If we are guilty of killing civilians ourselves, in effect terrorizing civilians, then how can we possibly call this a "War on Terror"?
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.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Ray Ellis
It occurs to me that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are no longer relevant. Toeing the party line at either end of the spectrum is functional somnabolism. The world in which we live is far too complex to label a position so casually.
What is called for, as this discourse illustrates, is rational ethics. Common sense tells us that killing innocents is wrong, and no amount of politicizing can change that.
27 - Michael J. West
Clavos:
Michael, you certainly paint a grim, defeatist picture of the future when you say that we cannot win a war against terrorism.
I paint a realistic picture of the future. I didn't say that it was useless to fight terrorism, although I do think it's useless to pretend we can eradicate the idea from the face of the earth.
Believe it or not, when you talk about winning a war against terrorism you are talking about winning a war against an aspect of human nature--a dark, dark aspect of it, but an aspect nonetheless.
In a way it's like waging a war against murder. Sure, it's a noble cause and you absolutely have to fight for it. But do you really believe it's possible to eradicate the existence of murder? Of course not. We can punish murder and do things to decrease its frequency, but murder will continue to happen. So will terrorism.
28 - Clavos
Dave, QB: Don't y'all ever sleep???
QB:
The war has to go on in other fronts: democracy, social and economic freedom, lack of which causes the so called ideology of hate.
Fair enough. More than one analyst, however, has contended that the historical/religious fundamentalist roots of the Middle Eastern cultures at war with us shut the door to acceptance of democratic social and economic principles.
Evidence of such acceptance in the current conflict so far is contradictory; there have been elections, a start on a constitution, etc., but for the most part, the conflicts among the Iraqi people seem to be just as divisive as ever. Real democracy has not yet taken root, much less flowered, n'est ce pas?
29 - Ray Ellis
There is no such thing as a "real democracy," nor should there be. The result would be chaos. Imposing our will on peoples who don't necessarily share our viewpoint on how the world should operate is counterproductive, as history has shown us time and time again.
Now does this mean we throw up our hands and surrender to terrorism? Of course not. The 9/11 argument is growing tiresome, though, steeped as it is in rhetoric. Iraq had nothing to do with that attack, any more than the vast majority of good ol'boy rednecks were responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing.
You cannot outright defeat terrorism--there's always going to be a malcontent somewhere with his own personal vision of the perfect world.
30 - Clavos
The 9/11 argument is growing tiresome, though, steeped as it is in rhetoric. Iraq had nothing to do with that attack,...
True enough, but Middle Eastern terrorists did.
31 - Michael J. West
But that's a serious generalization, Clavos. After all, a white American soldier was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing. If we can translate the idea that "Middle Eastern terrorists perpetrated 9/11" into justification for war in Iraq, it's not such a big leap to translating the idea that "white American soldiers perpetrated Oklahoma City" into capital punishment for the white American soldiers who perpetrated Haditha.
32 - Clavos
Wasn't saying that as justification for war in Iraq, was talking about war against Middle Eastern terrorrists, as were others-see above.
33 - Clavos
...and, I'm not so sure capital punishment for the perpretators of Haditha (whomever is proved in court to be they) is out of the question--depends on what the UCMJ (if that's what's applicable) provides as a penalty--which I don't know.
34 - Michael J. West
I'm pretty sure that it is the UCMJ, but I'm not sure either. It was the applicable code in (I SWEAR I'm not trying to make this comparison yet again, I'm just drawing on the only context I know) My Lai.
35 - Clavos
I wasn't clear--I'm a Vietnam vet, so I know the UCMJ applies if Marines did commit the atrocities--I was just trying not to jump to any conclusions until the whole thing has been tried in court.
And the comparison to My Lai is OK, as far as I'm concerned--there definitely are common elements to both situations.
36 - Jude
A very interesting piece, JP.
If we are guilty of killing civilians ourselves, in effect terrorizing civilians, then how can we possibly call this a "War on Terror"?
When you examine this entire unfortunate situation from all angles, you see that most of the world believes that from the get-go, America was never justified in making its pre-emptive strike on Iraq. Even Pope John Paul II took a carefully decided moral stand against the philosophy behind the war.
The current controversy over the alleged Haditha massacre only serves to further break apart the semblence of moral purpose. The only way we can possibly "win" a war like this one is to "win" the hearts and minds of the people whose nation we allegedly occupied in order to give them time and protection to secure a democratic government. We have not fulfilled the promise of security - too many areas of Iraq are out of control to convince anyone with a brain that we have an upper hand in "winning" this war. Hearts and minds were lost long ago - and the Haditha story is likely only a beginning volley in the campaign for Iraqis to oust us from their land. They are having a civil war before our eyes and America's cowardly political leaders are afraid to call it what it is. I've heard generals call it a "sub-rosa" civil war, but our eyes do not deceive us.
Someone tell me how we are going to get control over this runaway disaster known as the Iraq War.
I love this country as much as the next red white and blue-blooded Joe or Mary. I respect the men and women who are risking everything for their fellow brothers (and sisters) in arms. I think the media should give them the benefit of the doubt instead of publicly crucifying them at the top of every hour. But I'll tell you this, loud and clear: WE NEVER BELONGED IN IRAQ. WE NEED TO REDEPLOY STEADILY AND INTELLIGENTLY - AND REDPLOYMENT NEEDS TO START NOW.
37 - MCH
"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 Nalle
And thank God the soldiers brave enough to actually fight that war for "reasonable people" didn't use lame excuses like "I had other priorities" or "I'm too old" in order to evade service...
38 - zingzing
we should have a war on war. that way, we can get rid of war. then, without war, what will we have to fight with? or about? sure, we'll have terrorism... but without war, there is no holy war. if they can't have their holy war, they'll probably just drink their coffees and smoke their hookahs. and if we can't have our war on terror, we'll just sit at home and fiddle with our pricks, which is what we all want to do anyway. i think it's just as reasonable as this war on terror shit, and gets to the source of the problem.
i sincerely doubt it that muslims would feel the need to attack us if we just got our noses out of their business. don't try to manipulate them for their oil, don't get involved in their politics, don't invade their countries... it's not that we have to "resign ourselves to a never-ending stream of young Americans [being] killed for a lost cause, or [...] brace ourselves [for more] 9/11['s], until [...]we are subjugated by the forces aligned against us," we can just give into their wishes to be left alone.
it's like a bee's nest. we went in there years ago, poking at it with a stick. now, we are bashing at it with a shovel. if we just let the damn thing alone, we won't be getting attacked. it's not that they are "jealous of our freedom" or any of that complete bullshit, it's that they despise us trying to run lives. put yourself in their shoes. how would you like it if for the last 100 years, eastern influences had been trying to run america, had created russia (you know, like israel) and then let them threaten us for decades? what if we had loads of oil that they wanted and they constantly got involved in us-canadian or us-mexican relationships? what if they routinely parked their destroyers and battleships off the coast of florida?
we should lessen our impact upon their lives, and their impact upon us will decrease as well. how many times can they say, "get your troops out of the middle east," or "we bombed your city because your tanks are in ours," or "this is because of what you did in iraq," etc, before we get it? they want us out! why not get out? (...slowly, but making definite strides towards leaving them completely alone.)
problem solved. that is, unless we've started something that we can't step back from, apologize for, etc. and at that point, we've just doomed ourselves. if you think that "we shouldn't be aplogizing for anything," then you need to grow up or be shot. you (the non-apologizers) are the real terrorists, right along with the fundamentalist islamic nut jobs.
39 - Clavos
Zing, If you read your history you'll see that the many of the peoples of the Middle East have been meddling with the rest of the world for centuries; it's naive, particularly in light of recent history, to think they're suddenly going to change their ways.
Dave,
If you keep bashing the bee's nest long enough with your shovel you do, eventually, get all of the bees.
True, but we need to realize we're gonna get stung a lot in the process.
40 - Michael J. West
If you keep bashing the bee's nest long enough with your shovel you do, eventually, get all of the bees.
Or, you could stay the Hell away from the bee's nest.
many of the peoples of the Middle East have been meddling with the rest of the world for centuries
This is not a good argument, though. Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, and the United States have also been "meddling with the rest of the world for centuries." What does that have to do with anything?
it's naive, particularly in light of recent history, to think they're suddenly going to change their ways.
Perhaps so. But it's equally naive to think that military and political intervention by the United States is going to change that.
41 - Clavos
Perhaps so. But it's equally naive to think that military and political intervention by the United States is going to change that.
Maybe it won't, but it will at least keep 'em away from our soil. And the centuries of their meddling go back MUCH further than our own.
42 - zingzing
how does it keep them away from our soil? i'd say a vast majority of middle eastern terrorists on 9/11 were nowhere near america. i'd say there are many (and probably more) terrorists here in america now than there have ever been.
if they say that their terrorism against the united states is conditional upon our continued meddling within their own countries, why not try and stop meddling about over there. let's see what happens. couldn't be worse than constant war... maybe it's the solution. peace works better than war at stopping war.
43 - Michael J. West
the centuries of their meddling go back MUCH further than our own.
That's because their HISTORY goes back much farther than our own.
44 - Ray Ellis
Truth be known, Clavos, we more than made up for lost time in meddling--ask any Native American, for starters.
45 - Clavos
Zing:
i'd say there are many (and probably more) terrorists here in america now than there have ever been.
Based on what evidence?
46 - zingzing
oh, i dunno... what evidence could i have? if they were known terrorists, they'd be in jail. but, i'd say that we've made middle eastern people incredibly angry, and that recruitment must be sky-rocketing, and lots of them must be saying, "hmm... why don't we hit them over there again?"
what evidence do you have that there aren't plenty of terrorists here? the fact that shit isn't exploding all around us? ha... we keep this up...
what about peace doesn't appeal to you? they attack us because we meddle with their shit. i know, i know, can't look weak. but we hit them back. made them know we can hurt them too. so, now we should back the fuck up and compromise with them. we don't want to be there, they don't want us there. what else could you ask for? if they invaded our country, wouldn't you just say, "look, get the fuck out and we can all live our lives..."? why not?
why do you want to go playing guns with these people? are you too old to go into the military? hmm? could be?
47 - Dave Nalle
If you keep bashing the bee's nest long enough with your shovel you do, eventually, get all of the bees.
True, but we need to realize we're gonna get stung a lot in the process.
Not if you wear a stylish beekeepers suit.
If you keep bashing the bee's nest long enough with your shovel you do, eventually, get all of the bees.
Or, you could stay the Hell away from the bee's nest.
As I know from personal experience, if you leave them alone they just build more and more nests and pretty soon they're everywhere and you can't avoid walking into a nest and getting the hell stung out of your bald head, and then the poison leaks down into you neck which swells up like a watermelon making you almost die as it cuts off your breathing.
Dave
48 - zingzing
or they just live their lives and you just live yours... they buzz about making honey and spreading flowers about the land, you mowin your grass and lettin your dog poop in the neighbor's... ahh, the life.
plus, bees don't get angry, they just protect the hive. terrorism spreads out of anger. if we try to "kill them all" as you so idiotically suggest, we'll never kill them all. they will grow, probably exponentially, as they get more and more angry, until we've got a full-on cultural/race war on our hands. real fuckin smart. makes me sick.
you act as if they have no reason whatsoever for what they do. bullshit. we've been finger-fuckin with them for years. they got sick of it and blew our shit up. so, now we're trying to stick it up their ass? yeah... that works.
THAT'S FUCKING STUPID!
49 - zingzing
people like you are going to get us all killed. that pisses me off.
other than that, yeah... it's a nice day. i'm gonna have a picnic and watch a movie...
50 - Clavos
are you too old to go into the military? hmm? could be?
Now I am..but 40 years ago in Vietnam I wasn't.
Ad hominem and irrelevant (besides incorrect), Zing.
51 - zingzing
40 years ago doesn't count for shit right now. if you want war, you go fight it. if all the people who WANTED war actually FOUGHT it, then we could get rid of all the people who want to fight. and then we wouldn't fight anymore. i don't want to fight. i'd bet most people in the middle east don't either. it's the stupid mother fuckers who want to fight.
it's not irrelevant, you're just a pussy who talks big when he ain't got shit to back it up with.
52 - Clavos
Very good, Zing; when you can't make logical sense, attack your opponent personally and call him names.
53 - Dave Nalle
Ah, but zing. Terrorists are like the Africanized bees which come in and spread genetic craziness and aggression in the population of otherwise innocent honey producing bees.
Dave
54 - Clavos
Neat analogy, Dave.
55 - zingzing
clavos: how about this? go fight your own damn war. okay? what about the first paragraph didn't make sense to you? where does my logic fall apart? when i say shooting at people is stupid, and the activity of certain mother fuckers? okay, shooting kills people. if you want to kill or be killed, then go do it yourself. don't send sensible people like me to do it for you.
the "pussy" bit was answering your call for relevance. you won't fight this war, (and therefore are a pussy if you want others to fight it for you), and therefore, your age is relevant, unless you are just a pussy all the time. i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
56 - zingzing
dave: terrorism is genetic? muslims are naturally aggressive? i didn't know.
57 - Clavos
don't send sensible people like me to do it for you.
AAHHH, THERE it is--you're afraid YOU might have to go fight--now who's a pussy?
58 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
zing wries,
"if you want war, you go fight it."
You talk like a fool, zing. A 55 year old fart with a heart condition and arthritis is no good on a battlefield compared to an 18 year old who can run 20 kilometers with a back pack, jump, fall and not be exausted in 25 miuntes. The idea in winning any war is to kill the enemy or make him so dispirited that he gives up.
If you don't think of how to make sure your own soldiers survive the war, you lose it even if the enemy surrenders. That happened to France and Britain after 1919.
And in most wars, it is a matter of having to fight, not wanting to.
This war in Iraq is an unfortunate exception to the rule just stated, from the American point of view. The American gov't wanted to fight. Its opponent didn't - not in 1991 or 2003.
59 - Dave Nalle
Zing, it's an analogy. Don't be a literalist dumbass. Radical Islam is the cultural equivalent of a gene for agression. The terrorists are the Africanized bees infected with Radical Islam. Think it through.
Dave
60 - MCH
"I never call people names."
- Dave Nalle, ad nauseam
"Zing...Don't be a literalist dumbass."
- Dave Nalle, #61
61 - Paul S
I'm not so sure that it really is unfair to say that "conservatives" are defending the killing of civilians. It would be unfair to say that all conservatives are doing so. But is even a single one of those defenders a liberal?
62 - Michael J. West
nd in most wars, it is a matter of having to fight, not wanting to.
This war in Iraq is an unfortunate exception to the rule just stated, from the American point of view.
So was Vietnam. And Korea. And the Spanish-American War, and the Mexican War, and the first World War, and the first Gulf War...
Gee, when you look at the list, the wars that America fought out of necessity start to seem like the exceptions.
63 - Michael J. West
MCH, um...not that you don't sometimes make valid criticisms, but I have to ask: do you actually come to these threads in order to contribute to the conversations, or just to take shots at Dave Nalle? They're not the same thing.
64 - Dave Nalle
He doesn't give a damn about productive or relevant conversation. He's a stalker, bizarrely fixated on me based on a misconception of my political views he conceived about a year ago and has never bothered to reconsider despite ample evidence that I don't hold most of the views he thinks I do.
And BTW, 'literalist dumbass' isn't calling him names, it's an accurate description of his pose in that comment.
Dave
65 - Matthew T. Sussman
Every time MCH quotes Dave and says something about him not serving/contradicting himself, he puts a tally mark on the wall, which is right next to where he keeps track of all our comments dating back to 2004.
We all contradict each other, with all the hundreds of comments we make. No big deal, they're just comments. K?
Now be a dear and look up the time I said "I do not contradict myself." I believe it was back in September.
66 - JP
Jude, thanks for your compliment.
Zing, you're in the direction I'm going--"plus, bees don't get angry, they just protect the hive. terrorism spreads out of anger. if we try to "kill them all" as you so idiotically suggest, we'll never kill them all. they will grow, probably exponentially, as they get more and more angry, until we've got a full-on cultural/race war on our hands. real fuckin smart. makes me sick."
I'm concerned that we're making this a "war" at all, because on the other side we're the meddlers ever since the creation of Israel, and because by not Ensuring we didn't have any Haditha's, we've now lost any moral high ground on that issue.
To that end, it's discouraging to see the Vietnam era practice of not releasing opposition death count estimates continue in this war; this is a war, by definition against terror, that is best suited for being fully aware of the human costs.
67 - zingzing
clavos: i don't want to fight. that has something to do with the fact that i don't want to die. if that makes me a pussy, fine, i'm a pussy. can't argue with you there. i am very afraid i'll have to go fight. i really don't want to. life is fine. why the hell should i fight? really, though, it makes me smart, and not the sort of hypocritical old man who will send off younger people to die for his bullshit.
ruvy: shut it. i don't care to fight old men's wars. fair? if it's old men who want to fight, old men can fight. if you try to send me off to your stupid fucking war, i'll throw a grenade in your tent. of course, not YOUR tent, as you having nothing to do with this war. i WILL NOT fight in this war. ever.
dave: the analogy got too literal long ago. you continued, i continued. i could have told you the same thing ages ago. literalist dumbass... that's not much of an insult. radical islam is a reaction. take away the thing they react against, and you've got no radical islam. sure, a few will still exist, but the reason why more and more and more and more and more of them keep popping up will quickly disappear. and that's a fact.
and anyone who thinks war is about saving the world... grow up. it's about land, conquest, money, religion and hatred. name me a war that wasn't started for those reasons. one. go on. i can't think of a single war we ever HAD to fight. especially not now.
68 - Dave Nalle
i WILL NOT fight in this war. ever.
This is why we have a volunteer military and should continue to have one as a matter of policy. Just be prepared. If Hillary gets into the White House with a democratic congress you're going to be drafted before you can even start to scream in outrage.
Dave
69 - Clavos
Your naivete is breathtaking, Zing.
Nobody SENT the troops to Iraq--they're all volunteers, remember? And don't tell me they didn't volunteer for Iraq--anyone who volunteers for military service understands that war is the reason for the military. But rest easy, Zing--unless Dave's right about Hillary, you won't have to go.
i can't think of a single war we ever HAD to fight.
True--back in 1776 we could have stayed loyal to King George--the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are just pieces of paper, why spill blood for them? Slaves were just property--why should brother fight brother to free them?
The rest of your screed isn't worth the effort of a response.
70 - zingzing
clavos: if we do like you want and constantly march around the globe, trying to stop terrorism by shooting up people's countries and houses, there will HAVE to be a draft. ever heard of rome? yeah, that's us in your future.
and we weren't a country yet in 1776. we just wanted to be. and the civil war wasn't about slavery, it was about the union. but whatever. ok-- i don't see any reason why we should ever fight a war away from american soil. if we have definite proof that someone will launch an invasion against us, maybe then too. but that hasn't happened.
you and i don't see eye to eye. you assume that i say one thing, when i am saying something quite different. i think it is your naivete that is amazing. how can you think that a us-global march against terrorism will work? equal and opposite reaction? der? war leads to war. don't you want to see it end? where does anyone profit (real profit, not money) from war? does it do one bit of good?
wait... wait... "war is reason for the military?" what the fuck is that supposed to mean? yeah, war is the reason for the military. but does that mean we have to make war so that we can use the damn thing? what are you thinking?
71 - zingzing
dave--why do you think that? i would hope she (or a dem congress) would scale back our military's bullshit conquest of the middle east... hopefully she wouldn't be as stupid as bush, roaming around the earth, meddling and ignoring as he chooses, threatening military attack on anyone who doesn't do as he wants them to.
72 - Dave Nalle
Zing. Every draft measure and draft proposal has come from a democratic congress and president. Johnson initiated the Vietnam draft. Carter started the current draft registration system. And since the start of the War on Terror it has been prominent democrats - Rangel, Kerry and others - who have proposed either a draft or universal conscription. If Hillary gets into power she's going to keep fighting in Iraq and elsewhere - she's said it and no democratic president is going to want the legacy of being the one to LOSE a war. As a democrat her methodology to do that WILL be to increase troop deployment and institute a draft.
Dave
73 - Clavos
i would hope she (or a dem congress) would scale back our military's bullshit conquest of the middle east... hopefully she wouldn't be as stupid as bush, roaming around the earth, meddling and ignoring as he chooses, threatening military attack on anyone who doesn't do as he wants them to.
A democratic president, JFK, got us involved in Vietnam. And another dem, LBJ, escalated our presence, thereby prolonging the war.
74 - zingzing
yes, they were all white men too. does it mean that any time a white man gets into office, we're going to go to war? timing has something to do with it, you think? and has a dem ever not gone to war? yes... hrm. i'm against war more than i am for dems anyway. maybe it's because i could actually go. something about that. yeah.
i'm sure that the democratic idea of getting out of this war will lead to us increasing troop deployment and instituting a draft. it follows. yeah.
i don't think you can point to vietnam as your only proof that dems institute drafts. and i wonder how much the current calls for drafts are ploys designed to say, "either do it or don't. if you want this war, you're going to have to really do it." i mean, come on, universal conscription? who the fuck does that?
75 - zingzing
all i'm saying is put your gun where your mouth is. (oohhh, that sounds good...)
if you want something, you do it. i'm fine with that. if you don't want to do it, don't ask someone else to do it for you, and don't make a problem worse (and more dangerous) by continuing to make the same mistake. i'm not out to protect the likes of you, as, and it's pretty obvious, you just want to fight. i can't fathom why.