do what I did without buck private Joe Blow back in the warehouse loading gear, doing the
logistics, or someone like Gen. MacArthur planning the operation or any of the other service members and the ten thousand other things that they need to do right up and down the chain before I can get do my best to get my little piece of it to work. Maybe I'm a 15 year old military brat prodigy, doesn't matter, only the truth (or lack) of my words and ideas matter)
posted by Smedleyman at 12:07 AM on July 2, 2006
"...that the soldiers apparently "studied" the family for about a week before carrying out the attack."
Those are some sick fuckers.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:09 AM on July 2, 2006
Those are some sick fuckers.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:09 AM on July 2, 2006
US could lose in Iraq due to negative media coverage: commander
This is exactly why we need an Office of Censorship!
posted by homunculus at 12:41 PM on July 2, 2006
This is exactly why we need an Office of Censorship!
posted by homunculus at 12:41 PM on July 2, 2006
"I told her, the Americans would not do such a thing."
posted by EarBucket at 11:29 AM on July 3, 2006
posted by EarBucket at 11:29 AM on July 3, 2006
For the record, from the above link:
Fifteen-year-old Abeer Qasim Hamza was afraid, her mother confided in a neighbor.posted by y2karl at 11:55 AM on July 3, 2006
As pretty as she was young, the girl had attracted the unwelcome attention of U.S. soldiers manning a checkpoint that the girl had to pass through almost daily in their village in the south-central city of Mahmudiyah, her mother told the neighbor....
Death certificates viewed Sunday at the Mahmudiyah hospital identified the victims as Fakhriyah Taha Muhsin, 34, killed by gunshots to her head; Qasim Hamza Raheem, 45, whose head was "smashed" by bullets; Hadeel Qasim Hamza, 7, Abeer's sister, shot; and Abeer, shot in the head. Abeer's body also showed burns, the death certificate noted.
Steven D. Green and Abeer Qasim Hamza--now we know some names involved:
If I am not mistaken, that is a picture of Johnny Cash on his t-shirt, no ?
posted by y2karl at 12:59 PM on July 3, 2006
A former Army soldier has been charged with raping an Iraqi woman and killing her and three members of her family.Ex-soldier charged with rape, murder in Iraq
Steven D. Green, 21, made a first appearance in federal court in Charlotte this morning, and is being held in the Mecklenburg County jail.
Green, 21, is accused of going to a home in Mahmudiyah, Iraq with three other soliders on March 12, shooting three people inside, including a child, and then raping a woman before also killing her.Green was honorably discharged because of a personality disorder before military officials knew of the incident. If convicted in the killings, he could face the death penalty.FBI agents arrested Green in Asheville on Friday. It's not clear where he had been living, but he attended a funeral for a fellow soldier in Arlington, Va., recently.
If I am not mistaken, that is a picture of Johnny Cash on his t-shirt, no ?
posted by y2karl at 12:59 PM on July 3, 2006
If that's Johnny Cash, that's fairly appropriate. 'Cause if he's guilty he's going to be in jail a long, long time.
Punishment for crimes like this commited by service members is probably the closest I get to supporting the death penalty.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:37 PM on July 3, 2006
Punishment for crimes like this commited by service members is probably the closest I get to supporting the death penalty.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:37 PM on July 3, 2006
"The Associated Press is reporting that the suspects belong to the same unit as the two soldiers kidnapped and killed south of Baghdad last month, a military official said on condition of anonymity because the case was under way.
The military has said that one and possibly both of the slain soldiers were tortured and beheaded. The official said the mutilation of the slain soldiers stirred feelings of guilt and led at least one member of the platoon to reveal the rape-slaying on June 22."
F'ing cop out. A war crime is not a legitimate response to a war crime. If they were my men they'd be damned lucky I didn't lose it and grease the bastards right there. Anyone under me would not even acknowlege their existance until they admitted it, it'd be worse if I had to come forward for them.
The only reason to reveal that another member of your platoon did something like this (apart from the obvious moral imperative) is because they betrayed your platoon with this. They betrayed their fellow soldiers, put them in further danger and tried to hide among honorable men.
You're an American warfighter only so long as you adhere to the code of conduct. Break that, and you're a gangster. You're a rapist. You're whatever turned you from the discipline of the service: drug dealer, rapist, murderer.
You crossed the line, turned your back on that life and no one still living it should have anything to do with you.
Feelings of guilt, hell. They should have hated the bastards the way the English hated William Joyce (Lord Haw-Haw) or any other traitor.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:57 PM on July 3, 2006
The military has said that one and possibly both of the slain soldiers were tortured and beheaded. The official said the mutilation of the slain soldiers stirred feelings of guilt and led at least one member of the platoon to reveal the rape-slaying on June 22."
F'ing cop out. A war crime is not a legitimate response to a war crime. If they were my men they'd be damned lucky I didn't lose it and grease the bastards right there. Anyone under me would not even acknowlege their existance until they admitted it, it'd be worse if I had to come forward for them.
The only reason to reveal that another member of your platoon did something like this (apart from the obvious moral imperative) is because they betrayed your platoon with this. They betrayed their fellow soldiers, put them in further danger and tried to hide among honorable men.
You're an American warfighter only so long as you adhere to the code of conduct. Break that, and you're a gangster. You're a rapist. You're whatever turned you from the discipline of the service: drug dealer, rapist, murderer.
You crossed the line, turned your back on that life and no one still living it should have anything to do with you.
Feelings of guilt, hell. They should have hated the bastards the way the English hated William Joyce (Lord Haw-Haw) or any other traitor.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:57 PM on July 3, 2006
A war crime is not a legitimate response to a war crime.
posted by Smedleyman
The rape/murders were done before the mutilation/beheadings. Just to clarify...the mutilation/beheadings may have been revenge for the rape/murders.
This just sucks.
posted by taosbat at 9:27 PM on July 3, 2006
posted by Smedleyman
The rape/murders were done before the mutilation/beheadings. Just to clarify...the mutilation/beheadings may have been revenge for the rape/murders.
This just sucks.
posted by taosbat at 9:27 PM on July 3, 2006
True taosbat. But it's like "Otto," works either way. Mutilating/beheading someone is not a justifiable punishment for any crime. (I'm not saying that this is what you are saying of course). And maybe those two would be alive if it didn't happen. Maybe. Either way, you're right, it does suck.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:42 AM on July 4, 2006
posted by Smedleyman at 2:42 AM on July 4, 2006
He's from Midland, Texas. The local paper doesn't have much on him so far:
"Previously, Green was arrested on Jan. 31, 2005, in Midland for being a minor in possession of alcohol, a Class C misdemeanor. He served time in Midland County Central Detention Center and was released on Feb. 3.
Green is listed as "status suspended" in the Midland County voter database, according to the county Web site."
posted by CunningLinguist at 5:06 AM on July 4, 2006
"Previously, Green was arrested on Jan. 31, 2005, in Midland for being a minor in possession of alcohol, a Class C misdemeanor. He served time in Midland County Central Detention Center and was released on Feb. 3.
Green is listed as "status suspended" in the Midland County voter database, according to the county Web site."
posted by CunningLinguist at 5:06 AM on July 4, 2006
Here's a little more:
"Green, who grew up in Midland, Texas, joined the Army after receiving his high school GED, and he later went to Fort Benning, Ga., for infantry training, according to his family. He graduated in June 2005, and family members joined him at the ceremony.
"It was such a proud day," Green's uncle, Greg Simolke, said in an interview Monday night. "He had found direction in his life, something important and something that he really wanted to do. He was talking about making the military his career and was ready to go to Iraq. He thought it was a good thing to be serving his country."
An Army official said Monday that Green's discharge for a "personality disorder" does not necessarily indicate a mental disorder.
Such a notation can be used to document willful disobedience or a personality that does not mesh well with military life."
posted by CunningLinguist at 5:11 AM on July 4, 2006
"Green, who grew up in Midland, Texas, joined the Army after receiving his high school GED, and he later went to Fort Benning, Ga., for infantry training, according to his family. He graduated in June 2005, and family members joined him at the ceremony.
"It was such a proud day," Green's uncle, Greg Simolke, said in an interview Monday night. "He had found direction in his life, something important and something that he really wanted to do. He was talking about making the military his career and was ready to go to Iraq. He thought it was a good thing to be serving his country."
An Army official said Monday that Green's discharge for a "personality disorder" does not necessarily indicate a mental disorder.
Such a notation can be used to document willful disobedience or a personality that does not mesh well with military life."
posted by CunningLinguist at 5:11 AM on July 4, 2006
Ex-soldier pleads not guilty in Iraq crimes
By ELIZABETH DUNBAR, Associated Press Writer
18 minutes ago
LOUISVILLE, Ky. - A former Army private charged with raping an Iraqi woman and killing her and her family entered a plea of not guilty through his public defenders Thursday.
Steven D. Green also waived a detention hearing and a preliminary hearing, and agreed that his case would be prosecuted in the Western District of Kentucky.
U.S. Magistrate Judge James Moyer set an arraignment date of Aug. 8 in Paducah for Green, who was arrested Friday by FBI agents in Marion, N.C. Green appeared in baggy shorts and flip-flops, and was wearing the same Johnny Cash T-shirt he wore to a hearing Monday in Charlotte, N.C.
Green answered Moyer's questions about his inability to pay for an attorney, saying he has about $6,000 in a checking account and owns a 1995 Lincoln Town Car.
"I don't have anything else," he told the judge.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Butler said the case would be presented before a grand jury sometime in mid-July, probably in Paducah. Butler and Assistant U.S. Attorney Marisa Ford declined to comment on where Green would be held before his arraignment.
Green, who served 11 months with the 101st Airborne Division, based at Fort Campbell, Ky., received an honorable discharge and left the army in mid-May. He was discharged because of an "anti-social personality disorder," according to military officials and court documents.
A psychiatric condition, anti-social personality disorder is defined as chronic behavior that manipulates, exploits or violates the rights of others. Someone with the disorder may break the law repeatedly, lie, get in fights and show a lack of remorse.
According to a federal affidavit, Green and other soldiers targeted the Iraqi young woman after spotting her at a traffic checkpoint near Mahmoudiya. Green is being tried in federal rather than military court because he no longer is in the Army.
Army Criminal Investigation Command agents have turned over the evidence that they had obtained against Green to federal law enforcement officials for their use.
Military officials concluded Thursday that since Green had received his final discharge papers, he was no longer under the control of the Army and would not be subject to a court martial.
No other soldiers have been charged yet in the case.
On Thursday, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey, and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, said the investigation would be pursued in a "vigorous and open process."
"Coalition forces came to Iraq to protect the rights and freedoms of the Iraqi people, to defend democratic values, and to uphold human dignity. As such, we will face every situation honestly and openly, and we will leave no stone unturned in pursuit of the facts," the statement said.
"We will hold our service members accountable if they are found guilty of misconduct in a court of law," it added.
posted by taosbat at 4:27 PM on July 6, 2006
By ELIZABETH DUNBAR, Associated Press Writer
18 minutes ago
LOUISVILLE, Ky. - A former Army private charged with raping an Iraqi woman and killing her and her family entered a plea of not guilty through his public defenders Thursday.
Steven D. Green also waived a detention hearing and a preliminary hearing, and agreed that his case would be prosecuted in the Western District of Kentucky.
U.S. Magistrate Judge James Moyer set an arraignment date of Aug. 8 in Paducah for Green, who was arrested Friday by FBI agents in Marion, N.C. Green appeared in baggy shorts and flip-flops, and was wearing the same Johnny Cash T-shirt he wore to a hearing Monday in Charlotte, N.C.
Green answered Moyer's questions about his inability to pay for an attorney, saying he has about $6,000 in a checking account and owns a 1995 Lincoln Town Car.
"I don't have anything else," he told the judge.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Butler said the case would be presented before a grand jury sometime in mid-July, probably in Paducah. Butler and Assistant U.S. Attorney Marisa Ford declined to comment on where Green would be held before his arraignment.
Green, who served 11 months with the 101st Airborne Division, based at Fort Campbell, Ky., received an honorable discharge and left the army in mid-May. He was discharged because of an "anti-social personality disorder," according to military officials and court documents.
A psychiatric condition, anti-social personality disorder is defined as chronic behavior that manipulates, exploits or violates the rights of others. Someone with the disorder may break the law repeatedly, lie, get in fights and show a lack of remorse.
According to a federal affidavit, Green and other soldiers targeted the Iraqi young woman after spotting her at a traffic checkpoint near Mahmoudiya. Green is being tried in federal rather than military court because he no longer is in the Army.
Army Criminal Investigation Command agents have turned over the evidence that they had obtained against Green to federal law enforcement officials for their use.
Military officials concluded Thursday that since Green had received his final discharge papers, he was no longer under the control of the Army and would not be subject to a court martial.
No other soldiers have been charged yet in the case.
On Thursday, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey, and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, said the investigation would be pursued in a "vigorous and open process."
"Coalition forces came to Iraq to protect the rights and freedoms of the Iraqi people, to defend democratic values, and to uphold human dignity. As such, we will face every situation honestly and openly, and we will leave no stone unturned in pursuit of the facts," the statement said.
"We will hold our service members accountable if they are found guilty of misconduct in a court of law," it added.
posted by taosbat at 4:27 PM on July 6, 2006
Soldiers charged over Iraq rape-murder
Sun Jul 9, 2006 12:32pm ET
By Alastair Macdonald
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Five U.S. soldiers were charged in a rape and multiple murder case that has outraged Iraqis, as documents obtained by Reuters on Sunday showed the rape victim was a minor aged just 14, and not over 20 as U.S. officials say.
Days after former private Steven Green was charged as a civilian in a U.S. court with rape and four murders, four serving soldiers were charged with the same offences, the U.S. military said in statement that did not name the troops.
Another soldier, apparently a sixth member of Green's former unit in the 502nd Infantry Regiment, was charged on Saturday with dereliction of duty for not reporting the crime in March.
All five were charged with conspiring with Green, who is accused by U.S. prosecutors of going with three others to a house near the checkpoint they were manning outside Mahmudiya, near Baghdad, and of killing a couple and their two daughters.
Those court documents gave the raped daughter's estimated age as 25, though U.S. military officials in Iraq say their documents have her as 20.
Her identity card and a copy of her death certificate, however, show she was just 14...
posted by taosbat at 10:08 AM on July 9, 2006
Sun Jul 9, 2006 12:32pm ET
By Alastair Macdonald
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Five U.S. soldiers were charged in a rape and multiple murder case that has outraged Iraqis, as documents obtained by Reuters on Sunday showed the rape victim was a minor aged just 14, and not over 20 as U.S. officials say.
Days after former private Steven Green was charged as a civilian in a U.S. court with rape and four murders, four serving soldiers were charged with the same offences, the U.S. military said in statement that did not name the troops.
Another soldier, apparently a sixth member of Green's former unit in the 502nd Infantry Regiment, was charged on Saturday with dereliction of duty for not reporting the crime in March.
All five were charged with conspiring with Green, who is accused by U.S. prosecutors of going with three others to a house near the checkpoint they were manning outside Mahmudiya, near Baghdad, and of killing a couple and their two daughters.
Those court documents gave the raped daughter's estimated age as 25, though U.S. military officials in Iraq say their documents have her as 20.
Her identity card and a copy of her death certificate, however, show she was just 14...
posted by taosbat at 10:08 AM on July 9, 2006
Group claims 3 GIs killed over rape-murders
By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer 33 minutes ago
BAGHDAD, Iraq - An al-Qaida-linked group claims it killed three U.S. soldiers last month and mutilated two of their bodies to avenge the rape-slaying of a young Iraqi woman by troops of the same unit, an institute which monitors extremists Web sites said Tuesday.
The Mujahedeen Shura Council made the claim in a 4:39 minute video posted on the Internet which included the mutilated bodies of two of the soldiers attacked June 16 near Youssifiyah southwest of Baghdad, according to a statement by the SITE Institute. Their remains were found three days later.
The institute released still pictures from the video showing two of the American dead, one of whom had been decapitated.
According to the institute, the statement by the insurgent group said the video was released as "revenge for our sister who was dishonored by a soldier of the same brigade."
...
posted by taosbat at 9:21 PM on July 10, 2006
By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer 33 minutes ago
BAGHDAD, Iraq - An al-Qaida-linked group claims it killed three U.S. soldiers last month and mutilated two of their bodies to avenge the rape-slaying of a young Iraqi woman by troops of the same unit, an institute which monitors extremists Web sites said Tuesday.
The Mujahedeen Shura Council made the claim in a 4:39 minute video posted on the Internet which included the mutilated bodies of two of the soldiers attacked June 16 near Youssifiyah southwest of Baghdad, according to a statement by the SITE Institute. Their remains were found three days later.
The institute released still pictures from the video showing two of the American dead, one of whom had been decapitated.
According to the institute, the statement by the insurgent group said the video was released as "revenge for our sister who was dishonored by a soldier of the same brigade."
...
posted by taosbat at 9:21 PM on July 10, 2006
The attack near the Green Zone occurred at midmorning when two suicide bombers detonated explosives at a restaurant frequented by police, the U.S. military and witnesses said.
Sixteen other people were killed in the blast, the U.S. military said. Iraqi police put the casualty figure at 12 dead and 13 wounded. Blue-uniformed Iraqi police hauled the dead from the wreckage in body bags as heavily armed American soldiers stood guard.
A statement posted on an Islamist website in the name of the Islamic Army in Iraq claimed responsibility for the attack, saying it was in retaliation for Israeli military operations in Gaza and the alleged rape-slaying by U.S. soldiers of a young Iraqi woman south of Baghdad.
posted by taosbat at 7:26 PM on July 11, 2006
Sixteen other people were killed in the blast, the U.S. military said. Iraqi police put the casualty figure at 12 dead and 13 wounded. Blue-uniformed Iraqi police hauled the dead from the wreckage in body bags as heavily armed American soldiers stood guard.
A statement posted on an Islamist website in the name of the Islamic Army in Iraq claimed responsibility for the attack, saying it was in retaliation for Israeli military operations in Gaza and the alleged rape-slaying by U.S. soldiers of a young Iraqi woman south of Baghdad.
posted by taosbat at 7:26 PM on July 11, 2006
...tonight I can report that Vietnamization has succeeded...
posted by taosbat at 8:30 PM on July 12, 2006
posted by taosbat at 8:30 PM on July 12, 2006
Rape. The latest of American atrocities. Though it's not really the latest- it's just the one that's being publicized the most. The poor girl Abeer was neither the first to be raped by American troops, nor will she be the last. The only reason this rape was brought to light and publicized is that her whole immediate family were killed along with her. Rape is a taboo subject in Iraq. Families don't report rapes here, they avenge them. We've been hearing whisperings about rapes in American-controlled prisons and during sieges of towns like Haditha and Samarra for the last three years. The naiveté of Americans who can't believe their 'heroes' are committing such atrocities is ridiculous. Who ever heard of an occupying army committing rape??? You raped the country, why not the people?
posted by taosbat at 8:59 PM on July 12, 2006
posted by taosbat at 8:59 PM on July 12, 2006
« Older the blogosphere is for sale | The King and Caroline Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Horrible. horrible.
posted by eatdonuts at 9:46 AM on June 30, 2006