"The entire war [in Iraq] is an atrocity"

[MC Habber]

'A dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi... You know, so what?'

Interviews with US veterans show for the first time the pattern of brutality in Iraq

By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 12 July 2007

It is an axiom of American political life that the actions of the US military are beyond criticism. Democrats and Republicans praise the men and women in uniform at every turn. Apart from the odd bad apple at Abu Ghraib, the US military in Iraq is deemed to be doing a heroic job under trying circumstances.

That perception will take a severe knock today with the publication in The Nation magazine of a series of in-depth interviews with 50 combat veterans of the Iraq war from across the US. In the interviews, veterans have described acts of violence in which US forces have abused or killed Iraqi men, women and children with impunity.

The report steers clear of widely reported atrocities, such as the massacre in Haditha in 2005, but instead unearths a pattern of human rights abuses. "It's not individual atrocity," Specialist Garett Reppenhagen, a sniper from the 263rd Armour Battalion, said. "It's the fact that the entire war is an atrocity."

A number of the troops have returned home bearing mental and physical scars from fighting a war in an environment in which the insurgents are supported by the population. Many of those interviewed have come to oppose the US military presence in Iraq, joining the groundswell of public opinion across the US that views the war as futile.

This view is echoed in Washington, where increasing numbers of Democrats and Republicans are openly calling for an early withdrawal from Iraq. And the Iraq quagmire has pushed President George Bush's poll ratings to an all-time low.

Journalists and human rights groups have published numerous reports drawing attention to the killing of Iraqi civilians by US forces. The Nation's investigation presents for the first time named military witnesses who back those assertions. Some participated themselves.

Through a combination of gung-ho recklessness and criminal behaviour born of panic, a narrative emerges of an army that frequently commits acts of cold-blooded violence. A number of interviewees revealed that the military will attempt to frame innocent bystanders as insurgents, often after panicked American troops have fired into groups of unarmed Iraqis. The veterans said the troops involved would round up any survivors and accuse them of being in the resistance while planting Kalashnikov AK47 rifles beside corpses to make it appear that they had died in combat.

"It would always be an AK because they have so many of these lying around," said Joe Hatcher, 26, a scout with the 4th Calvary Regiment. He revealed the army also planted 9mm handguns and shovels to make it look like the civilians were shot while digging a hole for a roadside bomb.

"Every good cop carries a throwaway," Hatcher said of weapons planted on innocent victims in incidents that occurred while he was stationed between Tikrit and Samarra, from February 2004 to March 2005. Any survivors were sent to jail for interrogation.

There were also deaths caused by the reckless behaviour of military convoys. Sgt Kelly Dougherty of the Colorado National Guard described a hit-and-run in which a military convoy ran over a 10-year-old boy and his three donkeys, killing them all. "Judging by the skid marks, they hardly even slowed down. But, I mean... your order is that you never stop."

The worst abuses seem to have been during raids on private homes when soldiers were hunting insurgents. Thousands of such raids have taken place, usually at dead of night. The veterans point out that most are futile and serve only to terrify the civilians, while generating sympathy for the resistance.

Sgt John Bruhns, 29, of the 3rd Brigade, 1st Armoured Division, described a typical raid. "You want to catch them off guard," he explained. "You want to catch them in their sleep ... You grab the man of the house. You rip him out of bed in front of his wife. You put him up against the wall... Then you go into a room and you tear the room to shreds. You'll ask 'Do you have any weapons? Do you have any anti-US propaganda?'

"Normally they'll say no, because that's normally the truth," Sgt Bruhns said. "So you'll take his sofa cushions and dump them. You'll open up his closet and you'll throw all the clothes on the floor and basically leave his house looking like a hurricane just hit it." And at the end, if the soldiers don't find anything, they depart with a "Sorry to disturb you. Have a nice evening".

Sgt Dougherty described her squad leader shooting an Iraqi civilian in the back in 2003. "The mentality of my squad leader was like, 'Oh, we have to kill them over here so I don't have to kill them back in Colorado'," she said. "He just seemed to view every Iraqi as a potential terrorist."

'It would always happen. We always got the wrong house...'

"People would make jokes about it, even before we'd go into a raid, like, 'Oh f***, we're gonna get the wrong house'. Cause it would always happen. We always got the wrong house."

Sergeant Jesus Bocanegra, 25, of Weslaco, Texas 4th Infantry Division. In Tikrit on year-long tour that began in March 2003

"I had to go tell this woman that her husband was actually dead. We gave her money, we gave her, like, 10 crates of water, we gave the kids, I remember, maybe it was soccer balls and toys. We just didn't really know what else to do."

Lieutenant Jonathan Morgenstein, 35, of Arlington, Virginia, Marine Corps civil affairs unit. In Ramadi from August 2004 to March 2005

"We were approaching this one house... and we're approaching, and they had a family dog. And it was barking ferociously, cause it's doing its job. And my squad leader, just out of nowhere, just shoots it... So I see this dog - I'm a huge animal lover... this dog has, like, these eyes on it and he's running around spraying blood all over the place. And like, you know, what the hell is going on? The family is sitting right there, with three little children and a mom and a dad, horrified. And I'm at a loss for words."

Specialist Philip Chrystal, 23, of Reno, 3rd Battalion, 116th Cavalry Brigade. In Kirkuk and Hawija on 11-month tour beginning November 2004

"I'll tell you the point where I really turned... [there was] this little, you know, pudgy little two-year-old child with the cute little pudgy legs and she has a bullet through her leg... An IED [improvised explosive device] went off, the gun-happy soldiers just started shooting anywhere and the baby got hit. And this baby looked at me... like asking me why. You know, 'Why do I have a bullet in my leg?'... I was just like, 'This is, this is it. This is ridiculous'."

Specialist Michael Harmon, 24, of Brooklyn, 167th Armour Regiment, 4th Infantry Division. In Al-Rashidiya on 13-month tour beginning in April 2003

"I open a bag and I'm trying to get bandages out and the guys in the guard tower are yelling at me, 'Get that ExtraLOVE haji out of here,'... our doctor rolls up in an ambulance and from 30 to 40 meters away looks out and says, shakes his head and says, 'You know, he looks fine, he's gonna be all right,' and walks back... kind of like, 'Get your ass over here and drive me back up to the clinic'. So I'm standing there, and the whole time both this doctor and the guards are yelling at me, you know, to get rid of this guy."

Specialist Patrick Resta, 29, from Philadelphia, 252nd Armour, 1st Infantry Division. In Jalula for nine months beginning March 2004

'Every person opened fire on this kid, using the biggest weapons we could find...'

"Here's some guy, some 14-year-old kid with an AK47, decides he's going to start shooting at this convoy. It was the most obscene thing you've ever seen. Every person got out and opened fire on this kid. Using the biggest weapons we could find, we ripped him to shreds..."

Sergeant Patrick Campbell, 29, of Camarillo, California, 256th Infantry Brigade. In Abu Gharth for 11 months beginning November 2004

"Cover your own butt was the first rule of engagement. Someone could look at me the wrong way and I could claim my safety was in threat."

Lieutenant Brady Van Engelen, 26, of Washington DC, 1st Armoured Division. Eight-month tour of Baghdad beginning Sept 2003

"I guess while I was there, the general attitude was, 'A dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi... You know, so what?'... [Only when we got home] in... meeting other veterans, it seems like the guilt really takes place, takes root, then."

Specialist Jeff Englehart, 26, of Grand Junction, Colorado, 3rd Brigade, 1st Infantry. In Baquba for a year beginning February 2004

"[The photo] was very graphic... They open the body bags of these prisoners that were shot in the head and [one soldier has] got a spoon. He's reaching in to scoop out some of his brain, looking at the camera and smiling."

Specialist Aidan Delgado, 25, of Sarasota, Florida, 320th Military Police Company. Deployed to Talil air base for one year beginning April 2003

"The car was approaching what was in my opinion a very poorly marked checkpoint... and probably didn't even see the soldiers... The guys got spooked and decided it was a possible threat, so they shot up the car. And they [the bodies] literally sat in the car for the next three days while we drove by them.

Sergeant Dustin Flatt, 33, of Denver, 18th Infantry Brigade, 1st Infantry Division. One-year from February 2004

"The frustration that resulted from our inability to get back at those who were attacking us led to tactics that seemed designed simply to punish the local population..."

Sergeant Camilo Mejía, 31, from Miami, National Guardsman, 1-124 Infantry Battalion, 53rd Infantry Brigade. Six-month tour beginning April 2003

"I just remember thinking, 'I just brought terror to someone under the American flag'."

Sergeant Timothy John Westphal, 31, of Denver, 18th Infantry Brigade, 1st Infantry Division. In Tikrit on year-long tour beginning February 2004

"A lot of guys really supported that whole concept that if they don't speak English and they have darker skin, they're not as human as us, so we can do what we want."

Specialist Josh Middleton, 23, of New York City, 2nd Battalion, 82nd Airborne Division. Four-month tour in Baghdad and Mosul beginning December 2004

"I felt like there was this enormous reduction in my compassion for people. The only thing that wound up mattering is myself and the guys that I was with, and everybody else be damned."

Sergeant Ben Flanders, 28, National Guardsman from Concord, New Hampshire, 172nd Mountain Infantry. In Balad for 11 months beginning March 2004

The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness, by Chris Hedges and Laila al-Arian, appears in the 30 July issue of The Nation


news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2758829.ece

[MC Habber]

The whole report

[Skilly]

Not to sound unsympathetic (but I know it will) ..... this is what happens when you hide amongst the civilians during a war. I know what my feeling would be if I was over there fighting. It would be "It's you or me buddy, and it ain't gonna be me" ... so I'll be shooting anything and everything that looked at me the wrong way and ask questions later.

Cruel ... definitely. But how else do you survive? And don't say "not fight at all" ...when you are over there you have to fight.

[Deleted]

While it's not the soldiers' fault that they're there fighting a ridiculous war, this entire thing could be identified as a genocide considering the large amount of civilians that were killed.

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

Not to sound unsympathetic (but I know it will) ..... this is what happens when you hide amongst the civilians during a war.

The reason you sound "unsympathetic" is that when you say "this is what happens when you hide amongst the civilians" you make it sound like all civilians are insurgents, when in fact it's a small percentage. You sound like you are blaming the civilians when it is not their fault at all. You could also say, this is what happens when you invade a country, topple a dictator who was the only thing holding a country together, have no reasonable plan for what to do next, etc..

I know what my feeling would be if I was over there fighting. It would be "It's you or me buddy, and it ain't gonna be me" ... so I'll be shooting anything and everything that looked at me the wrong way and ask questions later.

If that justified what the soldiers have done, it would also justify any oridinary Iraqi keeping a gun and shooting any US soldiers who came to their door, out of fear that they might kill them (yes I know they would be killed if they did that, that's not the point). Heck, you could probably justify some crimes comitted by Saddam Hussein's soldiers with the same logic. Besides, this is clearly about more than self defense: A lot of guys really supported that whole concept that if they don't speak English and they have darker skin, they're not as human as us, so we can do what we want.

Cruel ... definitely. But how else do you survive? And don't say "not fight at all" ...when you are over there you have to fight.

Certainly a large amount of blame belongs to those higher up and not to the individual soldiers, but some of the things reported have nothing to do with defense and are completely inexcusible - the soldiers who perpetrated them should be jailed.

This ought to dispel any belief that the presence of US troops in Iraq is or has been a positive thing. Finally, if you (meaning the government, not so much the soldiers) can't accomplish something without these consequences, then you clearly shouldn't do it at all. Regardless of their motives, no government has the right to inflict this kind of suffering on so many innocent people.

[habmeister]

funny how we never get the number of civilian deaths on cnn. that channel is a joke, the longer the "war" lasts the more money they make. death pays. i was in the US when 9/11 happenned and i couldn't understand why i never heard one american in one week post 9/11 ask "why?"

[PTH]

machabby said:

skilly said:

Not to sound unsympathetic (but I know it will) ..... this is what happens when you hide amongst the civilians during a war.Cruel ... definitely. But how else do you survive? And don't say "not fight at all" ...when you are over there you have to fight.

Certainly a large amount of blame belongs to those higher up and not to the individual soldiers, but some of the things reported have nothing to do with defense and are completely inexcusible - the soldiers who perpetrated them should be jailed.

I think this is a tough one - if I were over there, as much as I like to think I wouldn't be acting in an irresponsible manner, the fact is that the ever-present danger, which I'm not equipped to distinguish from normal day to day events in a totally foreign society which despises me, would make me err the same way as those soldiers - ie, shoot first, don't ask questions later, watch out for your buddies, and just try to make it home in one piece.

In short, I don't so much blame the soldiers as the situation they've been put in.

This ought to dispel any belief that the presence of US troops in Iraq is or has been a positive thing. Finally, if you (meaning the government, not so much the soldiers) can't accomplish something without these consequences, then you clearly shouldn't do it at all. Regardless of their motives, no government has the right to inflict this kind of suffering on so many innocent people.

I agree 200% here. The Bush administration made a major mistake in invading, even moreso in invading without adequate planning (which might have gained a middle-of-the-road acceptable situation rather than a quagmire....), and now is being stubborn in not owning up to its mistakes and doing whatever it takes to get the best out of a bad situation.

This reminds me of Bush senior, back in 1992 or so, who intervened in Somalia late in his mandate, leaving it up to the Democrats after him to take the hit for the withdrawal.

I think the Republicans are leaving this mess for the Democrat winner in 2008 to clean up...

[princelh]

The sad truth, and very few report it, is that the extremists are mainly outsiders, causing all of this death to happen. A western victory, puts the idea of radical Islam in the dumpster. I hate to say it, but it may take many dead Iraqi's, then Iranian's, Pakistani's and Saudi's, to get the message to these fools who want to return to the eighth century. These radical Islamics offer no useful purpose to the civilized world and should be destroyed, before they get any stronger.

[MC Habber]

pth said:

machabby said:

Certainly a large amount of blame belongs to those higher up and not to the individual soldiers, but some of the things reported have nothing to do with defense and are completely inexcusible - the soldiers who perpetrated them should be jailed.

I think this is a tough one - if I were over there, as much as I like to think I wouldn't be acting in an irresponsible manner, the fact is that the ever-present danger, which I'm not equipped to distinguish from normal day to day events in a totally foreign society which despises me, would make me err the same way as those soldiers - ie, shoot first, don't ask questions later, watch out for your buddies, and just try to make it home in one piece.

In short, I don't so much blame the soldiers as the situation they've been put in.

I see the argument, but what about Abu Ghraib? I think there's a line somewhere between an understandable response to the situation and psychopathy, and I think it has been crossed, in some cases.

Interestingly, since 2001, 22,000 military personnel have been discharged with "pre-existing" personality disorders.

[PTH]

machabby said:

I see the argument, but what about Abu Ghraib? I think there's a line somewhere between an understandable response to the situation and psychopathy, and I think it has been crossed, in some cases.

No argument here - my "understandable reaction" was referring to the article, which basically shows "ok" people doing horrible things under the circumstances thrust upon them.

Abu Ghraib is also partially the administrations fault, for putting people in positions of responsibility over "enemies" they couldn't relate to in any way, shape or form, but the people who committed the actual acts did them on their own and should be held accountable.

Interestingly, since 2001, 22,000 military personnel have been discharged with "pre-existing" personality disorders.

IMO, that's a cop-out - when the soldier wants out but can't get a formal discharge for war-related issues, call it "pre-existing" and everyone shuts up about it.

[MC Habber]

pth said:

Interestingly, since 2001, 22,000 military personnel have been discharged with "pre-existing" personality disorders.

IMO, that's a cop-out - when the soldier wants out but can't get a formal discharge for war-related issues, call it "pre-existing" and everyone shuts up about it.

There are allegations that soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder are misdiagnosed as having a "pre-existing personality disorder" so that the military doesn't have to pay for treatment. I just think it's interesting that the military seems to be saying, implicitly, that they attract a disproportionate number of people with "personality disorders."

www.abcnews.go.com/WN/WoodruffReports/story?id=3368726&page=1

[CentreHice]

machabby said:

pth said:

IMO, that's a cop-out - when the soldier wants out but can't get a formal discharge for war-related issues, call it "pre-existing" and everyone shuts up about it.

There are allegations that soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder are misdiagnosed as having a "pre-existing personality disorder" so that the military doesn't have to pay for treatment. I just think it's interesting that the military seems to be saying, implicitly, that they attract a disproportionate number of people with "personality disorders."

www.abcnews.go.com/WN/WoodruffReports/story?id=3368726&page=1

Doesn't surprise me. Last year, the government denied the existence of "Gulf War Syndrome" for the same reason...payouts. Health professionals know that the disorder (from the first Gulf War) stems from the illegal use of depleted uranium shells. The countless cancers and birth defects they've wrought on the Iraqis and the long-term effects they've had on U.S. soldiers is reprehensible.

And governments have the gall to talk about "supporting the troops". Give me a break.

The Canadian government denied the existence of Gulf War Syndrome in 1998.

CBC Link


Most soldiers are blaming the immunizations and "medical cocktails" they received.

An article from 1997 on Gulf War Syndrome:

Frontline Article

On Depleted Uranium shells from 2003.


Weapon of Mass Deception

From the above article:

Depleted uranium’s radioactive and toxic residue has been linked to birth defects, cancers, the Gulf War Syndrome, and environmental damage.

But the Pentagon insists depleted uranium is both safe and necessary, saying it is a “superior armor [and] a superior munition that we will continue to use.” Pentagon officials say that the health and environmental risks of DU use are outweighed by its military advantages. But to retain the right to use and manufacture DU weaponry and armor, the Pentagon has to actively ignore and deny the risks that depleted uranium poses to human health and environment.

To keep depleted uranium at the top of its weapons list, the Pentagon has distorted research that demonstrates how DU dust can work its way into the human body, potentially posing a grave health risk. According to a 1998 report by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the inhalation of DU particles can lead to symptoms such as fatigue, shortness of breath, lymphatic problems, bronchial complaints, weight loss, and an unsteady gait—symptoms that match those of sick veterans of the Gulf and Balkan wars. Dr. Rosalie Bertell, a Canadian epidemiologist, released a study in 1999 revealing that depleted uranium can stay in the lungs for up to two years. “When the dust is breathed in, it passes through the walls of the lung and into the blood, circulating through the whole body,” she wrote. Bertell concluded that exposure to depleted uranium, especially when inhaled, “represents a serious risk of damaged immune systems and fatal cancers.”

The Pentagon has to cloak this dangerous weapon in deceptive and innocuous language. The adjective “depleted,” with its connotation that the substance is non-threatening or diminished in strength, is misleading. While depleted uranium is not as radioactive and dangerous as U235—a person would not get sick merely from brief DU exposure—depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years (as long as the solar system has existed) and may pose serious health risks and environmental contamination.

More about the science of DU shells.

Perpetuation of War Damage By Radiation

[Cranky]

Who would of ever thought that there were "atrocities" in a war zone! And who would of thought that if 400,000 people rotate through a battle zone, someone can find 50 people with "shocking stories" to tell. Heck, I bet they also found 50 people that had shocking stories of having sex with each other.

The Sunni and Shiia are redefining the word "atrocity" by killing each other hourly from pure hate and power mongering but it's them Ugly Americans who are committing "atrocities"....many of which sound more like urban myths then anything else.

Worse still, there is a polticial war going on between democarats and republicans and these little are popping up like zits on a thirteen year old. It's not the first time or the last time that "war stories" are fabricated or embellished according to political leaning.

This little story gets a pfffft and a shrug.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

pth said:

I think this is a tough one - if I were over there, as much as I like to think I wouldn't be acting in an irresponsible manner, the fact is that the ever-present danger, which I'm not equipped to distinguish from normal day to day events in a totally foreign society which despises me, would make me err the same way as those soldiers - ie, shoot first, don't ask questions later, watch out for your buddies, and just try to make it home in one piece.

In short, I don't so much blame the soldiers as the situation they've been put in.

With thanks.

It's far too easy to pass judgment on soldiers in combat while sitting at home enjoying a beer, camping with our families and taking time to post opinions on the internet. In short, while I don't endorse outright atrocities, it's very hard for us to know what is actually transpiring in war unless we, ourselves, are exposed to it.

I agree 200% here. The Bush administration made a major mistake in invading, even moreso in invading without adequate planning (which might have gained a middle-of-the-road acceptable situation rather than a quagmire....), and now is being stubborn in not owning up to its mistakes and doing whatever it takes to get the best out of a bad situation.

What's worse is that Jr tried to guilt the UN into intervening as a re-constructive entity after he pushed them aside to start this farce in the first place.

And make no mistake, PTH, I was one of those who felt the war to be just. However, I never liked how it transpired. Also, after the intel briefs proved to be bogus I realized I had been lied to.

This reminds me of Bush senior, back in 1992 or so, who intervened in Somalia late in his mandate, leaving it up to the Democrats after him to take the hit for the withdrawal.

I think the Republicans are leaving this mess for the Democrat winner in 2008 to clean up...

The Democrats are touted as having control of Congress as well. The unfortunate part is that Jr can veto anything Congress passes.

Now let's see ... democracy is defined as ... umm ...

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Fib factory running full tilt

White House tells some whoppers in bid to depict wars as battles against al-Qaida

By ERIC MARGOLIS

The latest whoppers from the White House's fib factory came this week as President George W. Bush (A) claimed U.S. forces in Iraq are fighting "the same people" who staged 9/11, and, (B) withdrawing U.S. forces means "surrendering Iraq to al-Qaida."

These absurd assertions mark the latest steps in the administration's evolving efforts to depict the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as battles against al-Qaida.

When marketers want to change the name of an existing product, they first place a new name in small type below the existing one. They gradually shrink the old name, and enlarge the new one until the original name vanishes.

That's what's been happening in Iraq. When the U.S. invaded, Iraqis who resisted were branded "Saddam loyalists, die-hard Ba'athists, or dead-enders." Next, the Pentagon and U.S. media called them "terrorists." Then, a tiny, previously unknown Iraqi group appropriated the name, "al-Qaida in Mesopotamia."

This was such a convenient gift to the Bush administration, cynics suspected a false-flag operation created by CIA and Britain's wily MI6. Soon after, the White House and Pentagon began calling all Iraq's 22-plus resistance groups, "al-Qaida."

The U.S. media eagerly joined this deception, even though 95% of Iraq's resistance groups had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden's movement. Watch any U.S. network TV news report on Iraq and you will inevitably hear reporters parroting Pentagon handouts about U.S. forces "launching a new offensive against al-Qaida."

Al-Qaida in Iraq didn't even exist before 9/11, but that didn't stop the president from trying to gull credulous voters. Polls show that in spite of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, White House disinformation strategy has worked. Today, an amazing 60% of Americans still believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

FAUX WAR

This faux war is now costing a mind-boggling $12 billion US monthly, reports the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. The Bush administration has spent $610 billion since 2001 on its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, making them the second most expensive conflict in U.S. history after the Second World War.

This week, U.S. Homeland Security czar Michael Chertoff allowed he had a "gut feel" that an al-Qaida attack was imminent this summer. The 16 U.S. intelligence agencies spend $40 billion annually, with another $15-20 billion in their hidden "black budgets." Homeland Security spends $44.6 billion.

After these gargantuan expenditures, the best intelligence czar Chertoff can come up with is "gut feel?"

One suspects Chertoff's worried innards and leaks that al-Qaida has returned to full strength have far more to do with the growing Republican Party revolt against the president's Iraq war than nebulous threats from Osama bin Laden's loud but tiny group.

Polls show the only area where Republicans still command popular support is the "war on terror."

SCARE TACTIC

So Bush/Cheney & Co are trying to use al-Qaida to scare Americans to vote Republican, just as they did prior to 2004 elections. It worked well last time and got Bush re-elected.

But Americans are increasingly leery of the White House's crying wolf.

Many are also asking how Bush could claim "steady progress" was being made in his wars while U.S. intelligence was reporting al-Qaida movement is back to pre-2001 strength and Iraq is a bloody mess.

After six years of conflict, 3,600 dead and 25,000 wounded American soldiers, expenditure of $610 billion, tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and Afghans, collapse of Mideast peace efforts, and a Muslim World enraged against the U.S., nothing positive seems to have been accomplished.

As the White House ponders an attack on Iran, recall the famed words of King Pyrrhus of Epirus, "one more such victory and we are ruined."

The Link

[Cranky]

disgruntled70shab said:

pth said:

I think this is a tough one - if I were over there, as much as I like to think I wouldn't be acting in an irresponsible manner, the fact is that the ever-present danger, which I'm not equipped to distinguish from normal day to day events in a totally foreign society which despises me, would make me err the same way as those soldiers - ie, shoot first, don't ask questions later, watch out for your buddies, and just try to make it home in one piece.

In short, I don't so much blame the soldiers as the situation they've been put in.

With thanks.

It's far too easy to pass judgment on soldiers in combat while sitting at home enjoying a beer, camping with our families and taking time to post opinions on the internet. In short, while I don't endorse outright atrocities, it's very hard for us to know what is actually transpiring in war unless we, ourselves, are exposed to it.

EXACTLY. These man and woman are doing a deadly job the best way they can. Will people lose it? Sure, they are human, not angels or Gods. But then what is the comparison? The enemy they are fighting THRIVES on how creative they are in outdoing their last atrocity.

Worse still.....

I can only imagine how a soldier feels if some b*tt wipe calls him a "murderer" after putting his life on the line.

[franko]

Hmmm . . . where to post this thought? I guess here is a good a place as any . . .

all who have or keep any strength are our enemies even if they are old men.

That's just an aside to stir up discussion/debate even more, though.

You'd think the US would have learned about guerilla warfare from past experience. Not from Vietnam, but from the 1700s when they were the host country guerillas and Britain was the invading force.

[BadCompany]

It’s an unfortunate fact that humans are cruel, viscious and nasty. Psychological study after study has shown that the majority of human beings, no matter what their race, creed or religion, will do things that no “civilized” person should ever do. You, me, the fundamentalist with the explosive weight belt, we’re all the same, unfortunately. Two classic psychology experiments:

* The Stanford Prison Experiment: Stanford University students, pretending to be either prison guards, or prisoners, performed Abu Ghraib-like atrocities on their fellow students, atrocities so similar to the Abu Ghraib events that one would think the students were merely copying what they had seen on the news. Strangely though, the Stanford Prison Experiment took place thirty years ago. Conclusion? Put ANYBODY in that kind of situation, whether it’s in Iraq, a Federal Penetentiary, or the basement of Stanford University, and they’re going to perform cruel and unusual acts on their fellow human beings.

* The Milgram Experiment: Ordinary people, from all walks of life, shocked a fellow human to death (or so they thought), just because somebody told them to do so. Just because somebody told them to do it. No implied threat to their own safety, no reason for them to not say no, I won’t do it. They just did it because somebody told them to do it, even though they knew it was wrong. Conclusion? When faced with an authority figure, even in low-stress, non-threatening situations, people will do what they are told, no matter how much it goes against their own personal moral codes.

This is not an issue of American good-old-boys gone bad, it is as PTH said, merely a fact of war. Entirely predictable. It happens in every war, whether it’s Canadians shooting Hitler Youth prisoners in World War II, or beating to death a Somali teenager just outside of Mogadishu, we are no more immune to it than the Americans, or even Iraqis are. Yes, there are “circumstances” and if you look you can find the chain of events that led to such atrocities, but in the end it is what it is; human nature. It can be overcome, of course, but you have to know it’s there, and you have to know how to deal with it.

Unfortunately, this is not the type of war in which this kind of human nature can be overcome. As PTH said, no matter how moral or good your initial intents are, once you are there, and it’s kill or be killed, the choice is an obvious one. And it’s a whole lot easier when you de-humanize the person you have to kill. The blame doesn’t lie with the soldiers for merely acting on their base human nature; it lies much higher up with the people who put them in that situation without the necessary means to overcome their own basic human nature.

[ropoflu]

badcompany said:

It’s an unfortunate fact that humans are cruel, viscious and nasty. Psychological study after study has shown that the majority of human beings, no matter what their race, creed or religion, will do things that no “civilized” person should ever do. You, me, the fundamentalist with the explosive weight belt, we’re all the same, unfortunately. Two classic psychology experiments:

* The Stanford Prison Experiment: Stanford University students, pretending to be either prison guards, or prisoners, performed Abu Ghraib-like atrocities on their fellow students, atrocities so similar to the Abu Ghraib events that one would think the students were merely copying what they had seen on the news. Strangely though, the Stanford Prison Experiment took place thirty years ago. Conclusion? Put ANYBODY in that kind of situation, whether it’s in Iraq, a Federal Penetentiary, or the basement of Stanford University, and they’re going to perform cruel and unusual acts on their fellow human beings.

* The Milgram Experiment: Ordinary people, from all walks of life, shocked a fellow human to death (or so they thought), just because somebody told them to do so. Just because somebody told them to do it. No implied threat to their own safety, no reason for them to not say no, I won’t do it. They just did it because somebody told them to do it, even though they knew it was wrong. Conclusion? When faced with an authority figure, even in low-stress, non-threatening situations, people will do what they are told, no matter how much it goes against their own personal moral codes.

This is not an issue of American good-old-boys gone bad, it is as PTH said, merely a fact of war. Entirely predictable. It happens in every war, whether it’s Canadians shooting Hitler Youth prisoners in World War II, or beating to death a Somali teenager just outside of Mogadishu, we are no more immune to it than the Americans, or even Iraqis are. Yes, there are “circumstances” and if you look you can find the chain of events that led to such atrocities, but in the end it is what it is; human nature. It can be overcome, of course, but you have to know it’s there, and you have to know how to deal with it.

Unfortunately, this is not the type of war in which this kind of human nature can be overcome. As PTH said, no matter how moral or good your initial intents are, once you are there, and it’s kill or be killed, the choice is an obvious one. And it’s a whole lot easier when you de-humanize the person you have to kill. The blame doesn’t lie with the soldiers for merely acting on their base human nature; it lies much higher up with the people who put them in that situation without the necessary means to overcome their own basic human nature.

Thanks for that most refreshing read. Intelligent echo from BC, as usual.

[CentreHice]

badcompany said:

The blame doesn’t lie with the soldiers for merely acting on their base human nature; it lies much higher up with the people who put them in that situation without the necessary means to overcome their own basic human nature.

And without the right reasons in the first place. And without proper follow-up, long-term treatment when they return from duty as mentally/physically damaged as they are.

Nice piece, BC...thanks.

[razor]

As a former infantry soldier, I can definately relate to a lot of what the American soldiers are feeling. They have been put into a no win situation - while they might have initially been viewed as liberators, the longer they stay, the more they take on the appearance of invaders and occupiers. They are in the middle of a civil war that they allowed to happen. The longer things go, more and more of the population is going to side with the "insurgents". As I have said before, one man's insurgent is another man's freedom fighter. It is all in the point of view.

You can bet that the attrocities we have heard of are the tip of the iceberg - and if it outrages you, just imagine how the Iraqi population feels. They have first hand knowledge of it, probably even have lost family members to US "friendly" fire.

[MC Habber]

disgruntled70shab said:

pth said:

I think this is a tough one - if I were over there, as much as I like to think I wouldn't be acting in an irresponsible manner, the fact is that the ever-present danger, which I'm not equipped to distinguish from normal day to day events in a totally foreign society which despises me, would make me err the same way as those soldiers - ie, shoot first, don't ask questions later, watch out for your buddies, and just try to make it home in one piece.

In short, I don't so much blame the soldiers as the situation they've been put in.

With thanks.

It's far too easy to pass judgment on soldiers in combat while sitting at home enjoying a beer, camping with our families and taking time to post opinions on the internet. In short, while I don't endorse outright atrocities, it's very hard for us to know what is actually transpiring in war unless we, ourselves, are exposed to it.

The thing that nags at me is the suspicion that if the soldiers committing these acts were, say, Iranian soldiers, or maybe Chinese soldiers, we wouldn't be nearly so understanding. Perhaps I'm wrong.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

machabby said:

disgruntled70shab said:

With thanks.

It's far too easy to pass judgment on soldiers in combat while sitting at home enjoying a beer, camping with our families and taking time to post opinions on the internet. In short, while I don't endorse outright atrocities, it's very hard for us to know what is actually transpiring in war unless we, ourselves, are exposed to it.

The thing that nags at me is the suspicion that if the soldiers committing these acts were, say, Iranian soldiers, or maybe Chinese soldiers, we wouldn't be nearly so understanding. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Very good point, MCH. While the goals might be different, killing for Allah, or killing for oil, the main denominator is "killing." The perception you mention is on both sides of the conflict and that won't change.

I think another aspect people may take for granted is that training someone to kill is far different than actually carrying it out. Killing another human being never starts out as a normal act to anyone. People aren't born killers, but they can be taught to kill.

Then there are those who are strong-armed into it and not given a choice. Here's a CBC article I found earlier today:


Afghan leader frees would-be teen suicide bomber
Last Updated: Sunday, July 15, 2007 | 4:07 PM ET
CBC News

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has freed a 14-year-old Pakistani boy arrested in eastern Afghanistan the night before authorities said he planned to kill a provincial governor.

Karzai pardoned the boy Sunday at the presidential palace in Kabul and told reporters the religious student had been deceived by the "enemy of Islam" into wearing an explosives-laden vest.

The teen, known only as Rafiqullah, said he and two classmates were shown videos of suicide attackers while attending a madrassa, or religious school, in Kotki village in Pakistan's border region of South Waziristan. He said they were given instructions on how to carry out attacks.

He said he walked eight hours over the border from Pakistan to the eastern Afghan city of Khost, where a man named Abdul Aziz gave him the vest and tried to ease his fears.

Intelligence agents arrested the teen in early June, the night before he was to carry out his bombing, the Associated Press reports.

"I said I was afraid to carry out the suicide attack, and, Abdul Aziz pointed a gun at me and said, 'I'll kill you if you don't,'" Rafiqullah told AP while he was in the custody of Afghan authorities over the weekend.(strong-armed into it)

Calling child-aged suicide bombers a "fearful and terrifying truth," Karzai told reporters neither the boy nor his father, appearing together at the palace on Sunday, were to blame for the plot.

"Today we are faced with a fearful and terrifying truth, and that truth is the sending of a Muslim child to carry out a suicide attack," Karzai said.

Last month, a six-year-old boy in Ghazni province said Taliban militants forced him to put on a suicide vest and walk up to U.S. soldiers, a potential attack foiled when the boy asked Afghan soldiers for help.

In April, a gory Taliban video surfaced showing militants instructing a boy of about 12 in Pakistan as he beheaded an alleged traitor with a knife. (as I was saying, people aren't born killers, but can be taught it)

Rafiqullah said he doesn't know the whereabouts of the other boys who received training as bombers at his madrassa.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

razor said:

As a former infantry soldier, I can definately relate to a lot of what the American soldiers are feeling. They have been put into a no win situation - while they might have initially been viewed as liberators, the longer they stay, the more they take on the appearance of invaders and occupiers. They are in the middle of a civil war that they allowed to happen. The longer things go, more and more of the population is going to side with the "insurgents". As I have said before, one man's insurgent is another man's freedom fighter. It is all in the point of view.

You can bet that the attrocities we have heard of are the tip of the iceberg - and if it outrages you, just imagine how the Iraqi population feels. They have first hand knowledge of it, probably even have lost family members to US "friendly" fire.

Well said razor. Thanks for your perspective.

This is never more true than in Afghanistan right now. The UN Secretary General recently spoke out about, "... "appalling" toll of civilians killed and hurt as NATO forces battle insurgents in Afghanistan."

It's hard to cut down on civilian casualties when Taliban fighters mix and mingle in with the locals. Here's another cut and paste from this article:

"Canadian and other NATO ground troops have mistakenly shot a number of Afghan civilians, but errant air strikes and artillery fire have caused the biggest groups of civilian deaths.

According to an Associated Press tally in June, NATO and U.S.-led forces had killed at least 203 civilians since the beginning of the year, while militant attacks killed 178.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

He stressed, however, that Taliban and other extremists were in a "different moral category" from coalition soldiers who inadvertently cause civilian casualties.

"Our opponents mingle and mix with innocent civilians," he said.

"We do not intentionally kill; they behead people, they burn schools, they kill women and children."

Very difficult conditions to be sure.

[Skilly]

disgruntled70shab said:

razor said:

As a former infantry soldier, I can definately relate to a lot of what the American soldiers are feeling. They have been put into a no win situation - while they might have initially been viewed as liberators, the longer they stay, the more they take on the appearance of invaders and occupiers. They are in the middle of a civil war that they allowed to happen. The longer things go, more and more of the population is going to side with the "insurgents". As I have said before, one man's insurgent is another man's freedom fighter. It is all in the point of view.

You can bet that the attrocities we have heard of are the tip of the iceberg - and if it outrages you, just imagine how the Iraqi population feels. They have first hand knowledge of it, probably even have lost family members to US "friendly" fire.

Well said razor. Thanks for your perspective.

This is never more true than in Afghanistan right now. The UN Secretary General recently spoke out about, "... "appalling" toll of civilians killed and hurt as NATO forces battle insurgents in Afghanistan."

It's hard to cut down on civilian casualties when Taliban fighters mix and mingle in with the locals. Here's another cut and paste from this article:

"Canadian and other NATO ground troops have mistakenly shot a number of Afghan civilians, but errant air strikes and artillery fire have caused the biggest groups of civilian deaths.

According to an Associated Press tally in June, NATO and U.S.-led forces had killed at least 203 civilians since the beginning of the year, while militant attacks killed 178.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

He stressed, however, that Taliban and other extremists were in a "different moral category" from coalition soldiers who inadvertently cause civilian casualties.

"Our opponents mingle and mix with innocent civilians," he said.

"We do not intentionally kill; they behead people, they burn schools, they kill women and children."

Very difficult conditions to be sure.

Our soldiers were clearly defined militray uniforms ..... they dress like the civilians with a scatter guy with a little explosive jewelry hidden underneath.

[CentreHice]

skilly said:

disgruntled70shab said:

Well said razor. Thanks for your perspective.

This is never more true than in Afghanistan right now. The UN Secretary General recently spoke out about, "... "appalling" toll of civilians killed and hurt as NATO forces battle insurgents in Afghanistan."

It's hard to cut down on civilian casualties when Taliban fighters mix and mingle in with the locals. Here's another cut and paste from this article:

"Canadian and other NATO ground troops have mistakenly shot a number of Afghan civilians, but errant air strikes and artillery fire have caused the biggest groups of civilian deaths.

According to an Associated Press tally in June, NATO and U.S.-led forces had killed at least 203 civilians since the beginning of the year, while militant attacks killed 178.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

He stressed, however, that Taliban and other extremists were in a "different moral category" from coalition soldiers who inadvertently cause civilian casualties.

"Our opponents mingle and mix with innocent civilians," he said.

"We do not intentionally kill; they behead people, they burn schools, they kill women and children."

Very difficult conditions to be sure.

Our soldiers were clearly defined militray uniforms ..... they dress like the civilians with a scatter guy with a little explosive jewelry hidden underneath.

Did the American Patriot militia distribute uniforms when fighting for independence from Britain? They hid in forests and caves as well....and set up ambushes.

When you're faced with a much stronger opponent, you will devise any strategy for survival. It's your only choice.....kill or be killed as has been discussed above.

[Skilly]

centrehice said:

....kill or be killed as has been discussed above.

Exactly ... so people should stop pinning every civilian death on the Americans. Kill or be killed.

The Americans are clearly visible to kill, so the Iraqi use "unconventional" means to kill. (I wonder what the Geneva Convention said about guerilla warfare?)

The Iraqi are not clearly visible to kill, so the Americans use "unconventional" methods also.

One and the same to me .... kill or be killed. The other side brainwash some of their guys to welcome death as long as they take a couple with them ....

[Cranky]

disgruntled70shab said:

He stressed, however, that Taliban and other extremists were in a "different moral category" from coalition soldiers who inadvertently cause civilian casualties.

"Our opponents mingle and mix with innocent civilians," he said.

"We do not intentionally kill; they behead people, they burn schools, they kill women and children."

[/i]

Very difficult conditions to be sure. [/quote]

We in the West have some kind of holllier then thou attitude when it comes to fighting wars. Wars are were man go to kill each other. The only rules is that you kill the enemy before he kills you. If our side can do the best it can to avoid civilian deaths and prosecute the war with as much civility as it reasonably possible, then that's fine.

[MC Habber]

disgruntled70shab said:

He stressed, however, that Taliban and other extremists were in a "different moral category" from coalition soldiers who inadvertently cause civilian casualties.

"Our opponents mingle and mix with innocent civilians," he said.

"We do not intentionally kill; they behead people, they burn schools, they kill women and children."

This is in reference to Afghanistan, and I don't really buy the argument. NATO troops kill women and children too. Accidents are one thing, but when you deliberately fire on civilians because there are insurgents among them, or when you drop bombs on civilian areas, you can be damn pretty sure you're going to kill civilians. To me, that's murder. If I shoot someone in Canada, I won't get a lighter sentence because I was "hoping" they wouldn't die. IMO, some of the things NATO has done in Afghanistan are in the same "moral category" as the Taliban. But, more important than what I think is what the average Afghani thinks. If NATO wanted to win hearts and minds, they haven't gone about it very intelligently.

[Skilly]

machabby said:

disgruntled70shab said:

He stressed, however, that Taliban and other extremists were in a "different moral category" from coalition soldiers who inadvertently cause civilian casualties.

"Our opponents mingle and mix with innocent civilians," he said.

"We do not intentionally kill; they behead people, they burn schools, they kill women and children."

This is in reference to Afghanistan, and I don't really buy the argument. NATO troops kill women and children too. Accidents are one thing, but when you deliberately fire on civilians because there are insurgents among them, or when you drop bombs on civilian areas, you can be damn pretty sure you're going to kill civilians. To me, that's murder. If I shoot someone in Canada, I won't get a lighter sentence because I was "hoping" they wouldn't die. IMO, some of the things NATO has done in Afghanistan are in the same "moral category" as the Taliban. But, more important than what I think is what the average Afghani thinks. If NATO wanted to win hearts and minds, they haven't gone about it very intelligently.

Would you rather they not shoot and risk being wrong .... they don't have the luxury of second thought like us. They have one chance to get it right or come home in a body bag. It is a war. People are going to die. Maybe we should send over a few of our boy strapped with explosives and go kamikaze? You don't seem to have a problem with insurgents killing civilians with explosives in a suicide ..... I haven't been in a war, but when in a war one can use reasonable methods to stay alive. And before you say firing at civilians is not reasonable, put yourself in their shoes .... they have no idea who the insurgents are.