My coworkers are extremely interested in the court shows on TV and watch them on their breaks. I only mention this because on three of their favorites this week, the idea that men need to protect women from violence came up on all three of them.
Out in the real world, that very topic has become a front-page item.
In Haiti, charges have been leveled that UN Peacekeepers engage in sexual abuse of minor girls, an allegation that echoes from many nations across the globe where UN Peacekeepers are stationed.
But before our wrong-wingers get all high-and-mighty, American soldiers have been the subjects of numerous accusations of similar verifiable behavior.
Rapes by American soldiers are too common in Iraq, and some result in the murder of the victim and her family members in an attempt to cover up the sex crime. Think Haditha and Mahmoudiya, which has already produced one soldier's guilty plea.
Let's not merely blame a few undicsiplined soldiers for these actions, for they are part of an approved military culture which condones sexual abuse as a means of controlling and breaking detainees. This was evident in the Abu Ghraib scandal, merely the best-known example of official military criminality.
One need not be a foreign woman to suffer sexual abuse at the hands of the US military. American female soldiers are often the object of unwanted attention - and rape - and the Pentagon does nothing but blame the victim.
For all of the allegations that our opponents in Iraq are barbaric, why is it that our own female soldiers captured by them do not report any abuse? According to Men's News Daily:
"US female soldiers have more to fear from their fellow male soldiers, than Al-Qaeda fighters, as rape inside the armed forces is significant according to their own statistics. On the contrary, the US women captured by the Iraqis were treated with full respect; none were raped or maltreated.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RedTard
That's a job of stereotyping any neonazi would be proud of. Simply replace military with black, Iraq with ghetto, and military culture with hip hop culture. Great job of becoming that which you set out to oppose, you now know hate.
2 - STM
If anyone can understand this, please let me know and I'll try again. The only bit I got was the liberal-style handwringing over how America is seen by the rest of the world.
As part of the rest of the world, I can tell you the answer to that: not as badly as many Americans of a certain political persuasion might think.
3 - Clavos
Yet another evil aspect of The Great Satan...
Damn! Is there anything evil in the world we're NOT responsible for?
Of course not. Silly me...
4 - Dave Nalle
Rapes by American soldiers are too common in Iraq, and some result in the murder of the victim and her family members in an attempt to cover up the sex crime.
And for this outrageous accusation you're able to come up with TWO examples. Do you realize what the number of rapists among the civilian population in the US would be for an equivalent number of men? Statistics from the BJS show that there are about 1.2 rapists per 1000 men in the US population in general. That means that statistically there ought to be at least 120 rapists in the US forces in Iraq. Knock off maybe 10 for the slightly lower incidence of rapes by soldiers than by civilians, and you get maybe 100-110 rapists. So with only a handful of examples wouldn't the argument have to be that US soldiers are raping LESS in Iraq than they would if they were home?
And BTW, your attempt to portray US soldiers as rapists based on a couple of examples is offensive.
Dave
5 - Joe
Sometimes it's hard to tell who hates the US more - the murdering terrorists or the cry-baby liberals.
I guess we have to wait until the US is 100% absolutely across the board perfect before we can criticize anyone anywhere of anything.
6 - Operation Yellow Elephant
Operation Yellow Elephant is not as hopeful as you that American Yellow Elephants (those eligible to serve who support the war, only if "other people" fight it) will take up arms if American women are violated.
It seems that the Yellow Elephant enablers would rather sacrifice some other family's daughters than see their own sons in uniform.
Sad but true.
7 - adrienrain
Oh American soldiers don't do rape! Just ask the Okinawans. Or the Philippinos. Or any girl who has dated a number of them. And of course they're not alone in this. George Bernard Shaw said something about 'here comes the army ' hide the women.' Sorry, I coulnd't find the exact quote.
At some point, we're going to have to recognize war for the bloody slaughter it is. Undertaken, usually, for reasons of greed and power, corrupting all it touches.
That may be awhile - we are always too happy to find a reason to go to war. And the lessons learned by one generation are lost on the next.
8 - Dave Nalle
Adrien, you should read the previous comments. No one is saying that US soldiers don't commit rape. They just don't do it any more than anyone else does.
Dave
9 - adrienrain
"Adrien, you should read the previous comments. No one is saying that US soldiers don't commit rape. They just don't do it any more than anyone else does."
Oh! I guess that makes it OK then.
So, in addition to 655,000 excess Iraqi deaths (mostly civilian), some brand new allowances for torture and weasel words like "extroardinary rendition," you can add X number of customary military rapes to the toll for this wholly unnecessary war.
Personally, it keeps me awake at night.
10 - Dave Nalle
Oh! I guess that makes it OK then.
No, but it doesn't make it abnormal. It means that there aren't anymore rapes going on in Iraq than there would be with our men not there, and that those men aren't committing more rapes than they would if they were at home - which BTW is statistically very few rapes.
So, in addition to 655,000 excess Iraqi deaths (mostly civilian),
If you believe that insanely bogus figure and if you accept the premise that every death in Iraq should automatically be blamed on the US just because we are there, regardless of who actually pulled the trigger or planted the bomb.
some brand new allowances for torture and weasel words like "extroardinary rendition," you can add X number of customary military rapes to the toll for this wholly unnecessary war.
You miss the point. You can't add the rapes to the toll of the war because they would have happened whether there was a war or not.
Statistics are what they are.
Personally, it keeps me awake at night.
Why? Are you in any way responsible? Do you think there are US soldiers lurking around every corner to rape you?
The pathology of this syndrome is truly intriguing.
Dave
11 - adrienrain
Actually the US has a rather high rate of rapes. Crime rates vary country to country and culture to culture. And I believe that having power over a largely powerless population increases the tendency to rape - as does the brutalization of war in general. I would be willing to bet that most, if not all, the soldiers involved in the rape and murder of that Iraqi teenager and her family would never have done such a thing. Even moral midgets like Lt. Calley would certainly never have killed 500+ human beings had he not had the perfect combination of opportunity, training in violence, power, and the inevitable hatred engendered in war. So I am certain that there are more rapes and just plain murders going on in Iraq than the same population would be responsible for here.
Those 'insane' figures were compiled by Johns Hopkins using methods regarded as impeccable - until they contradicted the image the administration wishes to promote. Meanwhile, since the administration does not "do body counts' of Iraqis, I believe that they will simply have to live with whatever anyone else comes up with. Should they decide to value Iraqi life enough to count the dead, they might have more credibility with me - and even with the Iraqis.
Bush did have the number of estimated deaths from the Iraqi Body Count website at the tip of his tongue. Of course he got it wrong, because he included all Iraqi dead, and IBC is only ccounting civllian deaths. However, since the morgues and newspapers are discouraged from reporting such things - on our recommendation - those figures are considered vastly underestimated.
The far bigger death rate is yet to come - depleted uranium - because most of the victims are yet unborn - both in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, here in the United States, among the families of GIs. You might call it raping the future. Do you think they will love us and forgive us? Would we forgive them?
Yes - to some extent, I AM responsible for whatever is done in my name as the citizen of a self-governing nation. It is daunting, but we haven't the excuse of living under a dictatorship - YET. As Dunne famously said, I am involved in mankind. And No, I am not afraid of rape - being 62 is an excellent way to avoid rape in general, tho' not for other crimes. For those, I have only my brown belt to defend me. '-p
And what, pray tell, is the "pathology' of human concern?
12 - Dave Nalle
Actually the US has a rather high rate of rapes. Crime rates vary country to country and culture to culture. And I believe that having power over a largely powerless population increases the tendency to rape - as does the brutalization of war in general. I would be willing to bet that most, if not all, the soldiers involved in the rape and murder of that Iraqi teenager and her family would never have done such a thing. Even moral midgets like Lt. Calley would certainly never have killed 500+ human beings had he not had the perfect combination of opportunity, training in violence, power, and the inevitable hatred engendered in war. So I am certain that there are more rapes and just plain murders going on in Iraq than the same population would be responsible for here.
Your argument is very appealing, but it's an entirely emotional and irrational one, unsupported by any facts or evidence. The facts are that statistically there should have been at least 300 cases of rape involving US soldiers in Iraq since we've been there, and yet only two examples have been publicized and I've seen no indication that there are hundreds more which are being overlooked. If your theory that the conditions of war make rape more common then we ought to be seeing so many rapes that it would be a major scandal, and we just aren't. The truth is that soldiers have been ordered to stay away from civilian women, and with the exception of the absolute worst sociopaths in the military - and statistically there should be 2 or 3 potential serial killers in Iraq - that's what they've been doing.
Those 'insane' figures were compiled by Johns Hopkins using methods regarded as impeccable
By who? I'm very familiar with the figures and with the history of controversy surrounding the methods. The truth is that cluster studies have been disputed universally, especially for this kind of application. The methodology is designed for use in epidemiology, not in studying human behavior patterns. It just doesn't work in this context and is inherently susceptible to manipulation and bias. In short, the study is almost entirely worthless.
- until they contradicted the image the administration wishes to promote. Meanwhile, since the administration does not "do body counts' of Iraqis,
Sure they do. The DOD has published figures on civilian and military casualties in Iraq that they're responsible for. The problem from your viewpoint is that casualties of civilians actually caused by US forces are so rare now that the figures don't match your expectations. And the military doesn't necessarily keep track of the vast majority of the deaths which for more than 2 years have been caused by factional fighting and terrorism between Iraqi factions and external troublemakers.
I believe that they will simply have to live with whatever anyone else comes up with. Should they decide to value Iraqi life enough to count the dead, they might have more credibility with me - and even with the Iraqis.
Counting the people who die in conflicts which the US is not directly involved in would be a nice service to provide, but it's realy the job of the Iraqi government.
Bush did have the number of estimated deaths from the Iraqi Body Count website at the tip of his tongue. Of course he got it wrong, because he included all Iraqi dead, and IBC is only ccounting civllian deaths.
IBC is counting civilian deaths from all causes and blaming them on the US, which hardly makes them a credible source.
However, since the morgues and newspapers are discouraged from reporting such things - on our recommendation - those figures are considered vastly underestimated.
That's odd. The Iraqi government issued its own estimate of civilian casualties a couple of months ago, but no one paid attention to that, since it was only 120,000 dead over the course of the war and it was based on actually counting bodies.
The far bigger death rate is yet to come - depleted uranium - because most of the victims are yet unborn - both in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, here in the United States, among the families of GIs. You might call it raping the future. Do you think they will love us and forgive us? Would we forgive them?
Do you believe everything you read on DailyKos or do you just turn your critical faculties off temporarily for selected subjects? Extensive studies have been done on DU in the Balkans and now in Iraq as well, and unless you inject it directly into your bloodstream in large quantities it's relatively harmless and can be avoided fairly easily, just like any other potential heavy metal contaminant.
And what, pray tell, is the "pathology' of human concern?
I was actually talking about the pathological state of self-deception and delusion which you seem to find yourself in.
Dave
13 - adrienrain
CS Monitor:
" The best tally would come from counting every death certificate issued in the country in the three years before and three years since the invasion. But there is no central reporting mechanism for this in the country.
"So instead, the (Lancet - respected British medical journal) researchers, backed up by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, relied on the same polling methodology that is used to measure voter preferences or what their favorite TV shows are.
" 'I loved when President Bush said 'their methodology has been pretty well discredited,' " says Richard Garfield, a public health professor at Columbia University who works closely with a number of the authors of the report. "That's exactly wrong. There is no discrediting of this methodology. I don't think there's anyone who's been involved in mortality research who thinks there's a better way to do it in unsecured areas. I have never heard of any argument in this field that says there's a better way to do it.'" entire article
BBC on depleted u:
There's more than a whiff of Agent Orange in this debate. I remember it well. It's over now, and the gov has admitted that it was really really bad, but for many years, soldiers with unmistakeable symptoms were dismissed as nuts. Lots of them died before the danger was finally admitted. In themeantime, in addition to 3 million Vietnamese dead, we left a lasting heritage of sterile earth and birth defects.
14 - Dave Nalle
" The best tally would come from counting every death certificate issued in the country in the three years before and three years since the invasion. But there is no central reporting mechanism for this in the country.
Except, of course, that there is. And even the authors of the Lancet study admit that they got death certificates - which are centrally recorded - for most of their sampled deaths. If 80% of the dead who were actually counted in the study had death certificates and the central records office has death certificates for about 100,000 people, then wouldn't that suggest that there are about 125,000 actual deaths?
Richard Garfield, a public health professor at Columbia University who works closely with a number of the authors of the report. "That's exactly wrong. There is no discrediting of this methodology. I don't think there's anyone who's been involved in mortality research who thinks there's a better way to do it in unsecured areas. I have never heard of any argument in this field that says there's a better way to do it.' "
Then Garfield is either lying or incompetent. Basic text books in statistics explain the limitations of cluster sampling and when it is inappropriate to use. And Garfield is far from objective having been involved in the first Lancet study which was even more flawed.
The IAEA has a pretty comprehensive FAQ on DU. The gist is that yes, DU is dangerous under some circumstances, but that it's pretty easily controlled with minimal effort.
Dave
15 - adrienrain
Oh yeah - the Lancet is just a bunch of no-no num-nums - Hopkins a nest of quacks. The Monitor is proabably a secular humanist plot and the BBC a bunch of stupidos.
On the other hand, IAEA has been demonstrably lying to us for decades. Nothing about our use of Du is 'controlled.' Children play iamong the derelict vehicles to this day. And the dumbest man on earth (W) a low grade moron whose C's were undoubtedly paid for, and who can't even say nuclear or manage a routine emergency, is the authority of the age. Right.
It's alright you know. I have sadly conditioned myself to the idea that this war will likely last for a long long time. The GOP has too much pride to quit, and the Dems have too much fear to even suggest it. We will lose as we did in Vietnam (although Bush's pronouncements would indicate that he thinks we WON) and all of this will be lost on the next next generation, who will be itching with testosterone and ready to kill another bunch of bad guys.
It may be a good thing that we will eventually run out of cash - after all, some of the best art and philosophy is produced by history's "losers."
I am still very sorry that so many young, innocent Americans will be thoroughly debauched by this war. I am sorry that our bombs are not smart enough to distinguish between a child and a terrorist, or a wedding and a terrorist cell meeting. I am sorry that a secular society has been turned towards the worst sort of theocratic fanaticism. I fear that could be the case here as well.
I do take some comfort that my own grandchildren will not be among the deluded - ready to give their lives for some idiot's dream of glory and the elites' dream of riches beyond counting.
16 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Adrien,
It's very sad to read what you write above. It appears that the only hope you hold out for Americans is bankrupting themselves in war, and then being unable to pursue military adventures further. The only problem with you prognosis, as I see it, is that Americans will truly be unable to protect their own women folk from the powers who will arise in the wake of the fall of the American empire...
Dave is a good fellow with the cold eyes of a realist and an education and life experiences to back him up. It would appear that he should be agreeing with you rather than disagreeing - but he tends to put on a pair of rose colored glasses when dealing with issues here other than the terrible conflict that grips my small neighborhood, a neighborhod he also knows well. You see him at his best here, How to Get Out of Iraq Without Getting Out of Iraq - the Adam Ash Plan B for Iraq, where he makes some very practical suggestions...
17 - Dave Nalle
Oh yeah - the Lancet is just a bunch of no-no num-nums - Hopkins a nest of quacks. The Monitor is proabably a secular humanist plot and the BBC a bunch of stupidos.
I can't speak to your later points, but the Lancet is edited by a far left activist who has gone on record saying that he would do anything to stop the Iraq war, and at least two of the people who worked on the report are also documented to have strong political motivations. The fact is that the Lancet report is pure propaganda, cobbled together to promote a completely false impression of civilian casualties in Iraq. This isn't just my opinion. It's a pretty well documented fact.
On the other hand, IAEA has been demonstrably lying to us for decades. Nothing about our use of Du is 'controlled.' Children play iamong the derelict vehicles to this day. And the dumbest man on earth (W) a low grade moron whose C's were undoubtedly paid for, and who can't even say nuclear or manage a routine emergency, is the authority of the age. Right.
Your credibility is getting lower and lower if you can't rise above the cult of personality and address the issues on their own merit.
It's alright you know. I have sadly conditioned myself to the idea that this war will likely last for a long long time. The GOP has too much pride to quit, and the Dems have too much fear to even suggest it. We will lose as we did in Vietnam (although Bush's pronouncements would indicate that he thinks we WON) and all of this will be lost on the next next generation, who will be itching with testosterone and ready to kill another bunch of bad guys.
This is not the kind of war that will be won on the battle field. What happens in Iraq is only a very small part of the overall struggle, and it could be considered a victory if we achieve no more than a great deal of death and chaos there.
I am still very sorry that so many young, innocent Americans will be thoroughly debauched by this war. I am sorry that our bombs are not smart enough to distinguish between a child and a terrorist, or a wedding and a terrorist cell meeting. I am sorry that a secular society has been turned towards the worst sort of theocratic fanaticism. I fear that could be the case here as well.
And I'm sorry that seemingly intelligent people buy into the most virulent and deceptive propaganda without applying even the most basic common sense to it.
Dave
18 - adrienrain
ANOTHER PLAN B - and it could be already in motion ( I hope so at least): When JFK was planing to pull out of Vietnam (the tapes included in the film "The Fog of War" prove that intention) it is reported that someone challenged him - " But how CAN we just LEAVE?" to which he reportedly answered, "That's easy - we'll just put a government in place which will ASK us to leave." That may be the best we can hope for - although I believe a complete repudiation of our imperial dreams would be preferable.
By doing this, we will not achieve a working democracy - but only the Iraqis can do that. Deprived of the irritant of occupation, they just might.
Yes I think America will bankrupt itself financially if it continues this war - the no-bid, cost-plus, oversight-free contracts awarded to Bush croneys practically guarantee it, in fact. But monetary bankruptcy is preferable to the rule of those who profit by war, and seek to rule the world.
The moral bankruptcy of our imperial ambitions is worse. The bankruptcy of our own democratic institutions is intolerable. The bankruptcy of decency represented by those who now countenance torture should shame us all.
We may conquer - through bombings and technology - a hundred nations, but if we lose the republican idea, all is lost. A little history reading can be instructive. Freedom can be lost for generations. 'La Gloire' - or just plain stupid jingoism - can replace the hard-won discipline of self government. All it takes is for the people to be so dazzled by the glory of war and mythic heroism that they are blind to the depredations of their over- ambitious leaders.
What we get will be what we deserve. But we are very powerful militarily, and what destruction we can wreak on others may not be what THEY deserve.
19 - Dave Nalle
It appears that the only hope you hold out for Americans is bankrupting themselves in war, and then being unable to pursue military adventures further.
Why would any rational person living in the west have such an insane hope?
Dave is a good fellow with the cold eyes of a realist and an education and life experiences to back him up. It would appear that he should be agreeing with you rather than disagreeing
I don't necessarily disagree entirely with Adrien, I just find her analysis terribly naive and flawed. I agree that the situation in Iraq is probably the wrong way to approach the war on terror, but my reasons are certainly far different than Adrien's.
Dave
20 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Dave,
RiJ: It appears that the only hope you hold out for Americans is bankrupting themselves in war, and then being unable to pursue military adventures further.
DN: Why would any rational person living in the west have such an insane hope?
You have kids, as does Adrien (hers are grown), and as do I. Kids throw tantrums, and often the only thing to do when they throw a tantrum is to just let the anger wear itself out until the child becomes exhausted.
The tantrum in this example, is the war, and the equivalent to the tantrum wearing itself out in this example, is running out of money.
DN: don't necessarily disagree entirely with Adrien, I just find her analysis terribly naive and flawed. I agree that the situation in Iraq is probably the wrong way to approach the war on terror, but my reasons are certainly far different than Adrien's.
May I suggest to you that you cannot make a war on an idea. A war on terror will be as successful as a war on drugs, or a war on crime. Your society is turning more and more autocratic and authoritarian. The question still remains if the Democratic controlled congress will actually take office. I wouldn't throw around terms like theocratic fascism - they do not apply in this instance - but if I were you I'd keep oiling my guns and stocking up on ammo and finding a place where a dog or metal detector can't sniff them out.
Oh, by the way, our great leader found a new way to change the subject and again avert eyes from his own crimes.
Nu? Now, I have an article to work on...
21 - Dave Nalle
The moral bankruptcy of our imperial ambitions is worse. ...We may conquer - through bombings and technology - a hundred nations,
So long as this is part of your reasoning on this subject it's very hard to have a discussion with you. To reach logical conclusions you absolutely have to start with a basis in facts and premises that make sense. Since this premise is neither true, nor vaguely logical, everything which follows from it is likely to be invalid.
Dave
22 - Dave Nalle
May I suggest to you that you cannot make a war on an idea. A war on terror will be as successful as a war on drugs, or a war on crime.
This is just semantics. You CAN make a war on terrorists and on the states which sponsor them, and that's what the phrase means. What's more, the terrorists will make war on us whether we fight back or not, so it is a real war, unlike the other examples you cite.
Your society is turning more and more autocratic and authoritarian. The question still remains if the Democratic controlled congress will actually take office.
This is where your expatriat status steers you wrong, Ruvy. There's no reason why the new government wouldn't take power in due course, because despite a different party label there's no functional difference between one legislator and another.
Dave
23 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
"You CAN make a war on terrorists and on the states which sponsor them" and that is precisely what the United States is NOT doing. This is because the Bush family is tied financially to the Wahhabis they put in power 80 years ago.
In this case, the enemy - whether of the United States or of Israel - sits in the White House.
If the government fears that a Democratic congress will hamstring its ability to sene troops overseas, it will create an incident to create a war. This assessment is based on information from sources within the United States, not outside of it.
24 - Dave Nalle
I'd love to hear what your sources are, because they're delusional. They certainly have no intimate awareness of what goes on in our government. They sound just like some of the paranoid folks on the far right who are always ranting about the suspension of rights and replacement of the government with a dictatorship and have been doing so for years and have been wrong all that time and are wrong now.
Dave
25 - troll
'statistics are what they are'...too true
friezes...momentary approximations...apparitions of 'reality'...like 'facts' objects of abuse - slaves in the Propaganda Wars
speculating about what a rational person 'should' expect of our soldiers in Iraq based on stats describing behavior in the US population is an example of this abuse leading to such absurd statements as '... statistically there ought to be at least 120 rapists in the US forces in Iraq' and '...statistically there should be 2 or 3 potential serial killers in Iraq'
but Realist's argument isn't merely that American soldiers are perverts and rapists but rather that perversion is being used as an authorized tactic to demoralize the opposition - his references do support this pov as does the history of how the US has used these methods in other conflicts - see in particular 'the anti -insurgency' training manuals and methods used in Central and South American countries
getting all in a huff about him accusing our soldiers of rape and deprivation sidetracks the issue
concerning the ongoing argument (read blather) about the Lancet study...this - 'The fact is that the Lancet report is pure propaganda, cobbled together to promote a completely false impression of civilian casualties in Iraq. This isn't just my opinion. It's a pretty well documented fact.' - reflects a warped partisan threshold for what are 'facts' - Dave's famous rose colored shades...reminiscent in style of Reagan's Office of Public Diplomacy
as is the flight of fancy in which some central office has been bureaucratically issuing recorded death certificates throughout Iraq and that these are comparable to the certificates that the Lancet team encountered
the 'fact' is we don't know how many civilians have been killed in the conflict nor do we have adequate tools for deciding this question...it is as reasonable for Adrien to base her moral repulsion on the 600,000+ figure as a smaller one
the question of direct responsibility is a separate issue...the pottery barn analogy applies to the loss of human life as part of the country as a whole - under international accord by occupying Iraq we took on the task of insuring the safety of the civilian population and are responsible for our failure
(Adrien's comparison of DU to agent orange is right on...the argument has morphed recently from 'DU is harmless' to 'it's harmless if one avoids areas where it has been manufactured or used' - how long before it is recognized to have long lasting health effects on both the soldiers who handle it and the populations living in its dust...and is banned by civilized nations and insurance companies - ?
see Starmet's sordid history (it's closed Concord production facility is a superfund site) and Honeywell's involvement if you're looking to track down the profiteers)
......and I don't know what to make of our expatriated Prophet from Jerusalem's predictions about the impending doom of our Republic