The Iraq thread 3

[NavyEEL 0]

The use of bombs or cluster munitions is in no way parallel to the mutilation of bodies.  Difference being?  Once the people are dead, we don't come in and mutilate their corpses just for the hell of it.  Regardless of our opinion of them, we try to at least show a little respect for the dead.

What purpose did mutilating the bodies have, other than to quench the mob's anger and hatred?

Actually it served a very powerful purpose when shown in the Western press.  Despite the refusal of the US press to show the video of the bodies, many Americans saw the video and pictures of the mobs mutilating the bodies through the Internet.  In addition it was heavily talked about in the media here in the US.  The result was a sense of shock amongst Americans much as what happened in Somalia when mobs there mutilated American corpses.  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

My mistake, I guess I should have stated that more clearly. When I said the mutilation of bodies served no purpose, I was speaking in reference to its direct tactical purpose, not the political effects it would have on the coalition forces. Sorry for the confusion--next time I will be more descriptive.

[red oct 2]

whoa, were do you find this stuff? kinda reminds me when my best friend and i used to try make stuff like out of PVC pipes but had to settle firing stuff like patato's since RPG's aren't really leagal

[denoir 0]

My mistake, I guess I should have stated that more clearly.  When I said the mutilation of bodies served no purpose, I was speaking in reference to its direct tactical purpose, not the political effects it would have on the coalition forces.

It's quite relevant. While it has no tactical or operational significance (actually it does from an action-reaction point of view, but we'll disregard that for now) it has political and thereby strategic significance. Do it once and people will be shocked. Do it on a regular basis and the political support for the occupation will vanish leading to a strategic decision of a pullout. In absolute numbers it is irrelevant. A mob of what 50 or so people of a population of 30 million. Through media however it gets amplified beyond every proportion. If repeated enough, it will leave an lasting image of Iraqis butchering American soldiers. This is important as it works very well and is the means through which resistance fighters (and terrorists for that matter) can make a difference. They cannot win by firepower, technology or numbers but they can go above the military level and aim at the political aspect of it.

Doing something about it can be quite difficul given the chaotic situation in Iraq. Contractors, security guards etc are easy targets and the payoff is immense. Through a very localized and limited operation you can in effect undermine the occupation on a political basis. And this is not just a question of pulling out of Iraq or not. This does in fact affect the operational and tactical sides as it forces the occupation army into reacting on things that have very little or no military significance. By that you force the to fight an irrelevant fight and under the circumstances you dictate.

Just look at Fallujah. The reason for this whole mess is the killing and mutilation of the contractors. After the images in media, the occupation forces had to react. So they went in to 'bring the killers to justice'. In effect they were drawn in into nasty urban combat. Instead of the usual 1:1000 killed/kill rate, we're down to 1:10 (not counting that a significant part of those 10 are civilians which again only helps the resistance). So though a relatively simple and certainly irrelvant but extravagant provocation, they forced the occupation forces to fight on terms that suit the resistance.

And this is what you get. It's the nature of the asymmetrical warfare in Iraq. It is a fact of the situation and whining about it is about as meaningfull as whining about that your opponent is stronger than you. It's war - you do whatever it takes to win. There are a number of international agreements on what you can and cannot do in war. These agreements however were constructed for a symmetrical European type of warfare. It does apply to the occupational forces who have the type of structure compatible with the rules. In the case of the Iraqi resistance it is a completely different type of military force that for them the rules are null and void.

Now if you do not like the type of assymetrical warfare then you should think twice before starting such a war.

[MLF 0]

I doubt the mob thought to themselves o lets rip these Americans bodies apart so that it will send shockwaves through the american people back home, they did becuase they wanted to release there anger and frustration.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Denoir: Do it once and people will be shocked. Do it on a regular basis and the political support for the occupation will vanish leading to a strategic decision of a pullout. In absolute numbers it is irrelevant.

You might be right. However it might also provoke the opposite. This strategy can cause a boomerang effect! You remember churchills idea of "moral bombing"? Strangely enough you could also say "moral execuction". Churchill had the idea (just like Hitler) that bombing german cities might lower the general war euphoria. But in fact the opposite was the case. In the UK that strategy never worked, actually the opposite was the case. The brits' fear turned into anger and rage. Suddenly the "germans" became the reincarnation of the devil. Executing/mutilating individuals may cause us to loose our perception of "bad guys" and "good guys living amongst bad guys" (this is the way simplemind Rumsfeld would put it). Rage will make people to think black/white. Suddenly every iraqi/german becomes a Nazi/Terorist. And once you loose sight of innocents suffering you only see enemies. Mutilations / executions is a strategy I wouldnt count on!

If I may speak for myself I think I am pretty much instinct driven and little objective. I might be the first to shout for soldiers in iraq if executions of germans would become a regular hobby!

[miles teg 1]

Denoir: Do it once and people will be shocked. Do it on a regular basis and the political support for the occupation will vanish leading to a strategic decision of a pullout. In absolute numbers it is irrelevant.

You might be right. However it might also provoke the opposite. This strategy can cause a boomerang effect! You remember churchills idea of "moral bombing"? Strangely enough you could also say "moral execuction". Churchill had the idea (just like Hitler) that bombing german cities might lower the general war euphoria. But in fact the opposite was the case. In the UK that strategy never worked, actually the opposite was the case. The brits' fear turned into anger and rage. Suddenly the "germans" became the reincarnation of the devil. Executing/mutilating individuals may cause us to loose our perception of "bad guys" and "good guys living amongst bad guys" (this is the way simplemind Rumsfeld would put it). Rage will make people to think black/white. Suddenly every iraqi/german becomes a Nazi/Terorist. And once you loose sight of innocents suffering you only see enemies. Mutilations / executions is a strategy I wouldnt count on!

If I may speak for myself I think I am pretty much instinct driven and little objective. I might be the first to shout for soldiers in iraq if executions of germans would become a regular hobby!

Yes you are right to a degree.  If Iraqis began the wholesale slaughter of all foreigners who were non-Arab or non-Muslim, then yes it could cause public sentiment in the US to turn from shock and disgust, to one of anger and vengeance much as what we saw during 9/11...which is part of the reason for the support of the Iraqi invasion by the majority of the American public.  But on a small scale, mutilating corpses is not going induce that kind of response from the American public.  Most are just sickened by the whole thing.  The response however may be that we need to pull our troops out and then just carpet bomb the hell out of any part of Iraq that gives us grief in the future.

Also to anyone who thinks that American soldiers would never shoot an apparently unarmed man, here's a good article on the realities of war from a Marine's perspective:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....7&ncid=

Warfare often turns good young men into beasts who will behave just as savagely as any Iraqi.  

In the same position I myself might react in very much the same way... But I don't know.  It's easy for us to judge others when we're not in the same situations.  

Ditto for the Iraqi position in Fellujah.  If we grew up in the same circumstances, were Sunni, and were feeling oppressed by the US occupation and were in the same combat situation, we may react with just as much hatred and anger.  

But here we have the luxury of making morale judgements from the comfort of our computers.  

Sadly this is history repeating itself.   The American public forgot that we faced these same horrifying, complex, and bizzarre realities of war in Vietnam.   But we forgot those bitter memories and thus here we are repeating the same mistakes and suffering many of the same consequences only with reprecussions and reactions that will resonate much farther then just the borders of Iraq.  But rather thru-out the Muslim and Arab world.

The consequences for our actions will I think be very severe and ultimately will be one of the West vs. Islam as we will drag most of Europe into this war almost certainly.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[denoir 0]

I doubt the mob thought to themselves o lets rip these Americans bodies apart so that it will send shockwaves through the american people back home, they did becuase they wanted to release there anger and frustration.

Absolutely, but the mob is just tool. It is fairly evident by now that there are several organized resistance forces in Iraq. You can be sure that they do their outmost to inflame the situation to the point where mobs act like they did in Fallujah. It does not even have to be coordinated but it is an 'organic' form of defense against the occupation. One of the elementary things you learn in peace keeping is that mobs are seldom spontaneous. You usually have an instigating core that 'fires up' the crowdsl.

Albert:

Quote[/b] ]

You might be right. However it might also provoke the opposite. This strategy can cause a boomerang effect!

Ah, but that assumes that you can actually do something about it. If you are powerless to prevent it regardless of the resources you put in then there will only be a miserable humiliating failure after another. The chaotic situation in Iraq fully protects those that create the disorder. When you react to it, you only get double back. Fallujah is a perfect example. The contractors get butchered. The US forces react by sending in troops. Not only do they not capture or kill the responsible party, but they get bogged down in urban combat, that results in the largest number of coallition troops killed in an engagement - and they fail to take the town. Not to mention the negative publicity over killing a lot of civillians.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Wait up. I think the only thing that limits the success of US forces is their obligation to (somewhat) ensure human rights and act cautious so few innocent get hurt. The iraqis can be controlled, Saddam is a terrible example. It is nothing new I hope that the iraqis (and most of the arab world) believe that we westerners are weak individuals and only technology protects us. A tougher hand would bring back order. I think this is the fundamental difference to Vietnam!

[denoir 0]

Also to anyone who thinks that American soldiers would never shoot an apparently unarmed man, here's a good article on the realities of war from a Marine's perspective:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....7&ncid=

Man, that's messed up. I don't know - they've must have gone through hell in Fallujah. But still..

In Kosovo people shot at us, KFOR, on a regular basis. And people died. Still, I don't know of anybody who even thought of shooting at civillians just because they might be resistance.

Granted that the situation in Iraq is more extreme but then again you should be asking WTF you are doing there.

I can understand that you can get careless under fire and become overly agressive. Here however we're talking about cold blooded murder out of a general desire for revenge. Why isn't the US military doing something about it? It is a war crime to gun down unarmed civillians.

[denoir 0]

The iraqis can be controlled, Saddam is a terrible example. It is nothing new I hope that the iraqis (and most of the arab world) believe that we westerners are weak individuals and only technology protects us. A tougher hand would bring back order.

It's not that simple. It's not a static situation. Yes, Saddam could control Iraq under those conditions that were then. It is however no guarantee that the same arrangement is possible at this point. Saddam kept things in place but it's highly likely that enough momentum has been gained for there to be no way back. Saddam kept things below the critical mass. It's quite possible that we've already passed the critical mass and that applying Saddam's methods would be useless.

[miles teg 1]

True, but a "tougher hand" and "few civilian casualties" do not go hand in hand.  If the US forces truly want to rule with a firm hand they'd have to be just as brutal as Saddam Hussein by setting up an Iraqi secret police that was ruthless at identifying, and arresting or killing militants.  

This would mean bringing back the old Baath party people...but most of them are probably fighting as militants.

Whatever the method, many thousands of Iraqi civilians would die.  This is what happened each time Saddam crushed a revolt.   That and the Baath party cell system were the keys to the success of Saddam Hussein's long reign of terror.

America actually has used these tactics before but not directly.  It was always by proxy by supporting and using Latin American and African dictators to brutally crush communist rebel movements.   This is what we will probably end up doing.  The alternative is just to allow civil war by pulling out and letting the Iraqis fight it out for power.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Denoir, I am simple man, with a simple brain. Your mastering of the english language is slightly overdemanding...and I am 27 we are not writing a dissertation here..

(no no...I got what you mean and I fully agree)

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Okay lets bring forward a deductive thesis! How much brutality is required to gain back respect? (since I consider respect to be the main factor for law and order in iraq and B. I believe that only brutality makes the iraqis gain respect, very inhumane but it is their history, they need transition time).

I know a thesis has to be statement, but well hmmm you know what I mean dont you?

[miles teg 1]

It is not a simple matter of respect.  

Brutality by a FOREIGN power especially a NON-MUSLIM foreign power will NOT work.  It will simply cause Muslims all over the world to unite and fight against the US including those Muslims already living in the United States.

Not only that, but all of Europe would likely condemn the actions of the United States as would most of the rest of the world.  

But as things are we already support dictatorships all over the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Oman, UAE, Bahrain, ect...) so an Iraqi, US supported dictatorship would be nothing new.  Heck, now we even support Libya's Ghaddaffi and he's not a whole lot better then Saddam Hussein.  

If brutality is to be used, it has to be Iraqi brutality or at the very least done by another Islamic country so as to prevent or at least minimize terrorist attacks against the US and America's allies.  But I don't think any Islamic nation in the region has the military forces necessary to control Iraq except perhaps Iran and maybe Syria.  

That is why I believe the only effective peacekeeping force would be a UN authorized Pan-Arab/Islamic peacekeeping force made up of Islamic armies from all over the Middle East and the world (like Indonesia and Malaysia).

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]Brutality by a FOREIGN power especially a NON-MUSLIM foreign power will NOT work. It will simply cause Muslims all over the world to unite and fight against the US including those Muslims already living in the United States.

Dont get me wrong but I think that is already the case!

But sorry, back to the issue

[ralphwiggum 6]

Just saw from NBC Nightly news about how American uniforms and equipments were available, including weapons. Most were stolen by those in new Iraqi forces, according to the shop owner.

So I guess we shouldn't be surprised by the insurgents taking advantage of this situation.

some other items were body armor, going for 100 USD, negotiated to 90 USD. it costs 1500 USD for gov't to get one.

[ozanzac 0]

Also to anyone who thinks that American soldiers would never shoot an apparently unarmed man, here's a good article on the realities of war from a Marine's perspective:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....7&ncid=

Man, that's messed up. I don't know - they've must have gone through hell in Fallujah. But still..

From the story:

Quote[/b] ]When Deady (the soldier who shot the unarmed man) woke up in a Tijuana, Mexico jail after busting into a candy store drunk and passing out behind the cash register, Wofford came to bail him out.

Jeeze.

Americas Finest?

Seriously, would you trust a guy like Deady to pass on the spirit of democracy? Sure. He might be good for a soldier. But as a peacekeeper, or bringer of peace? Far out!! Why are guys like this still stationed in Iraq, when quite obviously, they can only make the situation worse.

If this is the standard of what the Iraqi people have had to deal with, then no wonder they've gone hostile towards the americans.

[turms 0]

With this kind of ROE  im not surprise that nobody likes US soldiers or foreign policy no more....  

Quote[/b] ]Hours later, on the same spot where the deer roamed, one of Long's men sees an Arab male walking with his hands in his pockets near their position. Long asks the marine to move out of the way. He wants this kill himself.

He aims his M-16 rifle through the thin wood boards and sandbags providing cover and shoots the man dead.

"I think Blake this is for you. I hope this is the fucker who got you," Long says.

[Gollum1 0]

That's f***ed up.

[Longinius 1]

Wait an hour two until someone posts a link to FOX saying he had an RPG in his pocket.... Ofcourse he couldnt be innocent.

[quicksand 0]

I can`t belive it!I mean I`ve read about this on Al-Jazeera Al-Arabyia but I thought they were exagerations.

This article if from AFP.The guy is a cold blooded butcher.I`ll never wish a man`s death but sorry is the last thing I`m gonna feel if this man gets home into a body bag.

And he isn`t gonna get court martialled?I mean the rest of the team just watches his killing rampage without doing anything?What kind of Marines are they?

They are deffinetly not suited for war.I thought the Marines are extremly well trained and can face extreme presure.But they crack up after their first casualty and start sloughtering any Iraqi they get the chance on?!?

Who are the savages now?

[Longinius 1]

I dont think these guys have seen just one casualty. They are human like everyone else and exposed to enough shit, they will crack. Thats why troops need to be rotated in good time, before these things start to happen.

Everyone becomes a savage in war, given enough time. And suffering.

[quicksand 0]

I don`t know but that`s no excuse for the army that wants itself to be the most professional in the world.

This story was confessed,you can only wonder what other shit they did so horendous and gruesome that it`s never gonna get any coverage.

They are killing civillians,not with AC-130,choppers so they can excuse themselves by saying they got the enemy but at point blank,for God`s sake.Why isn`t this getting any media coverage?All we see on TV are US commanders praising their succeses and dissmising any possiblity of civillian casualties.And the worst part is that people actually belive them..

I think it`s time for this war to be exposed for what it trully is. Not an arcade game where the mighty US soldiers are always of deadly accurace and they are incapable of f*cking up...

[miles teg 1]

Don't be so quick to judge quicksand. If you were unfortunate enough to be put into the same situation, under the same circumstances you too might crack. As I said before, this type of behavior happens in EVERY war. Don't be so surprised. In combat its extremely easy to rationalize such violence especially in a situation where it is very murky just who exactly is the enemy and who isn't the enemy.

During the invasion for example, Iraqi soldiers in civilian clothes were moving between fighting positions holding up white flags and then shooting at the US troops once they got to their fighting positions. Eventually the soldiers just ignored the white flag and shot 'em up.

When you have those kinds of experiences and you see stuff like ambulances full of explosives, RPG's, and weapons, the rules of warfare go out the window and it turns into vastly more savage conflict.

I personally would encourage disciplinary action on that soldier, but I'm not sure if I'd want to see him court-martialed. It is quite possible that the unarmed man was doing recon for the militants. Or maybe he just wanted to talk to the soldiers or had no clue that those Marines were over there. The article doesn't give enough context to what was going on such as whether the houses in the area were abandonded, or what direction the man was walking.

Overall however, what those soldiers need is better leadership and training on how to handle such difficult situations.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

savage time starts. It is only a question of time untill war turns even most sensitive person into a dull killing-machine. You've made it soldier!