The Iraq Thread 2

[toadlife 3]

I guess you didn't see the video

Because yes they where shooting into the crowd, you could see the bullets fly.

Didn't they show it in the U.S.?

I never said it didn't happen - just that all of the circumstances revolving around the incident aren't known, and jumping to the conclusion that the U.S forces were firing into the crowd for no apparent reason is wrong.

One of the biggest problems the U.S. forces had in WWII was soldiers being taught in boot camp to not fire their weapons unless they had a specific target. When they were shipped over the big pond to France and Germany, they were told by more experienced leaders and comrades that their training was all wrong and that they should stop worrying about ammo so much and fire their weapons more often.

In Vietnam, the U.S. military modified its training to try and get their soldiers to fire their weapons more often and they had a bit of success.

My guess is (as denoir mentions), is that the horrors of Vietnam, coupled with the ultra-sensitivity of the American public to war casualties (caused by the Vietnam war?) spurred the U.S. military to take their "fire first, ask questions later" training even further - to the point where our soldiers are all "programmed" to react they way they do. So they are proficient at kicking the crap out of the enemy, but not so hot at anything else...

...but before you blame the U.S. soldiers inadequate training or bad attitude for being the indiscriminate killers they appear to be, bear in mind what they went through leading up to this moment. U.S. soldiers have bared the brunt of most of the action in this war, and almost every engagement they have had with the enemy was the result of guerilla-style Ambushes, by suicidal mad men with Ak-47s.

* Suicide bombings by what appear to be normal civilians

* Iraqi soldiers that have surrendered and then raised their weapons after Coalition troops have let their guard down slightly

* Surprise (and suicidal) ambushes by people dressed in civilian clothing

Wouldn't you be a bit nervous after enduring this sort of thing day after day?

The solution of course is to delegate the job (particularly, the peacekeeping duties) of rebuilding Iraq out to other countries. Unfortunately, Bush is being the stubborn idiot he is, and is refusing to take off his tunnel vision goggles, and let the UN assist.

[theavonlady 2]

...but before you blame the U.S. soldiers inadequate training or bad attitude for being the indiscriminate killers they appear to be, bear in mind what they went through leading up to this moment. U.S. soldiers have bared the brunt of most of the action in this war, and almost every engagement they have had with the enemy was the result of guerilla-style Ambushes, by suicidal mad men with Ak-47s.

* Suicide bombings by what appear to be normal civilians

* Iraqi soldiers that have surrendered and then raised their weapons after Coalition troops have let their guard down slightly

* Surprise (and suicidal) ambushes by people dressed in civilian clothing

Wouldn't you be a bit nervous after enduring this sort of thing day after day?

Sounds too familiar.

There was an interesting TV documentary here that examined the physical rehabilitation of two IDF soldiers who both got both their legs blown off in separate unrelated incidents.

One of the soldiers is from a left, dove, peace camp family background. He said that all the training and drilling of combat ethics and codes just disappears in intense CQB situations. He said the fear factor is so great that your mind just commands you to shoot anything that moves and it's impossible at times to control one's self.

Quote[/b] ]Bush is being the stubborn idiot he is, and is refusing to take off his tunnel vision goggles, and let the UN assist.

The UN themselves were victims of such suicide attacks. That's why they pretty much pulled out. Same with the Red Cross.

How would they assist? Those perpetrating the attacks know no limits. No one is neutral to them, including their own people, let alone anyone from the outside.

[toadlife 3]

How would they assist? Those perpetrating the attacks know no limits. No one is neutral to them, including their own people, let alone anyone from the outside.

I'm talking about having the U.N. send in soldiers, (instead of bureaucrats) from various countries to assist in peacekeeping.

Edit: As to the nature of the resistance (being indiscriminate), perhaps the people who are quick to condemn U.S. forces for firing indiscriminately on civilians will get a chance to bash the soldiers from other nations when they end up doing the same sort of things.

[denoir 0]

...but before you blame the U.S. soldiers inadequate training or bad attitude for being the indiscriminate killers they appear to be, bear in mind what they went through leading up to this moment. U.S. soldiers have bared the brunt of most of the action in this war, and almost every engagement they have had with the enemy was the result of guerilla-style Ambushes, by suicidal mad men with Ak-47s.

* Suicide bombings by what appear to be normal civilians

* Iraqi soldiers that have surrendered and then raised their weapons after Coalition troops have let their guard down slightly

* Surprise (and suicidal) ambushes by people dressed in civilian clothing

Wouldn't you be a bit nervous after enduring this sort of thing day after day?

Yeah, I agree with you their reactions are prefectly human. The thing is that they can't have perfectly human reactions. They are peace-keepers and as such they are expected to handle those issues. If they're not then they should have never been assigned that job by the military. In the US case it's even worse as the military sets a policy that is fundamentaly incompatible with the peace-keeping paradigm.

Quote[/b] ]As to the nature of the resistance (being indiscriminate), perhaps the people who are quick to condemn U.S. forces for firing indiscriminately on civilians will get a chance to bash the soldiers from other nations when they end up doing the same sort of things.

Well, that's kind of the point. USA did similar things in Kosovo, others didn't. Afghanistan - same story. The resistance is a secondary problem. The primary issue is building up trust between the locals and the peace-keepers. Solving the primary issue will have the effect of indirectly solving the secondary problem. Cut off the popular support of the resistance and there's a good chance that the resistance will die out.

If you wish to make a direct comparison, check the casualties for the British (who have centuries of experience with the ways of imperialism - including how to communicate with the locals). It's true that the area that they control is smaller and that the people in southern Iraq were more sceptical to Saddam - but still - we're talkinga about an order of magnitude of difference. And IMO the British have in Iraq acted considerably more clumsy than they usually do. And if you compare how man civilians they killed after the end of the war, the difference is more like two orders of magnitude.

ps. I hope this post made sense. I'm having a 39.5 oC fever and the monitor appears to be spinning  

[toadlife 3]

Well, that's kind of the point. USA did similar things in Kosovo, others didn't. Afghanistan - same story. The resistance is a secondary problem. The primary issue is building up trust between the locals and the peace-keepers. Solving the primary issue will have the effect of indirectly solving the secondary problem. Cut off the popular support of the resistance and there's a good chance that the resistance will die out.

If you wish to make a direct comparison, check the casualties for the British (who have centuries of experience with the ways of imperialism - including how to communicate with the locals). It's true that the area that they control is smaller and that the people in southern Iraq were more sceptical to Saddam - but still - we're talkinga about an order of magnitude of difference. And IMO the British have in Iraq acted considerably more clumsy than they usually do. And if you compare how man civilians they killed after the end of the war, the difference is more like two orders of magnitude.

ps. I hope this post made sense. I'm having a 39.5 oC fever and the monitor appears to be spinning

/me googles up the Celcius to Fahrenheit conversion equation....103.1 - yeah thats pretty high. I have the flu myself at the moment. Luckily no fever. Fun eh?

Anyhow...

With this logic, the U.N. could send in peacekeeping forces to the West bank and solve all of the Israeli/Palestinian problems in short order with their uber peacekeeping skills.

I don't see it working that way, as the resistance in Iraq is not a rational force. They'll just as soon kill their own people for cooperating with the occupiers as anyone else. Since the war has "officially" ended (after Bushes photo-op on the Aircraft carrier), I'd bet more Iraqi civilians have died at the hands of the resistance than Coalition forces.

[theavonlady 2]

Surprise!

ABC News: Saddam Hussein’s Loyalists Infiltrated U.S. Operations in Iraq

Quote[/b] ]Dec. 18— Agents for deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein have penetrated the U.S. command in Iraq, ABCNEWS has learned. As a result, they have the potential to undermine U.S. authority.

[Longinius 1]

"You have to treat people in a war zone like hostiles, for the sake of your own protection. Whats wrong with using more force than is needed?"

Like Denoir said, this is true in war but not in peace-keeping.

"Maybe there is a different thought process in Europe,I do not know, but in America we look out for our soldiers, and they come first."

Soldiers during peace-keeping are more police than military. And the job of the police, and their duty, is to protect civilians. Often at high risk of their own.

American soldiers on peace-keeping missions must put civilians as the first priority, because that is their entire purpose of being there in the first place. Of course they also have to think about their own safety, but they are there to help civilians. Not to rough them up, make life hard or even get them killed.

[theavonlady 2]

"You have to treat people in a war zone like hostiles, for the sake of your own protection. Whats wrong with using more force than is needed?"

Like Denoir said, this is true in war but not in peace-keeping.

Isn't there still a war in Iraq?

[Longinius 1]

"Isn't there still a war in Iraq?"

Nope. Bush has declared the war is over. And since its been established here that Bush is never wrong, nor lies, the war must be over.

[Apollo 0]

I think many people find it wrong that the current

U.S administartation ,while using so many moral justification's to engage in conflict's in the world often do not uphold the moral value's that they like to proclaim so much.Where the freedom of press when the U.S is bombing news station's like Al-Jazeera wich tries to bring objective news in the Middle -East ,or when they send captives to Guantanamo bay (human right's?),or when they spy on their own population.G.W Bush is slowly deminishing Democracy within his own country with anti-privacy laws etc ,but now he has to set up democracy's in other country's ,he should better keep inproving the U.S democracy ,afterall those thousand's of Billions of dollars that have been Spend in Iraq could have gone a long way in social program's to help the poor and needing in own country.

Suffice to say that the Iraq and Afhanistan war took in Civilian casualties alone a multitude of the casualty's 0n 9/11 ,and if you look at the combat losses made after and due 9/11 then youll see that the balance with 9/11 in numbers is close to.And you actually havn't solved the problem of terrorism yet ,no the terrorist attack's are increasing again.

from a website:

Quote[/b] ]Casualties of the invading forces were limited, while Iraqi military and civilian casualties are unknown, probably at least in the thousands. A study from the Project on Defense Alternatives ( http://www.comw.org/pda/ ), a Boston-based think tank, numbered the Iraqi casualities between 11,000 and 15,000 ( http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/0310rm8.pdf ), and the Iraq Body Count project numbered the civilian Iraqis injured in 20,000 (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial_aug0703.htm). However, the Iraq Body Count projects numbers have been the subject of much debate, and may or may not be overly pessimistic.

Quote[/b] ]Isn't there still a war in Iraq

Vertical warfare isn't always officially regarded as war ,most of the times by country's that want to deny the threat of it.

Quote[/b] ]On May 1, 2003 George W. Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, in a Lockheed S-3 Viking, where he gave a speech announcing end of major combat in the Iraq war. Clearly visible in the background was a banner stating "Mission Accomplished". Bush's landing was criticized by opponents as overly theatrical and expensive. The banner, placed there by the U.S. Navy, was criticized as premature - especially later as the guerrilla war dragged on.

It was soon found that "major combat" being over did not mean that peace had returned to Iraq. The U.S.-led occupation of Iraq thereupon commenced, marked by ongoing violent conflict between the Iraqi and the occupying forces. As of December 9, 2003, the total deaths of American soldiers in the Iraq war since March have reached 449. Of these the majority has been killed after the end of major hostilities on May 1. There is concern being voiced from domestic quarters comparing the situation to previous wars such as the Vietnam War.

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]Where the freedom of press when the U.S is bombing news station's like Al-Jazeera wich tries to bring objective news in the Middle -East

Or when they deny games journalists entry to the US because they don't have the correct visa.

"You are free, as long as we approve of all you are doing!"

[U.S.M.C. Sgt. Wulf 0]

Hey guys im back

So last sunday I ( the weekend i got back from iraq) was sleeping and i see on the news a hobo "saddam" very funny

[bn880 5]

Yeah funny, maybe now Bush will take on Hussein in that duel Hussein suggested, even if thousands have already died. (I'm sure even on sedatives Hussein will win over the texan farmer)

[EiZei 0]

Or better yet, they kill each other simultaneuously.

[Apollo 0]

Texan's make good gunmen ,but Saddam know's all the dirty tricks.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Fighting duels is all about having the capacity to kill another human being.

Be real here people:

Air Force National Guard deserter vs. Some one who has killed and attacked people for real.

I think we know why Sadam offered it.

Kind Regards Walker

[ozanzac 0]

Hey guys im back

Where did or didn't you go?

[EiZei 0]

Hey guys im back

Where did or didn't you go?

PR island?

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]PR island?

To Hellfish's basement .

[miles teg 1]

First off, thank you Denoir for your post.  That was really an excellent insight into US Army peacekeeping methods.  From what I've seen the US Marines seem to be a little more keen on working with the locals however.  But that's just my armchair observations from watching the media.  Likewise Special Operations forces seem to be better trained at working with locals.  In Afghanistan for example, I've heard that many of the SF there were VERY pissed at the 82nd Airborne for ruining the carefully nurtured relationships that the SF had developed in target communities.  Apparently the 82nd had done house to house weapons searches and really brutalized alot of the people in towns that the SF already had good relationships with.  

For a long time I've been arguing for a serious paradigm shift in the US intelligence and military community regarding peacekeeping but generally I get called a Godless, commie liberal by those who believe more in a cowboy "Kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out" attitude with very scary attitudes towards other cultures.  

For those in the US intelligence and military communities who are voices of reason and who are trying to fight the war on terrorism intelligently, it has to be so incredibly frustrating to have a administration in power that just totally blows them off as "liberal terrorist coddlers" when they try to pursue creative and non-violent means of dealing with enemies of the United States.  

What we don't see in the press anywhere is this political struggle within the State Department and Department of Defense over how to best pursue this war on terror.  

Sadly I think the cowboys have firm control of the horse and seem dead set on riding over anyone who gets in their way based upon their narrow black & white conceptions of the world.  

One of the posters here is a prime example of that.  The guy who said, "well here in America we take care of our troops" obviouisly has a very narrow view of the world.   In reality we don't take care of our troops.  Reservists and National Guard still get treated like 2nd class soldiers when they are wounded, the VA and military medical system is in a mess trying to deal with all the casualties and non-combat related illnesses and injuries, and our soldiers are still being given experimental vaccines (the Anthrax Vaccine which the DoD has lied about repeatedly) which they are still denying is causing widespread illness amongst the troops despite overwhelming evidence that is being supressed.  

Also people such as that poster don't realize that establishing good relations with the civilians decreases attacks MUCH more then going around shooting up their neighborhoods and yanking them out of their homes in the middle of the night and often arresting them on little more then a rumor where they end up rotting in prisons without formal charges brought against them.  

If America was ruled by a dictator and some foreign country kicked that dictator out but then started treating me and my family like that, I think most of us would not take to kindly to that kind of treatment.  

What ultimately will probably needed is a full scale hand-over of power to an elected Iraqi government and to the United Nations as peacekeepers with a total withdrawl of US military forces.

That means negotiating with militants to halt attacks while this process is going on.

But the administration is too thick-headed to ever establish a dialog with these militant groups.   It's the same thickheaded attitudes that prevent peace from being achived between the Palistinians and Israelies.  Israel can make all the treaties in the world with moderate Palistinian elements of the Palistinian Authority, but it won't matter one bit when heavily armed radical groups are still committing attacks.  The lack of dialog with extremists based on stubborn ideological principles is just plain stupid when it is these extremists that are the primary agitators in such conflicts.

What really sucks however is that no option in Iraq is assured 100% success.  

Even if the UN took complete control, militants might just resume attacks on the UN just as they did on the US forces.

That is where there needs to be tremendous emphasis on not only modifying peacekeeping tactics, but also on psychological operations to win the propaganda war so that the majority of Iraqis recognize the UN as their friends helping them out and not as occupiers.  

But even that may or may not work.  A million things can go wrong no matter what strategy is used unfortunately.  

My opinion is that most likely Iraq will decend into civil war and that it will be the primary symbol of Islamic Jihadists all over the world surpassing even the Israeli/Palistinian conflict as a symbol of Islamic resistance against *percieved* American/Zionist imperialism.

To most Ameicans these people are wacko terrorists with backwards beliefs.  But to those Islamic militants, their skewed perceptions are reality and if we do something to change their perceptions of reality, there will only continued attacks upon Americans and allies of the United States.

Right now I'm just praying really hard that Bush doesn't win the next election.  If  Howard Dean wins, I'm hoping that he'll be willing to try innovative and creative solutions to the conflicts in the Middle East and to the War on Terror.  I truly believe that is the only hope for peace short of genocide.

PS- Al-Jezeera is NOT objective as somebody mentioned. They are even worse then FOX news when it comes to bias in their news reports. I don't blame the Iraqi council for kicking them out of Iraq.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[ozanzac 0]

Hey guys im back

Where did or didn't you go?

PR island?

Quote[/b] ]To Hellfish's basement .

I thought he was implying he went back to Iraq and now he's back. Hence the didn't!

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Al-Jezeera is NOT objective as somebody mentioned.  They are even worse then FOX news when it comes to bias in their news reports.

Have you ever seen a truly objective news service ?

[miles teg 1]

No, but while Al-Jazeera does provide an important alternative perspective, they also unfortunately help to fuel the fires of militancy in the region by formatting the war on terror as some kind of vast Zionist/American conspiracy to control the world and oppress Muslims...something that even some Americans buy into.

In short, they help to legitimize Islamic militancy and terrorism by portraying terrorists as martyrs and heroes of Islam.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/19/sprj.irq.main/index.html

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. civil administrator L. Paul Bremer survived an insurgent attack this month on his convoy in Baghdad, U.S. officials said Friday.

U.S. military officials said that the ambush occurred December 6 as Bremer was traveling in an armored civilian vehicle. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was visiting the Iraqi capital that day but wasn't in the party.

Insurgents began the ambush by setting off a roadside bomb, followed by small-arms fire, officials said. The convoy sped off, and no one was hurt, they said.

Officials said the attackers probably did not know the convoy carried Bremer.

"We have reason to believe it was a random, opportunistic attack, not necessarily specifically targeting him," said Dan Senor, a Coalition Provisional Authority official.

Many attacks have happened around Baghdad International Airport, the area near where the ambush took place.

In the southern Iraqi city of Basra, Bremer also confirmed the attack. "As you can see, it didn't succeed," he told reporters.

on Miles Teg's post.

Are you sure you are an American you pinko-ass-commie!

In seriousness, I agree with his post(the long one). Winning the hearts of enemy will guarantee better cooperation. US forces pride them for being the 'best military' in the world - and of course someone will say something about it here, but bear with me for a short moment -but that is limited to actual combat action, not peacekeeping. I guess it is nature of war to beat the lights out of enemy 'with extreme prejudice.', but this kind of war would require wining hearts of locals, which is not wasy to do, nor is emphasized.

[Donnervogel 0]

PS- Al-Jezeera is NOT objective as somebody mentioned. They are even worse then FOX news when it comes to bias in their news reports. I don't blame the Iraqi council for kicking them out of Iraq.

We have a news channel here that provides much Al-Jazeera material (translated of course) to show different points of view in the media worldwide.

From those reports I have to say they are maybe not what we would call objective - but they are far better than any other arab news service I've seen. They show different, arab points of view.

IMHO CNN is as unobjective as Al-Jazeera. Both news services are very biased when it comes to critical news.On top of that Al-Jazeera shows opinions that are very strange for most Europeans and even more strange for Americans due to different ways of thinking.