The incident in Haditha is beginning to weigh more heavily on the American anti-terror campaign in Iraq. We're beginning to find out more details of the incident, the content of which drastically contradicts the official military story. Investigating what was described as a roadside-bomb incident by the Marines, the truth as discovered by the team collecting the civilian bodies was far more horrific:
The unit that arrived in the farming town of Haditha found babies, women and children shot in the head and chest. An old man in a wheelchair had been shot nine times. A group of girls, ages 1 to 14, lay dead. Everyone had been killed by gunfire, according to death certificates issued later.In Iraq, this incident (and other simliar ones) is playing into the complicated politics of the young government:
Maliki has announced an independent Iraqi investigation into the Haditha incident and called on the United States to release the findings of its own investigation. Yet his responses to questions about Haditha on Friday appeared to be more restrained than they were the day before, when he criticized what he called "the practice" of abusing civilians.Some urge that we not pre-judge the soldiers, as they are entitled to a fair military trial--and I applaud these efforts. Others go further, and begin to undermine the morality of the "war on terror." Conservative bloggers and commenters here on Blogcritics are arguing that the mere suggestion that killing of civilians is unacceptable--despite that "terrorism," that which we are allegedly fighting, is in its essence attacks on non-military personnel--because in fighting a war, the deaths of civilians is part of the exit criterion of destroying the enemy's will to fight. This is not specific to the incidents alleged in Haditha, but rather is an implied ethical approval of any such incident:
In order to win a war, you must destroy the enemy’s will to fight. This is accepted fact. The terrorists know this, and they are well on their way to destroying our will. Even while they attack our cities and kill our innocents, we scream that “American troops must take the high road! We must not torture! We must not strike the enemy preemptively! We must only react to them if fired upon!”...And then you wonder why we’re still in Iraq.
The question of why we're in Iraq in the first place is supremely important here, and the facts point to a premeditated effort by the Bush administration to engage Iraq before they even took office. A quick review:
- Involvement in the Bush administration of members of the Project for the New American Century; and that project's stated goals of removing Saddam Hussein from power;
- Donald Rumsfeld's immediate request on 9/11 (five hours after the attacks) for "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. at same time. Not only UBL"
- Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force, in Spring 2001, produced documents containing maps of Iraqi oil fields.
Continued on the next page
Page 1 — Page 2
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Michael J. West
If we are guilty of killing civilians ourselves, in effect terrorizing civilians, then how can we possibly call this a "War on Terror"?
It's unpopular to say so, but it might even be different if we were in a declared war. But since we're not, some migth argue fairly that we are merely sending our military over to Iraq and allowing them to terrorize civilians. Especially if the "support the troops, even if they commit heinous crimes" crowd gets their way.
2 - JP
That's my point, I think in a conventional war it would be a little different. Not entirely, but it would be easier to justify.
3 - Dave Nalle
I have to point out that JP's contention that 'conservatives' are defending the murder of civilians here on BC or elsewhere is innacurate and a politicization of what is not an inherently partisan position. The division here is not between conservative and liberal, but between those who believe that the troops are always right and always justified no matter what they do and those who believe in the rule of law, which is basically a conservative position.
Dave
4 - Michael J. West
That's true, Dave and JP. There are plenty of conservatives who want investigations and to hold the soliders of Haditha accountable and bring them to justice.
5 - Q Bit
...those who believe in the rule of law, which is basically a conservative position.
As far as I know, the Bush administration is not quite willing to work within the laws, and am just being polite.
6 - Clavos
..."As far as I know, the Bush administration is not quite willing to work within the laws, and am just being polite."
The Bush administration is not conservative.
And BTW, Q Bit, how do you do that italic thing when quoting? Also; "What's a Q Bit?" (with apologies to Cosby--couldn't resist).
7 - Q Bit
Clavos:
For italics use the tags < i > Text < /i > without the space around i.
Bit as in bit of information -- element of information. Q stands for quantum.
8 - Clavos
Thank you,sir/ma'am!
9 - Clavos
Q Bit, Whoops! Should have looked at your blog before writing that last; sorry Sir.
10 - Q Bit
Clavos: Apology accepted ! You made me wondering too, but I knew you would realize it yourself from my blog before I claim my correct gender status.
11 - Dave Nalle
MJW: That's true, Dave and JP. There are plenty of conservatives who want investigations and to hold the soliders of Haditha accountable and bring them to justice.
Which only makes sense, because you cannot carry on something like our efforts in Iraq unless you're scrupulous about maintaining the legitimacy and impartiality of our forces there.
QB: As far as I know, the Bush administration is not quite willing to work within the laws, and am just being polite.
Indeed. It's become quite clear exactly how little you know. You basically spout pre-programmed pap from the left-wing talking points and accompany it with a bundle of emotional rhetoric and not a spot of reason or logic.
Dave
12 - Q Bit
Dave:
Indeed. It's become quite clear exactly how little you know. You basically spout pre-programmed pap from the left-wing talking points and accompany it with a bundle of emotional rhetoric and not a spot of reason or logic.
You show the same dismissive attitude like your right-wing friends, of course with the tone of I-know-it-all.
You can throw it at me but it doesn't make you right, nor does it change the facts.
Like it or not, (obviously you don't) the current administration is particularly competent in flouting laws and constitutional rights.
13 - Dave Nalle
You clearly subscribe to the philosophy that if you say something enough people will begin to think it's true. The administration is certainly pragmatic and does things for expediency which make some people nervous, but your 'flouting laws and constitutional rights' charge just doesn't hold up. It's something which gets said a lot, but which doesn't stand close examination at all.
Dave
14 - Ray Ellis
Indeed, saying something often enough to make people believe it's true is a tactic that doesn't work. That may explain why Bush's popularity continues it downward spiral.
15 - Dave Nalle
Actually, Ray, I think the tactic DOES work. And that explains some of Bush's decline in the polls.
Dave
16 - Ray Ellis
Well played, Dave. But I was referring to Bush's insitence that we're winning that nebulous war on terror. It's a click your heels three times and wish it were so mentality that has no basis in reality.
17 - Dave Nalle
I'll almost give you that one. We're fighting the war on terror, which is more than was ever done before, but there's no way to tell who's winning it at this point. There have certainly been some victories along the way. Seems like a mistake to claim victory prematurely, but a politician's got to spin his work positive when it's ambiguous. It's the nature of the beast.
dave
18 - Michael J. West
Maybe this will just categorize me as "one of THOSE people," but I don't think we can win a war against a concept, just as we can't really win the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs. We cannot obliterate the concept of terrorism, nor can we really obliterate the threat of terrorism against the United States. Something less nebulous, like a war on Al Qaeda, is winnable.
And as J.P. points out--if the allegations at Haditha turn out to be true--we certainly cannot obliterate terror by becoming the terrorizers.
19 - Clavos
Michael, you certainly paint a grim, defeatist picture of the future when you say that we cannot win a war against terrorism.
If we accept your premise, it seems to me our alternatives are either to resign ourselves to a never-ending stream of young Americans going off somewhere to be killed for a lost cause, or withdraw our troops and brace ourselves to be attacked as we were on 9/11, until eventually, if we don't fight back, we are subjugated by the forces aligned against us; forces which have sworn publicly and repeatedly to defeat us.
Neither scenario is tolerable, in my opinion. We MUST fight back.
20 - JP
Michael, I have to vote with you on that one somewhat, war on a concept is a tough one to pull off. I'd be more at home with "Al Qaeda" or any.
The problem in this specific case (terrorism) is that--and please jump in with corrections if appropriate here, folks, this is my conjecture--it seems to me the Middle East perceives America as "provoking" by its involving itself to such a large degree in Mideast politics. As an example, Palestineans do not recognize the creation of Israel, and resent our involvement in and support of that state's creation and continued existence.
So it seems to me there's a view--valid or not--among many Islamists, not necessarily all, in which we're the instigators and they are fighting back. In America, we turn a blind eye to that viewpoint--particularly when our leaders tell us "9/11 changed everything."
If and only if we don't acknowledge the other side's viewpoint in some way, we're going to end up with the 2 options you listed: "resign ourselves to a never-ending stream of young Americans going off somewhere to be killed for a lost cause, or withdraw our troops and brace ourselves to be attacked as we were on 9/11..."
Regardless, by perpetrating acts that could be classified objectively as terroristic, we are not going to win the battle of ideas or the war on terror. (any instance, not just this specific allegation)
21 - Clavos
So it seems to me there's a view--valid or not--among many Islamists, not necessarily all, in which we're the instigators and they are fighting back.
Agreed.
In America, we turn a blind eye to that viewpoint--particularly when our leaders tell us "9/11 changed everything."
I disagree, we don't so much turn a blind eye to it as focus on responding to their agression toward us, whatever their perceived reasons.
Regardless, by perpetrating acts that could be classified objectively as terroristic, we are not going to win the battle of ideas or the war on terror. (any instance, not just this specific allegation)
Absolutely agree.
22 - Q Bit
@Dave:
Ok.. certainly we disagree here and I realize it's a matter of having different perspectives. By the way, I liked your judicious (or should I say clever?) use of "expediency" .
@Mike, JP and Clavos:
I think the problem that we are addressing here is barely defined with no solution in sight.
So what do we do?
Stay the course? The situation is only getting worse everyday.
We perhaps cannot disown either. Although sometimes I think we should get out of there and cut the losses.
Can we win the war against terrorism? Yes.
But that cannot be achieved just by killing the terrorists. How many would you kill?
See-this approach has already turned out to be meaningless in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Thousands of Hamas have been killed over the years. Have you ever seen Hamas shortage of volunteers who are willing to blow themselves up? Never.
We are fighting against an ideology that hates everything we stand for. And in the middle east, there are no shortage of folks who will swear by their life that everything about America is evil.
How do we get them to believe there is a better world to live?
We have to make inroads with the values of democracy, economic and social freedom. That should be the KEY to our fight and not an afterthought.
23 - Dave Nalle
Can we win the war against terrorism? Yes.
No. No. No. It is impossible to have an actual military victory in the war on terrorism. We can defeat certain terrorist groups, but so long as there's some group which wants to seize political power by force there's going to be terrorism. The war on terror will last forever and its real objective is to minimize the impact of terrorism on the daily lives of reasonable people.
Dave
24 - Q Bit
Dave:
My point was exactly so: you cannot win by sword.
The phrase "war against terror" was meant to capture "war" from a larger perspective. And as I said, there's no way you can win this war by killing terrorists, because that's a never ending war.
The war has to go on in other fronts: democracy, social and economic freedom, lack of which causes the so called ideology of hate.
I am not a pessimist and am sure the "war" is winnable, will take time, perhaps decades and I am willing to wait (I don't have a choice but am not throwing the all-is-lost towel either).
25 - Bliffle
Dave: "I have to point out that JP's contention that 'conservatives' are defending the murder of civilians here on BC or elsewhere is innacurate and a politicization of what is not an inherently partisan position. ..."
It is to laugh. The pirates who have (temporarily) commandeered the republican party have relentlessly politicized issues along party lines that they alone define. To the pirates, everything is partisan.