Don't get mad, it's for our troops by Succatash

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...
...
Perhaps there was an attempt at a revolt, in which case I would have fully supported shooting from watchtowers....
...

Finn... the shooting from the tower has been known to be a guard mixing up ammo clips. The guard mistakenly used live ammo instead of the crowd control ones.

In either case, I agree that - after seeing some of the other earlier riots where the al-qaeda suspects were able to get ahold of weapons cache and took over the detention centers. It should be standing policy to quash disturbances as quickly as possible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 10:35 PM

Extremist fanatics and terrorists who have been proven to have committed atrocities such as rape and murder and torture should be punished to the full extent of international law. No arguments there.

But what we are dealing with here are US soldiers/reservists who are representatives of the coalition which was supposed to be liberating Iraq, freeing its civilian population from tyranny and inhumane treatment. These were meant to be the GOOD GUYS, the people who are meant to stand for what is good and right about democracy and western civilization. You know, the upholding of the rights to freedom and liberty and such. And yet we find them committing acts and engaging in behavior that is not only abhorrent and sadistic but it also undermines what the US led invasion was supposed to be trying to achieve.

Isn't it hypocritical to deplore acts of inhumanity by terrorists/extremists while condoning those same evils to be used against others as long as they aren't our people?

It seems that people are making the *erroneous* assumption that all detainees held or brought to these detention centres are confirmed terrorist extremists who have important intelligence value to the coalition:

Check out these excerpts from Taguba's own report http://www.navyseals.com/community/articles/article.cfm?id=3474

1. (S/NF) MG Miller’s team recognized that they were using JTF-GTMO operational
procedures and interrogation authorities as baselines for its observations and
recommendations. There is a strong argument that the intelligence value of detainees held at JTF-Guantanamo (GTMO) is different than that of the detainees/internees held at Abu Ghraib (BCCF) and other detention facilities in Iraq. Currently, there are a large number of Iraqi criminals held at Abu Ghraib (BCCF). These are not believed to be international terrorists or members of Al Qaida, Anser Al Islam, Taliban, and other international terrorist organizations. (ANNEX 20)

33. (S/NF) The various detention facilities operated by the 800th MP Brigade have
routinely held persons brought to them by Other Government Agencies (OGAs) [CIA]
without accounting for them, knowing their identities, or even the reason for their
detention. The Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center (JIDC) at Abu Ghraib
called these detainees “ghost detainees.” On at least one occasion, the 320th MP
Battalion at Abu Ghraib held a handful of “ghost detainees” (6-8) for OGAs [CIA] that they moved around within the facility to hide them from a visiting International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) survey team. This maneuver was deceptive,
contrary to Army Doctrine, and in violation of international law. (ANNEX 53)…

A summary on Taguba's report on the abuse allegations
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,250496,00.html

Major-Gen Taguba authored the Pentagon report on the abuse that found numerous 'sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses' at the prison near Baghdad.

At the Pentagon's insistence, Under Secretary of Defence Stephen Cambone, who is in charge of intelligence, and other Pentagon officials also appeared with Major-Gen Taguba to testify on the scandal that has sparked international outrage.

Major-Gen Taguba said, however, that the abuse carried out by a few soldiers was not system-wide.

'At the end of the day, a few soldiers and civilians conspired to abuse and conduct egregious acts of violence against detainees and other civilians outside the bounds of international law and the Geneva Convention,' he said.

His report revealed 'numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses' against prisoners.

It said military intelligence officers told guards to give detainees rough treatment to facilitate interrogation, leading to the abuses.

And how about the comments of the US' own lawmakers after viewing 1,600 more abuse image and clips today?:

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?section=WORLD&oid=50897

WASHINGTON - Members of the U.S. Congress saw new images of violence and sexual humiliation from a U.S.-run Iraqi prison on Wednesday in a closed viewing one lawmaker likened to a descent into "the wings of hell."

Lawmakers said images showed inmates apparently being coerced to commit sodomy, wounds possibly from dog bites, a number of dead bodies, and examples of "sadistic torture" and "sexual humiliation."

Some top Republicans urged that the still pictures and video not be released publicly, saying they could endanger U.S. forces overseas.

"What we saw is appalling. It is consistent with the photos that you've seen in the press to date. They go beyond that in many ways in terms of the various activities that are depicted," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican.

"There were some awful scenes. It felt like you were descending into one of the wings of hell and sadly it was our own creation," said Sen. Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat. "And when you think of the sadism, the violence, the sexual humiliation, after a while you just turn away, you just can't take it any more.

"I still cannot believe that this happened without the knowledge of those at higher levels," Durbin added.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned last week the pictures could worsen a scandal that ignited international outrage and shook U.S. global prestige as the United States seeks to stabilize Iraq.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 13, 2004 7:41 AM

I agree with everything that you have quoted, that you typed, how you interpreted, and most everything you said in this last post 100%.

These are a few people MPs, and MIs types. But what do you think cause the problems at this particular site, while in at least 2 other sites, things were perfectly fine and even markedly outstanding - despite the common theme of lack of training, low morale, complete breakdown of discipline? They are people after all. What do you think led them to this? My take is that they slipped into their role - eventhough they continued to do what they thought were "their duty", that they continued to do what they were told are their responsibilities - because there were mix-ups as to who their chain-of-command were, and because those two civilian contractors kept feeding them suggestions on things to do.

One of the soldiers accused and pictured, Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick was quoted in one of his letters home:

Quote:

"I questioned some of the things I saw, such things as leaving inmates in their cell with no clothes or in female underpants, handcuffing them to the door of their cell. And the answer I got was, this is how the military intelligence wants it done."

It's easy to look at this as wrong to an outsider - I am not condoning this or rationalizing this as ok, I am simply suggesting how something like this could have happened - but if you are working in a place where most people around you are saying "f* this shit, I should have been home 6 months ago"; on top of that, you keep telling your superiors that you think something is wrong, but they don't understand what's going on; you keep questioning what you are doing because you really don't know what's going on (lack of training), there's no procedure and everyone around you are just inventing up new things to do everyday. People stopped wearing uniforms and there is no saluting (no military discipline). You toil day after day in the baking heat. I would suggest that without the training and the discipline, these folks just went into a very suggestive mode, simply slipped into the roles of what they have seen in the media and movies as "prison guards" coupled with the stimuli from those two civilian contractors and

what you see is what you have today.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 13, 2004 1:08 PM

Yes I agree that discipline was allowed to become too lax, with the uniform issue etc. The lines were blurred in terms of the chain of command. There seems to be a lot of confusion as to just who was calling the shots and the role of MI in this particular prison. There is evidence that other detention facilities have had problems with detainee abuse (Bacca?) but Taguba also pointed out incidences in other centres where illegal and undisciplined behavior was reported and rectified.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 2:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zoriah:
Isn't it hypocritical to deplore acts of inhumanity by terrorists/extremists while condoning those same evils to be used against others as long as they aren't our people?

Well, assuming that I am condoning everything that has been reported to have happened at Abu Ghraib by American soldiers, I don't see how it would even remotely be close to being the "same evils" conducted by our enemies. So even in that instance, I don't see anything hypocritical about what I've said.

But I am not necessarily condoning it. I said on several occasions that I believe the incidents at Abu Ghraib may have gone too far, and these people should be punished. But that’s not something you’ll ever see our enemy doing, as they proudly use knives to pry the heads off civilians on national tv. And I think that some people need to recognize that. There is no moral equivalence between us then them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 2:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, we usually don't air our dirtiest laundry on TV since we claim to be morally superior, but we've done things that are just as bad, and worse. Abu Ghraib is not the sum total of every bad thing that we've done in Iraq, and if we were to expand the scope under consideration I'd be hard-pressed to construct a case for us being the good guys.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 3:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, we usually don't air our dirtiest laundry on TV since we claim to be morally superior, but we've done things that are just as bad, and worse. Abu Ghraib is not the sum total of every bad thing that we've done in Iraq, and if we were to expand the scope under consideration I'd be hard-pressed to construct a case for us being the good guys.

Actually we air our dirtiest laundry even when we desperately try not to. These photos seeping out of Abu Ghraib are clear evidence of that.

So let get this right, you would be hard-pressed to construct a case for us being the good guys even though you have no evidence of any such actions that are “just as bad, and worse.” In other words, you are going to stick to a preconceived unfounded anti-American notion regardless of any evidence? (Incidentally, this is not a rhetorical question or one meant to offend.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 3:34 AM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

We disagree on virtually everything, Succotash, which is why I almost never read your posts. But your rhetoric is coming dangerously close to the sort that cause my uncle to be shouted at, spat upon, and pelted with rotten tomotos when he came home from Viet Nam. You obviously hate the president and hate the war. And that's fine. But you damn well better separate that hatred from from the soldier/sailor/ariman/marine. Because none of us asked to go over there. Our government told us to go, and like good service men and women, we went. Don't you dare presume that the servicemembers are the ones driving this war. Aim your vitriol at the political system, not the military.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 3:57 AM

SHINY

Quote:
Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
We disagree on virtually everything, Succotash, which is why I almost never read your posts. But your rhetoric is coming dangerously close to the sort that cause my uncle to be shouted at, spat upon, and pelted with rotten tomotos when he came home from Viet Nam. You obviously hate the president and hate the war. And that's fine. But you damn well better separate that hatred from from the soldier/sailor/ariman/marine. Because none of us asked to go over there. Our government told us to go, and like good service men and women, we went. Don't you dare presume that the servicemembers are the ones driving this war. Aim your vitriol at the political system, not the military.

My reading of 'Tash's post gave me the impression that he *was* attacking the political system/president/administration and their attempt to deflect criticism/debate by claiming criticism of the leadership/government is somehow attacking our troops/putting them in danger/not supporting the troops/etc. It may be true that 'Tash also does not support the military/the troops, but I didn't see evidence of that from his post(s) in this particular thread.

FWIW, I'm aiming my vitriol directly at the Bush (mis)administration. I always have and always will support our men and women in uniform who are risking their lives to protect our freedom and our way of life. I just think *we* dishonor *them* by unjustly sending them to war/invasion/occupation under false pretenses.

Please help Haken keep this site running by occasionally clicking on some of the sponsored ad links on the side of the page!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 6:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Not lack of evidence, just lack of photos. I'm not quibbling or meaning to offend either, but just because we didn't have photos of Saddam gassing Iranians and Kurds doesn't mean it didn't happen. And just because there were no photos of American troop coffins doesn't mean there weren't any.

Photos can move people, which is why the Bush administration -and all administrations since Vietnam- have been very, very, very careful about what gets on your TV screen.

I like to try what I think of as "analysis", although I'm sure professional intelligence analysts would laugh at my pitiable attempts. Sometimes the most important evidence is the timing of the news. Sometimes the most important evidence is what is NOT in the news. For example, what was world reaction to Berg's beheading? Under the CNN headline "Beheading Sparks Outrage" there were comments from UAE, Bush, Blair, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the governor of Pennsylvania, Jordon (which expressed "sympathy" for the family but did not condemn) and Berg's parents. THEIR outrage was actually directed against the USA government, altho you'd have to read to the very end of the article to find that out. What's wrong with this picture?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 6:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not lack of evidence, just lack of photos. I'm not quibbling or meaning to offend either, but just because we didn't have photos of Saddam gassing Iranians and Kurds doesn't mean it didn't happen. And just because there were no photos of American troop coffins doesn't mean there weren't any.

In fact, there are photos of Saddam gassing Iranians and Kurds, as well as substantially more evidence then that. It is a lack of evidence that you are operating on here.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I like to try what I think of as "analysis", although I'm sure professional intelligence analysts would laugh at my pitiable attempts. Sometimes the most important evidence is the timing of the news. Sometimes the most important evidence is what is NOT in the news. For example, what was world reaction to Berg's beheading? Under the CNN headline "Beheading Sparks Outrage" there were comments from UAE, Bush, Blair, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the governor of Pennsylvania, Jordon (which expressed "sympathy" for the family but did not condemn) and Berg's parents. THEIR outrage was actually directed against the USA government, altho you'd have to read to the very end of the article to find that out. What's wrong with this picture?

As far I can tell, the problem may be that you may be so insistent on searching for reasons to condemn the US that you have found evidence where none exists. In an article that spells out how brutal these monsters we are fighting can be, you have instead decided that there is some mysterious unspoken underlying pretext that makes the US the bad guys.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 9:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

It's not "some mysterious unspoken underlying pretext". What I am trying to point out is that a lot of our news is government press releases by anybody from the local dog catcher to the President of the USA.

So, what was wrong with that situation, as described in my post? Unlike after 9/11, there was no reaction to the beheading from Spain, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Italy, Poland, etc. I went to The Guardian, to Christian Science Monitor, Asia Times etc. and I couldn't find a thing.

Here's another example: During Gulf War I, after about eight days of heavy bombing (when we were dropping over 2000 bombs per day on Baghdad and other cities) Saddam claimed eight civilian casulties and the USA claimed not to have killed any. The picture on TV ad infinitum ad nauseum was the "smart" bomb homing in on a fortified bunker.

I AM getting to a point! I'm just going by a roundabout route.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 9:25 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Someone wrote:

Quote:
However, none of this changes the fact that the individuals in question are killers and I have far less sympathy for them then I do for their victims. None of this changes the reality that information obtained from these killers has certainly been used to save innocent lives. No one denies that torturing prisoners is bad, but so is killing and torturing American soldiers and civilians and Iraqi civilians. Are we to avoid completely an avenue that will save these lives, so that we may self-righteously proclaim ourselves good people to terrorists who could care less if we were good or not?

First of all, we do not know anything about the people being interrogated, except that they presumably had information wanted by the Intelligence community.

Second of all, if they WERE killers, there are punishments for that. Punishments that follow a trial. Punishments that do not include torture.

Third of all, is it acceptable to harvest souls and imprison them in hell for the purpose of putting the devil out of business?

Becoming the enemy doesn't suit me.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 9:38 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Someone said:

Quote:
The same type of situation likely applied at Abu Ghraib (please do also remembered that the problems were confined to Abu Ghraib with one particular MP company; the rest of the prisons/detention units in Iraq performed in outstanding manners.). The local leadership there failed miserably in getting the MPs in their units the proper training in running a detention center (remember, being a policemen and being a prison guard are different things - even in real life civilian world), these were also National Guard units that do not have much proper training and practice other than 2 days out of every month. Furthermore, the national guard units were also rapidly demoralized from being told several times that their tour would be over RSN (real soon now).

I see this sort of thing a lot. Soldiers saying they weren't properly trained. Hadn't read the Geneva conventions. Didn't know what they did was wrong.

I'm curious as to what kind of training you need to act like a human being. These people were likely encouraged to do what they did by the Intel community... but they sure weren't somberly obeying orders. They were grinning like cheshire cats. Mmmm. Yeah. Reading the Geneva convention woulda cleared that right up.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 10:28 AM

LORDJ

While the photos were shocking (and by the way, the guy who several posts ago wondered "where the arbiters of morality were" etc. etc., they were saying the same thing they are saying today when those guys got hung in Falluja) etc. I think they are really beside the point. The US is fighting an insurgency, i.e. combatants who use their ability to blend into the population as a military tactic, and the only way to figure out who is who is to knock down doors and torture the poo out of folks. It is horrifying to contemplate but its necessary. I would go further and say that the central problem confronting the military is that the only way to stamp out the insurgents would be to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

The real questions are, a) what are our aims? and b) how can we achieve them? A lot of folks, including myself, opposed the war because we believed it would result in precisely the situation in which we find ourselves now, but that too is beside the point. If we believe that governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed then I don't think there is any way to argue that what is going on in Iraq fills that bill. And if the US continues the fight there it will only get worse--even if we buck history and manage to "win."

The fantasy many talking heads implicitly ascribe to is that there is a quick solution; Iraq is going to be a bloody mess for at least 5 years whether we are there or not. We did some Iraqis a favor (probably not the 500,000 that worked for Saddam's internal security apparatus, but who's counting) by getting rid of him. Maybe we should get the hell out of the way and let them figure out the rest for themselves.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 11:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'm not sure we could win, even if we went all-out. Let's look at Israel and the Palestinians.

Israel has a tremendous military tech advantage: they have missiles, helicopter gunships, bullet-proof vests and helmets, tanks, nuclear wepaons etc etc. At one point they were even manufacturing chemical weapons. Palestinians have light arms, some RPGs, and explosives.

Israel has a technological economy and billions of dollars of US support. The Palestinians have a 70% unemployment rate and are by and large displaced farmers and shopkeepers.

Israel has physical control of their nation plus their occupied territories. While Israelis can travel pretty freely, Palestinians are hemmed in by walls and checkpoints- it can take a Palestinian literally half a day and three checkpoints to cover 10 miles.

Israel has a well-developed intelligence system: they live cheek by jowl with Palestinians (with whom they share physical characteristics) and know their language. Israel has practiced group punishment, preventive detention, military occupation for decades. Fighting the Palestinians has all the challenge of shooting fish in a barrel. I don't think that anyone could say that Israel hasn't been fighting effectively. But, can anyone say that Israel has "won"? Can anyone say that Israel is "safe"?

Now, if Israel hasn't won, why do we think we can?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 11:04 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Someone Said:

Quote:
I think they are really beside the point. The US is fighting an insurgency, i.e. combatants who use their ability to blend into the population as a military tactic, and the only way to figure out who is who is to knock down doors and torture the poo out of folks. It is horrifying to contemplate but its necessary.

Wow. So the only way to stop Terrorist cells in the United States (combatants who use their ability to blend into the population as a military tactic)is to knock down doors and torture the poo out of folks.

What? No? Oh. Maybe that tactic is only 'necessary' for us to use in other nations.

Hmmm...

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 4:08 PM

AnthonyT: If you scroll up you will see I have already posted some excerpts from Taguba's report that show that the majority of detainees at Abu Gharib were not deemed terrorists or insurgents with much intelligence value compared to say Guantanamo Bay:

1. (S/NF) MG Miller’s team recognized that they were using JTF-GTMO operational
procedures and interrogation authorities as baselines for its observations and
recommendations. There is a strong argument that the intelligence value of detainees held at JTF-Guantanamo (GTMO) is different than that of the detainees/internees held at Abu Ghraib (BCCF) and other detention facilities in Iraq . Currently, there are a large number of Iraqi criminals held at Abu Ghraib (BCCF). These are not believed to be international terrorists or members of Al Qaida, Anser Al Islam, Taliban, and other international terrorist organizations. (ANNEX 20)

33. (S/NF) The various detention facilities operated by the 800th MP Brigade have
routinely held persons brought to them by Other Government Agencies (OGAs)
without accounting for them, knowing their identities, or even the reason for their
detention.

So there is no evidence to suppose that these prisoners were all killers, combatant insurgents and terrorists who 'deserved' to be brutalised in the name of revenge.

Besides I really don't get the notion that cruelty and inhumane treatment of people is ONLY bad if it's done to us. Those extremist fanatics do evil acts so we should be allowed to do evil acts on their people (who may or may not be members of these extreme factions) in retaliation???

It's bad and wrong PERIOD IMO.

And it looks even worse when perpetrated by a coalition who has been claiming the moral high ground and asserting that their invasion is benevolent and liberating.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 14, 2004 4:41 PM

Hero: This is what a texan friend of mine (Lisa) had to say when she saw your post. I wish I could be as articulate as she was, I am not technically from the US though (although a US citizen), and I thought you deserved a response from a fellow american -

"Just because we believe everyone has those rights, it does not give us the right to impose by force of will (and force of arms) it upon other sovereign nations, no matter how despicable we find them to be.

Our people are NOT "everyone". Our people are citizens of the U.S. The world did not elect Bush, hell, less than half the U.S. did.

Our "great experiment" still has plenty of screwups and has all the way along. We had our own taint of slavery even after our beautiful constitution.

"Because instruments of mass destruction and terror are too dangerous to be left in the hands of those who would use them." Do you think that we should also deprive the U.S., UK, and our allies of those weapons? Because we have them too, and we HAVE used them.

What we have said is "no one should have them except the people who believe as we do". That is not democracy, it's despotism.

"The whole world has come here, every nation, every culture, every religion, has come to share in our vision." <--?? Until the "whole world" participates in our democractic election process, and has a voice in who is doing the leading here and, if I might say, we don't even have that HERE, considering the outcome of the 2000 election), then we have no right to impose upon the WHOLE WORLD. If we do that, we are dictators, no better than Colonialists, full of Noblesse Oblige, patting the head of Little Brown Brother."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:22 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

We are in agreement, Zoriah.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:40 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Someone Wrote:

Quote:
<--?? Until the "whole world" participates in our democractic election process, and has a voice in who is doing the leading here and, if I might say, we don't even have that HERE, considering the outcome of the 2000 election)

Your friend's good points would be better without mentioning the 2000 election. I've heard about the 2000 election a lot, due to my virtue of having been from South Florida and having lived there at the time of that election.

I remember in Civics class in the 7th grade, I learned that due to our election process, it was possible for someone to lose the popular vote but win the election. This is due to our screwy electoral process. It's the same process that's been around for centuries. Everybody decided to suddenly get excited about a phenomenon that has always existed, simply because it was a very close call between Bush and that other guy.

One of my favorite things to hear is how, if people in Florida knew how to count ballots, Bush wouldn't have won. The other guy would have taken Florida, by all rights, and we'd be living in a peaceful utopia of a world now.

Turns out, though, that Bush really did win Florida. A dozen recounts by a dozen agencies demonstrated that if the ballots were counted properly, Bush would have won.

The only problem with the 2000 election is the problem that every election has had since we've held elections. The structure of the thing does not account for each person's vote. The electoral process was designed and built with 18th century technology in mind.

So please, if you don't like the electoral process, say so. But don't harp on the 2000 elections as an example. 2000 was no different than any other, except that the losers were louder about it.

If anything, get mad at American Idol's voting process.

Now, as an aside, I think it's also important to point out that a democracy is not the only way to run a country. It's certainly the one I'd choose, but that doesn't mean I have the right to tell others to live that way. So no, we don't have the right to tell other nations what to do, nor even to enforce a particular political ideal.

We do have the right to kick a nation's ass when they try to slit our throats... but that's not the situation in Iraq, is it? I remember thinking, way back when this war started, "We had BETTER find WMD, because if we don't, we're going to look like the assholes of the universe."

Guess what?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 15, 2004 3:09 AM

LORDJ

Maybe what I wrote seemed flippant? I didn't intend it to.

To answer you directly, I absolutely agree that we need to have single standards to evaluate behavior and tactics, and like I said I think the tactics being used are shocking and offensive, morally corrupt and deserving of punishment.

My point was to divert attention from a single incident and instead focus on what that single incident tells us about the broader military struggle in Iraq. What most news etc. is trying to put over is that the Abu Gharib torture was "isolated" when I think it is perfectly clear it is not. I don't think these kind of things can be justified morally under any circumstances--the best you can get is to say the ends justify the means (which of course never approaches moral justification), but even then my point was to say that the "means" have been and will be undermining our ends rather than achieving them. That is, I don't think that these photos serve as an indictment of our efforts in Iraq; we should never have gone there at all for the precise reason that, as many many people predicted, resistance to our occupation would result in brutal tactics and violence. And in the context of this resistance it would be difficult for the US to implant a democracy even if our policymakers acted in good faith.

I do think there is a meaningful difference to be made between insurgents and international terrorists in terms of motivation and location. Depending on how a given President (ahem) manages it, I think they could make it quite difficult for terrorists to blend in Muslim communities in the United States; the Lackawanna 5, for example, the 5 guys arrested in Buffalo I think 6 months or so following 9/11, all admitted to attending an al Qaeda camp. But they claimed that they had done so under false pretenses, and at least one of them had contacted the FBI following 9/11 to ask if they could render any assistance. My guess is that the vast majority of Muslims in the US are here because they like it (even if they might disagree with our Israel policy etc.). And US Muslims don't come from one nation but many, and probably the most nationalist of these are African-Americans in the Nation of Islam rather than Indonesians etc.

In Iraq we are dealing with a nationalist insurgency in its own nation, and to my mind the historical examples that fit are the National Liberation Fronts in Algeria and Vietnam, Mujahedin (sp?) in Afghanistan, etc. etc. The conflict is taking place in their country where we are an army of occupation that is actively preventing the formation of a representative national government, which means that there are base level policy grievances shared by a large number of the population of which the insurgents are only an extreme expression. The populace as a whole is much more receptive to their analysis (if not their actions) than our own Muslim population--which went to great lengths following 9/11 to proclaim allegiance to the US and distance themselves from al Qaeda.

Anyway, maybe this was buried in my earlier post, but I think Iraq is fundamentally a political rather than military problem and therefore requires a political solution--similar historically to nationalist insurgencies, which were started because imperial powers refused to allow subject populations sovereignty. And I think that by imagining the struggle against al Qaeda as simply a "war" our government has made a huge mistake, of which those photos are the tip of the iceberg.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 15, 2004 3:20 AM

I realize this wasn't address to me, but I found some of this rather interesting.

“Just because we believe everyone has those rights, it does not give us the right to impose by force of will (and force of arms) it upon other sovereign nations, no matter how despicable we find them to be.”

This I find a little strange. Would your friend have opposed removing the Nazis on the bases of their extermination of the German Jewish population? Did your friend oppose Clinton’s use of force in the former Yugoslavian state? If what your friend is saying is something she actually believes and applies consistently, then your friend must certainly have opposed the American Civil War, which was a use of force that ultimately imposed the Republican belief of freedom on Southern Democratic Slaveholding states.

“Do you think that we should also deprive the U.S., UK, and our allies of those weapons? Because we have them too, and we HAVE used them.”

Do you think you can convince North Korea, India, Pakistan, Russia, France and litany of others to get rid of their arsenals? If you do, and can then the US will follow suit very quickly. While France and maybe (big maybe) Russia might be willing to go along with that. You’ll find that nations like North Korea will not. And their arsenals necessitate all others. I’ll settle for keeping them out of the hands of terrorist and rogue nations, who would seem bent on using them to kill innocent people in their bid for world domination.

"Until the "whole world" participates in our democractic election process, and has a voice in who is doing the leading here and, if I might say, we don't even have that HERE, considering the outcome of the 2000 election), then we have no right to impose upon the WHOLE WORLD. If we do that, we are dictators, no better than Colonialists, full of Noblesse Oblige, patting the head of Little Brown Brother."

I see. So liberating nations so that they can participate in a World Democracy makes us bad guys, but nothing we do is justified until all nations can participate in a World Democracy? So the hopes and dreams of a world free of despotism rest squarely and completely on the shoulders of men like Kim Jung Il, the Ayatollah of Iran and Castro to give up their lofty positions. That doesn’t seem terribly Democratic to me or likely.

Other then that I think I agree with everything your friend said.

Also the moral of this story is that, it's not that simple. You can't tie the hands of liberal democratic nations because they don't necassarly act democratically in the face of despotic rulers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 15, 2004 4:28 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Someone Wrote:

Quote:

This I find a little strange. Would your friend have opposed removing the Nazis on the bases of their extermination of the German Jewish population? Did your friend oppose Clinton’s use of force in the former Yugoslavian state? If what your friend is saying is something she actually believes and applies consistently, then your friend must certainly have opposed the American Civil War, which was a use of force that ultimately imposed the Republican belief of freedom on Southern Democratic Slaveholding states.

The Nazis were not removed on the basis of their treatment of Jews. If that was the only basis for removing the Nazis, there'd be no Jews in Europe right now. Nobody even wanted to take Jewish refugees and exiles, much less go to war ont heir behalf. You can throw that warm and fuzzy reason for armed conflict right out the window.

The U.S. has only ever went to war when it had something to gain from it, or in self-defense. We have never gone to war for altruistic reasons. We probably never will. Nor will anyone else. There is no United Federation of Planets cranking out perfect little people who only care about the fuzzy wuzzies. There's just us dirty humans on this dirty rock. Anything good that comes to people as the result of our military action is always a side effect, and never the primary intent.

As for the Civil War, that was an internal conflict within the United States, and slavery was a rallying issue, not the true issue. Kind of like how bringing democracy to Iraq is a rallying issue. It's not why we went in. It's the excuse we use to stay there. Something the people can get behind.

So... no. I don't think that going to war to 'help people' or 'end oppression' is enough. Judging from history, few people ever have. We go to war to serve our national interests. That's about it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 15, 2004 6:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FIrst of all, let's give ourselves a big round of applause for having an intelligent, nuanced, and well articulated discussion! I haven't had the time to do anything more than lob in a few posts, but I've really appreciated reading everyone's comments. Finn, Hero, Jasonzz, Zoriah, LordJ, AnthonyT and all the rest- you've made this an insightful discussion! You're all invited to Rendino's in Diamond Bar CA for pizza and beer. I'll pay for the first five pitchers and pizzas!

OK, now for some (I hope) equally nuanced and insightful comments. Hmmm... working my way bass akwards as usual....

AnthonyT- I agree with MOST of what you've said, but there are some important fractures in your last post. On the one hand, you say that "we" never go to war for warm fuzzies, but that they provide a rallying cry for "the people" to get behind. You're obviously assuming that "the people" who put the effort into the war, and the "we" who decide to go to war are entirely two different things. The schism continues when you talk about "our" national interests. If "the people" have to be winkled into going to war, are their interests really being served? The point is that the USA - or any nation- is not just one uniform blob of people with united interests. it's an intersting point that deserves to be dissected.

Finn- Strangely, I'm on your side on the BASIS of your argument (going to war for the good) but on the opposite side when it comes to the particular case of Iraq. I've been saying - since well before we ever invaded that hapless country- that our motivations are intrinsically bound up with the fact that Iraq sits on the second-largest proven oil reserves in the WORLD. If you've looked at the shifting excuses for our presence- WMD, terrorism, getting rid of Saddam, bringing democracy- you should have figured out that the real reasons have nothing to do with the stated reasons.

AnthonyT- the biggest scandal in the Florida elections was the 70,000-95,000 mostly Democrats who were knocked off the voter rolls for specious reasons at the behest of Florida Scy of State Katherine Harris. You should look up Pallast's article. Also, I looked at the raw data of the Florida-wide recount done by six media companies, using the various criteria for counting ballots (how many free corners, how filled the circles etc.) Of the 24 possibilities, Bush would have won 12, and Gore would have won 12. Oddly, the swing block was in the electronic ballots, not in the hanging chads.

Finn- I'm getting back to my original point about evidence. The point of my second example is that 90% of bombs dropped on Iraq were "dumb iron", and bombs were targeted at civilian infrastructures (ie. power plants, water treatment facilities tec.) Even if 50% of the bombs did nothing but blow holes in the sand, and the remaining bombs only killed one civilian each, you're looking at civilian casulties of 1000 per day- not eight over eight days.

To get back to what we've done in Iraq this past month: "Explosion Fill Night Skies of Fallujah"

www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/16/ret.ac130.profile/

The aircraft used in this case were AC-130s- heavily armored, heavily armed versions of the C-130 transport. Looking up AC-130s, you'll see that they are mounted with "40-mm Bofors cannon and a 105-mm Howitzer cannon. Newer models also mount a 25-mm gun, used to saturate a target area with extremely rapid fire." Also, they have a cruising speed of 335 mph, and although I couldn't find a stall speed I assume it's something like 200 mph. Doing a little math on the speed of plane and the firing rate of the Bofors cannon, you'll see that it places a shell about once every 60-100 ft. In other words, the AC-130 is NOT a precision weapon. It's designed to cut a swath with saturating gunfire.

Apply this to a city, and the only term that comes up is "massacre". It's been mentioned, quietly, on some public radio stations. My husband pointed out the C-130 characteristics, since he was in Budapest in 1956 and clearly remembers what 50mm shells sound like as they walk across a wall. This is something that you won't see discussed in great deal by Bremmer. Some times- MANY times- you have to find out things for yourself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 15, 2004 6:34 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Someone Said:

Quote:

The aircraft used in this case were AC-130s- heavily armored, heavily armed versions of the C-130 transport. Looking up AC-130s, you'll see that they are mounted with "40-mm Bofors cannon and a 105-mm Howitzer cannon. Newer models also mount a 25-mm gun, used to saturate a target area with extremely rapid fire." Also, they have a cruising speed of 335 mph, and although I couldn't find a stall speed I assume it's something like 200 mph. Doing a little math on the speed of plane and the firing rate of the Bofors cannon, you'll see that it places a shell about once every 60-100 ft. In other words, the AC-130 is NOT a precision weapon. It's designed to cut a swath with saturating gunfire.

Apply this to a city, and the only term that comes up is "massacre". It's been mentioned, quietly, on some public radio stations. My husband informed me of this, sicne he was in Budapest in 1956 and clearly remembers what 50mm shells sound like as they walk across a wall.

This information isn't complete, as you are assuming a linear flight path with apparently vertical targeting.

You also need to know what the turning radius of the plane is, and if it was circling, what the dispersion of shells would be if fire was directed at the center point of the circle's diameter.

You may still get a massacre, but over a much smaller target area. This is desireable, as you want lots of lead into as compact a kill-zone as possible. This is how I would conduct an aerial shelling operation if I was in charge of it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 15, 2004 7:06 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Someone Said:
Quote:
I think they are really beside the point. The US is fighting an insurgency, i.e. combatants who use their ability to blend into the population as a military tactic, and the only way to figure out who is who is to knock down doors and torture the poo out of folks. It is horrifying to contemplate but its necessary.

Wow. So the only way to stop Terrorist cells in the United States (combatants who use their ability to blend into the population as a military tactic)is to knock down doors and torture the poo out of folks.

What? No? Oh. Maybe that tactic is only 'necessary' for us to use in other nations.

Hmmm...

--Anthony

Thank you, Anthony! Yes, if we cared a fig for "the Iraqi people" we would never condone torturing any of them. The idea that torture is a necessary tool of some ad hoc international justice system run by the U.S. is a lie.

To those reasonable people who post on this board in defense of torture I pose these questions: Where do you get your information? Do you have the slightest idea what torture really is? The long term damage it does to people? Have you seen it? Been subjected to it? Do you truly believe that our success in the "War on Terror" depends on the use of torture? Do you have even the slightest respect for human life? (Sorry, this last question is a bit loaded I realize

, but when I hear people justifying depravity I have to think they do it out of a profound ignorance; that they don't understand that the victims of our righteous torturers are actual full-fledged human beings who may be entirely innocent and who are, by the way, born with the same "inalienable rights" as we are. Inalienable. Look it up.)

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 15, 2004 7:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Good points. Much is made of the precision of the AC-130 because of it's low yield munitions. However, given the fact that this is an urban environment, I think it's impossible to separate out the friendlies from the non-friendlies, especially at night. According to hospital directors in Fallujah, "most" (let's assume 50.1%!) of the 600-1000 casualaties were women and children. Given the population distrubution in Iraq (50% of the population is under 15, and 50% of the remainder are women) this isn't quite indiscrimate killing but it's not targeted either.

The other thing that needs to be pointed out is that the AC-130 is really only good for killing people who have no anti-aircraft defenses: ground troops with light arms. convoys, civilians etc. In other words, it's a people-killing machine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 15, 2004 7:15 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Someone Wrote:

Quote:

AnthonyT- I agree with MOST of what you've said, but there are some important fractures in your last post. On the one hand, you say that "we" never go to war for warm fuzzies, but that they provide a rallying cry for "the people" to get behind. You're obviously assuming that "the people" who put the effort into the war, and the "we" who decide to go to war are entirely two different things. The schism continues when you talk about "our" national interests. If "the people" have to be winkled into going to war, are their interests really being served? The point is that the USA - or any nation- is not just one uniform blob of people with united interests. it's an intersting point that deserves to be dissected.

That is exactly right. By virtue of being in circles of power, money, and influence, the 'powers that be' will always have goals different from those of the 'common man.'

But look deep into your self. If Iraq wasn't the biggest oil reserve around, how anxious would you be to get this country into a war to save them from an evil despot?

The world is rife with evil despots that no one wants to go to war with. Stopping evil just isn't enough of a motivation for most folks. As long as the evil is way over there, it doesn't bother us.

They had to layer lots of reasons for going into Iraq. Stopping evil alone wasn't enough for us. It was a good idea, though. Enough to make us listen. Self preservation? Yuppers. We can get into that. Oil? Hmmm. Oil. I doubt the average American would go to Iraq for oil... but the dream of dollar-gasoline was probably in the back of our minds somewhere.

The government might have had Oil as concern #1, but if they told it to us that way, we'd have been turned off.

Now the only reason they've got left is oil. And we're being turned off. But it may be too late.

--Ant

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 15, 2004 7:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think what you're saying is that from the "common person's" standpoint, what "we" want is a fig leaf (WMD, democracy, whatever) to cover our real motivations (cheap gasoline) and the powers that be (corporations, govt officials) provide that fig leaf to cover their motivations as well (more money, more power)?

However, I think you mistake MY motivations. You said

Quote:
But look deep into your self. If Iraq wasn't the biggest oil reserve around, how anxious would you be to get this country into a war to save them from an evil despot?

Actually, I was- and still am- completely against invading Iraq.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 15, 2004 7:26 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think what you're saying is that from the "common person's" standpoint, what "we" want is a fig leaf (WMD, democracy, whatever) to cover our real motivations (cheap gasoline) and the powers that be (corporations, govt officials) provide that fig leaf to cover their motivations as well (more money, more power)?

Precisely. I couldn't (and didn't) say it better myself.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 15, 2004 7:35 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, nobody can say you're a Pollyanna!

You've given me a lot to think about, and I have a lot of things to do today too. So, hold that thought and I'll get back here.

BTW, since you seem to know something about tactics and strategy, what do YOU suppose the AC-130 "spread" is? Best I can figure is 200 ft or so.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 15, 2004 7:38 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Good points. Much is made of the precision of the AC-130 because of it's low yield munitions. However, given the fact that this is an urban environment, I think it's impossible to separate out the friendlies from the non-friendlies, especially at night. According to hospital directors in Fallujah, "most" (let's assume 50.1%!) of the 600-1000 casualaties were women and children. Given the population distrubution in Iraq (50% of the population is under 15, and 50% of the remainder are women) this isn't quite indiscrimate killing but it's not targeted either.

The other thing that needs to be pointed out is that the AC-130 is really only good for killing people who have no anti-aircraft defenses: ground troops with light arms. convoys, civilians etc. In other words, it's a people-killing machine.

The only precision munition ever invented is a sniper's bullet. Everything else has a 'kill zone' and zones, by definition, are not precise pinpoints.

The AC-130 should only be used if you are sure that your 'zone' has at least a 90% concentration of baddies. I suspect the military may find lesser concentrations acceptable. Which is unfortunate.

--Ant

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 15, 2004 7:42 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Someone Wrote:

Quote:
BTW, since you seem to know something about tactics and strategy, what do YOU suppose the AC-130 "spread" is? Best I can figure is 200 ft or so.

I've read up a bit on tactics and strategy, but I'm lousy at math. I'll leave that to the fellow further up on this thread who was plotting shell impacts. :-)

But yeah, if I had to guess, I'd say the smallest kill zone possible with that type of weapon is about the size of a football field.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 15, 2004 8:47 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 15, 2004 9:30 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think what you're saying is that from the "common person's" standpoint, what "we" want is a fig leaf (WMD, democracy, whatever) to cover our real motivations (cheap gasoline) and the powers that be (corporations, govt officials) provide that fig leaf to cover their motivations as well (more money, more power)?

...You said
Quote:
But look deep into your self. If Iraq wasn't the biggest oil reserve around, how anxious would you be to get this country into a war to save them from an evil despot?
...

Hey, Antony and Signy, I think y'all are neglecting another very real motive for going to war which I believe united this administration with "the common man," namely: rage and the desire to lash out. In addition to the neocon agenda of getting a toe hold in the middle east, I think the nation was pissed and the 27 justifications for war were just as much a cover for our vengefulness as they were covering any desire for oil. Indeed, I would say that the desire to lash out at "that part of the world" for what "they" did to us was crucial to this administration's ability to sell Americans on the idea. I think Americans wanted war because someone "had to pay" for those 3,000 lives.

It's something of an old axium of mine: People do what they do exactly because they want to do it. Or corollary-wise: the means is what we really want, now let's find an end to justify it. What have we actually been doing over in Iraq for the past year? Bringing democracy to anyone in particular, or killing thousands of people? Mainly the latter.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 15, 2004 9:50 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Sorry about the error, I'm new to this.

I read an article I THINK in the Wash Post which discussed the error rate of 'precision' bombs. I couldn't find it again, but googling on combinations of words and phrases ("circular error probability", "shock and awe", Iraq, civilian etc) I came across some interesting articles:

http://www.earthisland.org/project/newsPage2.cfm?newsID=427&pageID=177
&subSiteID=44

This one discusses the mutually incompatible aims of "shock and awe" and "precision bombing". Now, how the Administration could trumpet both the indiscriminate firepower of shock and awe, and the purported life-sparing characteristics of smart bombs, and how the media could so reflexively parrot it, is infuriating. But the media's role in the duping of America is for another day.

At one point I did a calculation (based on available bombing rates and Bagdhad's square miles) and it worked out to one bomb dropped on each quarter-mile squared.

A google on "circular error probability" will give you the radius within which half the smart bombs (laser, gps) will fall, the other half will fall somewhere outside. About 10% of smart bombs fail completely.

It doesn't take much effort to find that between bombs and ammo, Iraqi civilians took major losses. How many that might be we'll never know, as Bremer shut down The Provisional Government's census.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 15, 2004 9:57 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I always think of it as the American joy in 'kicking some butt!', even if, on reflection, the butt they kick ends up being their own.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 15, 2004 9:15 PM

Witness the awesome firepower and accuracy of the AC130 gunship.

http://www.vampirebat.com/war/AC130_GunshipMed.wmv

Notice how the gunship is loitering over the target area by circling to the left. All of the main guns are pointed out the port side of the aircraft, so that's the main operating mode for the AC130 once it arrives at its target area.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 15, 2004 9:25 PM

http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?story=1400&go=4

SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T MAKE THE NEWS

Maybe you’d like to hear about something other than idiot Reservists and naked Iraqis.

Maybe you’d like to hear about a real American, somebody who honored the uniform he wears.

Meet Brian Chontosh.

Churchville-Chili Central School class of 1991. Proud graduate of the Rochester Institute of Technology. Husband and about-to-be father. First lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps.

And a genuine hero.

The secretary of the Navy said so yesterday.

At 29 Palms in California Brian Chontosh was presented with the Navy Cross, the second highest award for combat bravery the United States can bestow.

That’s a big deal.

But you won’t see it on the network news tonight, and all you read in Brian’s hometown newspaper was two paragraphs of nothing. Instead, it was more blather about some mental defective MPs who acted like animals.

The odd fact about the American media in this war is that it’s not covering the American military. The most plugged-in nation in the world is receiving virtually no true information about what its warriors are doing.

Oh, sure, there’s a body count. We know how many Americans have fallen. And we see those same casket pictures day in and day out. And we’re almost on a first-name basis with the pukes who abused the Iraqi prisoners. And we know all about improvised explosive devices and how we lost Fallujah and what Arab public-opinion polls say about us and how the world hates us.

We get a non-stop feed of gloom and doom.

But we don’t hear about the heroes.

The incredibly brave GIs who honorably do their duty. The ones our grandparents would have carried on their shoulders down Fifth Avenue.

The ones we completely ignore.

Like Brian Chontosh.

It was a year ago on the march into Baghdad. Brian Chontosh was a platoon leader rolling up Highway 1 in a humvee.

When all hell broke loose.

Ambush city.

The young Marines were being cut to ribbons. Mortars, machine guns, rocket propelled grenades. And the kid out of Churchville was in charge. It was do or die and it was up to him.

So he moved to the side of his column, looking for a way to lead his men to safety. As he tried to poke a hole through the Iraqi line his humvee came under direct enemy machine gun fire.

It was fish in a barrel and the Marines were the fish.

And Brian Chontosh gave the order to attack. He told his driver to floor the humvee directly at the machine gun emplacement that was firing at them. And he had the guy on top with the .50 cal unload on them.

Within moments there were Iraqis slumped across the machine gun and Chontosh was still advancing, ordering his driver now to take the humvee directly into the Iraqi trench that was attacking his Marines. Over into the battlement the humvee went and out the door Brian Chontosh bailed, carrying an M16 and a Beretta and 228 years of Marine Corps pride.

And he ran down the trench.

With its mortars and riflemen, machineguns and grenadiers.

And he killed them all.

He fought with the M16 until it was out of ammo. Then he fought with the Beretta until it was out of ammo. Then he picked up a dead man’s AK47 and fought with that until it was out of ammo. Then he picked up another dead man’s AK47 and fought with that until it was out of ammo.

At one point he even fired a discarded Iraqi RPG into an enemy cluster, sending attackers flying with its grenade explosion.

When he was done Brian Chontosh had cleared 200 yards of entrenched Iraqis from his platoon’s flank. He had killed more than 20 and wounded at least as many more.

But that’s probably not how he would tell it.

He would probably merely say that his Marines were in trouble, and he got them out of trouble. Hoo-ah, and drive on.

“By his outstanding display of decisive leadership, unlimited courage in the face of heavy enemy fire, and utmost devotion to duty, 1st Lt. Chontosh reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.”

That’s what the citation says.

And that’s what nobody will hear.

That’s what doesn’t seem to be making the evening news. Accounts of American valor are dismissed by the press as propaganda, yet accounts of American difficulties are heralded as objectivity. It makes you wonder if the role of the media is to inform, or to depress – to report or to deride. To tell the truth, or to feed us lies.

But I guess it doesn’t matter.

We’re going to turn out all right.

As long as men like Brian Chontosh wear our uniform.

- by Bob Lonsberry © 2004

=================================

Don't believe what's on the net? Here's the official USMC page:

http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/lookupstoryref/200456162723

Still don't know what to think of soldiers? This is what it is. It's about you and the guy/gal next to you when you are taking heavy enemy fire. It's about making sure that both of your asses come out ok and make it home. The rest of it are up to the diplomats and politicians. The military is a Political tool, it's an extension of our diplomacy. Each country uses theirs on their own accord and advantage - if they have one, they must be very willing to use it when the time is appropriate - but it should be the last resort after all diplomatic channels have been exhausted. If you make a threat and they call your bluff, you better damn well be ready to follow up (or find a good gentlemenly way of resolving it without having egg on your face)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 16, 2004 2:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

SO, Jasonzzz (hmm, did I get that spelled right?) what do YOU think is happening in Iraq? And more importantly, what should we do? More of the same? Add troops? Withdraw? Change strategy?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 16, 2004 2:45 AM