Falujah behind closed doors

[bosse_s]

There is hardly no media present to give us a picture of what is really going on in Falujah... then this pops up

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...obe/index.html

Neat.

[bosse_s]

If this is what happens in front of a camera, just imagine what we do not get to see!

It becomes obvious that it actually was a good thing for the U.S administration not to ratify the International Crime Court.

sick and tired of it all.

[Cowshoes]

From the link Bosse_s posted:

...Amnesty (International) also noted reports that insurgents have used mosques as fighting positions, and in one incident appear to have used a white flag to lure Marines into an ambush.

Nice. I can't imagine why a US soldier would want to kill any insurgents he came across. It'll be interesting to see how this incident unfolds.

[bosse_s]

Cowshoes, are you mental?!

Those insurgents were captured, wounded and unarmed. Unless that is wrong, this is a clear violation of all international and national conventions.







[Edited by bosse_s on 17th November 2004 at 20:18]

[Cowshoes]

We'll see. It doesn't look good. Considering the treachery displayed by these insurgents (feigning surrender, etc.), I'm inclined to give the Marine in question the benefit of the doubt. At least for now.

[Marmaduke]

Isn’t this what they said about Abu Ghraib- it was just an isolated incident ? That was until Seymour Hersh showed that the chain of command reached right to the top of the present administration. I suspect we would never have heard about that, had it not been for the fact that the images were leaked’ to a TV station and were about to be published in The New Yorker. It appears he techniques of Abu Ghraib were also being used in Afghanistan and in Guantanamo Bay. The techniques of counter-insurgency that have us all outraged (collective punishment, overwhelming force and little or no respect for civilian casualties) are nothing new to the people of Palestine where Israel have been practicing such ‘procedures’ (which rather make it sound like a dental examination rather than what it truly is) which is no doubt why the US were so keen to have Israel’s assistance in training.

This ‘execution’ is probably another tip of the iceberg. There are already several clips on the net showing wounded Iraqis (whether civilian or not is unclear) being killed. At best one might argue that the marine in question was ‘face to face’ with the enemy he was supposed to be killing, but how can you justify someone firing a machine gun from a tank at a wounded Iraqi- he’s hardly going to stab or run away.

But this blame does not just lie with the soldier alone, it lies with the society that created such people with the potential for cold blooded murder. We have become so insulated from the reality of war, while salivating our taste for increased violence (TV, video games) that we have become unable to distinguish the two. This episode brings into sharp relief the shallow hypocrisy of our times. Coming, as it does, just days after ABC refused to air ‘Saving Private Ryan’ lest it offend the fine moral sensibilities of the proto fascist Religious Right (I always found the ‘fire and brimstone’ rhetoric they espouse rather on the violent side too). I understand it was a combination of violence and bad language that so offended these poor deluded sociopaths, that is, exactly the scene people witnessed last night (or rather didn’t as real death is still too challenging to actually be shown on TV, just have to wait for the cinematic version replete with suitable Hollywood budget, before we can witness the suitably sanitised version.

All those that supported the war (and its associated lies and distortions) can rest assured that this is all in the cause of bringing democracy to the Middle East- and ‘you cannot make an Omelette without breaking eggs…’. They can champion this cause from the comfort of their armchairs or pulpits (where a bit of kneeling may aggravate their arthritic limbs, but do little to challenge their arthritic minds), and then seek to censor any account of what took place ‘in their name’ (or rather their name by proxy, this is after all God’s war against evil and I am sure he is chuffed to bits to be associated with it).

Expect all the usual excuses to be trotted out at the next apologetic show trial (throw this guy to the dogs and hope no one asks anymore awkward questions about just how widespread this practice is). Bush now has an Attorney General who thinks that the Geneva Convention is ‘quaint’ so can it come as any great surprise that it has been treated with such scant regard by the US occupying forces ? The Red Crescent were denied access to provide humanitarian support- we will probably get the excuse Israel speed reads each time such a thing happens in Palestine (‘the enemy could use them as cover’ or variations of the same). We now see that the insurgency has moved to Mosul and the US has had to divert forces there to quell the insurrection, yet when they arrive they discover they have all left to fight elsewhere- in their own version of Bush triumphalist ‘bring it on’. Well George, looks like that’s just what they are doing.

Inconsistencies abound in the whole sad saga of reporting from Iraq, particularly when handled by one of the interim government’s American mouthpieces. First we are told that the insurgency is only undertaken by a few pro Saddam loyalists and foreign fighters, but when this questions why such devastating force is required (at the risk to Iraqi civilians) this number suddenly become inflated in order to justify such actions- still Madeline Allbright though 500,000 civilians was a ‘price worth paying’ during the sanctions regime, so this must be an improvement.

This whole war has become mired in lies and distortions, so much so, that even such inconsistencies as the above seem to matter little to those that espouse them. We have become dulled into believing anything and everything we are told, like the unquestioning lemmings we have become as each of us takes the mental plunge over the cliff into the ‘reality world’ of the Bush Corporation, where today’s truth is no guarantee it will be tomorrow’s truth- this is revisionist history in real time now folks.
All opposition is by terrorists (though I am not saying that there are not those who do oppose the selections and will use any means of violence to do so, the commission of human rights abuses is not the sole province of the US), it cannot be a popular uprising as we are told that Iraqi’s want self determination. That the two are not mutually exclusive seems to have escaped our intrepid media by-and-large. If you are fighting the liberators, you must be a pro Saddamist or Chechen/Al Q’aeda/….. terrorist, no more questions need to be asked, and we can dutifully swallow the ‘truth’ of this ‘reality’ and so pass off such abuses as ‘the acceptable face of war’ as if there ever was one.

Abu Ghraib, rightly caused outrage, and this will be another of the great ‘turning points’ in the war- though not the sort that had been originally envisioned. It will further alienate any Arab state that hasn’t already been alienated and allow continued abuse of such regions as Palestine and Chechnya to pass off unquestioned. Far from winning the war on terrorism we are becoming the very same monster we are supposed to be defending ourselves against. This will be a turning point in as far as it shows us a clear reflection of our own moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy. That is comes so soon after the re-election of Bush tells us something worse- we don’t even seem to care.

[bosse_s]

Great Cowshoe, "in benefit of the doubt" just shoot someone in the head, point blank!

Jasp. is correct, there is a new world order and basic principles of rule of law and moral have been twisted.

And come around saying that those insurgents aren´t better people. If they were thought of as good as "us", Bush et al would not have any reason for killing them at all. In open societies where the rule of law and human rights has a value, government representatives don´t kill wounded and unarmed people "in benefit of the doubt".

To follow your line of argument, let someone shoot that Marine in the head "in benefit of the doubt" since we do not actually know if he executed an unarmed and wounded enemy soldier or killed him in self defense? Does that make sense to you? Does that sound reasonable?

Bet my ass someone will shout that it was an act of "prevention" (another wording for "benefit of the doubt")

[DruidSmith]

None of us here understands the reality of what is going on in Fallujah. Would an insurgent kill an unarmed wounded American captive? In a heartbeat. Does the US military have "Rules of Engagement" that should bar such action against unarmed wounded Iraqis? Sure does. Do the Iraqis have anything similar barring them from killing foreigners under any circumstance whatsoever? Nope, nothing whatsoever, and they kill innocents every day. Does the US military have a Uniform Conduct of Military Justice? Yup. Will this marine be investigated, duly prosecuted and sentenced? You bet. Will the insurgents that kidnapped and brutally murdered Margaret Hassan be duly prosecuted? Probably not ever.

I'm sure I will get plenty of flak for this, but these are brutal truths of the situation, like them or not. Stop for a minute to think about ethics or "what-ifs" and you will be a dead marine in Fallujah. When you are fired upon, you MUST return fire. When you encounter a potentially dangerous situation, you MUST act. I'm not trying to "rationalize anything away", and I'd be the first to agree that "Rules of Engagement" and the Uniform Code are far from perfect, but they DO go very far. On the insurgent side, murder, destruction, chaos, anarchy and violence are the ONLY code. THEY destroy anything and kill anyone, no rules WHATSOEVER apply.

In Fallujah the prevailing law is simply kill or be killed. The US military however, whether you believe it or not, actually IS bound to some code of justice and some degree of fairness, even if it is nowhere near what we reasonably expect in our comfortable lives here at home. We are out of touch with the realities of combat, and this is quite evident throughout this thread. In this discussion I see wisdom on a par of sticking your hand through the bars into a lion's cage and waving your middle finger in the lion's face and considering it a reasonable expectation for nothing bad to happen.


I am heavy with sadness over it all, but it is not our place, ANY of us to look back in 20/20 hindsight and philosophise, because all of us were fortunate never to have had to dealt with this kind of brutal trauma in our lives..

[Edited by DruidSmith on 18th November 2004 at 11:36]

[Cowshoes]

Well Bosse_s, If you're asking if I would be angry if the situation were reversed (Insurgent shooting a Marine), the answer is hell yes! But then, I'm a partisan. I WANT the Insurgents to fail. I believe the Insurgents are bad people. I don't think they give a crap about any Conventions, Geneva or otherwise. They made that abundantly clear with the premeditated, cold blooded murder of Margaret Hassan. I find it interesting that not one of you has expressed so much as mild discomfort over her murder.

Jasper, that was a well written piece. Worthy of a place on the opinion page of any newspaper. I agree about the "Saving Private Ryan" thing. The affiliate where I live chose not to air it. F-cking losers. I'm glad 'what's his name' wouldn't allow his masterpiece to be sanitised.

[Cowshoes]

You beat me to it. You said what I tried to say, only better.

[bosse_s]

True, Cowshoes - I am biased. I have several reasons, mostly personal (so don´t consider them as objective ones):

1) The U.S invaded Iraq for several reasons, one was to free the people and bring democracy and Human Rights to the area. Like I wrote, I don´t think the U.S forces can use the insurgents as a "benchmark" for their own behaviour. The insurgents are the evil that are to be replaced with something better. The U.S and its allies are, like it or not, rolemodels for what that "better" can be.

2) I considered this war to be illegal and implemented in a way that has gained terrorism even if it possibly will have some positive effects in thelong run for Iraq as a free and open society. Given this, I consider the U.S to have some moral and legal obligations to show Iraq and the world that the international community was sidestepped for a good reason and that the U.S have an interest not to act like the barbarians they are fighting. (This does not mean that I sympatize with the other side)

3) **** is the nature of war, but what may be unique in our times is that things like this can be aired and seen by millions of people as it happens. The military officials always say "tragic incident" or "terrible mistake which was not authorized by higher command". Yadayada - violence will never be "nice" and clean. The Geneva convention is a minimum standard, a sort of confusing "gentlemens rules" to a game that is about killing people. However, I think from my point of view that all this **** should be investigated and it should not be hidden behind "they do bad stuff to us". Hopefully, people will start to understand that there is nothing like a "civilized" way to fight a war, just like there is no intelligent bombs and no justice in a battlefield. If the public opinion turn against the interest of the U.S administration, then there will be a giant leap for mankind and human rights. And I will sleep better at night.

[Marmaduke]

Druid, the accusation of ‘armchair quaterbacks’ is pointless in the extreme and serves no purpose other than to dismiss a justified outrage at the atrocities being committed in Iraq with are ‘who are you to judge, you are not there’ over simplification.
It may come as some surprise that most people here expressing dismay and anger at what took place (and undoubtedly has taken place more often than we are seeing reported) were against the war for just such reasons. If I remember correctly it was the “armchair generals” that rushed into the debate for war knowing full well just what war would entail and safe in the knowledge that they would never have to be the ones to face the consequences.
This, as you rightly point out, is the reality of war, and was the main reason that I was against it- war should always be the method of last resort. That is why international law regards pre-emptive war only when it is absolutely imperative. Instead, the Bush junta sought to attack a country that posed no threat to the US or any other of the coalition forces with a combination of propaganda, deceit and outright lies.
I would not wish, for one moment, to be that soldier in Fallujha, and to have faced a bloody and violent insurgency. There is a world of difference between acting in the heat of the moment, when we might all equally give thanks for not having to make such decisions, and the cold blooded murder of an injured Iraqi. That it was done in front of a camera shows either overwhelming arrogance or stupidity- I suspect the former, and it is just this very ‘gun ho’ attitude that has brought derision on so much of the US forces. No doubt, he was another of the pumped up ‘this is revenge for 911’ warriors that the present administration did so much to encourage. Yet you aim your criticisms at those who would never have put the soldier in the situation in the first place.
I have no illusions about war, and I would be surprised if this is not one among many such incidents, tough it should be added, this by no means represents all of the US forces present in Iraq. They are there on an illegal and immoral pretext and are likely to have to remain there for upwards of a decade- just when do you think the Iraqi people are going to be showering them with Rose petals if ever ? It would have been obvious to most people (including the Military who warned against this very possibility) that any counter attack was most likely to take the form of urban warfare.
It may be the case that this soldier is prosecuted, but how many others will face the same- or will he just be present for the show trial. The abuses in Abu Ghraib pointed to a systematic and widespread failure, possibly as high as the White House, yet not even a single resignation, just a show trial to satiate the US people that it has been properly investigated and justice has been done. If you believe that, you are just as naive as those of us you accuse here.
As Niquie pointed out, this is asymmetric warfare (not the sort Rumsfeld proudly spoke about in his concept of US hegemony) and it is just as abhorrent when innocent civilians are killed, be they Iraqi police or Margaret Hassan, You are also right when you say these people will not be brought to justice, but that does not excuse the US military to behave with equal impunity. I thought we were trying to set something of an example about how a civilised democracy behaves, clearly you would just prefer an ‘anything goes’ approach to war and forget about any international treaties- after all, if this is how they are going to behave, why should it not excuse the occupying forces from acting in the same way ? The point is one of the values we seek to uphold- even when it acts against our own self interest or even against our own self preservation, is that we don’t resort to revenge killing and human rights abuse at the first opportunity. This may all sound terribly high minded in such times- but remember, it is us that precipitated this whole sorry saga- perhaps if there had been some ‘higher mindedness’ prior to the rush to war, we may not have been having to have this debate ?
Unlike some members here, who actually have first hand experience of combat in such circumstances, I have none, and I blame the soldier far less than I blame the Bush Administration for having precipitated this war in the first place and whose own arrogant and self aggrandising attitude has brought such incidents to bear. I would have been most surprised if such an event had not happened for this is the nature of war, it is violent, it is bloody, and the normal rules we apply in everyday life become blurred often beyond all recognition. But it was Bush that brought on this war, it was Bush that sent inadequate troops to quell the insurgency become it reached this flash point, it was Bush that circumvented international law as an ‘inconvenience’ and it is Bush henchmen and women (sitting in their comfortable armchairs) that lied and manipulated evidence to start this war and sought to do so ‘on the cheap’ and the expense of US and civilian lives. That this should have become such a bloody barbarity lies only at their feet. We were warned this would be how the war developed, but the warnings fell on the deaf ears of those who would never have to face the trauma of combat or the consequences of their incompetence.
I am sure that had this war come about through the proper international channels, had it been adequately or even competently planned, then such violations might still occur. Our military represent our society, and there are violent and immoral people in civilian life as much as there are in military life. But at least the objective would have had some moral counterbalance and this could have at least been accepted as a ‘tragedy of war’ and an exception- as it is, with the blanket bombing of Fallujha (so as to minimise coalition deaths as the civilians deaths can go unreported by the military) the taking of the one hospital in the city by Iraqi/US forces and the denial of aid from the Red Crescent begins to look less and less like ‘sound military planning’ and more and more of the sort of Israeli inspired revenge and punishment attacks.
If only for pragmatic reasons (and throwing any notions of ‘morality’ out for the moment) – just what was this supposed to have achieved ? We are told that most of the insurgents had left weeks before the attack (so as not to contaminate Bush’s election chances) and have now spread the insurrection around other cities in Iraq, thus further stretching and already overstretched military. That will lead to more of the same civilian attacks against Iraqi police and foreign workers. It will lead to a greater escalation of violence and bloodshed. What bright spark in the Pentagon felt that the most suitable Iraqi soldiers should be Kurds to attack a Sunni stronghold- didn’t it occur to them what message this might send, or was it simply a case that they could find no other support in Iraq ?
I have no illusions about war, that is why it truly must be a method of last resort. That this attack was so close to Veteran’s day when we remember those who died in the carnage of the two great wars, is mystifying beyond belief. How can we remember the atrocities of the last wars and simultaneously launch into another one ? There is little point remembering those who died to defend the freedoms we enjoy today, if we forget the price that was paid for such freedoms in the first place.
This war was never about the high minded moral concepts of freedom and liberation that echo effortlessly from the Whitehouse, for if it were, the appalling lack of post-war planning would have compelled those responsible to resign in disgrace- that they have not, tell you that their concept of a ‘moral’ and justified war last just about as long as the sound bite it takes to re-iterate this lie.
This is a foreign policy disaster and will haunt us for decades to come. France tried the same in Algeria, and look at that country now. Yet the man can be re-elected with the support of the ‘moral majority’ who espouse such moral sentiments they can safely dispose to others to defend on their behalf.
We are right to be outraged, that there are appalling abuses committed by those who wish to destabilise Iraq, but this does not lessen or cancel our own. We at least had the capability to mitigate and reduce such acts of violent insurrection, and failed to do so, the Iraqi civilians who are dying each day, did not.

[sunsite]

This is a tough one and I'm pressed for time to write a long series of thoughts on this. I was US Navy, but we are commonly attached to marine units to do certain jobs. We sorta provide services the Marines don't handle themselves. I've never been in Urban Combat like this incident took place in. But it is gutter fighting kill and be killed. It does not get any uglier for an individual soldier than this. I saw the tape, there was not one excuse for this clear act of murder. What you saw is a war crime, no matter which side did it. Imagine how many Americans would survive being captured now! I for one am sick of excuses. Prisoners being shot in the head and some of you think it's fine, okay? Well, you are mental, sick and truely nazis of the worst sort. Anyone shooting prisoners is a war criminal, killing in action all the enemy is fine by me it's kill or be killed. If anyone of you believes what you saw on tape was okay, you are too sick in the head for me to even talk too. What is your problem? How did we get into this war and WHY are we in it? How many do you propose to kill in order to own the Iraqi oil? Oh, well, who cares right, because you won't be wearing a uniform anytime soon. Let somebody else fight and die, you'll cheer for 'em anyways. I know all soldiers appreciate your contribution. I won't bother you with anymore thoughts on the subject. A few of you stike me as very sick individuals, as bad as the people you think we are fighting in Iraq.
sunsite

[sunsite]

I could add that, what benefit was there in this act? Show me one! We have only given ammunition to our enemies who will see this and say "Kill all Americans"! You bet that's what they are saying and if we get ahold of any American, he is dead. The act was selfish and crazy and threatens our troops and people more than killing one enemy benefited our troops. The Marine who pulled the trigger let down our troops, even if he is one. And am I surprised this happened, not one bit. Because once the killing starts, it is hard to control it. And i personaly know born killers who went into the military in hopes of being able to kill, ask any vet, we all know a few like that. Hell, I knew a few of our own men I was scared to death of. We need to keep within the international rules of war, or we also give up those protections for our own troops, and we don't want to do that. Supporters of this act, need a psyc evaluation, and I MEAN it!
sunsite

[Cowshoes]

Even if the killing was unjustified, it didn't appear to be premeditated. Given the number of non-combatants the insurgents have intentionally and premeditatedly murdered, why would a captured Marine expect to be treated any differently? I think that's why the Marines use such overwhelming force when attacking the relatively few insurgents in Falluja who are still resisting.

I agree though. Instead of the the insurgents wanting to kill all Americans, now they will really, really, REALLY want to kill all Americans.