US Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan

[Michael Rudd]

According to a survey conducted by the Pentagons mental-health advisory team last September when they questioned 1767 troops they found that, one in three believes torture is sometimes justified, and less than half (47% of soldiers and 38%of marines)

Felt that non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect as required by the Geneva Convention.,

These findings are of great concern to the US top commander in Iraq General David Petaeus, they also indicated a willingness of a fair proportion of soldiers and marines to not report the illegal actions.

Unfortunately it is this sort of approach that has led to the mess that is now Iraq. I actually supported the war to get rid of Saddam, but was totally aghast at the lack of thought and planning as to how to treat the peace. This together with the trigger happy attitude of the US troops is why the population in general have turned against the USA and its allies, and why they are being killed with such gusto.

[Michael Rudd]

The US army this week delivered an apology, and blood money, to the families of 19 Afghan civilians killed and 50 wounded by a special forces unit near Jalalabad on March 4th. This operation is worringly similar to the slaughter of 24 Iraqui civilians in Haditha Western Iraq in 2005.

The killing of large numbers of civilians by American forces, through indiscipline or heave reliance on air strikes, has marked the campaigns in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Since March there have been 5 episodes in which western troops have been accused of killing Afghan civilians.

Not the best way to win hearts and minds!!!

[RoyalOrleans]

Not the best way to win hearts and minds!!!

 

Maybe not...

 

However, it is the best way that I know to blast said hearts and minds all over the sand.

[hugo]

We killed 150,000 civilians at Okinawa. No one bitched then.

[snafu]

The US army this week delivered an apology, and blood money, to the families of 19 Afghan civilians killed and 50 wounded by a special forces unit near Jalalabad on March 4th. This operation is worringly similar to the slaughter of 24 Iraqui civilians in Haditha Western Iraq in 2005.

The killing of large numbers of civilians by American forces, through indiscipline or heave reliance on air strikes, has marked the campaigns in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Since March there have been 5 episodes in which western troops have been accused of killing Afghan civilians.

Not the best way to win hearts and minds!!!

 

Wars are not supposed to be popularity contests. And not in the history of time has there been one sterile. We do what we can with what we got. And we do the best that we can.

[Michael Rudd]

Hi snafu, This was not a war in the ordinary sense of the word, it was partly to help the population in general get out from under a very unpleasent dictator, and not to just replace him with something as bad, I suported the war in the beginning, but the lack of thought as to how to proceed after the initial victory was criminal, and has led to the present situation, and the US troops are bearing the brunt of this stupidity, and the rest of you the financial cost. I have lost track of the cost, How many billion $s is it now?????

[snafu]

We’ve have always gone in to free the oppressed. This one is nothing new. We can't forsee everything that could happen. And the problem like other wars is that a fighting force has to change tactics and become a police/ occupation force. To add to the problem we have turmoil among the Shiite and Sunni’s but we had to move in when we did. Again we can’t be perfect and we can only try to project the outcome of a war. If you supported it in the begining you are just as to blame as the rest of us that supported it. We have to finish what we started. And it’s not worse than when we went in. Believe it or not.

[Michael Rudd]

We

[snafu]

If you use the number of deaths every day as a yard stick, then unfortunately it is far worse, that this has degenerated into a conflict between the Shiits and Sunni factions, is in the most part that there was no attempt to enforce any natural rule of law at the end of hostilities, and because of the general desrtuction of certain essential bits of the

Infrastructure ie clean water and electricity both of which could have been easily delt with if enough army engineers were available, but due to a lack of thought they were not. The disbanding of the police was also a mistake. What all this inactivity did was give time for the anti US, western brigade to

organise them selves and descend on Iraq, most of the fighting is not against normal Iraqis but insurgents. This would have been easier to combat if we had got most of the Iraqis on side, and at least kept what was left of the Army intact as well as the police force.

 

Nope

 

First: You can't go by a head count. It will get worse before it gets better. In the long term its better.

Second:The Shiites and the Sunni have been fighting amongst themselves long before we intervened. Go back and get that head count.

Third:Clean water, electricity and schools all have been improving drastically since we have been there.

Fourth:The Police were corrupt. They were used to playing by the mighty dollar. And we needed to hand pick and train them. We also needed a mix of Shiite and Sunni's.

Fifth: We were on a timetable due to the U.N. We didn't just decide to go in on a whim.

 

And back to our misguided troops....

 

BAGHDAD - Gunmen in two cars attacked a minibus heading to Baghdad from a Shiite town north of the capital Monday, killing seven passengers, including a child, police said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070521/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

 

Hmm... A one liner for these guys? Where is all the out cry for these assholes? I don’t see them handing out any reparations.

[Michael Rudd]

Hi Snafu. >>First: You can't go by a head count. It will get worse before it gets better. In the long term its better.

Second: Clean water electricity and schools all have been improving drastically since we have been there.

Third: The Police were corrupt. They were used to playing by the mighty dollar. And we needed to hand pick and train them. We also needed a mix of Shiite and Sunni's.

Fourth we were on a timetable due to the U.N. We didn't just decide to go in on a whim<<

 

A head count is infact the one thing that counts for the normal civilian,

Yes the water and electricity are getting better, but it took far to long to get started,As for the police being corrupt, just what do you call what is happening now, at least the allies would have been working inside an existing infrastructure, I think the lesson from all this is that it is far easier to break and destroy than build, and building inside something that was not perfect would have been easier than starting from scratch.you did not have time to hand pick and train, and if what you now have is an example of hand picking then you definately would have been better of working with what was left.

The so called UN timetable was a joke.

[snafu]

Ya can’t put in a sewer system when you’re getting shot at! Sure it took time.

We had (the murdered) and have a dedicated Iraqi police and military forces. Don’t under estimate them.

Yes building is much harder. Remember Europe? Remember the Berlin drops? Freedom is never free.

And yes I agree the U.N. is a very bad joke but one we have to play.

[Michael Rudd]

Ya can

[Huskarine]

Hi Snafu. >>First: You can't go by a head count. It will get worse before it gets better. In the long term its better.

Second: Clean water electricity and schools all have been improving drastically since we have been there.

Third: The Police were corrupt. They were used to playing by the mighty dollar. And we needed to hand pick and train them. We also needed a mix of Shiite and Sunni's.

Fourth we were on a timetable due to the U.N. We didn't just decide to go in on a whim<<

 

A head count is infact the one thing that counts for the normal civilian,

Yes the water and electricity are getting better, but it took far to long to get started,As for the police being corrupt, just what do you call what is happening now, at least the allies would have been working inside an existing infrastructure, I think the lesson from all this is that it is far easier to break and destroy than build, and building inside something that was not perfect would have been easier than starting from scratch.you did not have time to hand pick and train, and if what you now have is an example of hand picking then you definately would have been better of working with what was left.

The so called UN timetable was a joke.

 

Michael, I respect your opinion and I see your frustration...I need to disagree with you in an aspect: you said a very important thing, "A head count is infact the one thing that counts for the normal civilian"...notice who you are and what you just said...Maybe you don't understand what victory is in this case...being I work for the gov't, you should trust me on this; we know what victory is, as well as our objectives...terrorists are defined as people who fight for anything (primarily religion or money, and done as a public demonstration) but their country...remember how President Bush said that this would not be like the victories of old, in which a distinguished officer surrendered his sword on a ship....this is not a country we are fighting, just various people from other countries...head count in this case doesn't matter, it shall not matter...what matters is a rebuilt, stable country that can provide economical exchange, that can possibly offset the boiling turbulence of the middle east...

 

People often forget that when they define a problem (in this case, terrorism) they need to define their answer (the base of terrorism destroyed)...

 

I would like to hear the liberal's answer to the problem of terrorism???

 

according to 97% of democratic candidates, it's letting the terrorists win...it's indirectly sending them a message saying that the terror acts of 9/11 and the USS Cole bombings will go unresolved in the history of the US...it's them saying that they would appeal to the emotion of the US in death in war, instead of appealing to the logic of winning this war by cowboying up and toughing it out...deaths happen all the time, and I believe that we are trying to hide ourselves from the cost of war, from the cost of freedom, from the cost of peace...

 

never back down:mad:

[Michael Rudd]

Hi Huskarine,You seem to tink that I am one of those soft Europeans that tend to side with the enemy, Nothing could be further from the truth, I spent more than 30 years in South Africa, the last 10 of which I was a farmer in an area that was constantly under threat of terrorist attack, I had a 357 almost permantly on my hip, the first shot was infact snake shot, we often had nasty snakes coming into the house, at night out came the pump action shotgun loaded with LG and SSG alternatly. And still I know the value of getting the locals on your side, The way you are playing the game means you will have to kill the whole population to win, Your troops are actively alienateing the civilian population, with out whose help you can never win, when you have lost another couple of thousand men let me know if you think that maybe you should try a different approach.

[Huskarine]

Michael, I never understood you to be a liberal...I never even knew you were European...frankly, I don't care for either, I see you as a normal human being...you would be surprised how many conservatives are against the war...I, for one, am one of them...

 

you are right about the elimination of a race...practically, the enemy's perspective is primarily religion, but they still retain focus on money (honestly)...there is still some hope in changing the economy to offset the turmoil...poverty can make anyone mad, so if we help them experience economic drive, they might be happy about something in life...Now, what I just said is completely irrelevant to those who regard Islam over everything; and in fact this is an overly abundant percentage of the population...this is why I agree with you about our chances of winning this one...we would have to eliminate one side over the other to solidify one Iraq state, and ergo hope to set up an economy without conflict...but they are way too based on religion to even think of economics...

 

My goal in my last post was to help you understand the different picture of the war...no, I never believe that I can change your focus, just encourage it...I hope you saw my point...

 

diplomatically, our humanitarian relations could not be better, and we have done many profound things over there (a lot which do not get reported or even credit)...we have to take in conjunction just how long it takes to build a country from scratch (historically, we are building them faster than it took to build us)...

 

Islamic religious zealots are always going to be out there and against America and Israel...what we are and wanting to accomplish in Iraq is a detrimental reduction in them...

 

we have to not back down...

 

your question probably remains, "well, when is enough?" Frankly, I do not have an answer (even for those people who will never accept one because they always want to remain pessimistic) and most people with concern and complaint over this war don't have one either...

 

I was always told to not complain about a job you are not willing to do yourself...

 

I hope I did not offend you in anyway...I totally respect your opinion, emotions, and idealism....

[Michael Rudd]

Hi Huskarine, It seems to me that you have no idea how the US is viewed in the Middle Eastern Muslim countries, Your troubles do not stop at Iraqs borders. A recent opinion survey in 4 muslim countries (egypt, Morocco. Pakistan and Indonesia) shows that 79% believe that America aims to weaken and divide the Muslim world. Large majorities want US troops out. Most strikingly, in Egypt one of the USAs closest Arab allies 97% endorse attacks on US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Your top General in Iraq General David Petreus, has said that he is ''very concerned'' at the attitude (in amongst other things of what is acceptable behaviour towards Iraq civilians) of a large number of US troops. You still have not grasped, how to treat people that are willing to die just so long as more US troops join them.

Google 'Rudyard Kipling' and read his poem 'Arithmetic on the Frontier'.

[Huskarine]

Michael, I agree with you that the majority of middle eastern countries don't like the US, but in this case, we need to force feed them on what is good...they will never accept it until they see the light...look at it this way: they never want to seek free will and less control because they are under such oppression from Islam alone, just for measurements sake, lets not even count in their government's overbearing control...they don't understand the concept of liberty, they need to experience it for themselves...

 

after reading that poem, it became clear to me that the author just plain dislikes war...hey, I do too....but if memory serves me right, FDR said the same thing too; guess what, we had to go to war in WWII...the difference today is that our enemy are terrorists, not to mention that pretty much all of them are radical Islamic jihadists...these are the same (type of) people that executed the attacks on 9/11...and after remembering that, we have justification of fighting them over there instead of over here...

 

I hate war too, but our armed services were established to ensure the stability of peace in our country...I understand the concept of death in the services...but what means more to me and to all of those who have died for our country, is a love of country over a love of self...

[Michael Rudd]

Michael, I agree with you that the majority of middle eastern countries don't like the US, but in this case, .they will never accept it until they see the light...look at it this way: they never want to seek free will and less control because they are under such oppression from Islam alone, just for measurements sake, lets not even count in their government's overbearing control...

after reading that poem, it became clear to me that the author just plain dislikes war...hey, I do too....but if memory serves me right, FDR said the same thing too; guess what, we had to go to war in WWII...the difference today is that our enemy are terrorists, not to mention that pretty much all of them are radical Islamic jihadists...these are the same (type of) people that executed the attacks on 9/11...and after remembering that, we have justification of fighting them over there instead of over here...

 

I hate war too, but our armed services were established to ensure the stability of peace in our country...I understand the concept of death in the services...but what means more to me and to all of those who have died for our country, is a love of country over a love of self...

 

Hi Huskrain, >>we need to force feed them on what is good..<< You will find that you catch far more flies with honey than vinegar, and with the troops attitude towards the population in general you are driving them into the arms of the extreemists and jihadists.

 

>>they don't understand the concept of liberty, they need to experience it for themselves...<<

 

Then why do you think the first country they look to when trying to get out of their own, is the US, and the EU states next, the bulk of the population in Iran would like to have closer ties with you, but they dont like the force feeding methods used, if you were just trying to go about you business of feeding your family and ran across a number of foreign troops who felt that they had the right to beat the shit out of you, just because you were there.

 

Kipling was not noted for his dislike of war,Go back and read ''White Mans Burdan', 'Gunga Din', then have a look at 'The Disciple'. In fact there many poems of his you will like , and a number of his short stories. but his most anti war poem was 'Mothers Son'' he lost his son in the first world war,

[Huskarine]

have you even been over there??? the Iraqi population likes us over there...the ones fighting us, believe it or not, are not predominantly Iraqi...most are from other countries....

[Huskarine]

"Hi Huskrain, >>we need to force feed them on what is good..<< You will find that you catch far more flies with honey than vinegar, and with the troops attitude towards the population in general you are driving them into the arms of the extreemists and jihadists."

 

alright...they are not flies to begin this discussion, but to conclude it, you have to know what type of people they are...diplomatic strategies are nearly irrelevant with a third world country's general populace that can not grasp the idealistic principles of enalienable rights and statutes....liberty would have to be something they would simply have to experience...

 

obtw, this is not to disclude all of the humanitarian efforts that are happening...

[Michael Rudd]

have you even been over there??? the Iraqi population likes us over there...the ones fighting us, believe it or not, are not predominantly Iraqi...most are from other countries....

 

Hi ( by the way what is the time over there it is about 7am here so when do you sleep), Correct in the beginning the main anti US people were not locals, however because of the way the the locals are being treated by the US troops local attitudes have changed untill now they want you to leave. Even your top general in Iraq agrees that US troop behaviour has to change.

 

And no I have not been to Iraq, I have spent some time in Parkistan which is the only muslim country that I have any experience with. Have you been there??

[hugo]

Thoughts of a true conservative

 

Excerpts from:

A Republic, Not an Empire

by Patrick J. Buchanan

 

March 25, 2000

 

Only an engaged and informed citizenry can bring about a reversal of the neo-imperial foreign policy that has been foisted upon us in the post-Cold War era by the elites of both Beltway parties.

 

Foreign policy, they tell us, is not an issue in this election year. By that they mean it is off the table, a matter already decided upon and settled by those who know what is best for America. So they, and their media auxiliaries, redirect our attention away from foreign policy to such burning national issues as the dating policy at Bob Jones University.

 

What is best for America and the world, they tell us, is that the United States should remain a superpower sheriff, the Wyatt Earp of the West, possessed of the sole right to deputize posses, or go it alone if necessary, to discipline evil-doers, wherever our "values" are threatened. I submit that this foreign policy poses a great and growing danger to the peace and security of the United States.

 

Look at the balance sheet of Bill Clinton's unconstitutional war. NATO, a defensive alliance, launched an offensive war against a nation that threatened no member of that alliance, dissipating the moral authority with which NATO had emerged from the Cold War. Serbia is smashed. Montenegro and Macedonia are destabilized. Kosovo was purged first of Albanians, then of Serbs. And lies in ruins. U.S. relations with China and Russia have been damaged. For what? So we and NATO could police in perpetuity a Balkan province that has not the remotest connection to U.S. vital interests. Such are the fruits of neo-imperialism.

 

Meanwhile, a decade after the Gulf War, American soldiers and airmen stand ready to die to defend Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from Iran and Iraq - as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait conspire with Iran and Iraq to keep oil prices over $30 a barrel -- to loot America and gouge U.S. consumers.

 

For ten years, the U.S. has played the dominant role in maintaining rigid sanctions on Iraq. By one UN estimate, these sanctions have resulted in the premature deaths of 500,000 children. Will the parents of those children ever forgive us? Even our European Allies recoil. By keeping these sanctions fastened on Iraq, we flout every tenet of Christianity's Just War doctrine, and build up deposits of hatred across the Arab world that will take decades to draw down. One day our children shall pay the price of our callous indifference to what is happening to the children of Iraq.

 

I speak as a proud Cold Warrior who supported every great anti-Communist initiative from JFK to Reagan. And I support a U.S. defense that is second to none and a foreign policy whereby America responds resolutely to any attack on American citizens, honor, or vital interests.

 

But what purpose is served by our shortening the lives of Iraqi people who have done us no harm? If Desert Storm could not remove Saddam Hussein, how are the women, children and elderly of Iraq, the victims of our sanctions, supposed to overthrow him?

 

And if 78 days of bombing could not eject Milosevic from power, how does forcing the people of Serbia to endure a brutal winter without fuel or heat advance our goal? What happened to the moral idea of proportionality, even in wartime, between means and ends?

 

During one debate, John McCain singled out Iraq, Libya and North Korea as "rogue states" and advocated the armed overthrow of all three by U.S.-trained and equipped armies. Pressed on what he would do if his armies were being annihilated, the Senator did not respond. But he did not reject the notion that Iran, a nation of 70 million, should also be designated a rogue state to be targeted for overthrow.

 

Friends, this is hubris; this is triumphalism; this is the arrogance of power; this is America's Brezhnev doctrine. I single McCain out not because he in particular is misguided, but because such ideas are commonplace among the global gamesmen in Washington.

 

Governor Bush cried out in anguish when he was compared by Senator McCain to Bill Clinton, but he did not utter a skeptical word about McCain's plans for rogue regimes. Indeed, the Governor has exhibited neither absorbing interest nor extraordinary aptitude for foreign policy -- to put it generously. His call last year for the war on Serbia to be waged "more ferociously" was his one memorable foreign policy utterance. But in the cluster of foreign policy aides, the self-styled "Vulcans," now home-schooling the Governor, notions of "rogue state rollback" are music to the ear.

 

Among the more prominent of the Vulcans is Paul Wolfowitz. A Pentagon aide to Bush the Elder, Wolfowitz produced in 1992 a blueprint for war against Russia that would utilize six carrier battle groups and 24 NATO divisions to rescue Lithuania, should Moscow recolonize that tiny republic.

 

Richard Perle, another of the "On-to-Baghdad" brigade, is perhaps Washington's premier enthusiast of using U.S. power to topple rogue regimes. Another tutor to Governor Bush is his father's former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. A few months ago, General Scowcroft advocated putting a division of U.S. troops on the Golan Heights, to police peace between Syria and Israel, thereby insuring there would be dead Americans in any future Syrian-Israeli clash.

 

Not one of the "Vulcans" embraces the new thinking on foreign policy that has taken root in Congress and the country in the aftermath of the Cold War. This new thinking alarms both Clintonites who call it "isolationist," but even more the neo-conservatives who believe America should convert her hour of power into a "benevolent global hegemony."

 

Indeed, during Clinton's war on Serbia, one neoconservative strategist was so disheartened by the lack of war spirit among the Republican rank-and file, he mused about giving up and leaving the GOP altogether.

 

Quo Vadis? Where are you going, America?

 

Because of our sanctions on scores of nations, cruise missile strikes upon others, and intervention in the internal affairs of still others in the wake of the Cold War, a seething resentment of America is brewing all over the world. And the haughty attitude of our foreign policy elite only nurses the hatred. Hearken, if you will, to the voice of our own Xenia, Madeline Albright, announcing new air strikes on Iraq: "If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see farther into the future."

 

Now I count myself an American patriot. But if this Beltway braggadocio about being the world's "indispensable nation" has begun to grate on me, how must it grate upon the Europeans, Russians, and peoples subject to our sanctions because they have failed, by our lights, to live up to our standards?

 

And how can all our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution? Recall: it was in retaliation for the bombing of Libya that Khadafi's agents blew up Pan Am 103. And it is said to have been in retaliation for the Vincennes' accidental shoot-down of that Iranian airliner that Teheran collaborated with terrorists to blow up the Khobar towers. From Pan Am 103, to the World Trade Center, to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar - have we not suffered enough not to know that interventionism is the incubator of terrorism? Or will it take some cataclysmic atrocity on U.S. soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the asking price of empire?

 

America today faces a choice of destinies. We can be the peacemaker of the world - or its policeman who goes about night-sticking troublemakers until we, too, find ourselves in some bloody brawl we cannot handle. Let us use this transitory moment of American power and preeminence to encourage and assist old friends and allies to stand on their own feet and provide and pay for their own defense.

 

Let me state my present intent: If elected, I will have all U.S. troops out of the Balkan quagmire by year's end, and all American troops home from Europe by the end of my first term. Forty years ago, President Eisenhower pleaded with JFK to bring all U.S. troops home from Europe. Certainly, sixty years after the end of World War II, and fifteen years after the Berlin Wall fell, is not too soon to get all U.S. troops out of Europe and let Europeans provide and pay the cost of their own defense. If not now, when?

 

And let us quickly adopt a measure of humility about how much we know about what is best for other peoples and cultures. In the words of the great scholar Russell Kirk: "There exists no single best form of government for the happiness of all mankind. The most suitable form of government depends on the historic experience, the customs, the beliefs, the state of culture...and all these things vary from land to land and age to age."

 

 

In this new era, many of us are rediscovering the old distrust of crusading that was at the center of the world view of the old American Right. We are conscious of our love for this country. We do not wish to isolate America from the world, only to isolate America from wars -- the religious, ethnic, and territorial wars of less fortunate lands. We know there is a powerful body of American thought -- from Washington to John Quincy Adams to William Jennings Bryan and Robert Taft -- as well as all the near forgotten figures written about by Justin Raimondo and others -- to help guide us. And their message is one I intend to stamp upon our banners in the campaign of 2000: A Republic, Not an Empire! America First!

 

Sadly, our response to 9/11 was more of the same failed Wilsonian ideology.

[Huskarine]

Hugo, first of all, please don't have me read a super-long essay on a simple debate...please do me the favor of a link, maybe a quick synopsis of the 10 page essay....oh another thing, the author is Pat Buchanon, a libertarian pundant...yes, he has conservative ideology in him, but none the less, he has more so libertarian tendencies...what's inherent with Pat Buchanon? the fact that he was proposing isolation from the world, for example, the building of a wall on our borders with Mexico...the guy is an isolationist, a libertarian, and remember we decided a long time ago (WWI) that we can not be an isolated country...we are the leaders of the free world...

[Huskarine]

even at this point of all this debate, I am willing to agree with Snafu that the liberal media has corrupted the whole war...

 

that's most peoples source of information right???

[hugo]

Please, Pat Buchanan is no libertarian. He is a paleoconservative. His foreign policy is straight from a man, who in his era was referred to as Mr. Republican, Robert Taft. His views on gay rights is straight from Corinthians. His policy on immigration is oppossed to libertarian open border philosophy. I am sorry if your attention span is too short to read a lengthy quotation. That disability may be what would lead you to classify Pat as a libertarian. The fact is the US had a long standing policy, before 1898, of staying clear of foreign wars and entangling alliances. The fact is neoconservatism is nothing more than Wilsonianism spread at the point of a gun. It is impossible to have small government and an empire.

 

Let me quote our last Republican President, ironically also named George Bush:

 

"Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

 

-- George H. W. Bush, in his 1998 memoir A World Transformed