Well, clearly you do not understand that we are not allowed to hurt their delicate feelings. Kill them you, insult them no :-)

You're right. I guess it's ok that they burn US & UK soldiers bodies they find on the battlefield too.

Please. What ever you're smoking, I want some.

I remember a certain group of Muslims burning the bodies of some Americans in a certain city in Iraq, and the response of certain leftists was "Screw'em." My response to these Taliban is the same.

It depends why they did it. I'm assuming the soldiers burnt the bodies because soldiers like to screw around with dead bodies. It's a sort of taboo breaking righ of passage I guess.

The intersting question is who came along and then tried to get the locals all worked up about it, or if the bodies were burnt specifically with that in mind.

I assume the mercenaries dismembered on a bridge in Falluja were ripped up publicly with the specific aim of pissing off the Americans. It worked. I'd be interested to know if this was the same tactic - and whether or not it works.

I've got nothing against each side in a war agreeing to do quant things like bury each others dead, but then I've got nothing against them not making such agreements, which is what we have here.

I suspect that more than a few US bodies have been, err, interfered with.

You're right. I guess it's ok that they burn US & UK soldiers bodies they find on the battlefield too.

This may be an alien concept to you but stay with me: the enemy do nasty things to our soldiers, like, you know, kill them and sometimes they burn their bodies because that pisses us off and might make us react in ways we might not have otherwise.

We also do nasty things to their guys, like, you know, kill them and sometimes our guys burn their bodies because that pisses them off and might make them react in ways they might not have otherwise.

And the reason this happens is because we are... enemies!

So far from it being "ok", we respond to them burning our soldiers by trying to kill them and they do the same.

Does that answer your question?

Please. What ever you're smoking, I want some.

Sounds to me like you have your own stock so the answer is no.

If the story is true, I don't think anyone should be blase about it.

Part of the rationale for the occupation of Iraq and the protection of Afghanistan is to defeat, or at least neuter, Moslem fundamentalism. This will NOT be done by burning bodies.

In order to defeat the jihadists, it is necessary to win their common people to our side - this is nothing new, it is standard practice when controlling a country as a colony or protectorate (except the Belgian Congo, of course). Apart from anything else, we should be aiming to demonstrate to them that we are not the evil Jewish-Christian neo-colonialist crusaders and uncultured barbarians some on the Islamist side (and some on ours, to be fair) would like to think.

It DOES NOT matter whether they burn our dead bodies. We should not be burning theirs. How can it possibly be expected that we can teach them the virtues of a tolerant and pluralistic society if we casually disregard the things they hold to be important, even if we don't think they are important?

Just to state the obvious, the Taliban bodies in question were dead prior to being burned, so who cares?

Moslems care. Your comment shows an almost total lack of understanding of the religious mentality in general. I know you are not religious, and that's fine, but what you may be overlooking is that they ARE religious. However daft you may think their notions are, you have to accept that they believe them to be true.

Even aside from the religious aspects, using burned bodies to taunt your enemy is the most crass stupidity. Just because they have done it to us, does that justify us doing to them? No, it doesn't. I imagine you would think that the jihadists burining western bodies is not calculated to win converts to the peace and love of Islam, so to speak. Does it not occur that if we do the same thing to them then they might think that we are after all the exploiters and arrogant crusaders Al Qaeda says we are?

Basically, if you don't like it done to you, don't do it to others. And even if they do it to you, you STILL shouldn't do it to them.

EG

These soldiers are trained professionals, desecrating the bodies of dead people (whether combatants or not) is an act of the cowardice and inhumanity. If you think i'm wrong then keep watching the news as you will hear it directly from the soldiers mouths themselves. When they are put on the stand in court and faced with a lengthy prison term you will see them cry and beg forgiveness. Watch this space.

The provincial governor who ordered the dynamiting of historic Buddha statues during the Taliban years is now an elected member of Afghanistan's jes' wunnerful democratically elected parliament.

Unusually, for me, I think Mr Gray is basically right on this one. I am scornful of the obsessive fear of giving offense that some display towards Muslims and the hysterical willingness to take offence that some Muslims display, but burning the dead bodies of your enemies is on the other side of a line from the display of Piglet mugs in the council offices.

I would like to know more about some aspects of the story. Was the hygiene justification reasonable? How sure were the soldiers that Taliban were in the village? Did it work - were any Taliban drawn out and killed?

However successful the move was as psychological warfare to draw out the Taliban then and there, it is unsuccessful psychological warfare here and now.

Two points.

ONE: Ever tried to dig a hole on a mountainside?

TWO: For those of you who have seen the photos, the bodies are obviously facing along the north/south axis,

How do I know that?

Because the shadows of the soldiers run east/west (and always will unless we've changed orbit) and the bodies are perpendicular, the media narrative about specifically facing the bodies west to disrespect Muslims is false.

The minute I read the first two paragraphs of leaden pedantry, I intuited the post was by Euan Gray and skipped it. Despite Natalie's insightful response, I'm still not motivated to read his arguments. But I do think that a country that burned the corpses of a million innocent cows has probably got the routine down. Terrible things happen in war, and I can think of worse things than cremation of a corpse.

Steve J writes: These soldiers are trained professionals, (one would certainly be leery of an untrained professional) desecrating the bodies of dead people (whether combatants or not) is an act of the cowardice (so cremation is "desecration"! Tell that to the Hindus and every Christian - and non-Christian - who has had a family member cremated) and inhumanity ... you will hear it directly from the soldiers mouths themselves ... Watch this space.

That would be the space between your ears?

In order to defeat the jihadists, it is necessary to win their common people to our side

In Afghanistan, It's a local tradition to spit on the bodies of dead Taliban - because the locals hate these turds with a passion you can't begin to imagine. It's also a local tradition to let Taliban bodies rot in the sun, which can be a health hazard.

While I'm sure most locals are upset that they didn't get a chance to spit on these Taliban, and they may regret missing the chance to watch their skulls slowly bleach in the sun, they may appreciate the lowered cholera risk that comes with burning.

But we could probably win them over to our side if we let them light the match.

Well, i believe it is "news" for the same reason:


this is news - heretofore if i was to assault someone with a hammer, they could not sue Craftsman for making an object with... er... mass. ::eyeroll:: Leave it to us barbaric Yanks to ensure one cannot do the same to gun makers.


and this is also news - it apparently never dawned on anyone that if we wanted to go to war for oil, we would've invaded here first. meh.


and naturally because we're evil imperialist cowboys, or something like that.


Surely it has nothing to do with the individuals in question being murdering fundamentalist bastards, who deserve no such thing... surely.


Kudos to the reporter who wrote "US Uses Dead Bodies As Propaganda" - if only it were that simple.


Samedi

It was first broadcast here in Oz, on SBS. When it was presented it was explicitly headlined as an "atrocity".

There really are some weird people in this world.

EG is right, as is scosco.

I may not care what happens to my body or my friends and relatives' bodies after death, but a vast majority of people do--as I discovered when trying to dispense with an equally unsentimental relative's funeral. This includes Americans and Britons of various religions and none, as well as Muslim tribes in rocky poor bits of the earth whose feelings it may give satisfaction to some to outrage.

Witness the visceral (pun intended) but wholly irrational reaction to the Alder Hay scandal. (Which was not, to pre-empt an argument, motivated by belief that organs are property.) Millions of Britons were distressed by this regardless of any relationship with the "victims", and most of those probably still don't know what a thymus is.

Witness, too, extraordinary efforts made in Israel at the scene of suicide bomb attacks to gather up and identify every scrap of human remains. It is done for religious reasons, not serving any evidential purpose.

You can probably change people's culture by slow seduction and steady pressure (though whether pressure is legitimate, I doubt); deliberate outrage entrenches it--and builds a popular narrative of hateful behaviour. The number of Indians executed by cannon--deliberately in order to deny them the possibility of religious rites--in the 1857-8 rebellion against British rule was very small, but as a legend it has survived 150 years of relative friendship, extreme communal violence and other distractions, as an exemplar of the cruelty of the Raj.

From Remembrance Sunday 1999:

"We remember and pray for all. For in remembrance, the common soldier and common civilian is one of us. No matter which side, no matter which country, no matter which religion, no matter our view of the rights and wrongs of the cause, no matter our view of the justice of the war.

We remember and pray. That we never forget; never forget that war is the worst thing of all we make."

So Perry, on this one I think you are wrong . So so wrong..

The SBS report suggested the deliberate burning of bodies could violate the Geneva Conventions governing the treatment of enemy remains in wartime. Under the Geneva Conventions, soldiers must ensure that the "dead are honorably interred, if possible according to the rites of the religion to which they belonged."

Since when have the Taliban ever been "honourable" in any way whatsoever that would merit them being treated under the auspices of the Geneva Convention? Bear in mind these are people who cut the heads off those who volunteer to help them (Margaret Hassan etc) in Iraq especially because they are aware that their own religion requires bodies to buried as complete as possible.

I regret that my thoughts are more with the unfortunate soldiers who had to carry out such work, than with the Taliban.

Euan and Natalie are right on this one - just because *they're* callous monsters is no reason why *we* should be. And also, although I know perfectly well that the Geneva Conventions are a bit passe around here, but the fact remains we are signatories to them and it's pretty clear that this sort of thing is outlawed - cremation for purposes of hygene is allowed in certain circumstances, as a means of tormenting your enemy it most certainly is not.

On the lighter side, did anybody else notice the story about a Guardian journalist taken hostage in Iraq a couple of days ago? Is it permissible to feel a certain schadenfreude about this?...

Since when have the Taliban ever been "honourable" in any way whatsoever that would merit them being treated under the auspices of the Geneva Convention?

They haven't. How does that excuse the west from any moral obligation to behave in a relatively civilised fashion?

EG

Euan, you're welcome to the moral victories.

I want the real ones. An ugly win is still a win.

An ugly win is still a win.

The problem is, though, that if you use tactics like this you WON'T win.

History, even recent history, is replete with examples of precisely this sort of thing. The examples of America in Vietnam and the USSR in Afghanistan are two you should be reasonably familiar with, where technologically and militarily vastly superior and wealthier forces were defeated by terrorist enemies precisely because they were unable to win the hearts and minds of the people. Contrast this with, for example, the British experience in Malaya, where hearts and minds campaign worked, and worked very well. To this day, the British army is the only force which has ever completely defeated a terrorist enemy, and more than once at that. Each time it has been done, it is by the same method - winning the hearts and minds of the people. Military technology and firepower superiority don't do this.

Much is made of the clash of civilisations. Look at the last word in that phrase - it is NOT a clash of military forces. It doesn't matter if you inflict a technical military defeat but the occupied civilisation is still violently opposed to your culture - you haven't won, and you haven't achieved the basic objective of the conflict which is, in this case, to persuade the people that a democratic and tolerant civilisation is a better way to go. All you are doing is reinforcing in their minds the idea that WE are the barbarians.

EG

Decadence. That is what I read in these comments from people who are too squeamish and too divorced from reality to understand that in war, you do what you must to win or you fail. It is a fantasy that I would have hoped Vietnam dispelled that you can succeed by "wining hearts and minds". In truth you win by instilling mortal fear and filling souls with dread with your pitiless use of force. You win by trickery and violence and by leaving your enemy exhausted and weeping. It has been this way since the first human went to war with clubs and rocks and it is just as true today.

If even some soldiers cannot understand this, then we have fallen further than I thought. War is not a game or a chivalric joust between honourable opponents.

Pathetic.

It is a fantasy that I would have hoped Vietnam dispelled that you can succeed by "wining hearts and minds"

This explains the British success using hearts and minds against the communists in Malaya, then? Or in Borneo. Or against the kikuyu in Kenya. Or in Oman. Just because America doesn't know how to do something does not mean it is impossible.

In truth you win by instilling mortal fear and filling souls with dread with your pitiless use of force

Ah, yes, the Belgian Congo principle of enlightened government. How charmingly mediaeval. At the risk of appearing rude, I don't think you have much idea what you're talking about.

You defeat an army by having more money, more men, better weapons, better strategic and tactical doctrine, more flexibility to cope with the unexpected, and good leaders. You win a conquered people to your side by showing them you aren't a bastard. People aren't armies and you don't use the same methods against them.

EG

Two reasons why I believe we shouldn't burn our enemies' bodies for sport:

1. As stated by others, we do nothing to further our cause by inflaming the passions of a people whose co-operation would serve us better than their hatred;

2. If we in the west are morally superior to our enemies - and I believe that, in a numbers of respects, we are - then that must be reflected in our behaviour. It's not enough to simply say we're more civilised, disciplined, democratic etc. We actually have to be so else it's empty words.

Some seem to believe you can behave like the enemy whilst claiming some sort of moral superiority. I don't think you can.

The purpose of burning bodies of Talibans in front of others taliban is surely to destabilize them : burning a body is forbidden in Islam (except burning as a fighter : suicide-bomber, pilot burning in his airplane, ...)

In islam tradition, when you're dead and your body has been mutilated (even after your death), you won't go to Heaven... (same for the burning)

That could be a good way to make speak a muslim prisoner. (A technique for example used in NCIS in the episode 2x06 when they put a muslim terrorist in front of Ducky's work :-p :-p)

The purpose of burning bodies of Talibans in front of others taliban is surely to destabilize them

Think harder. All it will do is reinforce their prejudice against us.

EG

Euan, do some research before you embarass yourself again...

First off-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency

[...]

On October 7, 1951, the MRLA ambushed and killed the British High Commissioner, Sir Henry Gurney. Gurney's successor, Lieutenant General Gerald Templer pushed for immediate measures to give ethnic Chinese residents the right to vote. He also pursued the Briggs's plan, installed Malay executives and sped up the formation of a Malayan army. His most important deal was a promise of independence once the insurrection was over. He also instituted financial rewards for detecting guerrillas by any civilians and expanded the intelligence network.

A great many communist insurgencies were sponsored by communist goverments as a way of weakening their capitalist/imperialist enemies. As the stated British 'plan' for dealing with the communist insurgency was basically to calm things down and grant Malaysia independence, which meant the communists could achieve their objective of 'liberating' a British colony merely by ceasing to fight.

...and you think this is something to be proud of.

feh.

Rosignol,

You really are in no position to accuse Euan of embarrassing himself. For example, did you not read the box at the top of the article you quote - you know, the "Result - defeat of communist guerillas" one? Or is it your contention that the guerillas, far from being wiped out, did in fact succeed in establishing a communist dictatorship in Malaysia? and if so, can you please explain how every history book of the region has somehow managed to overlook this rather astonishing fact?

But to answer your final question - if we compare the state of Malaysia today with forex the state of Vietnam, then yes, Britain does indeed have a great deal to be proud of.

As the stated British 'plan' for dealing with the communist insurgency was basically to calm things down and grant Malaysia independence, which meant the communists could achieve their objective of 'liberating' a British colony merely by ceasing to fight.

Not quite: the idea was to make sure Malaya didn't become an independent communist country. The communist insurgency was defeated, Malaya was granted independence, and unlike many other former colonies has never been a communist state. The British plan worked.

EG

I am a rare commenter here who very often agrees with EG, and one of the things I enjoy most is his leaden pedantry.

Euan, I don't know about Malaya, but the big difference between the US invasion of Vietnam, as well as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) and the US invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq, is that in the former most of the local population was on the side opposing the invaders. Mary may have got it right: the really relevant question here is what is the attitude of ordinary Afghans towards the Taliban, as well as what are their customs in treating enemy bodies. "In Rome,..." etc.

To all the squeamish, oh-so-sensitive ones ... you think we should thhink of the enemy as someone whose life we intend to take by violence, but who we should be nice to after death? Hello?

Gary Munro is way off the mark. We did not "burn their bodies for sport." We do these things because we can - pour encourager les autres. It is part of what we call "warfare".

rosignol writes: Euan, you're welcome to the moral victories. I want the real ones. An ugly win is still a win. Quite.

Euan Gray, in a mercifully short post, writes: Think harder. All it will do is reinforce their prejudice against us.

No, Mr. Gray. They have no "prejudice" against us. In Islamic eyes, we are not human, so there is nothing to be "prejudiced" against. There are no such things, for example, of "infidel" innocent victims. No matter how base or how lofty our behaviour, there is only one thing that counts: we have no interest in their diety. Dar-es-Salaam is the only thing that counts.

@Euan Gray

Which prejudice Talibans have against us? I will tell you : we are no muslims.

To burn or not to burn talibans, that does not matter. But it can help to arrest other ones.

Just to clarify my point: rather than "the local population was on the side opposing the invaders" I should have written "the local population has identified with the side that opposed the invasion". Which is to say, that it may be the case that most Iraqis or Afghans are not madly in love with the Americans, but they are probably even less in love with the Taliban, al-Qaida or the Baath.

Verity wrote:

To all the squeamish, oh-so-sensitive ones ... you think we should thhink of the enemy as someone whose life we intend to take by violence, but who we should be nice to after death? Hello?

On that basis, the primary concern should be what others (not all (or indeed any) of them Taliban members thsemelves) may think of our actions. Angering the local population would not help us achieve our military objectives, so why do it? "Because we can" is no answer, as there are plenty of things that we can do, which would also be monumentally stupid to do.

However, I'm not convinced that this situation is as clear-cut as it seems. "Ignorant American" stereotypes notwithstanding, I assume that the troops serving in Afghanistan have more training and experience in these matters than any of us do. Burning bodies for hygiene reasons sounds reasonable to me, and if that's what they're trained to do then we can hardly blame them for that. What's the alternative?

It seems, from that report, that the "psy-ops" unit only became involved after the original incident, and turned it from a routine engagement between coalition troops and Taliban fighters into a propaganda point. On reflection, they may have been misguided in this. Or maybe they weren't - only the Afghans can answer that question, and they're the last people that the Western media are likely to ask.

Rob Knight notes that there's no reason to be nice or nasty to a dead person, which was my point, of course.

Again, it does not matter how the Taleban judge our actions.

You seem to be another of these people who think being at war is about winning - to use that vapid hippie phrase - hearts and minds. Friendly persuasion. I do not understand how you have failed to grasp what this war is all about. The Islamics are running a jihad on the civilised world. Until they convert us to Islam - or, as they would put it, make us "revert" to Islam because, guess what! - everyone's born Muslim! - this religious violent aggression will continue, to matter how much mint tea Jack Straw drinks. They are not interested in being placated with niceties, although it is doubtless entertaining to watch British politicians abase themselves. They are driven to fight to the death to get souls for their deity. Dar-es-Salaam is what they see as the inevitable end of this struggle.

They are religious fanatics and there's nothing more swivel-eyed and implaccable than a religious fanatic. Someone in command of American troops made the decision to burn those bodies. Let us assume he knew what he was doing and vacate Jane's Fighting Armchairs.

there's nothing more swivel-eyed and implaccable than a religious fanatic

Oh, I don't know. Libertarian gun-nuts give them a good run for their money :)

EG

Verity writes, "It does not matter how the Taliban judge our actions." No, but it does matter how the people who might aid them or us judge our actions.

What a typical fatuous post from Euan Gray. If you believe every human being has a right to own a (licensed) gun to protect himself, you are a "gun nut".

Natalie, correct me if I am wrong, but the Islamofascists don't have, or need, non-Islamic allies - except the lefties in Britain and the US, and I don't think I would care to see a war run along the lines of what they approve.

BTW, I think you mean Dar al-Harb rather than Dar es Salaam.

Our last posts crossed. I referred primarily to people such as the population of the village referred to in the story.

They can either hide and shelter the Taliban or sell them to our forces.

RPW said:

Euan and Natalie are right on this one - just because *they're* callous monsters is no reason why *we* should be.

Oh Euan and Natalie aren't callous monsters, they're just misunderstood.

J/K. Please don't shoot me :)

RPW said:

On the lighter side, did anybody else notice the story about a Guardian journalist taken hostage in Iraq a couple of days ago? Is it permissible to feel a certain schadenfreude about this?...

I heard the insurgents gave him back when they realised they were on the same side.

From Verity:

"Gary Munro is way off the mark. We did not "burn their bodies for sport." We do these things because we can - pour encourager les autres. It is part of what we call "warfare"."

This isn't so. It may be what you call warfare - and you're entitled to your opinion - but there is room for morality even against a barbaric enemy. The point is - and I think, with respect, this may be lost on you - is that the quality of one's own behaviour is independent of that of the enemy. If you steal the wallet of a thief you're a thief too, in other words.

You seem to be another of these people who think being at war is about winning - to use that vapid hippie phrase - hearts and minds. Friendly persuasion. I do not understand how you have failed to grasp what this war is all about. The Islamics are running a jihad on the civilised world.

Yes, a sub-section of them are indeed. And we need to resist that. But 'hearts and minds' is nothing of the sort you describe. It's not about being 'soft' or 'nice'. It's a sound military strategy, oft used in war zones throughout the world. And, I might add, throughout the ages.

What would you prefer to come up against if you were fighting in these places: a mostly disinterested, relatively neutral civilian population or a hateful, vengeful one intent on paying you back for past abuses?

I would prefer British troops deal with the former...

Natalie Solent writes: "BTW, I think you mean Dar al-Harb rather than Dar es Salaam."

You don't say why you think that, but no, actually, I mean Dar-es-Salaam - which can also be written Dar al-Islam.

Dar al Harb means the exact opposite.

Gosh, so that's why the city in Tanzania has the name it does. I misread you without misunderstanding you - thought you meant "we have no interest in their diety. [that we are of the house of war] is the only thing that counts."

One learns something every day from blogs.

Verity,

I do not understand how you have failed to grasp what this war is all about.

Of course, EG, and others don't get the point, they have never been close to death in defence of their, or anyone else's freedom. I also doubt that they would ever consider voluntarily joining an armed force in defence of anything, including their own miserable 'principles'.

He sees himself more as a Chamberlain style diplomat, with delusions to match.

He would rather pontificate about how wonderfully principled he is, - as long as it was not his life on the line, it seems that he would rather weasel his way along, hoping that the victor would note his so-called tolerance and understanding, and that he would be subsequently rewarded, rather in the fashion of the Quislings and Vichy French, and he would probably meet a similar fate.

As I bear the man no malice, I hope he 'gets what it is all about' before he feels the blade on his neck.

It makes no difference how clever one is with words, we are all the enemy, and as such are fair game for the kidnapper and the bomber.

Play semantic games Mr. EG, but remember, it is at the expense of those who were prepared to sacrifice their principles to that of the common good, you can only afford your 'high-minded' rhetoric because they did 'get it'.

What a typical fatuous post from Euan Gray

You really don't have a sense of humour, do you?

What would you prefer to come up against if you were fighting in these places: a mostly disinterested, relatively neutral civilian population or a hateful, vengeful one intent on paying you back for past abuses?

This is exactly the point.

It is not the case that all Moslems wish to see the western become Islamic, restore the Caliphate, and so on. The idea that there is some monolithic Islamic world-view which actively seeks this is a comic book caricature.

It's probably fair to say that most Moslems would not be unhappy if the whole world converted to Islam, but equally it's fair to say most Christians would not be unhappy if the whole world converted to their faith. In each case, there is a minority that would violence and underhanded techniques to achieve this goal, whereas the majority don't seek to do so. It is also fair to say that the degree of violence and the hatred towards the infidel is much stronger on the Moslem side than on the Christian side.

It is absolutely correct that we must neutralise things such as the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but in doing so we must recognise that not all Moslems sympathise with these organisations. The aim of "hearts and minds," which is clearly misunderstood by most people commenting in this thread, is not to present a cuddly side of warfare, but rather to drive a wedge between the bulk of the population and the ideologues.

If the common people see that the things AQ say about the west are plainly untrue, then this is a start. It is achieved in the current cases (Afghanistan and Iraq) by simple things such as building schools, supplying clean water, clearing mines from fields, treating disease, and so on. This is the hearts part. The minds part comes next, when people start to to think a little bit & realise that if some of these obvious things AQ says about the west are manifestly false, then perhaps other things they say may be wrong too: the need to take up arms against the west, the need to support AQ financially and materially, and so on. In short enough order, the base of support AQ enjoys amongst the common people shrinks, and with it AQ's ability to operate unhindered. What often happens then is that organisations like AQ have to resort to force and extortion to get what they need from their own people - this is good, because it further speeds the decline of the organisation. Soon enough, AQ becomes a tiny group of discontented zealots with no popular support and it becomes actively dangerous for them to operate in the country.

Where this gets screwed up is in acts of callous stupidity, such as the humiliation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib or the burning of corpses as a taunt. It is still hearts and minds, but the effect is quite the opposite of the one you seek to achieve.

EG

they have never been close to death in defence of their, or anyone else's freedom

It is not necessary to have a private soldier's experience of military life to understand strategy or large scale political and social trends.

EG

I continue to find myself arguing on the same side in this controversy as Euan Gray (although his "gun nuts" remark does not make me warm to my task).

For the record, I don't think this is remotely as big an issue as Abu Ghraib - dead bodies can't hurt after all - but it still is a bad thing.

1) Insulting the bodies offends against decorum.

2) It was a bad tradeoff. For the sake of a quick advantage then we get a larger disadvantage now. That disadvantage will be felt in terms of risk to our side's soldiers. Some of the Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan are our allies, some our enemies and some are undecided. We want to nudge the third group our way, and this sort of thing doesn't help.

(That is not to say that we should act in the servile way the PC crowd recommend.)

3) Ernest Young, your argument has a similar structure to the "chickenhawk" argument used against supporters of military action who have not themselves fought in a war. It is a poor argument. It implies that only those who have had experience in a particular area have the right to an opinion in that area. Human lives are not generally long enough, and the events that fill them too much a matter of chance, to allow anyone the requisite set of experiences. We'd all be limited to about six opinions each.

Furthermore, you talk as if all those who have fought in wars applaud this sort of thing. I've known quite a few soldiers and that isn't so.

No Euan, as you have so often demonstrated, you know it all... you may think you understand strategy and 'social trends', none of which means a lot unless you also understand the meaning of sacrfice and duty.

No civilised man kills another - just for the sake of it - but if forced to, in his own defence, then it is reasonable to expect that he will.

Without the actual experience of warfare, or even military life, you can have little idea of just what provokes a man to kill, against his principles and all that he believes in, and you can have even less idea of the effect on those have to do so.

We all have a prime duty to defend our kith and kin, that is the ultimate principle that wars are fought on, and is surely a founding principle of civilisation itself. Personal fads and fancies are necessarily sacrificed for the greater cause, but I am sure that doesn't cross your mind as being particularly valid.

Your brand of appeasement diplomacy only leads many unecessary deaths, but as I said earlier, as long as it is not your demise - why worry about that detail?

If a country goes to war, it's sole purpose is to win that war, as quickly and as expediently as possible, otherwise, why bother? - to show the bad guys how principled we are? Win first - then teach them principles!

California (and, increasingly, other state's) high schools and universities are awash with students with the surnames of Nguyen, Pham, Tran, etc. They don't sashay round in their native garb, turning up their collective nose at the indigenous non - Buddhist barbarians who invaded their country and refusing to learn English, either; they are, generally speaking, committed to being integrated Americans. We seem to have won their hearts and minds, just fine.

http://www.jasoncoleman.com/BlogArchives/2005/10/ok_time_to_elaborate_.html

although his "gun nuts" remark does not make me warm to my task

Mea culpa, mea maxima bleedin' culpa. It was sarcasm. Libertarianism - all you need is cash and a humourectomy. That was sarcasm, too.

dead bodies can't hurt after all

No, but what other people see and how they rationalise it can.

I've known quite a few soldiers and that isn't so

Ditto.

none of which means a lot unless you also understand the meaning of sacrfice and duty

Rubbish.

Your brand of appeasement diplomacy

Indeed. I'm all for taking military action against organisations like AQ and the Taliban. What you manifestly fail to appreciate, however, is that not all military action involves killing people, nor do you seem to appreciate that not all Moslems belong to Al Qaeda or support the Taliban.

I bow to your apparent military experience, but not to your knowledge of strategic and geopolitical reality.

If a country goes to war, it's sole purpose is to win that war, as quickly and as expediently as possible

Incorrect. It also has to win the peace, otherwise the sacrifice of the war is for nothing. Furthermore, when it is fighting the war it should try to do so with as much honour and decency as is possible in the circumstances.

EG

Yes. Also, the full name of Brunei is Brunei Dar-es-Salam because the Sultan and the entire government are Muslims, as is the vast majority of the population and the law is Islamic law.

The militants/insurgents/guerillas/rebels want Dar-es-Salaam to be universal, as do those pulling the strings behind the curtain.

As I said - You know it all!!... and where did you say you gained all this knowledge and experience - did I hear you mention 'The King's Arms', or was it some other hostelry?

My above post was in response to Natalie's. I hadn't realised there were so many posts in between.

So Euan Gray believes he is the only person here who understands the geopolitical realities of this war and the only person who understands the Islamic mind. Oh, the sophistication of thought! The daintiness of sensibilities! And the brittle sarcasm! Laugh? I almost did.

The only problem is, Mr Gray, you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. You have misperceived everything you have commented on on this subject.

Contrast this with, for example, the British experience in Malaya, where hearts and minds campaign worked, and worked very well.

What a sanitised view of history you have.

We prevailed in Malaya because (1) we made it clear we were going to leave once the communists were defeated, thereby giving most ethnic Malays no reason to fight us in the first place (2) we moved large parts of the rural population to protected villages to isolate the insurgents and we did not say "please would you mind?" when we relocated them, we did it at gunpoint (I truly know of what I speak on this point in particular) (3) we won the battle of hearts and minds... in Britain (4) we remorselessly used an great range of deceptions and morale breaking tactics that make what those US squadies did look like a parlour game (5) we assassinated a hell of a lot of people, usually by paying "turned" insurgents to do it (6) we did not hesitate to arrest the entire families of suspected communists (7) we use massive firepower to kill the enemy and we were none to squeamish about using heavy bombers to obliterate entire communities if we had to.

Result? Malaya avoided the fate that later blighted Vietnam, which made it all waorth while. But the truth is we did it by being more clever and more savage than the other side. That is how we won in Malaya.

Natalie,

Furthermore, you talk as if all those who have fought in wars applaud this sort of thing

Now just what did I say to give you that impression. Nowhere did I even hint at such a thing. Indeed , I went out of my way to suggest that when wars are fought, and soldiers are killed and killing others, that it generally has a very sobering, (for want of a better word), effect on the participants. Perhaps I didn't put it simply enough! Even in victory the victors will be forever mentally scarred by their experience. That is something you cannot sit at home and visualise. That is the price of duty and sacrifice, something that EG dismisses as rubbish. What a moron that man is!

Without the actual experience of warfare, or even military life, you can have little idea of just what provokes a man to kill, against his principles and all that he believes in, and you can have even less idea of the effect on those have to do so.

'Hearts and minds' - what a load of U.N. politically correct crap! Time to use the velvet glove is post war, not during the war.

After the "koran flushed down the toilet" media reports, I find it vaguely disturbing that everybody seems to believe that the reports are true and are merely debating whether the atrocity was justified. This really is putting the cart ahead of the horse.

I personally claim no competence at judging such matters of military strategy. I have no military experience in the real world, merely an amateur's enthusiasm's. I do wonder about the Geneva Convention. The Taliban's protection against corpse desecration derives from those conventions. By consistently violating them, they gain military advantage, and likely have survived because of it. Their disdain for the GC have also likely increased coalition casualties.

These Taliban atrocities and war crimes are a separate question of whether or not they are the rightful government of Afghanistan. All of us, as members of high contracting party states of the GCs are obligated to induce the Taliban to stop doing these acts. One of the methods is to progressively and purposefully erode our own GC adherence with respect to them until the Taliban come into compliance. For those that reject that strategy. What is yours?

You must have one or you admit that you do not find it worthy of action for us to suffer excess dead and abandon our own responsibilities to the Geneva Conventions. I look forward to reading practical proposals.

Even assuming the reports are true, nearly all of the debate above is whether the burning was a good idea on utilitarian grounds - did it demoralize our enemy, or enrage him and gather him supporters?

I would suggest that people on the ground in Afghanistan might have a better sense of how something like this will play psychologically than any of us.

and where did you say you gained all this knowledge and experience - did I hear you mention 'The King's Arms', or was it some other hostelry?

Books. You may have heard of the concept.

So Euan Gray believes he is the only person here who understands the geopolitical realities of this war and the only person who understands the Islamic mind

No, just that I think some people commenting here are wrong and I give reasons why I say this. It's called debate. Others I agree with.

But the truth is we did it by being more clever and more savage than the other side

And your point is what, exactly? There is a time for being savage, and for being clever, and for being smart enough to know when not to be savage.

That is the price of duty and sacrifice, something that EG dismisses as rubbish

No, I don't dismiss it as rubbish. I dismiss as rubbish your contention that only if one has personally experienced something can one comment on it.

'Hearts and minds' - what a load of U.N. politically correct crap!

It's actually a sound and very well established military doctrine that predates the UN by a couple of thousand years. But then, you're the military guy so I guess you knew that, hmm? Possibly you learned it on your grand strategy course at staff college?

Time to use the velvet glove is post war, not during the war

The time to use the velvet glove is any time it gives you the advantage. Sometimes it is wiser not to exert violence, sometimes otherwise.

I find it vaguely disturbing that everybody seems to believe that the reports are true

Some of us used the word "if."

The Taliban's protection against corpse desecration derives from those conventions

Arguably, it derives from common human decency.

One of the methods is to progressively and purposefully erode our own GC adherence with respect to them until the Taliban come into compliance

A novel approach, I must admit. Your enemy is brutal and inhumane. You therefore intentionally become more and more brutal and inhumane yourself until he stops being brutal and inhumane. Hmm, can't see it working myself. People had thought this one through by the end of the Punic wars.

For those that reject that strategy. What is yours?

You want to show your enemy's people that you are NOT brutal and inhumane, because one of his propaganda ploys is to portray YOU as the aggressor. You neutralise the purely military threat, which does not take long, and then you embark on the dreaded hearts & minds approach, which is also a military doctrine but with less indiscriminate slaughter and more trying to convince the people you aren't a bastard. It works, as history shows many times.

You must have one or you admit that you do not find it worthy of action for us to suffer excess dead and abandon our own responsibilities to the Geneva Conventions

The strategy is not to lower yourself to your enemy's level, especially not when it is your enemy's level that is the problem in the first place.

I look forward to reading practical proposals

Read some history. It's full of practical examples of how to do this sort of thing.

EG

Ah, the pensées of Euan Voltaire!

I'm not going to argue with the whole yawn-o-rama, but I want to come back to this hearts and minds garbage. It is a hippie dippie 70s concept that people in tie-dyed t-shirts and flared jeans thought up while tripping on Jimmie Hendrix and illegal substances and seeing love, peace and bright colours all around. Hearts and minds. These are the people who thought up: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." and "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" I mean, like, FAR OUT, man!

Real world: an occupying force can barely conquer hearts and minds even if there is some commonality between the opposing factions. People cling to their beliefs with amazing stamina. For example, the English have never conquered the hearts and minds of the Scots. The Scots are simply blind to English charm. Even after 200 years, they just don't see it.

And you think we are going to dissuade Muslims, mental light years away, by showing them how good we are at keeping rules?

"History, even recent history, is replete with examples of precisely this sort of thing. The examples of America in Vietnam and the USSR in Afghanistan are two you should be reasonably familiar with, where technologically and militarily vastly superior and wealthier forces were defeated by terrorist enemies precisely because they were unable to win the hearts and minds"
Rubbish the Americans were not defeated,the Tet offensive had been a disaster for the vietcong,so much so that it never fought as a major unit again.General Giap was demoted for the debacle.Walter the Red,Cronkite declared the war lost and pressure from the same actors,communisty party,academic media et al prepared the US for a withdrawal.Watergate was the final nail in the coffin,
But a treaty was signed partitioning Vietnam,the South was to be supported by American airpower and supplies,the Democrats reneged on that and so Vietnam was left to go down under the onslaught of the fully mechanised North Vietnamese army,artillery and aircraft.the result was mass slaughter for which the Democrats and peaceniks have never taken responsibiliy.
But Hey Man it was done in the cause of peace,and the comminturn agencies backing the peace movement

Time Magazine is reporting that the bodies were burned after two days by soldiers occupying a hilltop AFTER informing local muslim officials to take the bodies for proper burial. The locals refused, due to the fact that the "insurgent" bodies were FOREIGN fighters. The bodies began to stink and swell up, so they were burned.
The burning was caught on camera.
No word as to the "taunting" portion of the story.
Perhaps the taunting was directed at other foreign fighters to let them know that the locals wanted nothing to do with them?

I must say, I am in awe of Euan's patience with some commenters here - especially you Verity. It boggles my mind how stupid (and humourless) you really seem to be.

Euan almost always argues his points immaculately and with the utmost patience and good manners. Truly, I am in awe of how he puts up with some of you.

I'm not going to argue with the whole yawn-o-rama, but I want to come back to this hearts and minds garbage. It is a hippie dippie 70s concept

If you had actually read something for once, you would have seen that it is not. It's a well established military doctrine, it has nothing to do with hippies or sticking flowers in gun barrels.

Rubbish the Americans were not defeated

I see. They just came second, I suppose?

America lost in Vietnam, and that's reality. Deal with it.

EG

Mike,

Seconded. But I think Euan's argument (in this case, anyway - I am unfamiliar with his other views) is based on consideration of the ifs, buts and wherefores whereas his opponents respond primarily with emotion. And, as is so common on the web, vitriolic bludgeoning of another's argument replaces considered appraisal and response.

It's as if a person who disapproves of some aspect of our behaviour towards the other side is therefore, obviously, a sympathiser of that other side and just can't get over his weak, liberal, ineffectual mushiness in order to see The Truth.

I maintain that western civilisation is, in many important respects, superior to all others. One of the reasons for this is that we have standards of decency that we aspire to apply regardless of the behaviour of our enemies. We manage this imperfectly of course because it's a difficult thing to do at times but that we seek to reach such a standard in the first place places us head and shoulders above so many others.

Unfortunately, some of us are happier taking the easy route: behave like savages while condemning savages for the same.

Actually, if anyone 'lost' lost in Vietnam, it was the U.N.

They lost their integrity and much else, however, I doubt that EG would see it in that light.

RPW wrote,

On the lighter side, did anybody else notice the story about a Guardian journalist taken hostage in Iraq a couple of days ago? Is it permissible to feel a certain schadenfreude about this?...

I think that even Taliban terrorists have standards. By releasing the journalist, presumably accompanied by a grovelling written apology to Ms Toynbee, they hope that that great bastion of the British alternative lavatory paper will continue to support their cause against the evil Great Satan.

Think of the professional etiquette between sharks and attorneys as a comparison ...

The Americans were not defeated militarily in in Vietnam,and if I want an expert opinion I won't be asking you Mr Grey.
There had been a ceasefire and Vietnam had been partitioned,it had never been America's intention to invade North Vietnam,but the North Vietnamese broke the truce,the Democrat dominated US Congress withdrew American air support and funding.The South Vietnamese fought on, in many cases very bravely,but were unable to counter the conventional military might of the North Vietnamese.It was an horrendous political betrayal which cost the lives of millions.

"where technologically and militarily vastly superior and wealthier forces were defeated by terrorist enemies "

So this is factually incorrect,the Americans defeated the Vietcong terrorist army.This was no victory for ragged trousered peasants.
When Saigon fell the bulk of the US forces had been withdrawn because of intense political pressure at home,not because of military defeat.

If you must be didactic Mr Grey,learn something about the subject of which you speak.
On this you are ignorant,deal with it!

I think some important distinctions are being missed here.

(1) Burning the bodies of your muslim enemies is not ipso facto wrong - not even when done deliberately to taunt them. The ONLY reason our soliders should be prohibited from doing so is as part of a strategic campaign to - as Euan puts it - win the "hearts and minds" of the local populace. The Taliban themselves deserve no respect and show none to us. (Indeed - deserve no respect BECAUSE they show none to us.)

(2) That means that the point in (1) implies that if the locals are OK with US soldiers burning Taliban bodies to taunt them, then, in fact, the soldiers SHOULD do so.

It is an empirical question whether burning Taliban bodies is an effective strategy. I don't consider it to be a moral one at all. Insofar as there are "rules" of war (e.g. the Geneva Convention), they only make sense if both sides more or less follow them. A couple of transgressions here or there on one side or the other is nothing serious - but we're fighting an enemy that doesn't even pay lip service to such rules. It is inhuman to soldiers on our side to ask them to restrain themselves from using tactics their enemy gladly and repeatedly uses against them just so that we can publish headlines about our moral superiority. (It is doubly so when, in fact, our media is unlikely to publish such headlines anyway. )

The most relevant comment on this thread so far has been Old Jack Tar's post in reponse to Euan's "history lesson" on British tactics in Malaysia. Note his point (4) about winning hearts and minds IN BRITAIN. THAT is what is at issue here. I think we have ample evidence that there is pretty much nothing we can do to appeal to the sensibilities of fundamentalist muslims (who are religiously committed to the idea that infidels deserve no consideration be they as moral as they like). They are not going to give us a fair shake - not even if we follow their customs to the letter. The locals might, but only if we are prepared to harbor accurate perceptions of our military at home. This is an isolated incident, clearly, but the media report above does nothing to highlight that fact.

Likewise - to take Euan's example of Malaysia - even if his impression of British tactics is right, it stretches credulity to believe that not a single redcoat did anything out of line through the whole operation. The relevant difference betweent the British experience in Malaysia and ours in Vietnam, I think, is that the British media at the time didn't go out of their way to damage Britain's credibility, whereas ours in Vietnam reported every transgression and setback with relish - even when they weren't transgressions and setbacks. Which isn't to say the US behaved itself on par with Britain (probably we didn't) - but we did a lot better than was generally acknowledged then and now.

Speaking of Euan...

The last couple of comments took up his defense. Fair enough, in this case: I do think a lot of the responses to him on this thread have been overly emotional and downright unfair.

That said, this view is entirely too rosy:

Euan almost always argues his points immaculately and with the utmost patience and good manners.

In fact, Euan is not above an ad hominem or two himself, and I don't think he argues his points "immaculately." In general, what he does is subtly change his position when it becomes apparent that his original one is indefensible without publicly acknowledging that he has done so. See this thread for a sterling example.

Burning the bodies would seem to be for reasons of hygene,to wit the,bodies were in close proximity to the soldiers.Bodies rot
As usual there has been the premptive moralising by those who know nothing about conditions on the ground.
BTW "Hearts and Minds" are only the carrot, there is also a big stick

Euan Gray tells me to "read something for once". I read plenty, Mr Gray. I read everyone's posts but yours.

It has been noted here many times that Euan Gray shifts his position quietly when he sees that his original position is untenable, and then pretends that his slyly arrived at new position was what he was arguing all along.

I too liked Old Jack Tar's brilliant rebuttal.

Peter's hearts and mind comment above is at least grounded in reality, although I still don't agree with it. Hearts and minds at home, as Old Jack Tar said. It is critical that we beat the enemy; it is irrelevant whether they are charmed by us or not. Especially an enemy that does not play by, or recognise in any manner, civilised rules of engagement. The Taleban has said, "Let's not play by your rules." Fine. Let's not.

Verity,
The real argument here is why the atrocity/morality issue has been pushed by the usual suspect,when a perfectly reasonable reason to burn the bodies which the troops were in close proximity to,even the not exactly pro-war Time Magazine statesStench prompted Us troops to burn corpses
Disposing of bodies on the battle field has always been an urgent problem,often bodies were simply thrown into mass graves or bulldozed into pits.
Forget the Padre and the last post,if armies don't want an epidemic amongst ablebodied personnel then removal of the dead is of utmost urgency

Peter, you are correct. Obviously disposing of corpses is an urgent consideration during warfare. The British have always buried their men where they fell. The Americans bring them home - although how they get them off the battlefield and preserve them is a question that had never occurred to me before.

Actually, if anyone 'lost' lost in Vietnam, it was the U.N.

I don't know how you can reach that conclusion.

Be that as it may, the fact is that America was fighting in Vietnam to prevent the country becoming communist. Given that America did not militarily defeat the Viet Cong - but did force North Vietnam to agree a truce - and given also that Vietnam was thereafter united under a single communist government, then by an reasonable definition of the term, America lost. It failed in its objectives, which is pretty much the definition of losing.

The Americans were not defeated militarily in in Vietnam

Nor were they militarily victorious, because they did not actually defeat the enemy. Militarily, this is failure.

the Democrat dominated US Congress withdrew American air support and funding

But that's just explaining WHY America ultimately failed in one of its objectives. It still failed, which is the point.

the Americans defeated the Vietcong terrorist army

They did not. The Viet Cong continued to function after the truce, and continued to pursue its objectives. In not much time, it achieved them. Some defeat.

bulk of the US forces had been withdrawn because of intense political pressure at home,not because of military defeat

The political pressure at home arose, did it not, because of the failure of the America to gain a military victory. This is merely a quibble about the definition of defeat, but I think you could reasonably say that America in Vietnam, like Russia in Afghanistan, failed to inflict a true military defeat on the enemy. Because of this, the strategic aims of the major powers in each case were not met. How this can be said to be anything other than defeat beats me.

The Taliban themselves deserve no respect and show none to us. (Indeed - deserve no respect BECAUSE they show none to us.)

Hmm, you STILL don't understand hearts and minds, do you? You're not trying to persuade the Taliban - it can be safely assumed that the majority of the Islamist ideologues are not going to suddenly see the light, as it were. I stated earlier that the point of hearts & minds is to drive a wedge between the people and the ideologues. The people you are trying to persuade are the common Afghans, who see what you do and compare this to what the Taliban say you are like. If your actions only confirm the Taliban propaganda, you've screwed up. If your actions contradict Taliban propaganda, the Afghans will start questioning other things the Taliban say.

The most relevant comment on this thread so far has been Old Jack Tar's post in reponse to Euan's "history lesson" on British tactics in Malaysia

If you want, I can easily go through his lesson and demonstrate the errors. However, I don't suppose it will make the slightest difference.

Note his point (4) about winning hearts and minds IN BRITAIN

I'm not aware that there WAS any issue about winning hearts and minds in Britain. Malaya was a colonial police action, like dozens of others Britain had fought before and since. It was on a larger scale, and it had interference from an outside power (the USSR in this case), but over the 12 year campaign only about 5 or 6 hundred British troops were killed and it was not, that I'm aware, any sort of major political issue at home. However, if there's any evidence it was, post it or links to it.

Old Jack Tar also mentions the use of heavy bombers and such like in Malaya. This is true, but it's not true in the same way it was in Vietnam. At the start of the emergency in 1948, Britain did indeed use conventional military tactics against the enemy, using strategic bombers and heavy artillery, etc. It was apparent fairly quickly that this didn't work, and within a couple of years the use of heavy conventional weapons like this pretty much ended. This is a key distinction between Malaya and Vietnam - it took Britain 2 or 3 years in Malaya to figure out that you cannot fight an unconventional enemy with conventional techniques, but America never learned this at all in Vietnam. Arguably, America is still not particularly capable at this type of warfare, but it's better than it was.

it stretches credulity to believe that not a single redcoat did anything out of line through the whole operation

Quite so, and it would be truly amazing for any army anywhere to conduct a major operation without abuse and stupidity taking place. The point is, though, to make strenuous efforts to ensure as far as possible that it doesn't happen and to punish it when it does. Not only that, but let the enemy and the enemy's people SEE that you punish it.

In fact, Euan is not above an ad hominem or two himself

No doubt sometimes one or two slip under the net of self control. However, I think it's pretty rare for me to do it. Doubtless you can cite some, though?

what he does is subtly change his position when it becomes apparent that his original one is indefensible without publicly acknowledging that he has done so. See this thread for a sterling example

Please show where in that thread I changed my position and explain how you think I did it.

I read plenty, Mr Gray. I read everyone's posts but yours.

May I suggest that if you don't read my posts you should not respond to them. You often, I think, argue against some position I don't hold, even when I have clearly stated quite the opposite.

I too liked Old Jack Tar's brilliant rebuttal

He hasn't actually rebutted anything. If you want it fisked, I am glad to oblige.

EG

Euan,

Books. You may have heard of the concept

Judging by the veracity and logic of most of your comments, you did mean comic books, did you not?

Judging by the veracity and logic of most of your comments, you did mean comic books, did you not?

Very droll.

Now, how about explaining how Vietnam was a victory for the US and a defeat for the UN?

EG

"They did not. The Viet Cong continued to function after the truce, and continued to pursue its objectives. In not much time, it achieved them. Some defeat."
The defeat during the TEt offensive destryed the capabilities of the Vietcong,as I hace said, General Giap was demoted for the debacle.
It was the North Vietnamese Regular Army which broke the truce and invaded South vietnam,an army with tanks ,artillery and infantry.
The left in america withdrew air cover which had been guaranteed to prevent such an invasion.With the massive arms supplies from the Soviet Union and China the withdrawal of American support by the democrats was one of the biggest betrayals in history.Millions of Vietnamese went to the camps or were liquidated,many more perished as they tried to escape.It is a stain the anti-war has not the decency to appologise for.
I realise it must be hard to de-pilgerise your mind ,but do try,read some military history.

I concede the point that the Viet Cong was seriously (but not terminally) damaged during Tet, and that the offensive was technically a failure for the North.

But does it really matter if you technically win the battles but in practice lose the war? Tet was unquestionably a tactical victory for America, but it was not a strategic victory and it is at least arguable that the political mishandling of the affair by America contributed in no small measure to eventual American failure in Vietnam - in this sense, the strategic outcome of Tet can be classed as an American defeat.

The ultimate outcome of Vietnam was that America failed to inflict a final defeat on a terrorist enemy, failed in its objective of preventing Vietnam becoming a unified communist state, failed to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese and, as we can see still today, failed to develop a working doctrine for handling and defeating terrorist enemies. Vietnam was in reality a defeat for America, partially military, partially political, but nevertheless a defeat.

EG

No it was an actual defeat for the Vietcong,Walter Cronkite for example, was either seriously mistaken or malicious when he announced the Americans were losing.
The media in the US and indeed the World talked up a defeat at home,much as they are doing now over Iraq.
The vast amounts of money the USSR invested in domestic discontent in the US over the Vietnam war is generally discounted,but many members of the anti-war left were members or associated with the American Communist Party
The upshot of this was America withdrew combat troops after a truce was declared and Vietnam partitioned.North Vietnam invaded, in violation of the Treaty, after the American withdrawal and after Congress withdrew the support which was promised.It was an utterly shameful act.

No it was an actual defeat for the Vietcong

You are aware of the distinction between tactical defeat and strategic defeat, aren't you?

EG

Please show where in that thread I changed my position and explain how you think I did it

Discussion was about two kinds of relative poverty - one involving one's place on the income distribution scale, the other involving cash purchase parity. You began by defending the first of these, then shifted your examples slightly to where you were using both, and finally when it was demonstrated that the first was untennable we were expected to believe that you had only been defending the second all along.

You are also doing it in this thread. Here's how:

But does it really matter if you technically win the battles but in pra