Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHaving the 'Best Military' Is Not Always a Good Thing
Reclaiming Our Citizen-Soldier Heritage
When did American troops become "warfighters" -- members of "Generation Kill" -- instead of citizen-soldiers? And when did we become so proud of declaring our military to be "the world's best"? These are neither frivolous nor rhetorical questions. Open up any national defense publication today and you can't miss the ads from defense contractors, all eagerly touting the ways they "serve" America's "warfighters." Listen to the politicians, and you'll hear the obligatory incantation about our military being "the world's best."
All this is, by now, so often repeated -- so eagerly accepted -- that few of us seem to recall how against the American grain it really is. If anything -- and I saw this in studying German military history -- it's far more in keeping with the bellicose traditions and bumptious rhetoric of Imperial Germany under Kaiser Wilhelm II than of an American republic that began its march to independence with patriotic Minutemen in revolt against King George.
So consider this a modest proposal from a retired citizen-airman: A small but meaningful act against the creeping militarism of the Bush years would be to collectively repudiate our "world's best warfighter" rhetoric and re-embrace instead a tradition of reluctant but resolute citizen-soldiers.
Becoming Warfighters
I first noticed the term "warfighter" in 2002. Like many a field-grade staff officer, I spent a lot of time crafting PowerPoint briefings, trying to sell senior officers and the Pentagon on my particular unit's importance to the President's new Global War on Terrorism. The more briefings I saw, the more often I came across references to "serving the warfighter." It was, I suppose, an obvious selling point, once we were at war in Afghanistan and gearing up for "regime-change" in Iraq. And I was probably typical in that I, too, grabbed the term for my briefings. After all, who wants to be left behind when it comes to supporting the troops "at the pointy end of the spear" (to borrow another military trope)?
But I wasn't comfortable with the term then, and today it tastes bitter in my mouth. Until recent times, the American military was justly proud of being a force of citizen-soldiers. It didn't matter whether you were talking about those famed Revolutionary War Minutemen, courageous Civil War volunteers, or the "Greatest Generation" conscripts of World War II. After all, Americans had a long tradition of being distrustful of the very idea of a large, permanent army, as well as of giving potentially disruptive authority to generals.
Our tradition of citizen-soldiery was (and could still be) one of the great strengths of this country. Let me give you two examples of such citizen-soldiers, well known within military circles because they wrote especially powerful memoirs. Eugene B. Sledge served in the U.S. Marines during World War II, surviving two unimaginably brutal campaigns on the islands of Peleliu and Okinawa. His memoir With the Old Breed is arguably the best account of ground warfare in the Pacific. After three years of selfless, heroic service to his country, Sledge gladly returned to civilian life, eventually becoming a professor of biology. His conclusion -- that "war is brutish, inglorious, and a terrible waste" -- is one seconded by many a combat veteran.
Richard (Dick) Winters is better known because his exploits were captured in the HBO series Band of Brothers. He rose from platoon commander to battalion commander, serving in the elite 101st Airborne Division during World War II. A hero beloved by his men, Winters wanted nothing more than to quit the military and return to the civilian world. After the war, he lived a quiet life as a businessman in Pennsylvania, rarely mentioning his service and refusing to use his retired military rank for personal gratification. In Beyond Band of Brothers, he recounts both his service and his ideas on leadership. It's a book to put in the hands of any young American who wishes to understand the noble ideas of service and sacrifice.
Sledge and Winters were regular guys who answered their country's call. What comes across in their memoirs, as well as in the many letters I've read from World War II soldiers, was the desire of the average dogface to win the war, return home, hang up the uniform, and never again fire a shot in anger. These men were war-enders, not warfighters. Indeed, they would've been sickened by the very idea of being "warfighters."
The term "warfighter" -- a combination, I suppose, of "warrior" and "war fighting" -- suggests a person who lives for war, who spoils for a fight. Certainly, the United States has fought its share of ruthless wars. But traditionally our soldiers have thought of themselves as civilians first, soldiers second. Equally as important, the American people thought of their troops that way.
Why are we now, with so little debate, casting aside an ethos that served us well for two centuries for one that straightforwardly embraces war and killing? Possibly because we've invented a distinctly American product: sanitized militarism. I bumped into it last week at a most unlikely place.
Visiting Gettysburg
Last week, I finally made it to Gettysburg, site of the great three-day battle between Union and Confederate forces in July 1863 that ended with the defeat of General Robert E. Lee's army. Walking the battlefield was a sobering experience. I found myself on Little Round Top at 5:00 PM, just about the time of day that Union generals rushed men to reinforce the hill against a determined Confederate assault at the close of the battle's second day. Earlier, I was at the Angle, just when, almost a century and a half ago, Pickett's Charge failed to pierce the Union center, sealing Lee's fate on the third day.
As these events played through my mind, I marveled that I had the battlefield largely to myself. Not that I was alone, mind you. Tour buses circled; cars, trucks, and SUVs whizzed about, but many, perhaps most, Americans who visit Gettysburg get surprisingly little tactile or sensory experience of its difficult topography. Yes, a few kids (and fewer adults) joined me in clambering about the huge, claustrophobically placed boulders of Devil's Den, and I did spy a couple of guided tour groups on foot. But at the site of a bloodcurdling, distinctly septic nineteenth century battle, most visitors were clearly having a distinctly bloodless, even antiseptic, twenty-first century experience.
That day, I learned a lot about Gettysburg the battle -- and maybe a little about us as well. As surely as my fellow tourists were staying in their cars and buses, we, as a people, are distancing ourselves from the realities of war. As we seal ourselves away from war's horrors, we're correspondingly finding it easier to speak of "warfighters" and to boast of having the world's best military.
As we catch a glimpse, from the comfort of our living rooms, of a suicide bombing in Iraq or an American outpost attacked, then abandoned, in Afghanistan, are we not like those tourists in buses at Gettysburg, listening to sanitized recordings telling us what to see and think about the (expurgated) reality in front of us? And who dares challenge the "expert" commentary? Who dares turn off the canned talking heads and stare into the face of war?
But if we are to end our militaristic, yet curiously sanitized, "warfighter" moment, if we are ever to return to our citizen-soldier ethos and heritage, this is just what we must do.
After all, it's later than you think. Our military now relies not only on a volunteer (if, at times, "stop-lossed") Army, but increasingly on tens of thousands of hired guns, consultants, interrogators, interpreters, and other paramilitary camp followers. Private, for-profit "security contractors" -- companies like Blackwater and Triple Canopy -- give a disturbing new meaning to our "warfighter" terminology and the rhetoric that marches in step with it. As even casual students of history will recall, a clear sign of the Roman Empire's decline was its shift from citizen-soldiers motivated by duty to mercenaries motivated by profit.
Replacing "warfighters" with true citizen-soldiers in the mold of Sledge and Winters would hardly be a solve-all solution at this late date, but it might be a step in the right direction -- however unlikely it is to happen. For when we look at our troops, if we don't see ourselves, then we see aliens or, worse yet, superiors ("warfighters") in need of "support." And that's a clear sign of trouble for the republic.
Want to Be in the "World's Best Military"? Ask German Veterans
It may come as a shock to some, but the American army wasn't the best in the field in World War I, or World War II either. And thank heavens for that.
The distinction falls to the Kaiser Wilhelm's army in 1914, and to Hitler's Wehrmacht in 1941. Even toward the end of World War II, the American army was still often outmaneuvered and outclassed by its German foe. Because victory has a way of papering over faults and altering memories, few but professional historians today recall the many shortcomings of our military in both world wars.
But that's precisely the point: The American military made mistakes because it was often ill-trained, rushed into combat too quickly, and handled by officers lacking in experience. Put simply, in both World Wars it lacked the tactical virtuosity of its German counterpart.
But here's the question to ponder: At what price virtuosity? In World War I and World War II, the Germans were the best soldiers because they had trained and fought the most, because their societies were geared, mentally and in most other ways, for war, because they celebrated and valued feats of arms above all other contributions one could make to society and culture.
Being "the best soldiers" meant that senior German leaders -- whether the Kaiser, Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg, that Teutonic titan of World War I, or Hitler -- always expected them to prevail. The mentality was: "We're number one. How can we possibly lose unless we quit -- or those [fill in your civilian quislings of choice] stab us in the back?"
If this mentality sounds increasingly familiar, it's because it's the one we ourselves have internalized in these last years. German warfighters and their leaders knew no limitations until it was too late for them to recover from ceaseless combat, imperial overstretch, and economic collapse.
Today, the U.S. military, and by extension American culture, is caught in a similar bind. After all, if we truly believe ours to be "the world's best military" (and, judging by how often the claim is repeated in the echo chamber of our media, we evidently do), how can we possibly be losing in Iraq or Afghanistan? And, if the "impossible" somehow happens, how can our military be to blame? If our "warfighters" are indeed "the best," someone else must have betrayed them -- appeasing politicians, lily-livered liberals, duplicitous and weak-willed allies like the increasingly recalcitrant Iraqis, you name it.
Today, our military is arguably the world's best. Certainly, it's the world's most powerful in its advanced armaments and its ability to destroy. But what does it say about our leaders that they are so taken with this form of power? And why exactly is it so good to be the "best" at this? Just ask a German military veteran -- among the few who survived, that is -- in a warrior-state that went berserk in a febrile quest for "full spectrum dominance."
Fighting to End Wars
Words matter. Let's start by banishing the word "warfighter," and, while we're at it, let's toss out that "world's best" boast as well. Boasting about military prowess is more Spartan than Athenian, more Second and Third Reich Germany than republican and democratic America.
Indeed, imagine, for a moment, a world in which the U.S. is no longer "number one" in military might (and, at the same time, no longer fighting endless wars in the Middle East and Central Asia). Would we then be weak and vulnerable? Or would we become stronger precisely because we stopped boasting about our ability as "warfighters" to dominate far from our shores and instead redirected our resources to developing alternative energy, bolstering our education system, reviving American industry, and focusing on other "soft power" alternatives to weapons and warriors? In other words, alternatives we can actually boast about with the pride of accomplishment.
Think about it: Must our military forever remain "second to none" for you to feel safe? Our national traditions suggest otherwise. In fact, if we no longer had the world's strongest military, perhaps we would be more reluctant to tap its strength -- and more hesitant to send our citizen-soldiers into harm's way. And while we're at it, perhaps we'd also learn to boast about a new kind of "warfighter" -- not one who fights our wars, but one who fights against them.
William J. Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), taught at the Air Force Academy and the Naval Postgraduate School. He now teaches at the Pennsylvania College of Technology, and is the author of Hindenburg: Icon of German Militarism, among other works (Potomac Press, 2005). He may be reached at wastore@pct.edu.
Copyright 2008 William Astore
198 Comments so far
Show All" Bert Sacks, Kathy Kelly et al were prosecuted for bringing medicine "
They were not charged with this. You should know this if you have been following it as you say. Were it true, you would be able to show it since it's public record but you can't. Do you even know what they really were charged with? For ignoring the required licensing process for exceptions. They just took it upon their own authority to mosey on into Iraq, *that* was the violation. Not only that, they had announced ahead of time their intentions, and in response, were warned against it by the Office of Foreign Assets Control and even provided the details as to the correct procedures.
It was obviously *not* about medicine.
"And, your entire justification of the sanctions "
Nowhere did I justify the sanctions.
"Economic sanctions are not war crimes, in and of themselves, but when they are used to stop the flow of humanitarian aid, they are,"
In your opinion only. There is absolutely no precedent where economic sanctions have been held as a war crime or even an act of war by themselves. But if you just want to grossly stretch the definition of war crime as it pertains to your feelings about it go ahead, just don't impose it on others. Words *mean* things.
Obviously, we've reached the point where continued discussion is a waste of time. Bert Sacks, Kathy Kelly et al were prosecuted for bringing medicine to Iraq IN VIOLATION OF THE SANCTIONS that were administered by the UN but controlled and dominated by U.S dimplomats. I've been following this stuff carefully for over a decade and unlike you, I've been over there. Interesting that you have no on-the-ground experience or intel, by your own admission, yet me (and another poster, who've actually been to the Middle East); as well as Ritter, who knows more about Iraq WMD and the behind-the-scenes diplomacy than 99 percent of everyone on the planet, and yet you continue to parrot the official line. While you're googling, look up Dennis Haliday and Hans Van Sponeck, two UN officials who administered the "humanitarian aid" provided for Iraq under the Oil for food program. Both of them have impeccable credentials and records at the UN and both of them resigned in protest, saying the sanctions were tantamount to a genocidal policy and that, while Saddam obviously shared in that responsiblity, the US had a lot of blood on its hands. In fact, Von Sponeck, particularly focused on the banning of things like medical textbooks. He called it "intellectual genocide" b/c banning things like medical textbooks led to a severe brain-drain in Iraq -- the professional class; the very people you need to keep a society running. Most of those, who could leave, left the country b/c of it. Also, what is the rationale for blocking things ambulances and refrigeration equipment from being imported.
And, your entire justification of the sanctions is undermined by the Bush admin move to refine the sanctions, implicity acknowledging the needless suffering. That's why they called the new sanctions "smart sanctions."
Economic sanctions are not war crimes, in and of themselves, but when they are used to stop the flow of humanitarian aid, they are, which is why so many nations ended up ignoring the sanctions.
Also, the Saddam used the money to buy palaces argument is a red herring b/c the he didn't control the money used to buy medicines etc. That was administered and controlled by UN officials, first Dennis Halliday and then Von Sponeck, who, like I said, resigned, after having realized US diplomats, behind the scenes, were pulling the strings.
Of course, the UN sec council doesn't do everything the U.S. says but they certainly do when, behind the scenes, they cut deals with other security council members who don't give a rat's ass about Iraq or Kuwait, just like you.
"Jake, you've already acknowledged, as the diplomatic record on this i.e. the sanctions were intended to harm the civilian population in an effort to convince them to overthrow Saddam"
But not to kill them, as they would then not be able to overthrow him. That would have been a poor design.
"Bert Sacks is a friend of mine. Google his name. "
I just did. You must be aware then that Bert Sacks was not charged with distributing medicine, so this doesn't make a case that medicine was banned.
"part of the justification for invading Iraq was his treatment of "his own people"
OK, you are probably right. As a matter of fact, the gassing of the Kurds could only have strenghtened such a case and could not possibly weaken it. Now what?
"And you continue to ignore the intel we provided him to gas Iranians,"
I will now play that game. You have ignored:
Insurgents don't always fight on behlf of all the people in the area.
Whether statistics support the idea that arab militants don't target Israeli civilians to the exclusion of military.
That no nation is obliged to trade with any other nation.
That it was Britain, not the U.S., that bombed Dresden.
That economic sanctions are not war crimes.
That no one would have placed sanctions on Saddam had he not invaded Kuwait.
That the sanctions were endorsed by the UN, not only the U.S.
That the UN security council doesn't simply go along with what the U.S. wants given the veto that the permanent members have.
That medicine was not one of the things barred by the sanctions.
Jake, you've already acknowledged, as the diplomatic record on this i.e. the sanctions were intended to harm the civilian population in an effort to convince them to overthrow Saddam
Jake wrote: That should be a matter of public record then. Any sources for that?
Yeah, I'm the source. Bert Sacks is a friend of mine. Google his name. This was covered by the Seattle PI, as I noted earlier.
Jake wrote: It was never used as justification for invasion, but rather as evidence as to what Saddam in fact had done with WMDs when he had them.
That just plain bullshit and obvious to any honest observer that part of the justification for invading Iraq was his treatment of "his own people." And you continue to ignore the intel we provided him to gas Iranians, which was reported in Washington Post.
"Was the suffering of the Iraqi people a predictable consequence of the sanctions? Of course it was. That's what they were designed for, obviously."
I the above statement is at the crux of your problem. It is a Non Sequitur. Given that something is a predictable consequence of an action, it does not logically follow that the something was the designed purpose of the action.
"It may say that in the text but I know personally a number of people who were prosecuted in the U.S. for bringing medicine directly to Iraqis in violation of the sanctions."
That should be a matter of poblic record then. Any sources for that?
"The question wasn't loaded. "
Depends on exactly what the question is and in what context and situation it was asked.
"Imagine if a group of radical Indians or black panthers in America took up arms with the aim of carving out sovereign terroritory within the U.S."
"They would be mercilessly crushed to the delight of most Americans."
If unarmed civilians were gassed as Saddam did the Kurds? You actually think that would delight most Americans? You can think that if you want but I don't.
"Would it be accurate to say of the president who ordered the rebellion to be put down in America that "he killed his own people" "
Yes.
"and then use that a justification for invasion."
It was never used as justification for invasion, but rather as evidence as to what Saddam in fact had done with WMDs when he had them.
"And quoting from Albright's ... "
She denied that she meant what was said, whatever the context of the book.
""Yeah, I'm a war criminal."
Economic sanctions are *never* a war crime.
And quoting from Albright's self-serving autobiography is like quoting Kissinger to explain his depravity. Not very convincing. What else is Albright going to say? "Yeah, I'm a war criminal." Nope. She doesn't believe that. It's called cognitive dissonance.
And of course as you omitted, she retracted that later, saying the question was loaded
The question wasn't loaded. It's loaded only if you use the warped ethical thinking you tried to employ by blaming it all on Saddam, which is a clear evasion of the very essence of morality; namely, we are always responsible for the predictable consequences of our actions. Was the suffering of the Iraqi people a predictable consequence of the sanctions? Of course it was. That's what they were designed for, obviously.
It's a direct attack on civilians!
Jake said: And then promptly turned on the Kurds, killing thousands.
Not that I support such moves but you do realize that the Kurds were armed enemies of state. This canard of Saddam "killing his own people" like the Kurds is a distortion. Imagine if a group of radical Indians or black panthers in America took up arms with the aim of carving out sovereign terroritory within the U.S. They would be mercilessly crushed to the delight of most Americans. Would it be accurate to say of the president who ordered the rebellion to be put down in America that "he killed his own people" and then use that a justification for invasion. C'mon Jake, you're smarter (and more honest) than that.
Jake, the except part is absolutely false. It may say that in the text but I know personally a number of people who were prosecuted in the U.S. for bringing medicine directly to Iraqis in violation of the sanctions. They were prosecuted and threatened with huge fines. Fortunately, the gov't dropped the case b/c of the embarrasing coverage it provided but don't tell me medicine was not banned when I have friends who were prosecuted for doing as much.
From Albright's autobiography:
"I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it. … I had fallen into a trap and said something that I simply did not mean."
"Oddly enough we apparently agree on the medicines. Maybe I wrote it funny. My point was, and has been, that medicine was banned by the sanctions."
So that it is clear here is the resolution:
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/575/11/IMG/NR057511.pdf?OpenElement
"4. Decides that all States shall not make available to the Government of Iraq or to any commercial, industrial or public utility undertaking in Iraq or Kuwait, any funds or any other financial or economic resources and shall prevent their nationals and any persons within their territories from removing from their territories or otherwise making available to that Government or to any such undertaking any such funds or resources and from remitting any other funds to persons or bodies within Iraq or Kuwait, except payments exclusively for strictly medical or humanitarian purposes and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs;"
Clear?
"So the death of 500,000 Iraqi children is worth the price, as Albright said on 60 minutes. "
And of course as you omitted, she retracted that later, saying the question was loaded. And again you have to say "compared to what", as in what else besides killing Kurds would Saddam do with more resources.
"How about de-coupling the sanctions that targeted the civilian population (economic sanctions) from the military sanctions."
The sanctions *as they were* lead to Saddam's weakening. I am not sure how you would delimit "military" from "civilian" so nice and neatly as you imply you can.
"He had already been pushed out of Kuwait"
And then promptly turned on the Kurds, killing thousands.
"Oddly enough we apparently agree on the medicines. Maybe I wrote it funny. My point was, and has been, that medicine was banned by the sanctions."
Wrong! Medicine was *permitted*! Read the link I posted.
"And their violence is pure nihilism with no "subsequent purpose"?"
Their violence, such as when a young person is convinced by old persons to blow themselves up in a pizza parlor? Do you really think that is celbrated for any other reason then it kills civilians? I don't, and they *do* celebrate such things.
"No, sh– it didn't work. "
Then why bring it up again when I already said as much and never said I supported it?
Jake wrote: If you have the idea that things will get better than ever before if you overthrow your oppresive leader you might then overthrow them. It didn't work with Iraq.
No, sh-- it didn't work. To go back to the boxing analogy I made earlier, to believe that sanctions will make civilians unrelated to the "crime" in question other than the accident of their birth, to think "things will get even better than before," is like expecting the beat-up-by-his-own-corner boxer to say to himself: hey, if I just go out and kick my opponents ass, my ring man will stop kicking my ass. It's sheer idiocy. And it doesn't take any boxing experience or much imagination to see why.
Interesting how you've refined your definition of terrorism over the course of the posts. Now you add the caveat: "whose sole perpose was to cause the loss of civilian life towards no subsequent purpose."
So our violence is better because it has "subsequent purpose"? And their violence is pure nihilism with no "subsequent purpose"?
Is it possible that they are human beings, who like you and me, don't see their attackers violence as being rigtheous; that their violence has purpose; just one at odds with the U.S. propensity to assume a divine right to militarily intervene whereever the hell we damn well please. Their violence is utterly depraved while ours is morally superior?
So the death of 500,000 Iraqi children is worth the price, as Albright said on 60 minutes. The price of what?
Then what? How about de-coupling the sanctions that targeted the civilian population (economic sanctions) from the military sanctions. He had already been pushed out of Kuwait with very little loss of U.S. soldiers and a relative pittance, in terms of paying for the war. Most of the costs of Gulf War I were paid by other nations. Again, by 1996, Saddam was not even a regional threat, let alone a global one, so the sanctions were insane, on both humanitarian AND strategic grounds.
Oddly enough we apparently agree on the medicines. Maybe I wrote it funny. My point was, and has been, that medicine was banned by the sanctions. Isn't there something in international law about it being a crime against humanity to block medicine from getting to civilians, even during war? International law, BTW, that was disproportionately written by U.S. diplomats.
"Medicine was NOT excluded,"
Was too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions
"You do realize that the UN Security Council does pretty much whatever the U.S. tells it to. "
Total BS. Don't you remember that *any one* of the permananet members have veto power?
"And what sense does it make to make it harder for the very people you want to overthrow the government in the first place?"
If you have the idea that things will get better than ever before if you overthrow your oppresive leader you might then overthrow them. It didn't work with Iraq. I never said it was a good idea, I just restated the purpose. And again, this has to be weighed against what would happen if you allowed full trading status. In the case of Saddam, he obviously may very well have rearmed himself and became stronger than ever. Then what?
sg, you misunderstand. Medicine was excluded from those things otherwise involved in the sanctions, IOW, it was OK to supply medicine. This of course doesn't mean that anyone was forced to provide medicine to Iraq, only that it was *not* subject to sanction.
Actually, you misunderstand. Medicine was NOT excluded, which was the basis of the U.S. Treasury seeking charges against people like Berk Sacks and others like him involved in such groups as doctors without borders etc. This was covered in by the Seattle press, which is where Sacks live.
Jake wrote: It was not just the US, it was a UN resolution. You seem to think that the default conditon is that people would trade with Iraq even if they didn't want to. No one is compelled to trade with Iraq or anyone else.
You do realize that the UN Security Council does pretty much whatever the U.S. tells it to. The fact is: the U.S. wrote the sanctions and the sanctions committee was dominated by U.S. representatives. Compelled to trade? Iraq's economy was based on its sale of oil to buy many things vital to the infrastructure and vitality of that country, as is the case with every nation engaged in a globalized economy. Cutting off those vital imports, such as equipment to fix water treatment plants manafactured outside of Iraq, is Saddam's fault because he invaded Kuwait?!
And what sense does it make to make it harder for the very people you want to overthrow the government in the first place? That's like "wanting" your cousin to whoop someone in a fight but as he steps into the ring, you kick his ass first, prevent him from getting any water, stop him from sitting on the stool in between rounds and not allowing him to have a mouthpiece. Those are "smart sanctions" for which the Iraqis are solely responsible for? I bet you were one of the ones who, even after 13 years of murderous sanctions, thought we would be greeted as liberators, huh?
"And now that you've finally acknowledged that U.S. military history includes many instances of bombing civilian targets"
Not purely civilian, I have not. I can think of no action in all of US military history whose sole perpose was to cause the loss of civilian life towards no subsequent purpose.
"And I feel it hard to believe that you care that deeply about a country that was carved out of Iraq by Britain to serve as a gas station for western interests."
I completely agree with your characterization of what Iraq is but I never claimed I cared about Iraq as a country one way or another.
"What, if the shoe were on the other foot, and in a parellel universe, Iraq bombed the city/suburb where you live b/c of its infrastructure linkes to the military? The deaths of all those civilian utility workers like the company my uncle works for would be rightly deemed terrorism."
If such an attack was a brand new initiation of hostilities, that would be one thing, but that does not compare to your previous examples that all occured late in an ongoing war.
And now that you've finally acknowledged that U.S. military history includes many instances of bombing civilian targets, you may begin to see why I doubt the clean distinction you make between our violence and theirs, based on some supposed "intended target/they mainly go after civilians" argument. Or is it intellectual masterbastion? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
sg, you misunderstand. Medicine was excluded from those things otherwise involved in the sanctions, IOW, it was OK to supply medicine. This of course doesn't mean that anyone was forced to provide medicine to Iraq, only that it was *not* subject to sanction.
"And it sucks when people think it's justified that because of the action of a handful of "bad leaders" that the U.S. has the divine right to intervene,"
It was not just the US, it was a UN resolution. You seem to think that the default conditon is that people would trade with Iraq even if they didn't want to. No one is compelled to trade with Iraq or anyone else.
"So are you saying that b/c Saddam invaded Kuwait, it's okay for us to punish the Iraqi people, "
The purpose of the sanctions were to convince the people to remove Saddam from power. And while this failed, it reduced his ability to create weapons and helped reduce his military capability. That has to be weighed against hardship suffered by the people.
"though it was okay for Saddam to invade Iran and use chemical weapons with targeting info provided by Rummy and company?"
Did *I* ever say this was OK?
And your ditty about the various U.S. carpet bombings of cities, while antiseptically-true from a war tactician POV, it still remains true that they were intentional attacks on obviously civilian targets. The point being: war is total. The idea that we're better b/c we don't target civilians is transparently absurd. What, if the shoe were on the other foot, and in a parellel universe, Iraq bombed the city/suburb where you live b/c of its infrastructure linkes to the military? The deaths of all those civilian utility workers like the company my uncle works for would be rightly deemed terrorism.
And I feel it hard to believe that you care that deeply about a country that was carved out of Iraq by Britain to serve as a gas station for western interests. The crucial question with regards to Saddam's Iraq was/is: since it's obvious our multiple invasions of Iraq have nothing to do with "liberating" the Iraqi people or retaliating for 9/11, what was Saddam's real sin? It certainly wasn't invading a soveriegn nation. He'd already done that (to Iran) with crucial help from us -- the war in which he actually used chemical weapons, with target info from our boys.
" And there are far more cases of the U.S. military targeted civilian populations only. "
And where it's truly to the exclusion of the military or at least targets of some military value the action is morally inferior.
"Dresden"
Bombed by the Royal Air Force. Center of transportation, communication, and industry, with various German units in the area.
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki"
Both had military significance. It was also recognized that the psychological effect of the new weapons would go a long way towards the Japenese full appreciation of their capabilities. This played into the selection of the targets, with the idea of hastening surrender and preventing greater casualties later.
"southeast Asia"
Operation Roling Thunder targeted North Vietnam's industrial base, communications, and air defence, as well as their ability to move men and materiel south.
Jake wrote: Resolution 661 excluded medicine?
Yes, which is why Americans who thought this immoral and broke the embargo by bringing medicine to Iraq were charged in U.S. courts. People like Bert Sacks.
Jake wrote: It really sucks when a people suffer because their leader likes to collect multiple oppulent homes. etc.
Yeah, it does. And it sucks when people think it's justified that because of the action of a handful of "bad leaders" that the U.S. has the divine right to intervene, and the people have to suffer, especially when they can't simply vote or impeach the dictator out of office.
So are you saying that b/c Saddam invaded Kuwait, it's okay for us to punish the Iraqi people, though it was okay for Saddam to invade Iran and use chemical weapons with targeting info provided by Rummy and company?
Ethics 101: we are always responsible for the predictable consequences of our actions, regardless of the "provocations" of others. That is the very essense of morality and ethical life.
"You can't blame Saddam for not allowing Iraqis to have access to certain medicines when prior to the sanctions he made them available."
Resolution 661 excluded medicine.
"That you don't know this while continuing to put all the blame on Saddam "
The sanctions were a result of the invasion of Kuwait. Was someone other than Saddam responsible for that?
It really sucks when a people suffer because their leader likes to collect multiple oppulent homes. etc.
also, Jake said: "If their violence primarily targets civilians to the exclusion of the military, absolutely."
Obviously (and I gave you one example about the IDF soldiers at the bus stops) "their violence" does not "primarily target civilians to the exclusion of the military." Are there such cases? Of course. And there are far more cases of the U.S. military targeted civilian populations only. The historical record is full of them -- from Dresden to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the carpet bombings of southeast Asia.
Jake, before the sanctions, Iraq has probably the most developed health care system in the mideast, next to Israel; to the point where, prior to the 1991 sanctions the biggest medical problem facing pediatricians there was childhood obesity, as noted by New Eng Journal of Med and Lancet. After the sanctions, the number one killer of Iraqi children was easily-preventable water-borne diseases, attributed to the bomb-out water and electrical plants, which were intentionally targeted. The sanctions prevented those things from getting fixed because of the "daul-use" thing and somehow that's Saddam's fault. That's like arguing that non-payment of child support by the estranged spouse is the custodial parents fault, even though the kids are starving because of it. For the sake of argument, let's say the estrangement IS the fault of the custodial parent. Is that a (moral/ethical) argument for not paying child support? Is it even a legally justifiable argument?
Jake, you really need to familiarize yourself with the history of US-Iraq relations. Iraq had already complied, as Scott Ritter had been writing about THREE YEARS BEFORE THE INVASION. In fact, that's what drew him into his new career as an activist etc. Ritter, said Iraq had been qualitatively disarmed by 1996. The reason the sanctions were not lifted is b/c the U.S administered UN resolution called for 100 percent quantitative disarmanent, which any expert in the field will tell you is an impossible benchmark. The fact that no WMD were found after the invasion, precisely and exactly as Ritter had been writing and speaking about publicly for years before the invasion only corroborates the assessment.
So your blame-shifting is transparently weak and it studiously ignores the diplomatic record. You can't blame Saddam for not allowing Iraqis to have access to certain medicines when prior to the sanctions he made them available. And, it's absurd to think Saddam is responsible for not having met an impossible benchmark, even after having been qualitatively disarmed.
By the way, qualitative disarmament is more jargon that means Iraq didn't pose a regional threat, let alone a global one.
That you don't know this while continuing to put all the blame on Saddam speaks to why people in the M.E. feel hopeless -- a hopelessness that eventually turns into "terrorism." Think of irony, the Iraqi people, who do not get to elect their leaders, were punished for not getting him out of office. Yet, in America, where we're all "innocent" b/c we don't "primarily" target civilians, which is demonstrably false and a gross distortion of the historical record, continue to live in wilful ignorance and we keep electing people like Bush to office. Over and over again. If a "democratic" can't stop a maniac like Bush from doing evil things in our name, then how can we expect people living under a dictatorship to do it? However, you do it, implementing economic sanctions that are DESIGNED to hurt the civilian population doesn't help.
"Given the consistent and predictable civilian casualty rate in all modern warfare, is it really honest to say our violence is morally superior b/c civilian death caused by "us" is an "unintended consequence?" "
If their violence primarily targets civilians to the exclusion of the military, absolutely.
"Take the U.S. imposed sanctions on Iraq that led to the deaths of a half-million Iraqi children "
When you consider that no one is obliged to trade with anyone else in the first place, and the regime in Iraq in question could have prevented the deaths of the children by complying with certain criteria, I would put the blame squarely on the Iraq regime and no one else.
the above post I meant to address to our friend jake
Regarding primary targets vs. collateral damage: for starters, since 90 percent of all war casualties have been civilians since t8he beginning of the 20th century, I have serious problems with the clean distinction seen by folks who lament "moral equivalence." i.e. our violence is better 8than theirs because we target, primarily, the official military of our enemy.
Given the consistent and predictable civilian casualty rate in all modern warfare, is it really honest to say our violence is morally superior b/c civilian death caused by "us" is an "unintended consequence?" At what point does predictable outcome and unintended consequences become mutually exclusive.
Also, let's consider an actual relevant historical example. Take the U.S. imposed sanctions on Iraq that led to the deaths of a half-million Iraqi children under the age of 5, as reported by the New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet in the years following our destruction of Iraq's CIVILIAN INFRSTUCTURE. Of course, the logic of the sanctions were to hurt the Iraqi civilian population to the point where'd they be so upset it would foment a revolution (get this) against Saddam's regime. It wasn't until 11 years into the sanctions that the Bush administration via Colin Powell implicitly acknowledged the needless suffering by imposing a new sanctions regime, referred to the Bush admin. as "smart sanctions."
But, there's nothing "smart" about sanctions that prevents a society full of civilians to import the things necessary to support modern infrastructure i.e. ambulances, lead for pencils, medical textbooks, and crucially, the materials needed to fix bombed out water-treatment and electrical facilities. In point of fact, these "dual-use" items were specifically banned under the sanctions regime for 13 years before we invaded in 2003! I know this because I followed the 661 (Sanctions) Committee reports on this stuff.
BTW, "dual-use" is sanctions jargon for those necessary civilian items that the military might use for war-fighting purposes. Meaning, while you need chlorine and certain other chemicals to treat drinking water so people don't get cholera (like the Iraqi children were dying of), the military might weaponize those chemicals - "dual-use." You see the problem, I'm sure. "What you need lead for pencils? Nope, your military might use the lead for bullets. Banned." That whole business, in my book, is nothing short of evil; to say nothing of the mess it makes for your black/white "we don't target civilians" argument.
" separate "primary targets" from "collateral damage", "
There is of course an on going discussion and debate on this over many decades as you allude to. Did you want to continue that discussion here? And in cases where there is clearly no military target at all, your point doesn't apply anyway.
jakenewton:
'"Many more unarmed Palestinians have been killed by Israelis than Israelis by Palestinians." No doubt that's true, but that doesn't mean they are primary targets.'
The rationalization relentlessly made in the US press over the past several decades of imperialist/terrorist clashing is that the imperialists separate "primary targets" from "collateral damage", conveniently relieving themselves of responsibility and dumping it on their opponent. Clever, but stupid. Ehh Jake? Industrialists do the same thing, don't they Jake? Do we really need these enterprises? How about the Hippocratic Oath? Or maybe we are "past" that "pie in the sky"?
"Certainly we can say anything we want here but if we spew kaka, the forum collapses doesn't it old chum?"
Which is why a viewpoint backed by facts and reasoning is better than one that isn't, so we agree.
JakeNewton: "You can say anything you want, talk is cheap"
Certainly we can say anything we want here but if we spew kaka, the forum collapses doesn't it old chum? Is talk really cheap, Jake?
"My God Jake… you are one sad individual. Either you actually believe the crap you're saying… or you're just playing devil's advocate for fun… either way man… Your assertions are mindboggling."
Why not be a little more specific? *What* is it I say that is "crap" and *why*?
" he always belittles others for evidence but never provides any of his own…"
If I don't positively assert anything I don't have to provide evidence. That's the Burden of Proof concept that you should learn a little more about. If I have positively asserted some point here and you would like me to provide evidence I'll do so unless it's just my opinion.
" I'm thinking best not to start at all. lol."
Yup. lol.
Remember folks... when responding to JakeNewton, he always belittles others for evidence but never provides any of his own... He positions himself consistently with the government and is usually on the wrong side of every issue. In fact, he is the epitome of asshole-american. I often find myself getting red in the face by reading the drivel he posts...
My God Jake... you are one sad individual. Either you actually believe the crap you're saying... or you're just playing devil's advocate for fun... either way man... Your assertions are mindboggling.
What did Binladen want? US out of Saudi Arabia and higher prices for oil.
Did he attack America? He denied it, and the FBI stated that it had no evidence that he was involved. (and don't bother quoting the "binLaden" in the video that just happened to be found intact by Americans in bombed out Kabul in 2001. I don't believe that any more than I believe that an intact passport survived the airplane crash, fire and demolition of the World Trade Center)
But the US has gotten out of Saudi Arabia and the price of oil has gone up.
Osama, Mission Accomplished!
Answer 2 Good point
Answer 3 Everybody bleeds, cries, laughs, the same. Everybody wants to believe that the universe in general and his family, community, and country in particular are for rather than against him. Everybody wants at least the illusion of freedom.
Everybody wants to believe he is living up to his own highest principles, his own best self.
Everybody wants to see himself as a good person.
Everybody wants to be a part of something bigger than himself. For some that is their country. For others is the willingness to work for a world in which every person has the opportunity to become the thing he was born to be.
Every government has the responsibility to make these things possible for its citizens and to pursue a foreign policy that fosters the possibility for every person on the planet.
Every decent person wants for others the things he wants for himself.
"I think if it was the USA that was being occupied you two would do whatever it took to make yourselves as comfortable as possible, like the Vietnamese who collaborated with the US invasion and occupation."
OK, I just checked. 9 out of 10 psychologists agree that since you brought this subject up from out of nowhere and that it has nothing at all to do with the discussion, it is 100% sure that you are projecting your own insecurity about how you might behave in such a situation. IOW, you would be much more likely to be the emeny corraborator then me. So sorry.
Answer1: You can think anything you want but if you are going to express that in public in may be better to have some kind of evidence or reasoning. In this thread, I have merely stated that combative groups ought not target innocent civilians as the primary objective of attacks. So from that you conclude that I would corraborate with an enemy occupier?
Answer2: It was a point completely irrlevent to the discussion. I'd like to think you are wrong but I have enough wisdom to understand that *no one* knows how they will act in a new situation ahead of time, including you.
Answer3: You can say anything you want, talk is cheap. I can think of nothing easier for you to do than write here "I'm on the side of the human spirit wherever it is." whatever that's even supposed to mean.
Question#1---Just a general impression
Question#2---You mean I'm wrong?
Question#3---I just told you
"I think if it was the USA that was being occupied you two would do whatever it took to make yourselves as comfortable as possible, like the Vietnamese who collaborated with the US invasion and occupation."
What have I said here that could possibly lead you to that conclusion?
"And please don't lecture me about which "side" I should be on. "
But it's OK for you to talk about what side I am on?
"I'm on the side of the human spirit wherever it is. I'm against the side of Authoritarians, bullies, and war profiteers where ever they are."
What have you said here that would possibly lead me to believe that?
You know what I think Snow Wolf and jakenewton?
I think if it was the USA that was being occupied you two would do whatever it took to make yourselves as comfortable as possible, like the Vietnamese who collaborated with the US invasion and occupation.
The scene in Apocalypse Now with the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders entertaining the troops explains why the great USofA will never win a Viet Nam or a Mid-East war. Our boys just want to get home alive. Their boys ARE home and are prepared to die for it.
What is called ruthlessness is often merely seeing clearly what must be done and doing it. I can understand what the USA calls terrorism better than I can understand invading and occupying another country that poses no threat to us. How much cheaper would it have been to just BUY the oil?
"Charlie didn't get too much USO. He was dug in too deep or moving too fast. His idea of R&R was cold rice and a little rat meat." You won't defeat an enemy like that with money and technology----and I'm glad it's not possible. That means that the human spirit is stronger than threats, torture, or slaughter.
And please don't lecture me about which "side" I should be on. I'm on the side of the human spirit wherever it is. I'm against the side of Authoritarians, bullies, and war profiteers where ever they are.
"What statistics do you have showing the ratio of uniformed soldiers to civilians killed or hurt in such attacks over time? *That* would go towards making your case. "
As would a breakdown, attack by attack, that involved any military compared to no military.
"The soldiers are all wearing their uniforms at the bus stops. The fact that you didn't know leads me to believe you never been there."
I can just tell you I haven't been there. What you haven't demonstrated is whether in a typical suicide bombing if, in fact, there are uniformed soldiers present, or if this is true for *any* particular suicide bombing, but I am sure it is sometimes true.
What statistics do you have showing the ratio of uniformed soldiers to civilians killed or hurt in such attacks over time? *That* would go towards making your case.
"guerrilla insurgencies are impossible without civilian support. "
I agree they require a certain minimum level of support, but not unanimous support, far from it. In fact, insurgents with power can and do intimidate powerless civilians who do not support them but happen to live in the region.
Jake said: "I don't think you have made a strong case that the typical suicide bombing attack is designed to kill soldiers primarily, simply by pointing out that sometimes off duty soldiers may be present."
I was trying to make the case. I was giving just one reason why your analysis is off-base. Just one. There are many more, if you care to find out. The soldiers are all wearing their uniforms at the bus stops. The fact that you didn't know leads me to believe you never been there. The best way to understand is to go there and see for yourself. It's as plain as apartheid was in S. Africa.
Jake wrote: "Even when the political objectives of the insurgents are incongruent with those of the people?"
That's what you don't get about guerrilla warfare, so I'll repeat it again: guerrilla insurgencies are impossible without civilian support. So the answer to your questions is the insurgents goals are always congruent with the people, otherwise there's no insurgency. BTW, you realize that insurgency about ending the occupation. In case you hadn't noticed, that is what the majority of Iraqis have said they wanted for quite some time now, in poll after poll, in their new "democracy." Talk about Orwellian. We are there to "liberate" the people and yet the people want us the hell out of there, just as we would if some imagined superpower invaded us on the pretense that we have WMD, which is true, and that we are the only country in the world to ever use nukes on civilians.
Eisenhower correctly points out the idea of Opportunity Costs associated with guns vs. butter, but in those cases where waging war may indeed be the correct path it is a false dichotomy.
"From the militant Palestinian POV, the soldiers are the target, the civilians are the "collateral damage," "
I don't think you have made a strong case that the typical suicide bombing attack is designed to kill soldiers primarily, simply by pointing out that sometimes off duty soldiers may be present.
"Hence, when an occupying Army is fighting "insurgents" that means it is fighting the people."
Even when the political objectives of the insurgents are incongruent with those of the people?
SnowWolf
Here is an obscure Eisenhower quote, it is not overused so you can enjoy it!
"Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron."
Dwight Eisenhower 1953
I was in Jersey, OOPS I meant Israel in 1979. That is one ARROGANT bunch of people.
( 52% of them anyway) I wish they didn't have so much influence on our great Country.
The USS Liberty "incident" exposed their loyalties!
Another thing I'm not sure we agree on, Jake. You said: "And it's no wonder given how 'Palestinian' militant groups tend to mingle with the innocent civilians."
Not sure why you put "Palestinians" in quotes but it's what you say about mingling with civilians. Guerrilla warfare 101: guerrilla insurgencies cannot exist without popular civilian support. Hence, iron law, numero uno (examples for which the history of guerrilla warfare provides many): Because gurruella insurgencies cannot exist w/o civilian support, short of genocide, THERE IS NO MILITARY SOLUTION to guerrilla insurgencies. Hence, when an occupying Army is fighting "insurgents" that means it is fighting the people.
Jake, one thing we don't see to eye-to-eye on with regards the Israeli-Palestinian beef. I've spent time over there. All over. From the Golan Heights on down to Gaza but one thing that most outside that region don't understand is the geography, the lay of the land. Things like when the Israeli govt says they want all of Jerusalem, what you understand when you go over there is that there are several Jerusalem's, if you will. The Old City, Jerusalem, Greater Jerusalem and the various other outward expanding Jerusalem's that now extend into the West Bank.
Another thing missing from the Palestinians-target-civilians,primarily thesis. If you drive around Israel, you see bus stops everywhere. And at all of these bus stops are several to a dozen IDF soldiers. See, public transportation is big out there and because every Israeli high school grad must serve at least two years in the IDF, there's lots of young IDF soldiers catching buses in Israel. From the militant Palestinian POV, the soldiers are the target, the civilians are the "collateral damage," just like we say when we bomb civilian infrastructure and kill civvies. The "primary" target was the infrastructure, which is being used to support military ops of the enemy yada, yada, yada. So, it's not so simple as you put it. Though I do think such methods are morally repugnant, I say such things from the comfort of a pretty good life in America, far from the daily "collective punishment" imposed on all Palestinians under a half-century or so of Israeli occupation.
We may not like it but those who want to truly understand war must learn to see themselves as their enemies do. I'm not saying we ought to judge our own self-worth based on what our enemies think but we sure as hell better understand it.
WMD's.... we got'em and we drop'em.
"The Israelis have done exactly that - during the 1948 Nakba, while they were ethniclly cleansing their claimed territory of Arabs, they comitted massacres, and raped arab women."
Why would you say that the above, if true, represented a government or military policy? There are criminals in *any* population.
"Many more unarmed Palestinians have been killed by Israelis than Israelis by Palestinians."
No doubt that's true, but that doesn't mean they are primary targets. And it's no wonder given how "Palestinian" militant groups tend to mingle with the innocent civilians.
"you USAn conservatives "
I'm a moderate.
"Go to hell."
Classy.
E L M Y S T E R I O,
I was laughing about your earlier comment, knowing how SERIOUS these discussions must be taken, as you obliviously don't know what's at stake here.
So much of the world's problems would be solved if the men just remembered to place a jake on their fig, and then all of those despicable and violent STDs that terrorize our war-carrion-ers would be isolated -- so they wouldn't have to fought back here in America.
You asked why certain people appeared to be hopelessly skewed ? The answer is simple, the pay is so much better …
...there is no evidence that Isreal persued a policy of making civilians primary targets.
The Israelis have done exactly that - during the 1948 Nakba, while they were ethniclly cleansing their claimed territory of Arabs, they comitted massacres, and raped arab women. Then when the Palestnians tried to take up arms to defend themselves, they killed them in even greater numbers. but even that wasn't enough - they then aided their christian friends the philange massacre thousands of Palestinians ethnic cleansing victims in their camps in Lebanon.
And for someone who doesn't make civilians primary targets, they sure do a good job at killing them. Many more unarmed Palestinians have been killed by Israelis than Israelis by Palestinians. Please educate yourself here: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
But I doubt it will do any good, because you USAn conservatives utterly, utterly incapable of putting yourself in another person's shoes - you are all utter sociopathic thugs. Go to hell.
Having "the world's best military" and utilizing said WBM in the best way possible are two entirely different things.
william street July 21st, 2008 3:45 pm
Thanks Bill.
" I'm thinking best not to start at all. lol."
Probably was your best bet. lol.
"wow jake… You REALLY need to go do some traveling. Your point of view is hopelessly skewed. More often than not, I see you here advocating for the side of evil. WTF is up with that?"
Why not address the points I made than engage in this kind of crap? In case you didn't know, given most things you beleive you will find a whole bunch of other people who beleive differently. This isn't because they are on the side of evil or aren't well traveled. Wise up.
BTW, I think it's evil when rather old adults recruit very youthful people to blow themselves up in markets crowded with civilians, but you may feel different.
wow jake... You REALLY need to go do some traveling. Your point of view is hopelessly skewed. More often than not, I see you here advocating for the side of evil. WTF is up with that?
"Through our proxy Israel, We killed many Arab parent's children."
Even if the proxy claim is true, which I am not saying it is, there is no evidence that Isreal persued a policy of making civilians primary targets. OTOH, a suicide bomber blowing themselves up in a disco or market place is doing just that.
"If you politically support the violence, than you are complicit in the violence."
Non Sequitur, dismissed. And the term "the violence" as you use it is too general and vague. I generally support efforts at self defence, which of course involves violence at times, and those who would volunteer to risk their own lives to save others.
Wow... lots of bullshit and misinformation floating around this article's posts today... where to start???? I'm thinking best not to start at all. lol.
SnowWolf
This story hit a raw nerve with you and others because it describes your atitude toward our military. Vietnam was a success story, instead of a worthless blood bath that most normal people now realize it was. Those civilians in countries that we drop ordinance on, should be more sensitive to our intended targets, and if their children, get in the way, they should realize we had good intentions.
Career military types want to justify thier choice in life. I did my 6 years (4 in the engine-room of a nuke sub) and got out. I went back to being a civilian in Derry Township PA, the same town as Mr. Dick Winters.
...
Big Money,
Sorry, I must have misunderstood you.
You seemed to be defending retaliating against someone retaliting aganst your provocation, because in the case of hornets it would be justified.
I have trouble seeing my analogy as racist. Such racist things actually still happen in the US occasionally. Five white teenagers beat a Mexican immigrant worker to death last friday in my hme state (PA). They still haven't been arrested.
But, sort of back to the topic, the US military is uncanny in it's tendency to only pick on countries who's are darker complected than them.
jake,
Yes, the analogy is apt. Through our proxy Israel, We killed many Arab parent's children. In Iraq through the 1990s we killed hundreds of thousands of Arab parents children. In lebanon through the 1980's - Sabra and Shatilla. Our neoliberal capitalist impoverishment of Saidi Arabia (with the help of their corrupt King) caused many children to suffer there.
If you politically support the violence, than you are complicit in the violence. Snowwolf actually participates in the violence through his chosen livlihood.
But you can repent! Just renounce the violence and find a right livlihood.
USAn - "Are you likening the humans we provoke and attack with insects?" Seriously, is that what you think I'm doing?
I'm actually trying to liken an individual's part of the world to the hive, and to liken my hose to long-range military hardware that cuts huge swaths, and to liken a hornet's stinger to a desperate and suicidal weapon.
Your analogy sucks, because it is racist, and does not illustrate anything about you having a bazillion times the firepower of your (chosen) enemy.
it seems clear to all who post here that even mere words are provocative, sometimes in the extreme. it is said that actions speak louder, but what that idea overlooks is that words intended to cause feelings of insecurity, anger or humiliation are themselves actions, and will evoke very animated, perhaps even violent responses.
in contemplating our response to the written or spoken word, it is useful to consider if our intention is one of creating understanding or merely a put-down. because that intention will have everything to do with the form in which others respond to us.
"Wouldn't the better analogy be me, say burning a black familie's house down in my neighborhood, killing their child. "
Can you even possibly justify this analogy regarding 9/11?
"Just see, they will fashon a response that utterly ignores each of your points."
I covered two. Want to try a response yourself?
Big Money,
Are you likening the humans we provoke and attack with insects?
Wouldn't the better analogy be me, say burning a black familie's house down in my neighborhood, killing their child. The father (knowing he is unlikely to see justice in the courts) heads over to my house to either severely beat or kill me, so I retaliate shoot the father dead.
am I justified?
More left-wing talking points...*Yawn*...I'm bored ...perhaps I'll play again tomorrow
"All your sophisticated constitution could muster was a classless wish of violence on my person. "
Not to mention an accusation that I was violent to someone somehow.
"Unfortunately the degree of sphisitication, your vocabulary, and the length of your sentences will make your response ncomprehensible to snow and jake."
In your dreams. All your sophisticated constitution could muster was a classless wish of violence on my person. Why not instead address the issues being discussed?
"I hope someday you get a small taste of the violence that you have inflicted on others."
Why don't you go and pound sand?
"you seem fine with american military bases all over the world,"
It doesn't matter what I think. The issue is what provoked 9/11. I don't think "bases all over the world" is specific enough to 9/11. IMO, terrorism occurs where capcity combines with opportunity, that's all there was to it.
"surrogate states such as israel when they steal land and oppress palestinians."
I would love to hear your very best evidence that AQ gives a rat's ass about "Palestinians".
starkaving,
Thanks, good response.
Unfortunately the degree of sphisitication, your vocabulary, and the length of your sentences will make your response ncomprehensible to snow and jake.
If there is an underlying characteristic of the swaggering right, besdes their sick, selective morality, it is their stupidity and ability to only argue in mechanical, preprogrammed platitudes - stupid and robotic. Just see, they will fashon a response that utterly ignores each of your points.
starkraving is right that provocation isn't the same as justification.
Where does "retaliation" fit in to this? Can one retaliate if one was not provoked? If I spray a big hornet's nest with my hose, and one of the hornets comes over and stings me, did I provoke him? Is this hornet retaliating? I think I'll still feel justified in swatting that bad hornet, even though I did do my thing with the hose...
Having the best hose won't protect me from the hornets. Although it works wonders on the raccoons.
"we can talk nice and do diplomacy but Speak softly and carry a big stick is dang good advice"
have we ever really tried true diplomacy? i think the point of the article is that if you carry a big stick eventually you're going to want to use it. otherwise it gets heavy and cumbersome.
nonviolence is just as powerful a tool as violence, you just have to believe in it. violence is a cancer of humankind...my only hope is we find the cure before its too late.
"how was 9/11 provoked?"
you seem fine with american military bases all over the world, unjust market manipulations that exploit other countries for their resources, daily humiliations to soverignty, culture and human dignity. the only "real" provocation is some kind of physical attack. but this also happens, via surrogate states such as israel when they steal land and oppress palestinians. the u.s. govt. policies now in place regarding iran could be considered an act of war in the way the navy is patrolling off their coast and the cia is attempting to destablize that society. they are the target of many such flagrant acts which at least some are fervently hoping leads to some form of overt response that would justify bombing their nuclear facilities.
provocation isn't the same as justification. i don't think you'll find too many who would justify the 9/11 attacks as a legitimate response to the policies and attitudes of the time. however, it's naive to dismiss all actions of the u.s. govt. as benign and harmless - that no "reasonable" person would find offensive, even criminal, and that literally beg for retaliation.
Snowolf and jakenewton,
I hope someday you get a small taste of the violence that you have inflicted on others.
The pinpricks of Sept 11, 2001 were supposed to be such a taste, but apparently it wasn't enough.
Thanks for the link Big_Money. Regarding the reason that 9/11 specifically was provoked, the article only mentions that the attack was on US foreign policy. That is far too sweeping and vague for me to accept as a reason that 9/11 was "provoked".
The War fighters kill them over there and us Hippies will keep fighting against war here and protect our country if attacked.... It is not that we are pure pacifists.... In the 60s I told my draft board that I would fight any enemy who invaded the US but count me out invading them over there.
They threatened to impress me in the service and or throw me in Jail, all of which they didn't have the inclination to follow up on.
The future of warfare is gonna be about the battle of robots seekin out targets that look like humans on a screen.
The sick thing is that the chicken hawks and war profiteers think that they can keep destroying life for our protection.... What a racket!
It would be hard for Bin Laden if he is alive to top 9/11 and al queda is used as the boogyman...our "enemy" is always those foreign al quida fighters in Iraq who kill our troops.... right!
Al quida didn't have a chance with the people of Iraq even before the surge.
Bin Laden told us that Iraq was the center of the fight .... He wouldn't want to fool us would he?
Al Queida al Shmida, The Hippies will save us yet!
SnowWolf, it's not your definition or my definition that holds sway in the world today. We've past "peak justice" and the roving definitions of the term are grease on the downward slope.
Big_Money July 22nd, 2008 12:07 pm:
"I've seen the term applied to people who try to sabotage the military operations of a heavily-armed foreign occupier."
Bet your bottom dollar, when the Chinese invade, entering over the Mexican border, I will become a MAJOR "terrorist". Chinese troops in uniform HAVE been sighted in the southwest. Keep your powder dry.
jakenewton asks - "How was 9/11 provoked?"
The CIA seems to think it was provoked, and came up with the term "blowback" to describe the chain of events.
Here's a good article, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011015/johnson , there are many more.
Big-Money
See my definition of terrorist above...
if your PRIMARY Target is to kill civilians then you are a terrorist...you're not a partisan...I know the difference...do you?
I know the answer to that...let me take a shot...
Its because we are allied to Israel (those big meanies)...
Well I stand with Israel...and Proudly
(and no...I am not a Jew)...but I will take Israel as an ally any day