Posted on 11/19/2003 2:28:55 PM PST by kattracks
Yes, it would be so much easier if we acted like Saddam Hussein.
We don't take prisoners and now they are coming back and bombing and shooting us up.
We do take prisoners--when we actually have survivors to detain.
Now we're prosecuting officers because they're 'not nice' to the enemy?
We prosecute officers for disobeying orders. Maybe you wish to see the US military as a free-for-all social experiment; I do not.
I want to see smouldering turbans.
You're getting them now.
I want to hear about dead terrorists
Then complain to the news networks--they are not telling you what's really happening.
and I want terrified terrorist sympathizers begging to tell us what we need to know to kill more.
What you will get: terrorist sympathizers who decide that they have nothing to lose by suicide-bombing an American or two, and a lot more terrorist sympathizers helping them.
Terror does not achieve its intended goals. The Germans attempted to terrorize Britain into surrender. It didn't work; it merely stiffened the resolve of the British. The French attempted to terrorize the Algerians. The Algerians' will to resist increased with each act of repression and terror against them. The Nationalist Chinese attempted to terrorize the rural peasants into not supporting the Communists. They merely made the peasants more fervent supporters of the Communists.
Oh, please! Cut the Howie Dean act. Taking prisoners doesn't make us like Saddam Hussein and we let thousands go before the country was declared 'taken'. I'm not talking about anything like the examples you have given and you know it. Your examples are better pictures of what I mean. The Allies smashed Germany, Italy and Japan unrelentingly. It didn't make terrorists out of the Nazis. They already were. Coincidentally so are these radical Muslims.
Of all the Marines I have known I have never met one who is such an apologist for weakness under a cloak of lawful righteousness as you. I didn't suggest that orders should be shirked I said 'change them'!
it's not a "Howie Dean act." It's from studying the history of warfare and understanding why people fight.
Taking prisoners doesn't make us like Saddam Hussein and we let thousands go before the country was declared 'taken'.
Mostly because we detained a lot of folks who had no weapons or any sign of actually being in the Iraqi military. You go beyond demanding that we merely take prisoners--you demand that we treat them like Saddam's boys did.
I'm not talking about anything like the examples you have given and you know it. Your examples are better pictures of what I mean. The Allies smashed Germany, Italy and Japan unrelentingly.
They didn't take huge numbers of prisoners and interrogate them using the methods of the Gestapo, nor did we simply shoot everyone in sight when a Werewolf operative planted a bomb or shot at a patrol. That is what you're talking about.
It didn't make terrorists out of the Nazis. They already were.
The Anglo-American bombing campaign did cause the German citizenry to identify more strongly with their government, and probably lengthened the war by a few months--the Germans figured that if the Americans and British were willing to merely drop bombs at random on their country before their soldiers arrived, they were certain that GI Joe and Trooper John Bull were going to engage in nothing but rapine and wanton destruction when they actually set foot in Germany. Many Germans in their early teens and in their sunset years decided that he would prefer die on his feet than to live on his knees, and the Combined Bomber Offensive was the primary motivator.
Coincidentally so are these radical Muslims.
Uh-huh. So your solution is to generate a bunch more of them by grabbing anyone and everyone, and then engaging in the sort of crap that Saddam's folks engaged in (mock executions are a standard interrogation technique in totalitarian police states).
The terrorists WANT us to behave as you wish us to: it makes us look like evil SOBs to fence-sitting Iraqis. That is the entire point of a stage I guerrilla campaign (urban terrorism). Denying them this outcome--by thinking with the big head instead of the little head--turns that campaign against its initiators.
Of all the Marines I have known I have never met one who is such an apologist for weakness under a cloak of lawful righteousness as you.
If LTC West cannot command himself, he has no business commanding others. He punishes those who violate orders, then demands a special exemption from punishment for violating those same orders.
That isn't leadership.
I didn't suggest that orders should be shirked I said 'change them'!
And to do so in a fashion that helps the terrorists accomplish their goals. No thanks.
I disagree with you here.
West was trying to save his men, and, he did save them.
Does that count for nothing?
These scum don't fear us. We should do whatever we have to do to make them fear us.
I'm new to this forum and am surprised to read this. if an iraqi did exactly the same thing to a US POW for the same reasons, would he be a hero too? thanks.
Your historical and legal knowledge is impressive; you're grasp of human nature is less so. You're an idealist. Idealism is costly on the battlefield and book learnin' is no subsitute for balls when things get nasty. You can thrash back against that observation if you like but you won't profit from doing so.
Not proven.
Does that count for nothing?
Since it isn't absolutely established as fact (merely as his argument), yeah, it counts for nothing.
And even if LTC West could not take counterambush measures without perfect information of the time and place of said ambush...then he shouldn't be in command of troops in a combat zone.
And the hypocrisy of punishing his troops for mistreating prisoners, then engaging in the same act and demanding he get a pass, speaks volumes.
I spent eight years in the Marines; the first principle of leadeship is that you must hold yourself to a higher standard of conduct than what you ask of those who follow you.
This came out in the course of an IG investigation into LTC West's overall performance of duties. The Army doesn't pull IG investigations for trivial reasons.
To make the analogy work we have to ask if he would be a hero to his own comrades and countrymen. Since Saddam's loyalists consider rape and torture to be fun and honorable things then we might conclude that, no, the Iraqi soldier who scared a US POW by shooting his gun but didn't injure him would likely be considered a coward. But if he ripped open his belly and played with his intestines after making him talk then he would probably be a hero to Saddam.
No, then he's a scumbag who should be fed into a woodchipper feet-first.
"Do as I say, not as I do."
Not huge at all. You're the one demanding that we make people fear us.
Governing a nation the size of Iraq with fear requires a lot more bodies than we have in the US military, and it requires that those bodies be controlled by minds not habituated to any manner of self-restraint. In other words, we would need to have something along the lines of the late and unlamented Hussein-al-Tikriti government.
You're also putting words in my mouth.
You're the one who posted "I want to see smouldering turbans. I want to hear about dead terrorists and I want terrified terrorist sympathizers begging to tell us what we need to know to kill more."
Sorry. Your words, your problem. You can't disown them at this point.
If tough uncompromising action is not the solution to this terrorist problem I'm all ears to your solution.
There is a difference between "tough uncompromising action" and what you advocate.
Two words cover this situation: "Continue mission."
That is tough and uncompromising enough.
We are killing the terrorists. We are doing so in a fashion that leaves them isolated and alone, and shows that their sympathizers are weak and ineffective.
Your historical and legal knowledge is impressive; you're grasp of human nature is less so.
Since my knowledge of human nature is derived from my study of history, then you're the one who has to explain how people magically changed sometime after 1960 or so, so that they react with cowering fear at fairly low grades of terrorism.
You're an idealist.
True enough.
Idealism is costly on the battlefield
Expediency is even more costly.
and book learnin' is no subsitute for balls when things get nasty.
Suppose that I am an Iraqi civilian, and a "terrified terrorist sympathizer" gave an American commander false information (whether from malice or merely from the hope that he'd go terrorize somebody else is irrelevant) that identified my wife as a terrorist. She is detained, and has the same tactics used against her.
I can tell you this much: after learning that someone had done that to the woman I love, I would gladly trade my life for an opportunity to end his. The size of his genitalia (physical or metaphorical) would not protect him.
I imagine that you are the same way, unless you're seriously telling me that you would cower in fear of whoever did that to your wife.
You only terrorize those you are in direct contact with.
Everyone else, you merely motivate to seek revenge.
OK this makes more sense to me. I'd hate to think that your 8 years in the Corps was a total waste of time. ;^)
(These strict constructionists are hell to debate with.)
I don't need to disown them. My intent is that that is directed at terrorists not the whole population. If you believe that the mission is on that target I can only hope you are right. As for the rest: you are right about me I wouldn't be intimidated by the situation you describe. But I don't see a relation to West's situation. Unless I missed something he didn't intimidate or threaten someone's wife and he knew just who he did have. You imagine much. Not only in my words but in the situations you describe.
I'm hoping for efficiency not expediency. I know these guys are the best but I want efficiency of clear eyed policy too. I see problems with that. It's evident in the fact that we can't call palestinians terrorists and let Isreal deal with them appropriately. It is evident in other ways too which I have already stated.
Well, since the terrorists are smart enough to look like the population at large, the problem is that you would have to direct it at the whole population.
Gosh, you didn't think about that, did you?
As for the rest: you are right about me I wouldn't be intimidated by the situation you describe.
But you expect everyone else to be intimidated by such methods.
But I don't see a relation to West's situation.
All West had was the word of a confidential informant. Do you know how to tell when a CI's probably lying to you? His lips are moving.
Unless I missed something he didn't intimidate or threaten someone's wife and he knew just who he did have.
The first step onto the slippery slope is the one that does you in.
You imagine much. Not only in my words but in the situations you describe.
It's the predictable outcome of the path you demand that we travel down, especially since the terrorists aren't stupid enough to hold big signs saying "I AM A TERRORIST, ARREST ME."
I'm hoping for efficiency not expediency.
Expediency always gets justified as "efficiency" in the beginning.
I guess we might as well just pack it up and come home then. You simultaneously have an answer for everything and an answer for nothing at all. You are consistent.
Translation: "Poohbah is right, and I don't like that, so I'm going to go sulk in the corner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.