The alleged atrocity carried out by a fire-team of US Marines in Iraq is ghastly news and whilst I hope, like so many other allegations against Allied soldiers in the Middle East, it turns there is much less to this than meets the eye, the reports do seem to be indicating that this time there really was a monstrous massacre of innocents.
However the fact this horrendous incident has not been swept under the table shows that the US military does have structures that work as intended. Whilst it is appalling such a thing could have happened, it would be even worse if it had happened and the people responsible got away with it.
In that respect at least, one cannot but compare the accountability of the USMC with what happened when British police shot dead Jean Charles de Menezes, a innocent Brazilian man, and what we got was a stream of barefaced lies and complete fabrications and still no one has been brought to book (which should not just be the people responsible for the killing, but everyone involved with what has clearly been a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice).
It is when things go badly wrong that you discover how decadent an institution has become. The contrast between the US military and British Police is quite revealing.
While in my experience, actions by units, rather than individuals, that go apparently too far tend to be propaganda traps set by the opposition, this is not always the case, particularly when unit leadership preceding the events have gone awry and lost their way from their legal and constitutional limitations, we should not breath a sigh of relief when the greater organizations enforcement mechanisms work as they are supposed to. Leadership will shrug the acts of a few off as “training lapses”, and while the actors may get punished, the system that created actors willing to commit such acts remains to produce more offenders.
I am hardly breathing a sigh of relief over what happened in Iraq, just commenting how at least someone is getting called to account, in marked contrast to the aftermath of something that happened in the middle of London. The prosecutions do not mitigate the crime (if proven) in Iraq, but at least they show some degree of accountability.
Perry–
I agree only to this extent regarding the Haditha massacre–
It is little more than the proverbial kid caught with hand in the cookie jar–6 months ago, no less.
Other incidents such as have been reported and ignored. And “alleged” is a very thin veil.
“Caught in the act” does not reflect responsibility or accountability–had the Marines been able, they would have done nothing different than did the London authorities. War is the most extreme version of the state in action, and few, save for the victors, ever trace atrocities back to their authors–and then always to the vanquished–writ large or small.
And that is the state in action, as usual.
And quite a few have turned out to be bogus as well, either due to people with political axes to grind or financial incentives. As a result, I use the term ‘alleged’.
Moreover having seen a war up close (admittedly a very different war – Croatia and BiH 1991-1996), I am also well aware that innocent people get killed even with the best will in the world on the part of the people who end up killing them… but when peope who do not have the ‘best will in the world’ kill without even the harsh justifications that wars give, if they are made accountable, that is a good thing.
Does that mean I think all is well within the US and UK militaries today? No, not at all, but credit where credit is due.
Quite true, Perry. As a USAF veteran, I know however, that this is how things do happen in the US military as a matter of course. It is rare that incidents are covered up, and when such happens, it is almost always political, not military, in nature. They should not be praised for doing their jobs right. This is the first step to issuing medals for mediocrity.
American military personnel joke about foreign militaries that award medals for shoe tying and brushing ones teeth. We salute with palm inward, while other nations militaries salute palm outward, because we are so above reproach that we don’t have to prove we have nothing to hide. The excellence on the battlefield that the US military exhibits is the result of demanding excellence at every rank, and in every area of command and duty. As I said, they should not be praised for doing their job like they are expected to, as such actually leads to the corrosion of slippery slopes and such.
It is fair, however, to illustrate how effective US military self policing contrasts with nations that see fit to criticize us, and in this area, I agree with Perry.
I’m not trying to excuse anything, here, but I think it should be noted that when the enemy does not don a recognizable combat uniform, and even takes pride in using civilians as shields and/or camoflage, it’s scarcely surprising that bad things like this happen.
In fact, I’m surprised it hasn’t happened more often — and it’s a credit to the U.S. (and British) Armed Forces that it hasn’t.
Had the Marines flattened the entire town of Fallujah a couple of years ago, no one would have batted an eyelid, except for the usual “Dresden!” bedwetter types.
Now, on to the immediate matter in hand: remember the Marine charged with murder for killing a wounded man in the mosque? Don’t be surprised if this is a similar type of situation.
I’m withholding judgement until all the facts come out — but Perry, yours is an extremely valid point, and one I hadn’t thought of.
Kim, I’m a little surprised at you.
Anybody who claims that American forces, or British, or any other, or in fact any group acting together, is entirely composed of angels is either delusional or promoting some agenda — or both.
There are, within American forces, people who will commit atrocities and war crimes; I guarantee it. The question is not whether they exist, or whether the atrocities will occur — they do exist and will occur, and trying to deny that is denying reality. The question is what to do about it.
The correct thing to do about it is to discover them, investigate them to get the facts right, try them, and punish them. And here the example of Abu Ghraib is instructive.
At Abu Ghraib American soldiers committed atrocities. They were discovered and reported as having done so, by a member of their own unit. Their acts were promptly and thoroughly investigated; charges were filed in the appropriate venues; they were tried, convicted, and sent to jail. The acts themselves were villainous in the extreme. The treatment of them was and remains precisely what a small-l liberal democracy should do when malefactors are discovered among its members.
But it wasn’t treated like that. The result of the treatment it did receive is twofold: One, torturers the world over are relieved that chopping off genitals and heads, branding, and the like for a Government salary and eventual pension is morally identical to being tossed in the slammer for measures they would regard as too soft and indulgent; and, since the entire point has been lost in the noise, the likelihood of informers revealing the existence of such atrocities is reduced — not to nothing, as evidenced here, but the notion becomes less likely.
Informers are crucial, and in an environment where gangbanger toughs openly attend trials wearing “Don’t Snitch!” T-shirts they’re thinner on the ground than they should be. No, the people informing and prosecuting the Marines shouldn’t be singled out for commendation for doing what they’re supposed to do anyway. The way to commend them is to work the process out to the end and let the chips fall where they may. The likelihood of the sensationalist Press allowing that to happen is unfortunately as close to nil as quantum mechanics allows.
Regards,
Ric
Ric makes some excellent points.
However, I would hesitate to tag the criminal acts commited by US military personnel in Abu Ghraib “atrocities” – that noun seems more suitable when describing the crimes the previous owner committed within the prison’s walls.
I have no doubt that a few individuals have killed some innocent people here. The same individuals have probably conducted themselves honourably in the past, on peace keeping missions and in actual combat. nthe other side of the equation, Haditha is an insurgent hotbed – it is likely that these ‘innocents’ were shielding/aiding insurgents, with little regard for their own safety, not to mention the safety of their children and families. It’s called the ‘fog of war’ and we are in a war.
It’s important not to get sucked in by the predictable MSM reaction, and to start using words like ‘massacre’. Saddam’s bio-attack on entire villages are massacres. HIs murder of more than a million people merits the word ‘massacre’. What is happening in Darfur is a ‘massacre’. This incident is a tragedy and an act of stupidity and it looks like those responsible will be publicly punished. But we need to be objective.
Perry is spot on about the Menezes incident. Sir Ian Blair is a political appointee with no respect in the police force and should have gone a long time ago. The British have not been transparent here – hence the lack of accountability.
Pardon my somewhat jaundiced view but this reeks of ham-fisted insurgent propaganda and I’m afraid I just do not see 19 Marines going house to house slaughtering children aged 1 to 14 years old child, no matter how many times someone shouts “MyLai” in Washington.
The paragraph,
does slightly give this away, in my own opinion.
What Ric said, and also:
Remember that the most effective armies (which include the British and American ones) get that way by deliberately setting out systematically to strip away the inhibitions of their troops against violence and killing. In a less disciplined and sophisticated manner, most armies try. That’s what armies do because they are first and most about the application of violence.
Even in highly disciplined forces subject to control by the rule of law, this means many soldiers will start as individual brutes and be transformed into instinctively group-reliant aggressive brutes. Anyone who doubts this is invited to visit a garrison town on a Saturday night – though I would disrecommend it generally, particularly if you are a woman. Then contemplate how the consideration afforded to the inhabitants of friendly places might evolve in officially occupied territories where the population cannot understand what is being screamed at them.
NCIS isn’t releasing the report for another 30 days. Makes me wonder about the motives of sending up this bubble now, right before Memorial Day?
Marines and all military are united in their hope that it is not true, and their desire for prosecution and the strictest sentence if it is true.
The Naval Investigative service has a pretty lousy record. Remember when the ‘found’ that the Iowa turret explosion was caused by a ‘rejected gay lover suicide pact’ or something like that. It later came out that it was a flawed safety procedure, but the NCIS tried to stick with the ‘gay’ story as long as possible.
This incident is so heavily soaked iwth propaganda that I’m not sure how it will play out. I don’t trust the MSM.
We are facing an enemy whose main asymetric advantage is their willingness to use extreme cruelty as a matter of course. The MSM seems to accept and excuse this while jumping all over the forces that are fighting to defend the ‘west’.
I agree with James, enola gay and others here.
We have allowed the MSM to cheapen words like “genocide”, “atrocity”, “torture” and “massacre”. I was struck by the US guards at Abu Ghraib making the prisoners simulate sexual acts with each other. With truly depraved torturers there would’ve been no “simulation” of anything.
It is unfortunate that the US needed to use the already “notorious” Abu Ghraib because the left seized on the neat “liberators become the oppressors” schtick. Try telling them that bad as US actions at Abu Ghraib might’ve been they were orders of magnitude off from what Saddam did and they think you’re being an apologist. It just doesn’t fit with their worldview that the George Bush is Hitler Mk II.
When my fellow Brits trot(sky) out the tired old saw about Bush being a terrible president, I agree and point to his incredible defecit spending. That quite shakes them because these people who seem to know all there is to know about US foreign policy and it’s evils haven’t spent a second wondering about the US itself.
In a similar vein I’m always somewhat confused as to the MSMs reports on numbers of “civilian casualties”. As we’re not fighting against a recognised army, they’re all civilians at least technically. Sorting the sheep from the goats here is impossible and makes the lefty demand that the MoD fess up the number of “civilians” killed utterly laughable. This is especially the case considering the very high level of gun ownership in Iraq. Was that dead guy with the AK just protecting his family, or was he up to some devilment? How can the BBC possibly know?
I am not claiming that US Marines were not involved in atrocities as reported but what I do know from experience of dealing with the creme de la creme of Islamics at university is that believing anything they say about us and the rest of the infidel world is a mug’s game.
With the latest reports of Karzai sucking up to the Iranians being covered up I question why we should waste our military’s blood and our collective treasure on these barbarians.
We in the anglosphere and those who share our values should stop the charade about bringing democracy to these people. The old saw about trying to teach a pig to sing applies here in spades. It can’t be done and it annoys the pig.
The Islamist world has nothing to offer save chaos and mayhem so why do we bother with them?
It’s a cause not worth the bones of a single Pommeranian Grenadier
-Bismark
Trouble is Millie, we’re in a “damned if we do, damned if we don’t” situation. If we cut and run out of Iraq and the ‘stan the Islamicists will see this as a victory and it’ll only encourage them.
I think you’re right about the “democracy charade”. We have completely lost track of what this war is about.
The whole Islamic thing is terribly complicated. It makes me nostalgic for the Cold War when there were two monolithic enemies with which it was (sometimes) possible to negotiate.
The obvious solution is to do something which enables the folk in the Mid-East to get out of their contiual victim mentality. This could happen if they had economic and cultural growth. If stuff is good in this life then you’re not as likely to want to hasten getting to the next world. If muslims put half the effort into being constructive that they put into being destructive we’d have Islamic Tiger economies…
Unfortunately, I think this is impossible. The Mid-East is perverse. The vested interests of the mullahs is in keeping the population poor and ignorant so that their apocalytic Islamic millenarianism actually seems plausible.
The Koran actively states that it’s not just permissable, but required to lie to the infidel to spread the faith. Couple that with the vested interests of mullahs, the Saudi royals, the head honchos in Palestine et al and you have an entire region living with a parallel version of the truth. And not just living with it but basing their entire world-view on it.
The first casualty of Islam is truth. If we can persuade the “Arab street” that not everything which is wrong in their lives is the fault of a Crusader-Zionist alliance but to things in their own societies we will score a very valuable victory. Until we achieve that impossible dream, I won’t believe even a weather report from the Middle East.
Nick M
The best way to deal with islamic fascism is to destroy the source of it – the regime in Iran. I supported the Iraq venture as I saw it as a long term strategy to enfold Iran to the east, south, west and north : prior to the final kill. Perhaps it still is.
Destruction of the regime in Iran fundamentally changes everything in the mideast : Hizbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad (among other groups) lose their principal patron and sponsor; Syria is isolated and doomed; Hamas would be finished; Russia and China would re-consider their meddling and the orientation of all mid east nation states will turn to the US (they respect strength). Most importantly, if you’re a 15 year old on the streets of (say) Damascus, the sight of the regime toppling in Iran would probably make you think twice about becoming a jihadi – after all, this is the regime supposedly sent by Allah to defeat the infidel and protect the islamic cause.
The reluctance of the major states to attack Iran is simple – they fear the mullahs have a nuke already and would use it. Nevertheless, this (removal of the regime) is something they simply have no choice over, so sooner the better. Also, I suspect Bush’s recent allusion to Truman may mean the use of nuclear or atomic style weaponry, which I would support. History has already taught us the price of delay when dealing with fascists – diplomacy does not work, force can.
There will be war with Iran – we can choose the timing now in a position of unrivalled strength, but further delay makes our hand weaker. It is also the reason behind Bush’s falling polls – people are starting to question whether the C-i-C has the balls to take this final, most dangerous step. It really is that simple.
…the source of it – the regime in Iran.
You don’t think Saudi Arabia and its worldwide funding and staffing of Deobandi madrassas aren’t more relevant to the vast majority of the world’s Muslims? Doesn’t produce nice neat lines on a map, or obvious targets for ultraviolence, I know, but as a matter of social order and grand strategy I suggest they are a good deal more significant.
Re Abu Ghraib “atrocities,” I saw worse among the fraternities and sororities I was trying to help get past their hazing problems, when Greek system advisor was part of my previous job responsibilities. Ick. Never again. I’d rather run Abu Ghraib.
I have to agree with Guy… I believe it is the Ayn Rand Institute is also making similar noises about Iran being the root of all (Islamic) evil and they too are quite wrong, and obviously so I might add.
The Iranian theocracy may be vile but they are not the main driving force behind the present set of Islamic related woes. They may indeed be the gravest threat to the survival of Israel if they get deliverable nukes, but that is more a local problem for Israel rather than the US or UK or Western World in general because the appeal of Shiite Islam is quite limited within the broader Islamic world and it was not Shiites who flew aircraft into New York and Washington on 9/11. The likes of both Al Qaeda and the ruling class of Saudi Arabia generally regard the nasty folks who rule Iran as wicked heretics. To the British military in Basra, Iran is a major threat but again, that is a local issue rather than the one of militant global Islam which brought us 9/11 and the attacks in London, Bali, Madrid, Kenya etc. etc.
Clearly it is Wahhabism, and therefore Saudi Arabia, who a far better candidate for being the ‘root’ of Islamic wickedness insofar as it impinges on the interests of western people.
Nick M. you are a very reasonable, logical and I could add idealistic fellow. Frankly who cares what a lot of nasty thugs think. I don’t look on it as cutting and running when leaving a situation with no – absolutely no – room for improvement or positive solution – but rather common sense. Not only common sense but saving the lives of countless of our military.
My children call my world views Millie’s loony theories but when they jibe with Thomas Sowell’s they can’t be so terribly wrong.
The thing is that these violent and vile nations have nothing to offer. We hold all the winning cards. They hold none. By cutting them out of the civilized way of life and making them beg to partake of any of the fruits of our civilization, we will be doing ourselves a big favour. We should be generous to those who share our views but not to those who are intent on destroying us.
…insofar as it impinges on the interests of western people.
Or those of the aforementioned vast majority of the world’s Muslims, for that matter.
Well having lived over there for a number of years I have to respectfully disagree with some of the points raised.
Firstly, Saudi is not the source of islamic terrorism. Wahhabism is an extreme and virulent ideology in the islamic world, no doubt, and needs to be countered over the long haul. However, islamic terror is not intertwined with wahabbi thinking and would continue even if the House of Saud and their pals were brought down.
Secondly, there is a direct link between islamic terror and the 1979 revolution in Iran. The islamic revolution started in Iran and has been the source of Al-Qaedas and the Taliban’s attempts to set up theocratic nation states. Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad – name the group – all draw inspiration, not to mention money and weapons, from the mullahs. As far as all terrorists are concerned, all roads lead directly to Tehran – and not Saudi, where they are being killed en masse.
Iran poses the gravest threat, not Saudi. The destruction of the regime in Iran, as well as their nuclear weapons program, by any means necessary will deal a fatal blow to islamic fascism and its soldiers worldwide. I do agree however that extremist clerics all over the planet who preach death, should be shot.
This war started in 1979 in Tehran and will end there.
Sure and if you truly think that the US has indeed been militarily defeated, then retreat is a sensible strategy. Quite why you think no military solution is possible is not clear to me however given that allied forces are killing the other side in far greater numbers than they are being killed themselves. If the will is there, this is an attrition battle that the USA cannot possibly lose… but that is a big ‘if’ of course.
If however you really do think that there is a never ended supply of people willing to fight for the otherside regardless of losses and in sufficient number at any one time to be a significent (para)military force, and you therefore deduce that no matter how many of them are killed by the allies, they will just keep coming like Jason from Friday 13th, then yes, admitting defeat and withdrawing makes perfect sence regardless of the fact it will vastly embolden the enemies of the US in this and many other spheres.
Millie
Letting these backwaters rot was what we were doing when we got bitten on the ass on 9/11. However, until we get to a position where they cannot hit us, then we have to be on the offensive. The development of the anti-missile shield and defensive systems in space, not to mention heavy use of technology on our borders, is a step in the right direction. However as Perry has stated these people will keep trying to attack us no matter what we do.
One of the side benefits of the Iraq conflict is that it has turned extremist islam back on the islamic world, rather than against the west. They are killing each other and not us. It woke the west up. Without Iraq and Afghanistan, we would have had more attacks on the American mainland. These have been prevented – a good thing.
As for Iraq, I am a bit confused about your suggestion that nothing has been or can be achieved. This is false. Far form cutting and running, the Americans plan to stay for a long, long time. The Americans are building at least 2 massive intelligence/military bases in Iraq and will be there for at least the next 2 decades. Jihadis are getting wiped out, losing big time. Hussein has gone and the Iraqis are starting the long haul to stability of some kind. All positive.
One of OBL’s worst decisions was 9/11, as neither he nor his major backers had the resources required to retailiate against the western powers when they responded. He should have waited until he knew Iran had a nuke or when he had one, then acted.
Perry, sure in any war of attrition, the USA wins but wins what.
Iraq, Afghanistan, fill in the blank with any other Islamic country are never going to change and become even moderately less savage. The Ottoman Turks couldn’t do it, nor could the British and French after World War I. Look at Sudan today – a prime example of plus ca chane. We could be back in Mahdi land.
Again Thomas Sowell describes what the development of a civil society requires and those basics simply do not exist in Islamic societies.
When I’m cooking a meal and there is a major disaster, I throw the whole thing out. No amount of tinkering will salvage certain phenomena and that describes Islamic societies and our relations with them. We don’t need them. They need us. We have the upper hand and it’s about time we started acting as though we do.
Millie
Not sure I agree with your bleak view. I agree islam has lost the fight to reform itself. However I dont agree that islamic people are ipso facto unreformable. The fact is that people enjoy the wealth, security and freedom democracy provides. The more they are occupied and productive, which usually brings a degree of material security, the less incentive there is to turn to violence of any kind. This maxim applies just as much to Iqbal in Tehran and Damascus as it does to Johnnie or Jacqueline in London and Paris.
You mention the Ottoman Turks, French and Brits. Millie, lets be honest – none were trying to get the people to rule themselves ; all were consolidating empire, which was ruled from Istanbul, London and Paris. Also we have to hold our hands up and admit that we allowed this virus to breed. We were asleep at the wheel during the 80s and 90s. As a result of our inaction, naive goodwill and foolishness, islamic fascism has been permitted to become far more dangerous than it should have been.
There must ba a stick – and in my view an extremely violent one – carried by the west. The choice must be made stark : join our way of life, come out fo the darkness, or die. The motor of the world will not be stopped for you people and we will not permit to to be stopped by you people. However the carrots have to be there, too. The vast majority of muslims are not bad people and want a quiet life. It is a good thing that young Iraqis are now getting Fulbright scholarships. Its a great thing that oppressed Iranians are using the web to speak out.
The problem are the regimes. Mullahs and despotic families are the corks in the bottle. They must be taken out, no matter what the handwringers and media say. This will create instability, witness Iraq, but in the long term will yield positive outcomes.
The islamic revolution started in Iran and has been the source of Al-Qaedas and the Taliban’s attempts to set up theocratic nation states. Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad – name the group – all draw inspiration, not to mention money and weapons, from the mullahs
The Taliban were a Sunni organisation. Iran is run by Shi’ites and has an overwhelming Shi’a majority. The Taliban’s rule over Afghanistan was never recognised as legitimate by Iran.
Al-Qaeda is based in the Wahabist movement, which is a Sunni movement. Iran is Shi’a. Al-Qaeda hates Iran as much, possibly more, than the West.
There’s no question that Iran funded Hezbullah, and that Hezbullah is a terrorist group. But Hezbullah isn’t a threat to the US or the UK. Moreover, the US supported its own terrorist groups in Lebanon.
In short, you’re completely wrong.
– Josh
Running away from Iraq is hardly going to show the world that we have the upper hand! People often say that the Americans will cut and run if you just kill enough of ’em and I guess you’re who they’re talking about when they say that kind of thing.
My bro is there now with SOFIA (back in 3 weeks) and I’ll probably be in Afghanistan next year. I say we stay until Iraq & Afghanistan can stand on their own in a form we can tolerate.
Josh
If I am completely wrong, as you so arrogantly put it, then why is my view the one shared by the entire western defence establishment : and Israel?
You forget that either Shia or Sunni, we are dealing with islamic fascism. The two strands will happily unite to overthrow an infidel enemy. Neither is more, or less dangerous to us than the other. Iran supports Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al-Qaeda. Iran was behind the bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon in the early 1980s. It was the country that took US hostages in the late 1970s. It is killing Brits and Americans in Iraq right now.
I would invite you to have a good look at a map of the region and in particular, Afghanistan, which shares a border with Iran. As for your contention that Al-Qaeda despises Iran, perhaps you can enlighten me why Iran was a major supporter of the Taliban and permitted money and armaments, not to mention safe passage of Taliban and al-Q leaders across its borders.
Western leaders are not losing sleep over Saudi Sunni wahhabis, but over the prospect of terrorist enabling states – principally Iran – acquiring nuclear weapons.
Josh,
While technically correct, you are ignoring the shia-sunni dynamic between Iran and Saudi that resulted in al Qaeda as a Sunni reaction to Shia propaganda calling the bluff of spendthrift oil shieks professing wahhabism at mosque but worshipping petrodollars outside of mosque.
The Sauds came to power on the penninsula claiming Wahhabism was a return to the true strain of fundamental Islam, yet through hiring western technical expertise have become “corrupted”. Iran’s post-revolution walking their walk as well as talking their talk, exposed the hypocrisy of the Sauds to the muslim world, and many Saudi supporters as a result have redoubled their wahhabism. Bin Laden was one of these.
Major disaster?
Not to minimise the ongoing loses but to call this a ‘major disaster’ is just wrong. The loss of Malaya/Singapore in 1942? That is what a major disaster looks like. With a little historical perspective it should be obvious that there is nothing ‘major’ about the entire Iraq campaign.
Re. the comparision between Iraq and the Malaya campaign:
I think Iran is completely seperate from the Global Jihad&trade. The conditions for the global jihad have been brought about with Saudi, Gulf-states and Pakistani money. Iran is almost reassuring in that it is playing an old fashioned nation-state big dick contest with the West. They wannabe a regional superpower and they see nukes as the way to go. It has been pointed out that Shia Islam is in the minority. I could add that the Wahabbis and other Salafist strains of thought probably consider the Iranians more evil than they even consider the US. There is possible fuel for creating an intrigue here and letting the buggers fight it out amongst themselves, as was done with Iraq/Iran in the 80s.
The problem with Iran, for the West, is this. We can’t win this one. We can’t allow them to have nukes and the alternatives aren’t too palatable either. The Russians and Chinese are going to be the big winners because when the USA and/or Israel lowers the boom on the mullahs over this, they’ll be able to say they were always against it yet breathe a sigh of relief that Iran’s nuclear guns have been spiked.
David and Perry, apples are not oranges.
The British in Malaysia during ww2 was an entirely different story from Iraq today.
The Americans lost fifty thousand in Vietnam. Was it worth it? No. Vietnam is still the same basket case it always was. They were colonised by Europeans- albeit briefly – by the French which more or less proves they are charter members of the basket cases are us nations. Prior to the French, assorted Asian neighbours had a go.
The Americans should have carpet bombed and Dresdenized in Vietnam if they wanted to win that war but they didn’t have the stomach for it and let assorted Jane Fondas take over the propaganda wars.
Unless draconian measures are taken against the so-called insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan the war will drag on giving the present day Hanoi Janes a platform for their dreadful activities.
And why are we there and what can we look forward to when a supposedly good guy like Karzai is cosying up to the Iranians.
By the way the cooking analogy was not meant as a comparison but as an example of how to deal with a situation that cannot be remedied – sort of like not locking the stable door and other similar nostrums.
God bless you Sir for what you are doing and bring both you and your brother back home safely.
Perry,
I disagree. The 2000+ coalition casualties are a heavy price to pay. Yes, they can be considered “light” in comparison to previous wars but in those wars there was more at stake (such things as the “Survival of Christian Civilisation” – Churchill). Also, while we think of ourselves as becoming “casualty adverse”, is this, in itself a bad thing or even a sign of weakness? Just because we lost more troops at the battle of x, y or z doesn’t make the current losses any more acceptable. The argument is analogous to me selling someone a grotty old 386 and saying, “Well it’s 1000 times faster than your ZX-81”.
Perhaps, more to the point, what have we gained for this cost? When the allies liberated Western Europe following D-Day, Western Europe stayed liberated. Does anyone believe that Iraq or Afghanistan will stabilise in anything like a way which is in accord with our general geopolitical aims? The US with its rigourously secular constitution has allowed both countries to develop post-liberation constitutions which directly invoke Islam. OK, maybe that’s the will of the majority but it is still wrong and stupid. It is especially stupid in the case of Iraq where the incorporating Islam into the constitution begs the question: Sunni or Shia?
I think Millie’s last comment is fundamentally correct because unless a state makes religous observance a matter of personal conscience rather than political constitution it doesn’t have a hope – it will remain in the position that Europe was during the reformation/counter-reformation.
I like the cooking anaolgy especially because if Millie is anything like me her culinary disasters always start with the very best of intentions…
Indeed, but that is what a major disaster looks like. If US forces get “Dien Bien Phu’ed” somewhere in Iraq, then feel free to call that a ‘major disaster’. A series of small scale ambushed do not a major disaster make.
No, it was not worth it because the USA lost the war. But the objective was not to make Vietnam into a reflection of the USA, it was to prevent it falling to the communists, which is why the USA can be safely described as having been defeated in the Vietnam war, even though it was only stalemated on the battlefield.
And that was the problem. Unless the US was willing to invade North Vietnam, it simply could not win the war. As it did not have the stomach for that, it was a mistake to get involved at all.
Sure, but ‘draconian measures’ are what EVERY sane war should involve from day one. Unless you are willing to do what is required for victory, it strikes me as a grotesque waste of lives to get into a war in the first place.
That is why the Powell Doctrine (use overwhelming force or nothing) made so much more sence than the neo-McNamara-esque ideas of Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld talked about ‘shock and awe’ but in reality did nothing of the sort… Powell actually believed in doing it the old fashioned way (speed and concentration) as witnessed by the military conduct and force levels of Gulf War Episode One.
And “amen” to Julian’s remarks to David Kennedy.
Quite simply yes. If it takes an order of magnitude less casualties than before amongst our volunteer militaries to break a nation’s morale (willingness to fight) then it is, quite objectively, a sign of weakness.
Sure, but ‘draconian measures’ are what EVERY sane war should involve from day one.
I agree with that in spades, Perry. But, we didn’t do that and it’s too late to remedy that situation. I ask you what can we hope to achieve in Iraq now given that we fumbled the initiative in the first place?
As far as “casualty averse” – I think you misunderstand me. I think the US Army could take many, many more dead and maimed and still be up for the fight. I’m not talking about an aversion to casualties as breaking morale. All I’m saying is that it is a good thing that we value the lives of our soldiers much more than we did. In the context of this war in particular (with its large numbers of suicide attackers) it is also clearly something which gives us a moral superiority over the opposition.
The core of this debate is not whether it is possible, in principle, for there to be stable and reasonably modern nation-states in the Middle East.
The question is, rather, of the preparedness of the current generation of Middle Easterners, and of the prospective ability of the generations which shall immediately follow them, to institute the proper intellectual, legal, and behavioral reforms necessary to bring about a real possibility of stable prosperity.
The policy question for the West is the degree to which the tremendous opportunity for improvement overlays the realm of the possible. More specifically, the requisite assessment is the extent to which significant strides can be realistically expected in the next five or six decades.
Following this determination, the final question remains:
Is the cost in lives and dollars commensurate with whatever assistance may be rendered?
The political debate here in the United States has taken place only at the level of principle- and in that regard, I hold, the Republicans hold the obvious high ground. It is well that the US is prepared to do carry out this sort of conflict- but has it chosen the right moment?
It shall not happen until the people demand it. Are they prepared?
I think that no one upon this green earth has any (adjective)ing idea.