Posted on 10/25/2010 8:59:29 AM PDT by Notary Sojac
Last Friday the WikiLeaks organization again published previously classified Defense Department documents.
From their reporting, and from my own scant review of just a few of the documents, they appear to illustrate the inherent -- and forseeeable -- problems with the nation-building strategy we pursued in Iraq and are still pursuing in Afghanistan.
The Post goes along with the WikiLeaks claim that the new documents show "…that U.S. soldiers killed at least 700 Iraqi civilians in situations where troops felt threatened."
That claim may well be true. But how else can troops act -- in accordance with the rules of engagement written by their commanders -- when they are put in the position of city cops and terrorists are threatening them daily with IEDs and suicide attacks? Innocent civilians were surely killed. But the troops are not to blame. Their commanders are for putting them in the role of nation-builders.
When the election is over in two-plus weeks, and George W. Bush's memoir is published, we will -- again -- re-litigate the Iraq war. And if our adversaries have their way -- and among them are the Saudis and the ideological left in this country and abroad -- that debate will continue through 2012.
We cannot prevent the debate from going on, nor should we try. But we have to focus it on the question that is of ultimate importance to the war in Afghanistan and everywhere else terrorists find safe haven and support: that the neocons, the nation-builders of record, have it entirely wrong. We cannot win the war by fighting the enemy's proxies or in spending blood and treasure trying to create democracies in the Muslim world.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
"The neocons, the nation-builders of record, have it entirely wrong. We cannot win the war by fighting the enemy's proxies or in spending blood and treasure trying to create democracies in the Muslim world."
“spending blood and treasure trying to create democracies in the Muslim world.”
True. Also you cannot be muslim and American.
So lets send them all home and shut the door.
“WikiLeaks claim that the new documents show “…that U.S. soldiers killed at least 700 Iraqi civilians in situations where troops felt threatened.”
How in the world can you tell civilians from combatants when they all dress the same and virtually anyone can attack at any time?
It turns out that they were there and Bush was right!
We are trying to win the "war on terror" by killing the foot soldiers while we hold hands with, and bow to, their Godfathers.
As a Combat Engineer who did a tour in Iraq, I agree with the statement in part, not in whole. Build roads and bridges. They lead to trade. Trade leads to commerce. Commerce leads to democracy. It’s all about the infrastructure. Have them assist in the process. this gives them ownership. Diplomats and politicians need to stay out of the process.
“The Post goes along with the WikiLeaks claim that the new documents show ‘…that U.S. soldiers killed at least 700 Iraqi civilians in situations where troops felt threatened.’”
Why is it that ground troops can’t get away with a fraction of what aerial bombardment does? I guess we still picture war as gentlemenly knights squaring off in an open field. Which is why some 500 murders at My Lai get all the press, whereas thousands of dead civilians from strategic bombing are ho-hum, who cares? Actually, Nixon was crucified for his bombing campaigns, but that’s neither here nor their. The stock argument was that somehow he went outside the normal rules of warfare, not that Death From Above was inherently barbaric.
Not to defend unwarranted ground casualties. Just to say that people have little clue that most civilian deaths are from the air (and before airplanes, still from artillery), which murders with much greater abandon and less shame than any soldier ever born. Even in the way I—a person who pretends to know better—put it, you can detect the great psychological difference between air and ground campaigns. The latter passes by unnoticed while the former grabs all the headlines.
Unless we happen to accidentally bomb a hospital or something. Which is bad, but makes you wonder, what about all those other things we bombed that weren’t hospitals but also weren’t military instillations? Merely some guy’s house.
their = there
“their = there”
Seriously? This isn’t 6th grade English. You don’t get extra points for proper grammar.
“Seriously? This isn’t 6th grade English. You don’t get extra points for proper grammar.”
What’s the matter with correcting myself? Points or no, it’s quite common to do so on internet message boards.
“What’s the matter with correcting myself?”
Unless it’s done to clarify what might be misinterpreted, it’s:
Annoying and a waste of bandwidth.
An insult to readers which suggests you think they are not bright enough to instantly know what you meant.
A means used by the insecure, obsessive, or pedantic worried about appearing to be ignorant.
“it’s quite common to do so on internet message boards.”
That’s the problem. Think of how confusing and cluttered these boards would be if everyone posted additional messages to correct obvious mispellings.
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.