I haven’t written about Haditha yet.
I know that we don’t yet know what happened there, or why. So all we can do is speculate, and to me the speculation seems rather obvious: if innocent civilians were murdered by the Marines there, and if the situation did not involve well-motivated and understandable mistaken identity of some sort, then it was a war crime and should (and will) be deplored by all right-thinking (and I mean that in the moral, not the political, sense) people, including myself. And it should, and will, be prosecuted as such, to the fullest extent of the law.
Those things are so obvious to me that they almost go without saying. But I’m saying them anyway, just to be clear.
But this is a post not so much about Haditha itself but about the current speculation about Haditha, and what that might mean. I’ve noticed that Haditha follows certain patterns that seem familiar. I wrote about those patterns back in late April, in this post about My Lai and the press:
The massacre at My Lai was a turning point in America’s perception of itself. It represented a loss of innocence about the military, who until then had been thought incapable of the kind of atrocity that occurred there. It also made Americans more cynical towards the military command and its ability to investigate its own wrongdoings. And lastly, the press was seen in the role of heroes bent on publicizing the truth.
These three elements are still in play today. Whether or not Haditha ends up proving to be in the mold of My Lai, My Lai remains the template, the frame for all subsequent events that might fall into the category of possible American war crimes.
My Lai itself was a war crime, and there’s no doubt the initial internal military field investigation was a coverup:
The facts of My Lai were sensational, and they make shocking reading today, even in our far more jaded age. I’ve written about My Lai before, here. It was an event of great complexity, and I highly recommend this must-read teaching case study on the subject, which comes as close to explaining what happened there–and why it happened–as I think anything ever could.
I want to reiterate the must-read status of the teaching case. Even if you think you know all about My Lai and what happened there–and especially why it happened–please think again, and read it if you haven’t already done so.
There’s an old saying to the effect that the military is always fighting the previous war rather than the present one. That’s another way of saying it’s hard to foresee what will happen, and much easier (although still surprisingly difficult) to know what already has happened, and that institutions have a tendency to become hidebound in their thinking processes. Creativity is needed, although creativity is risky–but it’s just as risky to lack it.
The military seems to be a bit better nowadays at thinking ahead, although far from perfect. But it’s the press that seems stuck in fighting previous wars–especially the previous war in which the press believes itself to have been the hero, Vietnam. Haditha fits quite well into that vision; it may indeed be the My Lai the press has long been expecting, or it may not (and please, read Belmont Club on the subject of press coverage of Haditha so far).
Is a new set of rules emerging under which modern warfare must be waged by the West? Here are those rules, as best I can determine them (with only a little bit of exaggeration):
(1) Wars cannot last more than a few weeks.
(2) In the “hot” stage of the war, no civilians can die.
(3) In the aftermath of a war, no civilians can die.
(4) All military investigations of possible war crimes and atrocities must be treated by the press as though they are already coverups. The accused are guilty until proven innocent. And, of course, since the military always lies and covers up, the accused can never really be proven innocent by a military court.
What would these rules do? They would set up war as an impossible to execute but morally black and white situation in which we keep our hands impeccably clean (see here for my previous essay on that subject.)
Yes indeed, the goal is to be perfect–to never commit a war crime, to never have an innocent civilian die. But realistically, that goal will never be reached. The best we–or any nation–can do is to train our troops as well as possible in order to reduce the number of such incidents to almost nothing, and to ruthlessly investigate and prosecute them whenever they do occur.
Because the truth is that in wars innocent civilians will always be killed, and always tragically–whether it be in targeted and precision bombing raids gone awry in the “hot” segment of the war, or even in true war crimes during the later “assymetrical guerilla and/or terrorist warfare” stage.
Some would say that the best way to remain morally pure–if that is our interest–is to never wage war. But that ignores the price of inaction and passivity. Back in November I wrote the following, which still seems relevant:
Yes, indeed, there’s enough blood to go around. There always is in war; wars involve blood on everyone’s hands, including pacifists, who are responsible for some of the blood involved in feeding the crocodile.
Of course, the price that inaction would have cost is always speculative–and therefore deniable–if action has been taken instead. And the price of an action taken is relatively real and quantifiable. It’s only if inaction has been followed that we can know its true consequences.
Take your choice of which price you would like to pay. Please remember that neither can be known in advance, that all decisions must be made based on incomplete and possibly flawed information, and that hindsight is always 20/20.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
I’ve said this recently toConfud in a more recent thread at Neo. Handguns and rifles rank a mere 3 on an absolute scale of 1 to 10.
The logic is simple, as it is demanding of attention. Racism isn’t the difference between someone disbelieving he needs weapons and someone that believes weapons are useful. And that’s it.
He had to take his reply away to his own site - probably because he feared I might delete it…
You wrote your reply on your blog instead of here at neo’s, so I wrote my reply at my own blog instead of here. That’s it, simple logic.
Guts is part of weapons making, but in this case it is not relevant.
Probligo has described being assaulted twice or thrice. I have never been assaulted by anyone, with or without a weapon, although there was a burglary once. The difference between the philosophy of warriors and those who live by the sword, to other folks, is not about what is necessary. It is about what is virtuous, or in this case, what is good for human beings.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
No, dear Y, as I keep saying to you, and as you are obviously totally unable to understand or perceive -
Where I live, where confude lives, there is no need to carry arms for protection.
When you are able to wrap your four neurons around that idea perhaps you might be able to think a little more clearly about how the rest of the world see you and your kind.
Neo, sorry. I did not intend to include you in this but Y, his stupidity, his racism, his need for penile compensation with big-bore weapons, has gotten to me totally. He hasn’t the guts to reply to my post on my site. He had to take his reply away to his own site - probably because he feared I might delete it…
I feel sorry for those who live in places that are so insecure, so unsafe, that carrying arms for defence as a matter of course is a neccessity. That is not how I live my life. It should not be neccessary to live like that in any country that promotes freedom.
I have freedom and no need for a gun.
Why does Y need a gun? Because he lives in fear, not freedom.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
I don’t consider Probligo, who can’t even understand a need to self-arm for self-defense, a person that qualifies to judge anything relating to war including violations of the Military Code.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Good grief!! What a long, tedious, and self-gratuitous string of confused thinking, misinterpretation and shouting past each other.
To show how “important” the US will consider Haditha and the war crimes committed there (and those committed elsewhere in Iraq that we will NOT hear about)…
1. Any of the Marines responsible for Haditha murders who return to the US alive will be charged with the murder of those civilians.
2. It will take at least two years, likely as long as four years, for them to appear in Court as there will be delays “for the gathering of evidence” and “while the defendants recover from PTSD”.
3. When they do eventually appear in US Military Court, they will be committed on the grounds that they were suffering from PTSD at the time of the offences owing to the fact that they had narrowly escaped being killed by an IED.
4. If any are found guilty (and that is a very long shot) they will probably be sentenced to another season in Iraq.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Well said.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
The new generation always sees things differently than the older generation, it seems.
Your generation is of Vietnam, mine is a bit more recent. Thus our life experiences dictate how we see and judge things, and as such, the difference in how we see is much more important than what we end up seeing in the end.
There is wisdom in age and experience, but there is a flaw as well. For people who have experienced things one way, they will always see the future based upon those experiences.
I, who have not been through Vietnam as Neo here has, or WWII, or WWI, am unhindered by past experiences and judgements.
I can understand the need of older generations to desire more unity of purpose, Total Warfare, absolute victory, civic virtue through the draft, but because I am who I am, I cannot believe that those things are the solutions to new wars in the 21st century.
The disagreement is fundamental, because it is about self-identity. The fundamental agreement or disagreement over whether people on the Right desire ultimate victory for the US, is totally separate from the former.
I have always believed that it is more people to know why people desire things, than to know what they desire.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
I agree that disincentives, especially in the ME, would be more effective than incentives. My sense is that they are seen as strong whereas incentive are deemed weak. But as you say
Complaining that Bush isn’t more ruthless and hardcore might feel good, but it changes nothing substantial.
Which sounds like something I would say.
Nevertheless, you’ve offered plenty for me to ruminate on.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
You’re not in the army now. What a soldier should do is different than what a civilian should do in war time. So what I meant, is that civilians should not behave as Privates in the army, doing only what they are ordered to do. Just as it is wrong for Colonels to behave as Privates, Spec Ops to behave as Sergeants in the Army, it is wrong for a civilian to behave like they need marching orders from the Admin to do, approve, or consider everything.
I’ve said this before, you can believe as you like, cak. But that does not mean you would be right to do so, nor that your justifications and reasonings are correct.
No human is perfect, so why do you act as if I called you evil by saying you aren’t acting in a correct way? You don’t even say what you think is the correct way of behavior, you just claim that I shouldn’t make the claim. You don’t say why it is wrong or right, you just say that I made and …. so on.
That’s usually not how matters of substance are debated among reasonable folks. I can talk about the subject and I would have, But I tend to think it is more productive to get the preliminaries out of the way first.
In reply to what you said about the Admin not listening to you. Joint Chiefs do this all the time, give advice and suggestions and the President may or may not use it. Should they stop doing it? If they don’t stop, why should a civilian stop doing it?
If you feel you can make criticisms of Bush and Co without figuring out your own strategies and solutions, then you’re free to cast your vote in ignorance. Having knowledge does not mean you get to apply that knowledge in a command decision. The command decision is with Bush, but the knowledge is available to all self-aware beings.
The duty of a civilian is as inflexible as the duty of a military soldier.
Your duty is not to the President. Your duty, regardless of any oaths given, is to protect the United States Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic, because it is the Constitution that protects civilians. In effect, you’re protecting yourself by figuring out which is the best winning strategy and where it exists in what space-time coord.
If you feel you can do your duty without knowing which is the right strategy from the wrong strategy, by voting for who you like the most rather than who has the best plan to protect the Constitution, then you’re free to do so. But as I said before, that don’t mean I have to agree with you about your duty or the duty of civilians.
This abstraction you refer to isn’t abstract to me. It’s proven conduct and a good principle to follow. Principles as I see it, should be followed regardless of the convenience reality may or may not give us.
We’re disagreeing on more fundamental things than minor points of war strategy and logistics here. You believe you are not required by duty to figure out international politics for yourself, that who you vote for should decide. I don’t believe that.
In for a penny, in for a pound. If you’re going to go with self-reliance on regular day matters, then you’d better do it with military policy and international politics. This is not an abstraction to me, although it might be to you.
Thus, this is not a tangential matter. You can agree with someone on the end results, as you and I do more or less, but that don’t mean we got there via the same route.
I take things from core principles and ideas and then follow them to the end, I don’t do the re-engineering route. I just can’t jump to the End Answer, check the similarities, and then say everything is okay because the answers are similar.
My main contentions are presented to you, right at the top of this comment. Everything else is mostly comments and descriptions and my own ideas.
I have dropped the matter about personal details and personal attacks. I did this from the beginning of this comment at least, so all my points still remain, because they are unconnected to any personal detail in your real life. It concerns what you believe and what you are doing, not who you are and what you have done in the past.
My personal beliefs are that the Admin is not offering enough decentives. Their incentives of reconstruction, bribery, democracy is effectively negated by the terroist decentives of execution, assassination, bombs, and terror.
Even the improved police is an example of more incentives and not decentives. Both the Sunnis and Shia must understand the price they will pay if they fail, without that understanding there will be no peace or prosperity.
Sherman’s address to Atlanta, summarizes the situation quite well.
Bush disagrees, obviously. But he is the President. And in 2 more years, he won’t be the President. Complaining that Bush isn’t more ruthless and hardcore might feel good, but it changes nothing substantial.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Dave Schuler at The Glittering Eye summarizes my doubts in this short sentence:
I honestly don’t believe that either we or the new Iraqi government will ever end the insurgency until some formula is found to change the incentives that are in place. It seems to me that’s the missing piece in what’s going on.”
He doesn’t offer what those incentives are- and I haven’t a clue. But on some level, it makes sense. The Sunni-Shi’ite divide is the reason for my doubts. That divide is pervasive and mysterious (to me at least).
*A final aside, ymar. Don’t bother addressing the ‘personal’ aspect of this. It really didn’t bother me nor do I believe you attacked me personally. I shouldn’t have alluded to it in my 6/9 12:16 am comment above. It’s not worth belaboring.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
In fairness, I appreciate the abstraction that people need to be self-reliant and find their own answers rather than rely upon others for them. In many contexts, this makes perfect sense. So your complaint doesn’t fall on deaf ears and resonates with me on many levels. But taking this abstraction into areas of international and military policy is risky business indeed.
The truth is that we’re debating a minor, tangential point. Like you, I’ve bought into the necessity of the war. Like you (I suspect), I believe that a hasty withdrawal would be disasterous and winning this war is more necessary now than ever. We’re simply disagreeing about whether we’ve got a winning strategy. Hopefully, you’re right- we do.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Specifically, behaving as if the Administration were there to give them marching orders, and that without those orders nothing would get accomplished. This is the behavior that I did not approve of.
Honestly, I have no idea what these means. I served in the Army. I received marching orders to Vietnam. I had no say in the matter. I had no say in the strategic choices of the Nixon Administration’s war prosecution. I obeyed. It’s kinda how the military works.
The average civilian voter is the rough equivalent of a single shareholder in Microsoft. He has a right to cast a vote for the directors of MS, who choose its officers. MS’s marketing strategies are determined by its officers. To charge the s/h with the responsibility of making recommendations to Bill Gates on MS’s marketing strategies in Europe, for example, is patently absurd given his limited legal rights. Most importantly, the directors and officers owe a fiduciary duty of care to the shareholders and the corporation- not the other way around. You can turn this on its head and try to shift the burden to the shareholder- but it’s simply incorrect.
The US is democratic republic, not a democracy. We vote for leaders who assume responsibilities. It’s not my duty to figure out how we should handle roving Shi’ite militias. Or roving Sunni militias. Or the porous borders of Syria and Iran. Or the helter skelter Iraqi government. Simply, I’m not charged with the strategic decisions of the War. In the meantime, I can bitch all I want. But come election day, I get to cast my vote up or down on our leaders’ performances.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
I think I understand now. I’m responsible for not making suggestions to an administration that will ignore them anyway, I’m responsible for the failures of a war over which I have no control, and I’m responsible for making our little disagreement personal after being accused of conduct unbefitting of a citizen in war time.
Very nicely done. Lewis Carroll would be most proud.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Yfronts said…
If people understand that, as I do, then they might understand why I don’t accuse people of being wrong based upon politics
ROTFFLMFAO You’ve outdone yourself Ymar.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
What I mean, is that behaving in the manner in which I described is not befitting a citizen of the United States in war time. To remake the point, for everyone’s benefit.
The behavior I am describing had nothing to do with who served in what unit in Vietnam, it had nothing to do with being a Republican or a Democrat, it had nothing to do with who voted for whom.
In fact, I precisely described how cak acts is not the foremost concern that I had. My foremost concern, the one that angers me, is the common behavior pattern of humans. Other people.
The common behavior pattern being, that they don’t find solutions of their own, that they don’t have anything better as a plan. Specifically, behaving as if the Administration were there to give them marching orders, and that without those orders nothing would get accomplished. This is the behavior that I did not approve of.
How this relates to you, cak, is only a secondary matter. It could only apply to you as to what you said in your first comment, in which you offered no solution nor a position implying specific personal modifications of the strategy. While at the same time saying the administration is negligent for not providing a strategy or parameters. I will further make the point that Bush has already decided on a strategy, and since it isn’t more troops, it is a strategy that you don’t like. While it is true Bush doesn’t broadcast this out, Bush is not a media mogul like Trump or an actor like Reagan and Schwarzenegger. Whether Bush tells the public his strategy or not, the military obviously has a clear chain of command and clear orders.
The only thing I directly accused you, cak, if you will check the records, is behaving in an unfitting manner for a citizen of the US in war time.
There are some things you can reply to that charge, like providing your own solutions (more troops may be old, but it is your solution). But even if you do, you don’t negate the larger point that the real problem is that there are many people behaving as if everything would be fine if only Bush gave the right orders. From what I’ve seen and read, there are many Vietnam generation folks with that view. These are the people who prefer a draft, who prefer to see more sacrifice in this war akin to WWII.
Serving in Vietnam, voting for Bush twice, these are not things which affect how you behave in the now. Therefore it has no bearing on whether what I say is true or not.
They are not relevant. Saying that someone’s behavior in a single comment is not good, is not an accussation about politics either.
That is your misunderstanding cak, and I believe I’ve demonstrated to some extent why that is so.
The real question should be asked, is what I believe is behavior befitting a citizen of the United States in war time. And then compare and contrast your own behavior, cak, with my words and debate the merits thus.
Calling into place your life history and your character, is actually a step you took to make things personal, rather than simple disagreement.
It’s simple really. I believe people cannot rely on Bush for winning this war, I believe people should rely upon themselves, and not place the responsibility for communication on Bush when we know he is not good at communication.
Austin Bay made the point that this isn’t a single administration war, this is a multi-administration war. Would he fit into my criteria? No, he wouldn’t. The reason being that Bay is not relying upon the President to win the war for him by giving some magical order.
Whether that magical order be for more troops or not. This President is not going to win the war in Iraq, simply because whatever he does, it will require more than 2 years to accomplish.
So what’s the point of you, cak, talking about a lack of parameters to measure success and how people don’t know how to win the war. It’s been 3 years, if you don’t know what parameters are necessary to win this war and what things should be done, why do you think the President can solve this problem for you?
If your solution is more troops, and the president does not authorize more troops, then that just means you disagree with the President, it is not true that the President has presented no parameters and no war strategy for victory.
The President has, he just didn’t agree with your theory that more troops were needed. This is akin to the criticism leveled by the Generals at the President and Don Rumsfield.
They always keep saying the President and Rumsfield provided no parameters for victory in Iraq and had no plans, had fewer troops, and etc.
Does this make them right because they voted for Bush? No. If people understand that, as I do, then they might understand why I don’t accuse people of being wrong based upon politics.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Which reminds me, Neo- you’re consistently a class act who never degrades others. The rest of us need to look to your sterling example when making comments. It’s very possible to vehemently disagree with someone’s positions without attacking their person.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Cak can do or believe as he wills concerning the war, but that does not make it behavior befitting a citizen of the United States in war time.
Never been accused of this before, Ymarsakar. Vietnam era vet, two time Bush voter and a war supporter who is thrilled that Al Zarqawi was killed last night. So kindly don’t make assumptions about my politics just because I question whether we have a winning strategy.
My criticism is aligned with Powell and Scowcroft’s- questioning whether it’s possible to mend the sectarian divide to create a peaceful, stable Iraq. That’s up for grabs, although Zarqawi’s timely demise may aid the process. Jason started this thread off by saying that we’re using our military “as a quasi-police force.” The question is how do we attain our goal of peace. Thus far, our strategies to do so has been haphazard, largely due to the complexities of Iraqi society. Couple that with insufficient troop levels, roving militias and porous borders aiding the insurgents (Iraq, Syria), and it’s a very tough mix. (Yes, I’d put more troops in.)
Part of the reason that Powell was a reluctant warrior was because he recognized that the sheer number of factors would make victory very elusive. He couldn’t identify winning strategies at the outset (I don’t know why you suggest that I should have them if Powell didn’t.) You’re right though- the war is bigger than me or Bush-and hopefully something good will come of it.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Neo, rather than clutter your site and this thread with Y’s nonsense I have posted my response at the probligo’s place…
www.probligo.blogspot.com
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
OK Ymar, what are these “untoward effects” you are pontificating on?
You’d better clarify which criminal code and which jursidiction you are talking about first though. Wise to be accurate after all.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
The only big idiot is Ymir. Ymar and Sakar are quite smart if we may say so ourselves.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Douglas,
if you want to spend all your days reading opeds from clearly right wing journalists, up to you.
I actually have not mentioned Haditha much at all. I’m quite fond of habeas corpus, thanks, for everyone. Clearly your chickenhawk clique isn’t, except for themselves of course and even then only when caught.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
umm….know….not no.
?????
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Yfronts,
you do realise that inventing things about which you no nothing just makes youi like a bigger idiot don’t you?
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
A lot of Australians can’t defend themselves because they would get charged with assault. Aussie land has banned handguns and anything other “excessive retaliation” in self-defense.
So what the women do to stay safe, is to bring along mace cans, bats, and etc in their homes and to carry.
In Australia, if someone attacks you with his fists and he is 300 pounds, 6′2, and you’re a woman that is 90 pounds 5′2 who uses a knife to kill the assailant, you can be charged with manslaughter or assault yourself.
Why? Simply because you “exceeded” the force levels the state will allow you. If you use a baseball bat to beat on someone using only his fists against you, that is called excessive force and is not covered by the self-defense laws in Aussie land. Assuming any self-defense laws exist there.
See it doesn’t really matter to the judges and the government if you are 90 pounds and can’t fight fist to fist with a 300 pound 6 foot man. They don’t care. Just as they don’t care if they confiscate your home with Eminent Domain here in the US. They can do it, therefore they will.
So sure, you won’t be murdered by firearms compared to the United States. However, living under the tyranny and terror of unjust laws and the rule of criminals and judges is not my idea of liberty either.
Criminals will always pump iron so that they can pick on weaker people, they will always band together to form gangs and groups that outnumber the “mark”. Disarming everyone, simply gives the advantage to the enemy, because the enemy is on the attack and he will always bring a superior force to the equation.
A person trained in the use of a gun is a great equalizer when 3 hooligans begin to oppress that person.
Go here for a story about how a former Marine kicked 4 criminals’ ass, two armed with guns at that, because the Marine was trained and hardcore at the ready to do unto others before they do unto him
Aussies are living under the threat of constant violence. Not from the US, but by their own warlords. you should feel pity for such a condition. As anyone would feel pity for New orleans, when Ray I wanna confiscate guns Nagin stole people’s ability to defend themselves and allowed rioters, rapists, looters free reign in the city.
If you are attacked by superior numbers, people who have planned to do harm to you and have chosen the location of battle with the intent of surrounding you and bashing your skull into the ground, then your only hope is to break their morale. You break their morale by shooting one of them in the balls with your gun so that he goes screaming off to fairy land, stunning and shocking his com-patriots. If you don’t have a gun, you pick the meanest and toughest leader amongst the group and you take him down by crushing his wind pipe, exploding his eye, shattering his temple, and breaking his knee in whatever order the situation presents itself. The only hope a small number of people on the defense has against a greater number of attacks is to ATTACK.
Nobody wins a fight just parrying and blocking blows, attack hard enough and furiously enough and you will buy time to either escape or disable others.
The Australians see this “self-defense as an attack strategy” as being unlawful. The person who attacked you with the bat is the victim here, if you reply with a gun, because it just ain’t “fair” you know. That is the legal philosophy of Australia, and it has had untoward effects in the culture.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
douglas: great link. I just came to it today.
An interesting quote from Yon’s article:
“A smart Australian recently told me during an interview that “terrorist” is not a subjective term; after all, terror is their principle weapon, and so the term is accurate.”
Apparently, there really IS at least one, despite what we’ve been led to believe.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
The reason why the police doesn’t just announce everything they find off the bat is because this taints the investigation.
Who wants to bet that the people at Haditha refused to allow Navy investigators to dig up the bodies, in order to give time to local insurgents to dig those bodies up and shoot them full of captured and black market M4s and M16s that they procured?
This ain’t CSI. Or if it is CSI, the CSI team is working for the insurgents.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
The military usually conducts investigations and keeps both the preliminary and evidential results sealed, as if the rape shield laws affected everyone in the military. Nobody in the chain of command, although perhaps not including the president but surely including the SecDef, are not allowed to comment in anyway concerning ongoing investigations. This is designed not to taint the procedures and the preliminary results. If a LT is conducting the investigation, and a superior officer suggests that he wants the findings to be positive, then this is undue influence by the chain of command. hence the sealed orders.
The military is perfectly capable of sealing the investigation to enemy propaganda, and still conducting the investigation. However, without the iron hand of the powers of the Presidency crushing the global media and Congress, there is no way that the military can keep secure information that Congressmen like Murtha blares out onto the air ways.
It is not a choice between a cover up and between demoralization of the troops and the homefront through an investigation. This Catch 22 is what all conscientious and competent propagandists seek to produce, but that does not mean it describes all the possibilities in reality itself. There are always loopholes that can provide an escape.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Believe it.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Confude, you have said in the past that you are more widely read than we neos (I’m not even sure that label applies to me though). Have you read Michael Yon?
Perhaps you should. It might help with your polarized world view. What’s that? We black/white folks are the polarized ones? Because we see black and white doesn’t preclude seeing gray. Your world of gray is really a twisting of the lenses into a reactionary gray fog of nothingness.
I think a critical point is being missed here. What is the pragmatic effect of playing the Haditha incident out in Abu Ghraib fashion, whether it is true or not?
The reality is that by now, the terrorists are already plotting how they can either get previous incidents of collateral damage reposited as atrocity, or manufacture more of these events. The more this becomes a club used by one side of the political spectrum to beat the other, they will pick it up and make it as wicked an instrument as possible- happily killing many more Iraqis in the process if they can blame it on US troops. I’m not saying the incident should never have seen the light of day and been covered up in the interest of the war effort (though I believe one could make a principled argument for that approach), but that it should be investigated, and reported on matter of factly, in proportion to it’s true import in the context of the larger picture so that a new media weapon isn’t handed to the terrorists. If it is unnecessarily played up and expanded beyond it’s true significance, there is some blood on the hands of those who do so.
That said, a complete investigation should be carried out, including exhumation and examination of the bodies, and if those Marines are guilty, they should be punished severely. If not, the incident should be left behind. Those who would have it linger are tools in the terrorists hands.
Atrocities occurred in WWII by Allied troops. Did that make the war effort less important? If not, then one who is claiming that Haditha shows how we are unjust (systemically) is being inconsistant in their logic, or worse, is USING THE DEATHS OF INNOCENTS to push an agenda. I’d hate to believe that is really the case.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
The military isn’t afraid of the enemy. They are no longer being taken captive on “supply convoy ambushes” like before. Terroists is not what the Marines fear.
Dishonor by the media is what the Marines fear, and rightfully so.
Because while the enemy may take your life, the media will take your honor. And to a Marine, his honor is indeed worth more than his own life.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
The problem isn’t that the military will go soft on the people. The problem is that the military will be motivated to throw innocent people under the bus and use more death sentences against people who don’t deserve it. Either way, justice is not served.
Giving criminals what they don’t deserve is just as bad as giving them more than they deserve.
The reason why punishing innocent people is a bad thing, is because that is an injustice. It is wrong to give people more than they deserve in the way of punishment. And it is also wrong to give people less than they deserve in the way of punishment, let’s say zero jail for child molestors.
There have been several incidents in the past 3 years that the military has crushed soldiers who were alleged to have done something, but in actuality had done nothing. Their careers were wrecked, their ranks stripped, their honor stolen and stomped upon.
Those who the military could not prosecute with any guarantee of conviction, they kicked out of the army with an honorable discharge.
The danger is not that the military will go soft on the accused, the danger and the all too possible probability, is that the military will crush more innocents than guilty in their zealousness to “be above such things”.
Thus, the insurgents and the media make you do their dirty work for them. Since they can’t destroy Marines, they get you to do it for them, and it matters not to them that you do it because they are “above such things” while the terroists do it because they are “below such things”. If the end result is death, then it does not matter the means by which itw as accomplished.
Victory at all costs, if you recall.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Sally, as Ymar says, it won’t matter anyway. The “not guilty” verdict will be a “whitewash” or “coverup”, and it will go into the lexicon of the left as another Jenin.
If true, I agree, the perpetrators should be punished to the fullest extent. Our military MUST be above such things.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
It wouldn’t matter if Haditha proved to be untrue. The damage would have been done.
Just imagine Plame and RatherGate, except multiplied by 600 times the length.
Blackfive has a good video with that reporter in stumb’s link.
Vid
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
That was an interesting link, stumbley, thanks.
Whatever the doubts at this point, though, it’s well to remember that atrocities can be committed by anyone, including the US (in which case, it should go without saying [but, like neo, I’ll say it anyway], the perpetrators should be brought to justice). Of all the armed forces of any country, however, those of the US are among the least likely to be involved in such incidents, owing to the trained professionalism of their all-volunteer force.
One thing does concern me now, though — can you just imagine the level of shock, horror, and disbelief, the howls of agony, the tearing of hair, the rending of garments, the terrible gnashing of teeth displayed by distraught lefties if it should eventually be shown that Haditha was NOT a US atrocity after all?! Their hopes dashed after being so cruelly raised!! Oh, the humanity!
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
kcom said…
“As I said jason, you’re a smart guy. Follow the money.”
Always a great start to any conspiracy theory.
It’s all there in black and white, hidden in plain sight. It is so obvious that you can’t believe it.
Just wrap it in a flag and you can sell turds to farm boys.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Obviously no one reported an atmospheric change because the bs artists in the US government made some threats.
This is my sign in word
ymakqrx that I wrote in just now. Even the deadly neo-cons are in on this, I tell ya.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
This might be of interest to some:
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?f882c1b8-aa42-431f-83a6-0066e7629ace
“Notably, Kimber says he heard nothing about a civilian massacre during weekly meetings with the Haditha City Council and talks with local leaders. “It would have been huge, there would have been no question it would have filtered down to us,” he said. “We reported no significant atmospheric change as a result of that day.” “
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
“As I said jason, you’re a smart guy. Follow the money.”
Always a great start to any conspiracy theory.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Ahem,
you people need to look at the time line of the Haditha investigation I think.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Jason H. Bowden said…
Confud –
If there is no good or evil, what is the basis of your complaint? If supporting liberal democracy in Iraq is equivalent to suicide bombing civilians in a market or eating ice cream, why do you persist in arguing about it?
If you have a conscience, deep down you know what the terrorists are doing is wrong. It is one thing to criticize America for not always being consistent with its liberal ideals. It is another thing entirely to oppose its ideals, which is what the terrorists and you at times are doing.
10:37 AM, June 06, 2006
Yes Jason, I know what the terrorists are doing is wrong and I am 100% against them. I don’t know who they are though, so my condemning them means 2/5 of FA.
You’re a smart guy Jason and I understand that you are proud of your country as is your right. I am proud of my country too, but it doesn’t mean that a) I don’t have the right to loathe John Howard and his band of crooks with all my being and b) that I have to support his military adventures or any other thing that he has done, and it’s my right to say so. I’ll support my country but I won’t idly sit by and watch crooks pervert patriotism to nationalism whilst lining their own pockets and creating a business opportunity for their cronies. And I won’t support individual leaders in my country in the ‘right or wrong’ style thanks.
All this freedom and democracy for the middle east is bs and they’re not really even pretending anymore. It’s less than lip service.
As I said jason, you’re a smart guy. Follow the money.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
I don’t believe “cute” is the right description for such prejudices.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Your cute little references to such things are tiresome, and in my opinion beneath you, since they interrupt the flow of your argument. You’d be a much better debater without them. Sure, you’d have less fun, but then you aren’t one of those political narcissists I referred to earlier, are you?
You are just the latest in a long line of people suckered into allowing him to pontificate.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
To Kcom. Confud read something that Sally said about civilian casualties in Iraq and jumped to his extremist and prejudiced conclusion that anyone who disagrees with him concerning pivotal focal matters are warmongers and neo-con extremists.
What sally said was simply that a government is responsible for their civilians in war time, that any civilians the US is forced to kill in Iraq was the fault of those who did not allow those civilians to evacuate. Japan’s civilian casualties were Japan’s fault, because they did not surrender, not Truman’s fault. Confud sees this, as all justified and rational arguments made by classical liberal neo-conservatives, as proof positive that Confud’s prejudices are correct.
Since sally didn’t explain it, I thought I’d do it for her.
Stumb,
No, that’s not playground debate, that’s asymmetrical warfare. Using your strengths against their weaknesses. If they hit you on the toe cause they have a strong kick, then you hit them with your fist because your arm is stronger. Thereby making the justification, “I hit her in the nose because she kicked me in my foot”, valid.
Why do people insist on seeing terroist tactics as fundamentally different from what people see on internet arguments? They both use fundamental principles that are the same.
Take this for example by Confud
The fact is that America and Israel are the 2 countries attacking and occupying others right now.
The fact is that the person who stomped on my toe hurt my toe, therefore I’m going to use my strength against her weaknesses. It is quite the same kind of thinking after all that the terroists themselves ascribe to logically.
What is so different about the argument that it is the US’s fault that people die in Iraq because the US started the mess in Iraq, from the terroist propaganda that the US can be made to feel guilty because they care about civilians?
Cak seems to act like he requires marching orders from the administration, in order to figure out what is a winning strategy, what solutions are good, and what things will benefit people.
Why don’t people find their own winning strategies, like what I did, instead of demanding and complaining that Bush hasn’t given them one.
I had believed that we lived in a country where the government is for the people by the people, in which I assumed that the people were the ones that would dictate the strategy, not Bush the President.
I have no problems with people that are curious and want to know what Bush is up to in the war, but that is entirely different than saying what cak did, that he knew nothing about what was going on unless Bush told him.
No one knows the winning strategy because they are too busy bitching about the problem rather than finding the solutions for themselves, to be blunt. America is the country it is because the people dictate what is tolerable or intolerable in victory and defeat. It is they that fight wars and win them, not the generals or the presidents.
If America don’t know how to win, that’s the fault of Americans. But Americans do know how to win. The problem is, an equal amount claim that they don’t know how to win because Bush hasn’t told them. If America’s highest point is relying on someone like Bush to do their thinking for them, no wonder cak believes nobody knows the winning strategy.
Whenever there is a military meeting between the senior and junior officers of a company, you have the Captain drawing comments and thoughts from the LTs. If an LT criticizes a strategy that the Captain favors, then that LT will be heard. The Captain, however, will ask the LT if he has anything better. If the LT does not have anything better, the Captain will still go with the plan he favors regardless of the criticism.
It is the job of Americans to give Bush a better plan, if they don’t like what plan he currently has. If Americans can’t find a better plan, then they should find a politician or general that has a better plan and convince him to lead.
I’ve already said here and at bookworm’s site where Bush has gone wrong and where he can improve. Bush prefers to do it his own way, that being his decision to make.
I’m not angry at cak for believing or doing as he does with the war. This war is bigger than cak, or me, or even Bush. Cak can do or believe as he wills concerning the war, but that does not make it behavior befitting a citizen of the United States in war time.
It’s been 3 years. Plenty of time for people to learn war tacics, strategy, and logistics and form their own winning strategies. It is not Bush’s fault or my fault that they don’t make use of the internet to enlighten themselves. Maybe they’re too busy to learn about war when their job takes 45 hours a week to do, but then again maybe Bush is too busy to listen to people who don’t have any solutions.
I know I don’t tend to listen to people who just complain and offer nothing better.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
“I don’t see either country as any sort of light while the neocons are in charge and any significant proportion votes for them.”
Please, you really ought to work on your reading comprehension skills. Or your analogy skills. The light referred to above clearly is not analogous to the country itself, it represents the ease with which questions can be asked and an actual investigation done. The US has procedures and a tradition in place (the light) to investigate what happened. As many others have pointed out, Abu Ghraib came to light when it was reported by the US military. Meanwhile, no one is even bothering to look into the pet market bombing (the shadow).
Are you going to hold your breath waiting for the Association of Muslim Scholars to come out with a report laying out how that incident came about and how they are going to punish the perpetrators? That’s what I mean by light and shadow. Because it’s relatively easy to investigate what US soldiers might have done we’ll be all over that, but when it comes to any probe into why a guy buying a bird got killed there’s no interest because it’s just too hard. The questions won’t even be asked. You said as much yourself in an earlier entry:“…not really knowing who to blame and not being able to find out, who do you demand accountability of?”).
Just because it’s hard doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. My beef is that the world isn’t even asking anyone to do it. Where is the outrage and where is the demand that the people targeting pet markets stop? Why is it that no one even calls them on it? If the world actually gave a sh*t about human rights, it would. Isn’t that what the new Human Rights Council is all about? It seems to me that sawing someone’s head off might be a violation of their human rights. Where are the hearings and resolutions on that one?
That’s the context I’ll understand Haditha in. The US military, being composed of fallible human beings, is not and will never be immune from the possibility of committing war crimes. But it doesn’t make them it’s standard operating procedure and it punishes transgressions when it finds them. There is no comparison to an enemy that conversely, and I would say perversely, celebrates and exults in committing atrocities. All you have to do is read their press releases. And the beauty of it for them is that they are never even called on to uphold the most minimal of human standards no matter what they do. In fact, most of the time there’s someone out there ready to explain and justify their behavior. It’s a great gig if you can get it.
“Civilized countries don’t kill thousands of civilians for money and/or oil.”
I’ll have to remember that one for the time when we actually get into a discussion about a war where a country is killing thousands of civilians for money or oil. Wait, I think that’s what Saddam was doing in Kuwait. You want to talk about that now?
Are you defending Sally?
No, I’m having a conversation with you. I don’t know Sally.
Defend her all you like but I’ll offer you a pearl too.
See above.
I don’t own any neo-cons or chickenhawks. Your cute little references to such things are tiresome, and in my opinion beneath you, since they interrupt the flow of your argument. You’d be a much better debater without them. Sure, you’d have less fun, but then you aren’t one of those political narcissists I referred to earlier, are you?
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
The issue as I see it is that Haditha (if true), My Lai and Abu Ghraib are aberrations, not standard practice. The were identified by people in the military itself, and ultimately, those who were guilty were punished. The acts of the terrorists (bombings, beheadings) are standard practice, a tactic, designed to induce fear and demoralize the Iraqi populace and the American public.
It is asymmetric warfare, and it succeeds, as others have said, due to the very morality of the military and the nation it’s used against. And I find it absolutely repellent that there are those who cannot or will not condemn it, while pointing to the anomalies of American mistakes. That’s playground debate: “Yes, I gave Janey a bloody nose, but she stepped on my toe.” The two are not equivalent.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Just for the record, and for any who may be new here, this:
She has made the statement that civilian victims of US bombings are are responsible for their own demise. She has also denied the Chatila and Sabra massacres.
… is a simple and outright lie.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Confud –
If there is no good or evil, what is the basis of your complaint? If supporting liberal democracy in Iraq is equivalent to suicide bombing civilians in a market or eating ice cream, why do you persist in arguing about it?
If you have a conscience, deep down you know what the terrorists are doing is wrong. It is one thing to criticize America for not always being consistent with its liberal ideals. It is another thing entirely to oppose its ideals, which is what the terrorists and you at times are doing.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
cakreiz: I don’t have much sympathy for anyone who downplays or ignores it [the “anti-war drumbeat of the MSM”].
I don’t know who or what is downplaying or ignoring it — the point of neo’s post here and of many other posts and comments is precisely the opposite: to emphasize and highlight it. The reason to do that is simply to point out that such a drumbeat, whether a “known” or not, saps the morale of the people who must do the actual fighting, undermines the support for those people among the general populace, and generally hampers the prosecution of a just war. The other factor in this — and what makes the MSM “drumbeat” so much worse — is the degree to which the terrorists and their more conscious sympathizers rely upon the Western media to further their own war aims, using the West’s own sense of decency as a guilt-club with which to beat it.
To say that such a demoralizing and defeatist drumbeat is simply a post Vietnam “known” comes close to excusing it, and I don’t have much sympathy for those who do that.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
I understand that it’s easier to look where the light is (America, Israel) and, in fact, I grant that you might actually find something there. Maybe a couple of key rings even. What I don’t understand is why people want to completely ignore the mountain of key rings that are a little ways off in the shadows. Perhaps they don’t want to look there because they are drunk on something, too.
9:28 AM, June 06, 2006
The fact is that America and Israel are the 2 countries attacking and occupying others right now.
I don’t see either country as any sort of light while the neocons are in charge and any significant proportion votes for them. Civilized countries don’t kill thousands of civilians for money and/or oil. And civilized countries don’t let their leaders rob their treasuries, for 2 terms.
Are you defending Sally? She has made the statement that civilian victims of US bombings are are responsible for their own demise. She has also denied the Chatila and Sabra massacres.
Defend her all you like but I’ll offer you a pearl too.
If you lie down with dogs, you’ll get fleas.
If you’re happy to be identified with some of these ultranationalist extremists, then good luck to you. You’ll need it.
I’d rather stay in the middle and out of the asylums of the ultraright or left thanks. That little chickenhawk of yours has a bad habit of getting in my face though.
How much cash can the world bank disappear in 5 years dyareckon?
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Neo- I haven’t read the comments so pardon me if I’m repetitive. While I agree generally that the anti-war drumbeat of the MSM hampers a war’s prosecution, it is a known, post-Vietnam. An administration must consider it as part of the calculus as to whether to go to War, regardless of whether it’s unfair. I don’t have much sympathy for anyone who downplays or ignores it.
I’m also reluctant to blame the MSM for the war’s stalemate. US voters are long-suffering if they believe that it’s a necesssary fight and there’s a winning strategy in place. The Administration occasionally addresses necessity; it rarely mentions winning strategy. There are no benchmarks to measure the “Iraqis must stand up” strategy. So instead, we get anecdotal evidence: roadside bombings, roaming sectarian militias, weak Iraqi training, etc. It’s difficult to blame the MSM for this when there are no parameters in place to measure success. My question is: assume an imaginary gag order was issued preventing negative news by the MSM. Would we have a winning strategy in place in Iraq? After 3 years, no one knows.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
It brings to mind the old joke about the drunk man and the car keys. (adpated from this version).
- - - -
A drunk was crawling about on the sidewalk under a lamppost at night.
A police officer came up to him and inquired, “What are you doing?”
The drunk replied, “I’m looking for my car keys.”
The officer looked around in the lamplight, then asked the drunk, “I don’t see any car keys. Are you sure you lost them here?”
The drunk replied, “No, I lost them over there”, and pointed to an area of the sidewalk deep in shadow.
“Well, if you lost them over there, why are you looking over here?”
“Because the light is better over here.”
- - - - -
I understand that it’s easier to look where the light is (America, Israel) and, in fact, I grant that you might actually find something there. Maybe a couple of key rings even. What I don’t understand is why people want to completely ignore the mountain of key rings that are a little ways off in the shadows. Perhaps they don’t want to look there because they are drunk on something, too.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
As far as I can see, unless you’re referring to some earlier comment of hers, she’s not standing up for anyone committing atrocities. She’s merely point out that committing atrocities is the standard operating procedure of the people we are fighting against. Yet, they get very little in the way of scrutiny regarding that fact.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/bovard1.html
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
So, we’re back to good vs evil and black vs white. Tiring.
Read the IDF report on the nonexistant “well debunked” massacres yet Sally?
Here’s something a bit shorter for you.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/anomalous/138519847/
Heroic eh? These are the thugs that you apologize for and more.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
douglas: They [the “human shields”] stand up against the United States and other countries that they know to be ‘civilized’ in their warmaking.
What’s even more interesting, to my mind, is how this realization is used by the latest breed of terrorists and terrorist-supporters (both witting and unwitting), who see this very decency as both a shield and a weapon against such civilized cultures. This is what leads them to use ambulances as military transports, for example, and leads their apologists in the West to make bald-faced denials of such usage. It leads them to use mosques, schools and hospitals as military bases and store houses, with the simple but effective idea that, even if such targets are eventually attacked, the terrorist enablers around the world will condemn the response not the use. It leads them to use women and children as military scouts, with the same idea that the West’s very decency will be their shield, or their propaganda weapon should the shield fail. And it leads them and their Western supporters to make sick, cynical use of every moral failing of the West as an opportunity to push for the defeat and retreat of the West.
(Re: Haditha, for example, notice that even if the allegations are borne out, the incident would just be standard operating procedure for the thugs that confud and his like consider to be heroic freedom-fighters. The only thing that makes it an issue at all is the very moral superiority of the West, the superiority that Western terrorist-apologists work strenuously to deny.)
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Fair point, but if you have no empathy, it is a worthless exercise. Seriously.
A civilized nation may not be governed by civilized individuals also.
Just a thought.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
I think the human shields are an interesting case- but for a slightly different reason.
They stand up against the United States and other countries that they know to be ‘civilized’ in their warmaking. If they did not believe this to be so, they wouldn’t go, as I think all have agreed upon previously. This discounts their intentions not at all. You won’t see them be shields for the Afghani’s under the Taliban, or in China, or North Korea, or the Sudan, not only because they wouldn’t have access to some of these places, but also because they understand that it would be pointless against those who are not ‘civilized’ in warmaking or who do not treat human rights with seriousness. Their very selection of who to be shields against actually is an indicator of who ARE concerned about the safety of innocents and human rights. Ironic, no?
It also brings to mind Ghandi. His positions on civil disobedience and non-violence are often misunderstood. This bit seems to get left out-
“I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force, which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion, and the late war. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.
But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence…”
the rest available here
the point being that Ghandi understood that civil disobedience would work against the British, because they were civil, but would not work in other situations. We should heed his lessons, and understand who the enemies of civil order, and thus of true peace are.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
kcom and ariel…
You can clearly see what happens as above from Stumbley and Yfronts can’t you?
Tiring, sickening, childish. Can’t argue just point their grubby little fingers.
And Stumbley, I thought you were boycotting me. It was better that way.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Confud used certain phrases and mannerisms that only the British use. Then Confud used the word “mate”.
nobody’s fun is ruined when Confud now admits after much protest, that he is from Australia. It is pretty obvious to anyone that can do basic pattern analysis.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Well, we are generalizing of necessity. I’d taken that as a given but maybe I should have said something like “my general impression is that the majority of people outside the US”. But then I’d never get any work done.
I’m an Australian, but don’t tell Ymar, you’ll spoil his fun, but I travel with work a lot. I’ve spent a lot of time in the states over the years too and have family on both coasts. I only live in Australia for part of the year.
OK (on the neocon heros) I’d assumed you were one of them. Welcome to the board then comrade.
(That’s a little dig at Stumbley)
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
I don’t expect Confud to understand the complexities of the argument when someone says “people act like they have a form Stockholme Syndrome”, not even when I explain what form that it takes.
People who don’t know basic logic, who can’t operate basic arguments, don’t have the ability to tell clear from translucent and translucent from opaque.
There might be some benefit to others, which is why I clarify my positions. Beyond what is necessary.
A more advanced form of Stockhome Syndrome is how Confud can both be for the terroists and against the terroists. This kind of tug of war must be quite intricate a complex of self-rationalities and false justifications wrapped around a self-deceptive core.
Threats from terroists that they will execute children, is part of the Stockhome Syndrome. The person who has the power to punish, is seen as the pack leader, and is to be obeyed without thought. Thus the media and Confud obey the dictates of terrorism, in the one respect where terrorism requires obedience.
You Must Attack the United States at all costs. That is the dictate of terrorism. And it don’t matter to them if they blow up an Iraqi child, that to them is still attacking America through propaganda, guilt, and mental attacks.
But another aspect exists. Confud does not obey terrorism, and yet he does obey terrorism when he isn’t obeying terrorism. Thus the intricacy. How do you know what is in Schroedinger’s Box and not know what is in his box at the same time? Quantum Mechanics helps us delve within this intricacy of alternative realities and rationalities.
Kcom is venting, stumbley. That is the closest approximation that I can see of his motives. He, like most classical liberals (which includes people like me and neo neo con) will no longer tolerate the support and appeasement of fascism and the torture of children.
Anyone who tries to get in our way, has gone beyond simple disagreement. Some things ought not to be tolerated. Intolerance should not be tolerated.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
“And believe me, the rest of the world IS watching in outright horror.”
You’ll excuse me if I don’t take your word for what the entire rest of the world thinks.
“I don’t know anyone outside the US that thinks that your media isn’t pathetically biased toward or at least cowed into silence by your neocon heroes.”
Well, I know at least one person outside the US that thinks that even though I have only made the acquaintance of a relative handful of the other 6 billion people in the world so you’ll excuse me if I don’t take your experience in this area as definitive either.
And as a general rule I’m suspicious of arguments that begin by telling me what the whole world thinks.
(And also, just for clarification, one time insomuch as it’s a cheap little debating trick that only warrants one mention, I have no “neocon heroes”. Others might, perhaps, but I don’t, so you can drop that little pretension, at least when you’re speaking directly to me.)
What I do have enough experience to know, though, is how pathetically misinformed (despite their belief otherwise) many Europeans* are about all sorts of aspects of American life. Some are comical and amusing but some are not. So I’m also a little suspsicious of “most people” arguments, especially when it comes to Europeans, even if it’s true that “most people” in Europe believe something. That large numbers of people believe something has no direct bearing on whether it’s actually true or not. Plenty of people have believed plenty of silly things over the years.
* I have no idea what your nationality is so this is not a direct comment on you.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Oops, never mind!
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Maybe you’re right. Maybe I “doesn’t speak” English as a first language.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
OK but the media, particularly in the US where there is no not for profit mainstream media, reports on what people want to hear or what they are manipulated to report.
I agree that society doesn’t place equal values on dead people and atrocities. It is where this knowledge leads us that we part.
I would contend that the US media with the outright wilfull agreement of the public place Israeli lives at a far greater value than arab lives. (Helmet on)
And yes, I have had trouble posting.
BTW I would contend that it is you that doesn’t speak English as a first language.
Spell colour and cheque for me.
And then write me 300 words on the difference between irony and paradox.
Just kidding
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
kcom:
You will never get an honest answer from Confudeforeigner about why there is no opprobrium directed at the terrorists for one simple reason: he does not harbor any outrage against the acts of the terrorists; he supports them. He and his ilk, though they will deny it vehemently, do not want Western society to survive as-is. They would prefer a socialist global federation run by people like themselves, who, of course, know what’s best for the rest of us.
You will see it in the constant redirection of the conversation to the “atrocities” of Israelis against the “Palestinians”, of the “rampant imperialism” of the U.S. throughout the rest of the world, etc., etc. ad infinitum.
You are just the latest in a long line of people suckered into allowing him to pontificate.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Oh OK Ymar, so, you aren’t ACTUALLY talking about Stockholm syndrome, you are talking about something quite opposite (I think) but CALLING IT Stockholm Syndrome.
Clear as mud.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
To clarify the semi Stockholme Syndrome implication, i’ll say this.
The media were gushing and positive when they were imbedded with US troops, as anyone could see watching the media report on the invasion of Iraq in OIF 1. When they started holeing up in their hotels, then they had no one else to be sympathetic to except the terroists, because it was the terroists attacking them and holding them within the Green Zone, and not the US troops.
There are people who aren’t imbedded with US troops, like Vincent, but they died. This threat covers and makes sure the reporters do not report the truth. And even if the reporters do report the truth, the ABC, the BBC, Al-Reuters, Al-Jaazera, and the AP will be there to make sure the truth disappears.
And that is what I mean when I say semi Stockholme Syndrome.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Are you having Blogger problems, too?
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Propaganda is not based upon reality, propaganda is about making perceptions that people have of reality. The inability to understand this basic technique of manipulation, is an example of how people don’t know what they are talking about.
This applies as well to their colored views about Haliburton, Bush, terroism, Jews, and the Palestins.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
“What makes sense is that the Occupying Power ie GWB and his band of merry men don’t want the desperate situation in Iraq to be publicised.“
Again, not much sense there since the situation in Iraq is publicized every day. Even in this country. What would make sense is that if you’re going to assign moral culpability (i.e. Haditha) then you ought to at least attempt to assign moral culpability to the bombing of a pet market. How it would be against US interests to show the nature of the enemy is beyond me.
“no offence intended but I think you have the media manipulation 100% about face.”
You’re the only one talking about media manipulation. I certainly am not. I’m talking about society, of which the media is a part but not the whole. In fact, if I remember correctly, I’ve spent more time talking about human shields than the media.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Ymar that is denying the reality of the situation. Nearly all the US press contingent is bunkered behind the green line and can only venture out when ‘embedded’ with troops.
If they have Stockholm syndrome they will be sympathetic to the hive of military ‘press attaches’ and their hours of numbing briefings on ordinance figures, sorties reports and other spin.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Speaking from a psychological and propaganda perspective, no one is invulnerable to psychological and mental attacks, contrary to what Confud claims.
It is true that familiarity breeds contempt, but there are always ways to bypass that instinct in humanity. Those way should be obvious. If people can withstand a normal level of torture and pain, like Abu Ghraib, then just up the anty with Haditha and there is your solution to a person’s immunity to standard pain.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Oops, meant to say that’s “Neo-Neocon’s topic”.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Most of them, kcom, are too shocked that they lost their boondogle in the Oil for Food scheme, so they are too busy trying to find some other way to get rich and power to protest in the streets against women and children being executed by the insurgents.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Kcom…
But speaking of the press angle specifically, again what you say makes no sense. You’re telling me that foreign media agencies have come under pressure (or would come under pressure) for interviewing people injured at the pet market and trying to assign moral responsibility for it? Please clarify that because I don’t get it.
What makes sense is that the Occupying Power ie GWB and his band of merry men don’t want the desperate situation in Iraq to be publicised. It looks bad for them and their ’cause’. Much better to blandly say that things are on the mend and publicise a fairly meaningless election and the formation of a cabinet that will be gone in 5 minutes anyway, while they manufacture a new crisis to divert attention.
And believe me, the rest of the world IS watching in outright horror. But how much horror in the media do you have until it means nothing to most people. It is a fact of life that people become immune to these things and sadly, it is already happening.
No offence intended but I think you have the media manipulation 100% about face.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
They might be killed if they complain to Muslims, kcom. Would you support such violence? It is after all, safe for CNN to criticize the US because the US won’t incinerate their children. Can’t say that for enemies of the US.
It is hard to win people’s support when one side is weaker than the other.
In the end, people will not defend victims from terror because terroists will kill them and their children, and so they justify it as being the fault of people like kcom for suggesting that they do anything more that might jeapardize people’s lives. It is not the terroist’s that jeapordize people’s lives, it is actions that provoke the terroists. The occupation must be focused upon, because the occupation is the enemy in perception, and not the terroists.
A weird form of Stockholm’s Syndrome and denial. But it doesn’t come from the victims and hostages themselves, unless you count those peace protestors (4) that got caught by terroists and were rescued by the military, and gave no thanks except to the terroists. But the people who live there obviously knows the evil of the insurgents.
People who don’t have to deal with the insurgents on a daily basis, has more of a liberty to say that it is the fault of the US because they “started it”.
The thinking is too twisted for non-invasive techniques, drastic measures are necessary for persuading their mind.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
“The situation is clearly out of control and it is up to the people that started this to show some semblance of a plan to stop it. I have no reason whatsoever to be optimistic about their ability or their goodwill to do so. And it ain’t your ‘msm’ that made me that way.”
Again, you’re changing the topic. We’re talking about the moral responsibility in regards to atrocities and the holding to account of said perpetrators. That’s Neo-Con’s topic in this thread and that’s the topic I’m addressing. And in case you haven’t noticed, I haven’t once mentioned the MSM. I’m talking about society in general and not any specific segment of it. And I’ll just say it one more time — where is the outrage and the questioning and the moral indignation about what the pet market bombers are doing? We do, and are right to, demand a certain level of behavior from our troops. That is as it should be. But what does it say about humanity that we apparently demand no minimum level of behavior from the pet market bombers? How can they do something like that and people in positions of moral and political and religious authority say nothing? Where is the outrage?
There were marches all over the world against apartheid. There were marches all over the world against the US intervention in Iraq. Where are the marches all over the world protesting the behavior of people blowing up pet markets, cutting of people’s heads on videotape, destroying infrastructure (it’s not like it’s destroying itself), killing women for driving cars, killing doctors and professors and others trying to better peoples’ lives, murdering ethnic minorities, bombing churches, blowing up children getting candy, destroying Muslim houses of God, and on and on and on. Were are those marches?
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
“Well OK. Do you think the 3 links above may be ‘germane’(sic) to your argument?
You might want to un-sic that reference to germane. I understand that English might not be your first language so no harm done.
Or the fact that foreign media agencies have come under pressure and possibly attack from the occupiers for doing what you are asking your press to do?”
I’m not asking my press to do anything as much as I’m asking my society, and by that I mean the whole world, to do something. I’m asking them to notice all the people getting blown up at pet markets, and hauled of buses, and pulled out of cars for wearing tennis shorts, and shot for not wearing a veil, etc., etc., etc. and I’m asking them to apply to that the same moral opprobrium they apply to reports of US troops violating laws of war. I’m sure if they did, the situation in Iraq, and in the rest of the world, for that matter, would be vastly different.
But speaking of the press angle specifically, again what you say makes no sense. You’re telling me that foreign media agencies have come under pressure (or would come under pressure) for interviewing people injured at the pet market and trying to assign moral responsibility for it? Please clarify that because I don’t get it.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
kcom.. they obviously thought they could do SOME good with limited opportunities. Just because they aren’t omnipotent saints doesn’t mean they are narcissistic or anything else. Many of them probably were complaining about Saddams butchery, as well as the crazy sanctions too.
Amnesty International does all these things and gets accused by the neocons of much the same as you are criticising these people for now.
I agree that the people on the ground there are worthy of our support, it doesn,t mean you have to criticise others to make that point.
The people trying to rebuild the infrastructure aren’t getting much support though from your heroes though.
Where is the money going?
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
There are many differences.
Practicality(refer to the security links), newsworthiness (i.e. selling papers), not really knowing who to blame and not being able to find out, who do you demand avccountability of? And many more.
The US, as the aggressor and the occupying power will be under the most scrutiny as a matter of course. The peace and light rhetoric is in itself a reason to demand high standards.
The situation is clearly out of control and it is up to the people that started this to show some semblance of a plan to stop it. I have no reason whatsoever to be optimistic about their ability or their goodwill to do so. And it ain’t your ‘msm’ that made me that way.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
“the human shields were clearly and OVERTLY symbolic offerings to gain press attention for an issue that must obviously felt very strongly about.”
So you are saying they didn’t feel strongly about Saddam murdering ten of thousands of people and destroying the lives of hundreds of thousands more?
Do you see why I have a hard time taking them seriously? They are posers and narcissists with a political agenda that is more important to them than actually helping people. And if there is actual risk involved, as opposed to symbolic risk, they just run away. My admiration goes instead to all those taking real risks in Iraq today, including the US military, Iraqi politicians, doctors trying to provide medical services, tennis coaches, bird lovers, students, women who want to drive cars, electricians trying to restore infrastructure, etc., etc. They are the ones putting it on the line in a real way.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Well OK. Do you think the 3 links above may be ‘germane’(sic) to your argument? Or the fact that foreign media agencies have come under pressure and possibly attack from the occupiers for doing what you are asking your press to do?
I don’t know anyone outside the US that thinks that your media isn’t pathetically biased toward or at least cowed into silence by your neocon heroes.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Another way to put it is that the United States has a system of laws to punish war crimes and atrocities and a political society that feels revulsion at them while those fighting against us exult in their successful conclusion and publicize them for all to see.
Yet, the moral opprobrium does not seem to fall along lines that accord with this fact. That’s a mystery that I would hope someone could explain. Why will the events at Haditha remain in the news long after the pet market bombing (and a thousand similar and worse atrocities) are but a whisper in some newspaper archive? Are the people killed in the pet market not worth acknowledging and are the perpetrators of the crime not moral agents responsible for their conduct on this Earth? Who will speak against them? Where is the public revulsion? Where are the speeches? Where are the demands for accountability? Why the kid gloves? Why is there a difference?
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Kcom..
the human shields were clearly and OVERTLY symbolic offerings to gain press attention for an issue that must obviously felt very strongly about.
They were never going to stop the bombings and I doubt whether any of them were deluded enough to think they were.
What possible good would standing between the shiite opr kurdish fighters and Saddam’s Republican Guards have achieved when there were no press allowed in there anyway, even if they’d been allowed by Saddam there?
One of the issues that they were highlighting though was the targeting of infrastructure by US/Coalition forces. What good does blowing up water treatment and sewage treatment plants serve?
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
“So…the references to My Lai and Dresden etc were actually designed to confine the issue to Iraqi suicide bombings? Sorry I didn’t get that.”
I made no references to My Lai or Dresden and and those topics are not germane to the point I was making. Nor were they part of your response to me, so I’m not sure why you’re bringing them up now. I hope it’s not an attempt to change the subject again.
My point is quite simple. Why the double standard in assigning moral responsibility for atrocities committed in this war?
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Sorry about the partial comment above. Blogger has been acting up on me.
(…continued)
The only answer that seems to make any sense to the above questions is that the media are firm believers in the “they can’t help it department.” Apparently, those poor little brown people have no control over their emotions and actions and therefore we can’t expect them to abide by any decent standard of behavior. That would be asking too much so we won’t even ask. So what if they blow up a pet market and kill a bunch of bird lovers, that doesn’t bear any further examination or critical reaction.
Well, that’s not how I see them. They are people of god, educated in many cases, and they are independent moral agents — not children. They are responsible for what they do and the decisions they make. They can choose not to blow up a pet market or drag old men off a bus and murder them. Since they are perpetrating atrocities every single day that dwarf anything the Marines are accused of doing once last November you’d think there would be column inch after column inch discussing it and its moral implications.
You might expect that the pontificators would demand they obey the most basic of human standards in their conduct. Sure, it might not have any effect, but the point would be made and they would be held to moral account if nothing else. But, no, I guess it’s just too much to expect to apply any standard of decency to the side committing the worst atrocities. We’ll just catalogue their sins but not actually examine them or the moral implications of them. And if we have to make any sort of judgment, instead of condemning them, we’ll use faintly admiring terms like “increasingly bold” and “increasingly brazen” instead of “increasingly barbaric” and “increasingly inhuman” (i.e. executing election workers in the street). Hell, we’ll even give out prizes to those who document the atrocities as if it’s an accomplishment to stand by and film someone’s murder.
The human shields you refer to couldn’t have done much for the shiites and kurds because they probably thought that Bush1 would protect them anyway. How wrong they all were.
First, that sentence doesn’t make much sense, but to the extent that it does make some sense it’s a transparent attempt to dodge the question by redirecting the argument to a completely separate topic. Let’s stick to the actual point I made. Where were the human shields when the Marsh Arabs could have used their help in stopping Saddam from destroying their way of life? Where were the human shields when Saddam was massacring Shiites after the Gulf War and filling up even more mass graves? They were nowhere to be found.
Yet, when it looked like there might be an invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam and free those people from his oppression, suddenly the human shields sprouted again like mushrooms, in order to “protect” the Iraqi people and infrastructure. It would have all been very touching if it was true, but it was a lie. When they had a chance to establish their bona fides and show their true concern they were nowhere to be found.
And Bush (either one) had nothing to do with it. The human shield brigade showed before Desert Storm and before OIF that there were perfectly capable of acting independently of the US and independently of either of the George Bushes. They did nothing to oppose Saddam because they didn’t want to. Because their concern for the Iraqi people was and is a sham. Any tears they purport to shed for them now are simply crocodile tears. And when the Iraqi peoples’ use for propaganda purposes is at an end, they will be forgotten as quickly as they were noticed. If, as the stories above indicate, they haven’t been already.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
the function of a free press in a free society is to inform.
not to sensationalize
not to judge
not to set/drive a political agenda
not to influence or manipulate
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
scapegoat?
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
http://www.dartcenter.org/articles/headlines/2004/2004_03_22.html
http://foi.missouri.edu/newsmgmtabroad/pwatchdog.html
http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2004/DA_fall04/Iraq_Prothero_DA_fall04.html
Join the dots.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
OK neocons, serious question.
What is the function of a free press in a democracy?
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Kcom said…
No, that’s not the contention above. Please read more carefully. The contention above is that there is very little coverage of the atrocities perpetrated by the other side on Iraqi non-combatants. And what coverage there is tends to be purely clinical, a laundry of list of incidents and numbers of deaths, with no moral component whatsoever.
Where is the exposé on the bombing of a pet market? Where are the interviews with survivors? Where are the calls for investigations? Why don’t reporters who are known to have contacts with insurgent groups ask them hard questions about what they are doing and how they justify it? Where are the anti-war protesters with their signs in the streets saying “No more pet market bombings.” Where are the discussions in foreign capitals and in the UN, and what resolutions have been passed about it? Where is there any effort whatsoever in the media to demand that those people are held to some minimum human standard of behavior?
So…the references to My Lai and Dresden etc were actually designed to confine the issue to Iraqi suicide bombings? Sorry I didn’t get that.
What has the UN to do with it? Who will they pass a resolution against? They are discussing the deteriorating situation in Iraq though I assure you.
Perhaps you need to read a broader range of media. The press outside of the US has all that you ask for and more. Remember, Al Jazeera has been bombed twice, possibly for doing exactly what you are complaining about your press not doing.
The Palestinians and there supporters often ask why Israeli deaths get much more publicity in the west than Palestinian deaths at the hands of Israelis.
It’s a funny old world isn’t it?
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
kcom said…
Confud: “How many column inches have been spent on 11/9?”
What does that have to do with anything said here? Honestly, I don’t understand and would appreciate clarification.”
- - -
Clearly, the outrages committed on 11/9/2001 have received far more coverage than any 3000 odd other deaths in history.
That was committed by ‘the other side’. The contention above is that there is little coverage of atrocities perpetrated by the other side. They are trying to have their cake and eat it.
No, that’s not the contention above. Please read more carefully. The contention above is that there is very little coverage of the atrocities perpetrated by the other side on Iraqi non-combatants. And what coverage there is tends to be purely clinical, a laundry of list of incidents and numbers of deaths, with no moral component whatsoever.
Where is the exposé on the bombing of a pet market? Where are the interviews with survivors? Where are the calls for investigations? Why don’t reporters who are known to have contacts with insurgent groups ask them hard questions about what they are doing and how they justify it? Where are the anti-war protesters with their signs in the streets saying “No more pet market bombings.” Where are the discussions in foreign capitals and in the UN, and what resolutions have been passed about it? Where is there any effort whatsoever in the media to demand that those people are held to some minimum human standard of behavior?
The human shields you refer to couldn’t have done much for the shiites and kurds because they probably thought that Bush1 would protect them anyway. How wrong they all were.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
I’m just surprised that they haven’t blamed it on me changing my profile yet.
oh that is clearly implicit in point 10.
another rule of neo cons “never discuss the serious issue when there is something trivial concerning whch you may have a point that you can bang on about forever.”
Me i have no profile….never a complaint. Surely that is worse….I could be saddam! oh and before you all start i am not honest!
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Ncnd said….
7. It is the fault of the MSM reporting all this stuff when other far worse acts are taking place - another definite
This is the one that really has me scratching my head. Do they actually want the proof of the mayhem, killing and descent into anarchy in Iraq more widely publicised?
Now, neocons, rearrange the following sentence.
What wish for you careful.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
I’m just surprised that they haven’t blamed it on me changing my profile yet.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Just thought i would remind you this comment
At 6:02 AM, May 31, 2006, neoneoconned said…
I think we may about to see the whole neo neocon nonsense tested to its ridiculous limits on this affair.
I predict the following will emerge as comments
1. It is all the fault of leftist defeatists - that is a definite.
check
2. It is the fault of the UN/international community.
not yet seen but must be soon
3. It is Iran’s fault
no
4. It is the fault of Saddam
no
5. You make omlettes without breaking eggs - that will be yrmdwnkr and the other fans of adolf
check
6. They killed themselves to make the usa look bad - i think this is more likely than you think, examine the comments about rachel corrie.
we have got close
7. It is the fault of the MSM reporting all this stuff when other far worse acts are taking place - another definite
check and have we gotthis more than once? oh yes! *sigh*
8. Completely ignore the whole thing and rattle on about more pressing matters like imaginary new weapons that can be used by the 101 fighting chickenhawks to destroy other people’s neighbourhoods live from the safety of their own little suburb.
check
9. Make some long tendentious post that plays games with philosophy and morality and miss the central point. When you let the military loose civilians get killed and there has been more of this going on than we realise as there always is in a war zone - they are intrinsicly dangerous places.
check
10. Call me, and others, trolls and run away from the debate. Well that is definitely neo’s strategy
check
so come on guys you have still a bit of work to do here.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Blogger is taking forever to load. Could be part of the problem.
I believe the Haditha article from the Times, listing various vague and specific reasons to feel demoralized about American projects in Iraq, detailed that the Navy investigators were not allowed to unearth the bodies and perform forensic tests because this “goes against local practices”.
So unless the US sheds off the fear of the bully and orders the Navy to dig them up, bar nothing, Goesh will be waiting a long time for those ballistic forensics.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Fixed! Managed to post.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Blogger seems to be up to its old tricks again. I can’t get there to post at the moment. I think it’s Blogger rather than the reception here, because everything else seems to be working fine.
I’ll be busy for a while and try to post some time later today. Until then, blame Blogger!
June 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
The medias’ interest in this matter is purely one of power. 30 years ago they lost a war, b