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
76 - Dave Nalle
Zing, I can't actually point to a Democrat who hasn't gotten us involved in a war, at least not in the last 100 years. On the other hand, we do have two Republicans who either didn't get us into any wars or got us out of one - Ford and Nixon.
And all the presidents have been white men, so that's a complete red herring.
And Clavos HAS put his gun where his mouth is. I don't actually support war as an instrument of foreign policy except as the last resort.
Dave
77 - zingzing
has--past tense. doesn't matter at all what he did then. let him do it now. i once touched my mother's vagina. doesn't mean anything now. (i am truly sorry.)
of course all white men have been presidents, but that's no more of a red herring than yours. what actual wars did clinton start? carter? you knew i would ask. so let's hear it.
clavos: what is your motivation for supporting this war?
78 - zingzing
ahem... yeah. all presidents have been white men. christ.
79 - Arch Conservative
I think you meant to say all of our president have been white men and not "of course all white men have been presidents," Zing.
Also zing.....nalle said got us involved in war....not started a war...... pay attention
Clinton got us involved in Bosnia and Kosovo zing...... did you just forget?
He also lobbed a couple of miissiles into Iraq to distract attention from his impeachment hearings.
80 - zingzing
yeah, the missiles i'll grant you. and i called him on that then. well, didn't call them. bosnia and kosovo... wouldn't call that a war, but say what you will. plus, wasn't that u.n. stuff? or did he go ahead without their consent?
oh, and i caught myself before you did. ha. nyah.
81 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Mike West - quoting me:
and in most wars, it is a matter of having to fight, not wanting to.
He then says:
"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."
Sorry to disagree just a tad there, Mike. WWI was entered by the US because the Germans were trying to cut a deal to effect a "reconquista". The Germans had offered the Mexicans a deal to help them reconquer the America Southwest. It wasn't as dramatic as the raid on Pearl Harbor, but it was an act of war.
Korea also was a necessary war - unless you think that South Korea should have been allowed to fall to the Communists.
You're only thinking of American wars here, my good man. And you are only thinking of the American side... Others have also entered the battlefield. For the Prussians in 1870, the war with France was a war of choice - but it wasn't for the French, etc...
Zing, the problem with American involvement in the Middle East is that you guys are (IMHO) fighting on the wrong side and backing the wrong horses altogether. Your government SHOULD be getting rid of the damned Wahhabi cancer that plagues Islam. You SHOULD be occupying the oilfields in the Middle East and bringing the pice of oil to a reasonable $15/bbl (and bringing prosperity back to America). You SHOULD be backing Jewish control and re-settlement in all of the Land of Israel and pushing most of the South Syrian Arabs to Jordan, Syria, central Mesopotamia and Hijaz WHERE THEY CAME FROM. You SHOULD be helping to build an independent Arab state stretching from the Jordan to the mountains of Iran.
That would bring peace and allow you all to bring your troops home and keep your foreign aid. When you do the right thing, you generally do not screw up with massacres like Haditha.
But you guys are doing it all ass backwards and screwing yourselves over in the bargain. The Haditha massacre and all the shitty consequences that flow from it are your country's reward for being idiots and insisting on doing what is wrong and evil.
82 - Clavos
Zing, the problem with American involvement in the Middle East is that you guys are (IMHO) fighting on the wrong side and backing the wrong horses altogether. Your government SHOULD be getting rid of the damned Wahhabi cancer that plagues Islam. You SHOULD be occupying the oilfields in the Middle East and bringing the pice of oil to a reasonable $15/bbl (and bringing prosperity back to America). You SHOULD be backing Jewish control and re-settlement in all of the Land of Israel and pushing most of the South Syrian Arabs to Jordan, Syria, central Mesopotamia and Hijaz WHERE THEY CAME FROM. You SHOULD be helping to build an independent Arab state stretching from the Jordan to the mountains of Iran.
Well said, Ruvy! You really nailed it.
Zing: i mean, come on, universal conscription? who the fuck does that?
I believe the Israelis do, Zing.
83 - zingzing
ruvy--i think you guys can fight your own wars as well. you've said before you don't want our help (or money), and since we are such evil screw-ups, if i were you, i'd not tempt fate. ah, fuck, doesn't matter now does it?
clavos--um, you ignored the rest of his statement where he says we've royally fucked up, done the wrong thing and have now screwed ourselves into a bad position? yeah, time to back off of that i say. selectivity! god bless.
israel is constantly at war. we shouldn't be. finland has universal conscription as well i think. god knows why. it will never happen in america. and you know it. so answer my real question: "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.""
well? it IS politics after all. it's a double-dog dare.
84 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
zing,
Everything I recommended above benefits America. First of all, you get rid of terrorism, second of all you bing back prospoerity - real prosperity with hope in the horizon - something you are probably too young to even remember. Finally, you get the good feeling of fighting the good fight. War is hell, and it is hard on the soul, as well as on the body, but it is easier on the soul when in your heart, you know that what you do is RIGHT.
Just to make the point, the reason I'm a police auxiliary volunteer is that it is the RIGHT thing to do.
Because your country insists on doing what is WRONG, I don't want the likes of it anywhere near us. From my point of view, your government is evil and bent on evil. The proof of the pudding is that the price of oil has not fallen one bit since you unhorsed Saddam Hussein. The proof of the pudding is that Arab terror and the danger of Arab terror all over the world has increased and not decreased, in spite of the price in blood your soldiers are paying. The proof of the pudding is that you government is forcing evil down the throats of Jews in Israel.
THEREFORE, we don't need you or your money or your soldiers around. They are all poison to this nation. It is that simple.
It's all a matter of being able to see right from wrong, zing.
85 - Richard Brodie
withdraw our troops and brace ourselves to be attacked as we were on 9/11
No. Withdraw and SEAL OURSELVES OFF from any possibility of such attacks on our own soil. That means unbreachable walls, reliable AMB defense, extraction from entangling political and trade alliances, and 100% economic self-sufficiency.
In other words, let the rest of the world go to hell by itself, rather than joining the party and going to hell with it.
86 - zingzing
ruvy--i agree with lots you have to say, but i don't particularily want to believe that america is evil. just stupid. with stupid leadership. our government does things for the wrong reasons, or for reasons that they don't want to tell us...
i believe that it would lessen a shit load of tension in this world if we just stopped trying to influence anything going on in the middle east, especially for shitty reasons like oil. obviously the arab-israeli conflict is a religious one that does not involve us. if we were to take a nuetral position and only attempt to influence what is going on there through diplomacy and setting up peace-talks, then that MIGHT be okay. but that's not what we do. and we can never again try to say that we are nuetral. so we just need to back off.
we've screwed the place up enough.
richard--yeah. sounds good. i think the rest of the world actually might like that as well.
87 - Ray Ellis
This is just getting sillier and more entertaining with each post.
Ruvy--you in particular, need to read American history before interpreting it. Furter, you sound every bit as extremist as any Muslim radical we've ever encountered. Read real history, my friend, seek it out and quit making an ass of yourself. Oh, and don't call us "evil" with acapital E-- you know how we are when we get pissed off.
Zingzing--say something rational--I don't want to die is getting old.
And Clavos, we know you were in 'Nam, and you're old now. Get over it.
Other than that, carry on, all!
88 - Dave Nalle
of course all white men have been presidents, but that's no more of a red herring than yours. what actual wars did clinton start? carter? you knew i would ask. so let's hear it.
Carter invaded Iran, remember? I certainly do. My father-in-law was stuck in the desert for a couple of days trying to evacuate his men from crashed choppers. As for Clinton, are you familiar with Bosnia, Haiti and Somalia? And I didn't say they 'started' the wars. The US rarely starts wars. I said they had 'gotten us involved'.
As for your 'that's all in the past' argument, it doesn't fly. The same pressures which made past democrats engage in meddling interventionism over and over again still apply.
Dave
89 - Michael J. West
Ruvy:
First of all, this part:
"This war in Iraq is an unfortunate exception to the rule just stated, from the American point of view."
was also quoted from you (comment 68). So, in responding to your quote, OF COURSE I only talked about American wars, and from the American side. That was the perspective you introduced, not I.
Secondly, the Zimmermann telegram (which is the "deal to effect a 'reconquista'" you referred to, is it not?) was NOT the direct cause of U.S. entry into the war (especially considering it took a full six weeks between our learning of it and the declaration of war against Germany). And indeed it could be considered an act of war, as could the sinking of the RMS Lusitania before it...but so could the fact that a so-called neutral nation (the United States) was using the Lusitania to ship weapons to England. (And let's remember that Germany took out ads in the US warning us not to travel on the Lusitania). Considering that OUR act of war took place a whopping TWO YEARS before the Zimmermann telegram, it's fair to say the U.S. picked that fight.
It's a consensus among historians, Ruvy my friend: the U.S. entered World War I because it recognized the potential for profiteering.
Thirdly, I'm not necessarily saying that "South Korea should have been allowed to fall to the Communists." I'm saying, what gave us the right to decide either way? Our choice. That's what.
And even assuming it was necessary to stop South Korea from falling to the Communists, it certainly wasn't necessary to invade North Korea after we'd driven the communists back across the 38th parallel, thus escalating and sustaining a war that could have ended immediately with an armistice once the North Korean army was back where it belonged. That was CERTAINLY our choice.
90 - Michael J. West
And I didn't say they 'started' the wars. The US rarely starts wars. I said they had 'gotten us involved'.
Bear in mind that it was Harry Truman (yes, a Democrat) that got sent the first advisors over to Vietnam, one must conclude that it was he who 'got us involved in Vietnam.' Most say it was Kennedy, who certainly did send over a lot more of those advisors, but he was not the initiator. So unless you have another war for Kennedy, that's one Democrat that didn't get us involved in a war.
Carter invaded Iran, remember?
Uh...that wasn't a war. He invaded in a hostage rescue attempt. And it was a failed invasion, too.
91 - Dave Nalle
Michael, Michael. Have you forgotten the Bay of Pigs invasion already?
As for the invasion of Iran, ask the Iranians what they thought it was.
Dave
92 - Michael J. West
Dave, Dave.
1) The Bay of Pigs invasion did not involve us in a war--unless you're counting the Cold War, and you can't possibly claim that JFK got us involved in THAT.
2) The Bay of Pigs invasion was an Eisenhower initiative (and if you want to be exact about it, it was largely then-Vice President Nixon's initiative), and you know it perfectly well.
3) Asking the Iranians whether they perceived it as a war is a bit of a nebulous standard, isn't it? Still, I've never seen any indication or indeed any implication that Iran considered Operation Eagle Claw an act of war. Many Iranians, however, declared that by virtue of taking the hostages in the first place, they were effectively declaring war on the U.S.
4) Mentioning these two incidents, the Bay of Pigs and Eagle Claw, makes me wonder whether you consider ANY U.S.-initiated act of military engagement to be "involving us in a war." But if that's the case, you could certainly add our secret and illegal bombing of Cambodia, and whoop! There goes Nixon from your non-involvers list.
93 - Dave Nalle
Good lord, when was dropping a thousand troops in a foreign country not an act of war, Michael?
And yes, Michael, I consider any intrusion of troops from one country onto the soil of another an act of war no matter how good the reasoning for it. I suppose I could replace 'involved in a war' with 'gratuitously invading people'.
And yes, Nixon might have to be scratched from the list because of Cambodia.
The point of all this is that the GOP is perceived as being strong on defense and therefore GOP presidents aren't really under any pressure to 'prove' they are strong and effective in foreign policy by using troops. Democrats are perceived as wishy washy and weak, plus they're the ones who are generally more interested in nation building and spreading peace, so they are more inclined towards Wilsonian diplomacy and the kind of meddlesome military intervention it leads to.
Dave
94 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Mike, most of our disagreements here are semantic quibbling. When you read history - what Ray Ellis says I don't do - you learn that very often "neutrality" is not this simon-pure abstention from all involvement in a conflict. It generally means not openly going to war against one side or the other. The United States shipped arms to the British via their own merchant marine during the Great War - and then whined when the Germans tried to starve the British of arms by sinking said ships.
That is why one reason I did not mention the Lusitania or other ships sunk by the Germans in that time period.
The second is that the Zimmermann telegram was a proposal to open a military front against the United States on its southern border - something very different qualitatively from shipping arms or otherwise doing business with one side or another in a conflict...
Finally, all war is profiteering. War is good for business - as long as the shells don't fall on your shop.
95 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Mike,
About Korea.
Just this point. When I was a little pisher, Americans had this very healthy attitude about going to war. If you did, you kicked the shit out of the bastards - none of this "stop at the border so as not to be the agressor" garbage. Heh - that is what the Americans feed us...
96 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Ray, the nice thing about living here and writing to you in America is that if I honestly think your government is bent on evil - and I do - I can say so. I don't have to worry in the pit of my stomach - unconscously - about a mob of goyim screaming "kill the kike!" because I said the wrong thng. And I certainly do not have to worry about you saying "love it or leave it!." I left.
Norh American Jews are usually a lot more circumspect in what they say because of that nearly unconscious self-censoring. It is that visceral and that basic.
You can argue that Israel should not get American "foreign aid" - and you will find me agreeing with you, and recommending that you write your congressman to accomplish just that goal... Unfortunately, I do not have the power to turn down the aid - or kick America's military influence out of here.
Finally, bear in mind that it is one thing to abominate Americans generally - and quite another to abominate the American government. I would argue that you government largely works against the interest of the average American - and that the Israeli government works against the interests of Israel. But Americans are a top-shelf bunch, by and large.
97 - Michael J. West
Democrats are perceived as wishy washy and weak, plus they're the ones who are generally more interested in nation building and spreading peace, so they are more inclined towards Wilsonian diplomacy and the kind of meddlesome military intervention it leads to.
Now you see, Dave, that statement works only if you overlook Eisenhower's interventions in Zaire, Guatemala, Iran, and the Suez Canal; Nixon's interventions in Pakistan, Chile, and of course Cambodia; Reagan's interventions in Lebanon, Grenada, Nicaragua, the Iran/Iraq War, El Salvador, Libya, Afghanistan; Bush 1's intervention in Panama and Iraq; and the engine behind the bulk of Bush 2's foreign policy.
If anything, we'd have to say that Democrats and Republicans have been equally interested in "meddlesome military intervention."
98 - Michael J. West
Ruvy,
My friend, I'm not interested in debating the merits, per se, of our involvement in the Korean War. At least not right now. I was just elaborating on my initial point: that America doesn't really enter into wars all that often out of necessity. Our geographic isolation has long kept us from needing to do so, and our vast military and economic hegemony has done much more in that regard.
99 - gazelle
hey, better control the president before he hurts himself.
he's not independant and above the senate, the law, the world.
bets,
best.
100 - zingzing
dave used the phrase "meddling interventionism." what are we doing now?
and ray, "i don't wanna die" pretty much sums up my feelings toward the war, this presidency, and most of my politics. it's a very valid point that some people (read: old) want to forget. "i don't wanna die" pretty much says it all for anyone who is approaching 18 and a few years away from 30 yet. that's a lot of folks, and there isn't much that is more important to them. so, if political stupidty increases my chances of dying (don't you warmongers even remember the cold war?) then, fuck that. so there. (ray ellis: commentcritic.)
101 - Clavos
You can always tell a teenager, but you can't tell him much.
102 - zingzing
yeah.
103 - balaji
interesting stuff.
People around the world love the American people, the movies, the coke/competition and others American.
What they do not like is US Government meddling in their affairs.
As simple as that.
I wd agree with Ruvy about the Israeli govt. too.
both the governments do not represent what the American people and Israeli people (majority) want and stand for.
Some where I heard about Wahabis. By supporting Saud and who took support from extreme Islamists, Wahabis, US G screwed the world.
All other saner and moderate voices in Islam are drowned and starved of funds.
The Saudis fund Wahabi principles around the world and tout it as the only interpretation of Islam.
Ask the Indians. They will tell the story.
Only request to my friends in US. Cut down the dependence on oil. Use all the creative juices that US is known for. Find alternatives. The oil prices wd come down. So do the Wahabi influence. Many Indian muslims who seek jobs in Saudi and work there find the religious police there stifling and retrogade even by their muslim standards. Only a few think that is the thing.
Islam is as widely interpreted as there are denominations in Christianity or Hinduism. Supporting inadvertently a virulent strain, the US put its hand in the bee-hive. Nay it is helping it grow.
If the republicans believe in little government and little government's meddling internally, they shouldd demand the same elsewhere.
We in the world do not see much difference between democrats and republicans. Except for a little of demogoguery and some stances on taxes and social benefits. Where foreign policy is concerned, USG is seen hawkish irrespective of dems or reps.
USG folks had no business in Bosnia or Kosovo. Had no business in many places. Unless it has fantasies of an empire. And all empires however powerful, Roman, Greek, Ottoman and the last one which enslaved us in India, have lost in the long haul. It is a utopian myth.
If Israel wants to make peace with Palestine, and their people want to, let them. I think the Palestines were gracious enough so far to let their country be taken over by immigrants from all over the world.
What would you say if the Native (Red) Indians told all the folks who made US their country to go where they came from? would those places allow them to come back? Religion or no religion.
The Poles, Germans, the Irish and many more?
Zing zing makes sense. Even if he sounds pussy. Machoness, if I have to believe Carlin, comes from feeling small.
American people are great. Let them not get into macho stuff. It's ok in the movies. Not in real life.
104 - Clavos
We in the world do not see much difference between democrats and republicans. Except for a little of demogoguery and some stances on taxes and social benefits. Where foreign policy is concerned, USG is seen hawkish irrespective of dems or reps.
Many of us here in the USA agree with you on that point, Balaji.
105 - Michael J. West
You can always tell a teenager, but you can't tell him much.
There's a teenager here?
106 - Clavos
Michael,
I don't know, but zinzing said:
"i don't wanna die" pretty much says it all for anyone who is approaching 18 and a few years away from 30 yet. that's a lot of folks, and there isn't much that is more important to them.
107 - Michael J. West
That, Clavos, approximately covers the ground between 17 and 28.
108 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Gee, I don't want to die either. Do I get to knock off 20 years from my age? Please?
109 - Clavos
You're right, Michael.
110 - zingzing
ruvy-you can if you fight in our little war. perks!
111 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I already get to fight in my own little war, zing, though I feel sorry for the Israel Police if they have to rely on me to chase down a terrorist... I'll wound the bastard, but unless I wound him, I ain't gonna give chase.
I wouldnt want to kill the bastard. You can't "imterrogate" a dead man...
112 - JP
Balaji, you are ultimately correct--outside the states the R's and D's look nearly identical. Whoever wins, as long as we move toward centrism and away from neoconservatism, I think we'll all be better off.