That's Iraq. For thirty years the people in power learned that life meant arresting, torturing and killing anyone you didn't like. It meant appropriating the country's resources and the people's efforts for your own gratification. The rest of the country learned that feeding one's family and often mere survival requires one to lie, cheat and steal. Perhaps hand a neighbor over to the police to avoid suffering a horrid fate yourself.
As this reporter points out, you can't turn such a damaged society into a democracy on just a year or two. Nathan Sharansky (sp?) made the same points in his book. "Democracy" can't mean one man, one vote, one time. If Hizbulla, Hamas and Al Qaida can force people to vote them into power that's not an election any more than Saddam's 100% sweep was. The root of the word election is about a choice. AK-47s remove that choice. Same with Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union. We figured capitalism and democracy would solve everything. Al Gore sent billions that ended up in the mafia's hands and Russia fell into depression.
Respect for basic human rights has to be the norm before a representative government can emerge. That means the people accept that honesty, hard work and respect for others' rights are the only acceptable characteristics for citizenship. They have to see that this will result in a better life than the one they've been living for thirty years. That means a carrot and a stick. People who do what's right have to see good results - jobs, prosperity, freedom. People who don't have to be slammed as they are tearing Iraq apart. But you can't throw someone in jail for stealing to feed his family if there are no legitimate ways to feed them. Widespread profitable employment would dry up the recruiting grounds. You won't build and place an IED for $1,000 if you can make the same money legitimately and working for the terrorists means facing execution if caught.
I really hope Gen. Petreaus' "moral high ground" memo was strictly for show to appease the PC crowd. We need to infiltrate and execute the terrorists before they strike. We're not going to do that without getting our hands dirty. We can't win a war by being buried on the moral high ground. The Iraqi people will see Al Qaida as winning because we were too weak-willed to exercise our power. Once they believe Al Qaida will win it's back to the Jungle - survival by any means possible. Civilization goes back out the window. Like the battles fought for rock creature in the original Star Trek series, the tactics have already been decided. There's no way to fight fire with legal briefs.
Assumption: Many places, especially in the Middle East have similar problems. Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, lots of other 'stans, Libya, the Palestinian territories, Iran. Question: Can this part of the world be saved? If so, how?
I too hope that the "fight fair" fluff is a softener for when he comes back to report to the Armed Services Committee.
This cannot be, is not, and never has been a "fair" fight.
The “fair fight” speech as I see was little more than a reminder to the troops to uphold the traditions of the US Military and to adhere to things like the UCMJ and Geneva Conventions. Regardless of what the other guy does. That alone provides us the moral high ground.
It only takes one incident to tarnish the image of the entire effort. Real or perceived. That was the tragedy of Abu Grhaib. A couple of knuckleheads turned popular Iraqi opinion against us with one act of stupidity.
Those soldiers knew they were doing wrong, and knew, if they had really been ordered, that they could legally refuse orders to do what they did. Every soldier learns that in basic training. They lied when they said they never learned about the Geneva convention.
That is what Petreaus’ speech was about.