US Army Probes POW Abuse - Video

[Infanteer]

Stupid act by a few retards who will hang for it. Need it go further? Marauder is right on two counts.

First, Americans are not filling large pits with thousands of Iraqis, so how the h**l do people come off comparing the United States with Hussein‘s regime. Anyone in the Canadian military knows how unfair it is to get painted with a broad brush for MCpl Matchee‘s acts, so why do the same to the hundreds of thousands of US GI‘s who have performed their duties honourably?

Second, big boy games call for big boy rules. "Moral highground" my ***.

I swear some of you would march into Al-Sadr City with a Maple Leaf sticker on your forehead trying to shake hands with every member of the Mahdi Army while giving them a CFPSA backpack, a jar of maple syrup, and a card from some grade 5 student in Kenora, Ontario, declaring victory because you won their "hearts and minds"; oblivious to the fact that your about to get an RPG up the *** from a guy who sees you, McDonalds, and American Idol as the antipathy of his existance. Good luck.

If you want to think like that, be my guest. While you do that others will continue to seek victory on OUR terms.

 

[xFusilier]

Grab them by the balls, and their black hearts and medival minds will follow

Anyone want to guess the name of the last guy that had that policy in Iraq? This is the key point that the coalition needs to absorb - you‘re not as big or as bad as the Muhabarat so you better come up with a better means of convincing people in Iraq to do what you want.

All in all its a great slogan to be put on a T-Shirt and sold on the back pages of Soldier of Fortune Magazine but bears little import to the situation in Iraq today.

 

[Infanteer]

All in all its a great slogan to be put on a T-Shirt and sold on the back pages of Soldier of Fortune Magazine but bears little import to the situation in Iraq today.

It is when certain factions decide they want to take over cities and shoot up US forces as they see fit.

I see a lot of criticism of the current course of action here but no solutions being offered up. Kinda along the lines of:
"Baghdad will be a bloodbath..."
"The vaunted Republican Gaurd has deployed..."
"Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires..."

 

[Kirkhill]

The only thing for sure about Iraq is that it is going to take a long time to turn it into a democracy.

It is worth doing.

And in the 20 to 50 years it is going to take to do it at least one of the 2-300,000 foreigners and 30,000,000 locals is going to do something to upset the rest of us.

This specific incident couldn‘t necessarily have been predicted but something was likely to happen.

The perpetrators need to be punished, as do the people in their chain of command where they issued orders or turned a blind eye.

But unless we and the Americans and the UN figure out how to handle these situations to the satisfaction of ALL concerned, Iraqis and Yanks and Brits and Canucks then we can all forget the high-flown phrases about nation-building and responsibility to protect etc. And those of you youngsters planning on a career in the military can get used to doing sledge patrols to Alert instead of heading off to Afghanistan and Haiti.


It is not that bad things do or do not happen. Its how you deal with them.

 

[xFusilier]

The only solution is to go and depose the leaders of the various factions in Iraq, that have sprung up as a result of the Coalition allowing the power vacum created by the fall of the Ba‘athist regime to be filled.

Unfortunately this course of action will necessitate the deaths of a number of coalition soldiers. However, the activities that occured in Falluja are NOT the way you go about dealing with insurgency. Which is to say "We‘re going to clean out Falluja" and then stop and negotiate which indicates lack of strength and purpose in the minds of the opposition. As a result Falluja has already been deemed to be a sucess in the eyes of the Ba‘athist resitance after all they have:

a. Driven US forces to the periphery of the city
b. Caused the US to depart from their conerstorne policy of "de-Ba‘athification"; and
c. Forced the US on several occasions to declare "unilateral" ceasfires.

You‘re dealing with a group of peope who you say "they got the **** kicked out of them" will say "we won a phyrric victory", so any intervention to remove the leaders of factions who are opposed to the occupation had best leave no doubt as to who was left controlling things at the end.

 

[Kirkhill]

xFusilier

Do we have to depose them all or could we not co-opt some?

Some folks over there probably will only be convinced when they are dead.

But many of the others, like Saddam himself, when backed into a corner could probably be brought on-side. You just have to hold the knife to his throat and let him know you are quite comfortable with using it. You don‘t have to slip it in.

I believe Moqtada-al-Sadr is in that group. He is playing for two or three things: fame, power and to stay out of jail. Give him his fame, give him limited power and finesse the fact that he is probably a murderer... he wouldn‘t be the first politician with a suspect past.

Let him have a political party. Let him keep his militia. Give them all uniforms, equip them, train them, give them a cap-badge and regimental quiffs, have al-Sadr swear allegiance to an Iraqi government and then hold him personally accountable for their actions.

If you take a look at many of your affiliated regiments you will find that this is how they got their starts in life, most of the Scots regiments have served many masters in their history. The Coldstreams and some of the other English regiments were raised in defiance of the King. The Ghurkhas were raised under similar circumstances as were Sikh and Punjabi regiments and more recently tribal Firqats in either Aden or Oman. I can‘t remember which. It is a method with a proven track record.

The alternative is to kill him, turn him into a martyr not only to all those 17 year olds who currently adore him but also to a bunch of 41 year olds that just want to feed their kids.

Beware the revenge of the middle-aged....

And you are right about Fallujah, definitely not the way to go.

I forget where I saw it recently but there was some comment about al-Sadr‘s militiamen starting to run scared in Najaf because they are starting to quietly die. They no longer walk the streets alone, they no longer wear their "uniforms" of black clothes and bandanas. Posters have started to appear with a picture of a sword "beware of al-Tulfiqa(???spelling???)" kind of like a shiite version of Excalibur. The finger is currently being pointed at al-Sistani‘s militia, the Badr Brigade (that is in line to get a cap-badge)that agreed to work with the coalition and also that did not oppose the entry of al-Sadr‘s militia. They seem to be adopting a softer approach.

Kind of like kicking mud. The mud doesn‘t move and after a couple of kicks there is so much mud stuck to you that you can‘t move either.

An old line from someplace else, "softly, softly chatchee monkey". Time, patience and a firm goal.

 

[Kirkhill]

Just checked, the Firqats were company sized tribal militias employed during the Dhofar campaign in Oman in the 70‘s.

Interestingly the troops they worked with to suppress their fellow muslimns were mercenaries from Baluchistan and Brit advisers

Baluchistan is a country that encompasses the desert region south of Kandahar and Quetta, its people are split between, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan where most of the landmass is - to my understanding this in Taliban country these days.

Baluchis, like the Ghurkhas, the Sikhs and the Punjabis all served in the Indian Army under British Command in Burma and elsewhere despite a cordial dislike for each other.

To pinch a line from a popular song "What‘s love got to do with it...."

 

[Goober]

I read all these posts, and I actually was surprised to see some people defend the torture.

 

[Padraig OCinnead]

I think you read wrong. No one defended the torture. It was wrong. Simply wrong. If things work out, those people will be punished accordingly. I hope. It‘s wrong if the tortured souls were just "Joe lunch box Iraqui" fighting for what he believes is a just cause(freedom, oppression, etc) just as it would be wrong if they were terrorist. You don‘t torture people. It‘s not conducive to good relations with others.

48thHighlander mentioned "And lastly, if you‘ll recall, Iraqis had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. So I‘m really not sure what the **** you‘re going on about."
You are right. As far as I know they had no link to those folks who were responsible for the attacks. But there are many reports that a rising number of insurgents in Iraq are not even Iraqui. They are foreign nationals who have crossed into Iraq to have a go at the Coalition. The same people that we are fighting in Afghanistan. We are at war with terrorists. I don‘t care where we get them. Iraq seems to be much more than it is. If they keep funneling into there to fight the Coalition and keep dying there so be it.

And as for the creative and colourful terms I used last night, well I let my desire to be Ernie Pyle get the better of me. I could‘v easily used "bad guys" or "stinky face"

 

[Kirkhill]

If they keep funneling into there to fight the Coalition and keep dying there so be it.

Not a bad thing. Too bad it has to happen in Joe Iraqi‘s streets while his kids are trying to go to school.

 

[xFusilier]

Kirkhill;

I dont think you need to kill the leaders of the insurgency in Iraq, you need to remove them from influencing events within the country. Ideally be not martyring them.

With reference to the suggestion that the US adopt a course of action similiar to that of the British in India belies two very important differences between then and now:

1. The British often had more respect for those that resisted them than those that they had subjugated; and

2. The British were able to rule such a massive empire with a small army because they convinced those peoples that they colonized of the superiority of being British.

Neither of these are the case in Iraq with reference to the Americans.

On a different tangent but on the same topic, I found it very interesting to watch the exchange between Sen. McCain and Rumsfeld. It was quite obvious that McCain, having been through torture as a POW, was having a great deal of difficulty with this entire issue. It was enlightening to watch McCain tear Rumsfeld a new one when he tried to give a non-answer.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I find it hard to believe the president didn‘t know what was going on. Not to start a conspiricy here but i could see rimsfeld taking one for the team and covering for the boss. I mean who hasv‘t covered for a boss in the past? Especially when you know your going to get taken care of for your troubles.

 

[Kirkhill]

xFusilier

Your point on respect is well-taken.

But do you think that part of the case might just be that the Brits had come from more rough-and-tumble existences?

Not thinking so much about the Victorian period, where they essentially consolidated their position and were "self-assuredly" convinced of their superiority, right or wrong (In some respects my forebears gave the impression of being blind to race because they treated all-races equally, black or white, everybody on the other side of the Channel was equal. They weren‘t British ).

No. More the Georgian period when they were establishing position in India and North America.
They were still putting down insurrections in the Borders, the North of England, Scotland and Ireland. They were used to dealing with "savages in outlandish dress (us Scots)" and had long ago recognized the need to come to accomodations with the people that had the power to establish order.

Democracy didn‘t enter into it. Accomodation backed by the judicious use of force to establish Order, then Good Governance backed by the threat of force to maintain the Peace.

In fact going back to the Victorians, I think a case could be made that many of the times the Army was called out it was in response to some incident derived from somebody trying to "improve" the natives.

The Americans, we Canadians as well for that matter, and much of the current population of the West has had such a long run of peace that the value of pragmatism seems to have been forgotten.

Our children and our politicians have had the luxury of pursuing Idealisms secure from the consequences of confronting others who VIOLENTLY disagree with them.

This streak of Idealism seems to be especially true in the American forces.

Could that not be a deterent to coming to an end-state?

 

[devil39]

For Marauder. I think Victor Davis Hanson must be reading your posts.


However Hanson, being a Professor of Classics, Military Historian and an intellectual (not that Marauder isn‘t), has wrapped up much of Marauder‘s argument in a larger, but very interesting package.

Worth the read if you have the time.

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200405070832.asp

 

[Spr.Earl]

So now they have Videos!!!!
It‘s dark day in Dodge!!!

As to Englund,she deserves what she gets.
She has gone against the Code Of Discipline that she swore to observe and obey.

 

[xFusilier]

But do you think that part of the case might just be that the Brits had come from more rough-and-tumble existences?

Oh most likely, look at the way public schools were run in the day.

No. More the Georgian period when they were establishing position in India and North America.
They were still putting down insurrections in the Borders, the North of England, Scotland and Ireland. They were used to dealing with "savages in outlandish dress (us Scots)" and had long ago recognized the need to come to accomodations with the people that had the power to establish order.

I would argue that it was still based on convincing the "savages" about the superiority of being "british" namely the Thin Red Line, the Brown Bess musket and the ability to fire three rounds a minute.

Democracy didn‘t enter into it. Accomodation backed by the judicious use of force to establish Order, then Good Governance backed by the threat of force to maintain the Peace

Certainly, and I would argue that the average Iraqi probably doesn‘t care about "democracy" they would be happy with "peace, order, and good government." In fact I remeber an arguement made in the pre-war period when it was argued in the Guardian or the Independant that the best way to bring this about was by appointing a King.

This streak of Idealism seems to be especially true in the American forces

Kirkhill you are for more generous than I am, in some cases it has surpassed idealism and manifested into full on jingoism.

Regardless, the only way that Iraqis are going to cooperate with the occupation is if the colation can tangibly demonstrate the improvment of quality of life in Iraq, thus challenging the notions of the leaders in Iraq that the Americans are a hinderence to them realizing there potential.

 

[smoky]

I agree the only way Iraquis are going to laydown there arms and say "lets all be friends" is if the americans and brits can show them a better life than saddam hussein once did, if they cant do that than its kind of like why and what the **** did you come here??

seeing first hand whats been happeing there since i just got back from the region,
i can only say this,

they are no stranger to torture, hunger, brutalilty, discrimination, and all the other bad things, SADDAM was not a niceman,
however as one iraqi put it to me we would rather be ill treated by someone of our own kind than a foriegner.

torturing is wrong, and i highly doubt bush or rumsfeild ordered it as much as i dislike them both, we have to remember that these were acts of few of the 135 000 soldiers, charge them convict them and lets move on to helping these people that is why we are there no?
being a western/arab and having spent time all over that part of the world and this part i would like to quote an arab leader " arabs are like an unruly camel"
in other words you get on there goodside and your in, bad side and well..... both sides suffer.


SADDAM had nothing to do with 9/11 forien fighters in iraq didnt go there till the US and Britian got there and some Iraqis not all welcomed them, "my friends enemy is my enemy, my enemy‘s enemy is my friend", by joining forces with there other arab "mujahedene" from syria,lebanon, jordon,saudi and so on and on
they have done exactly what there own enemy has done
formed a coalition with a common goal.

sorry for spelling and grammar mistakes
Keyboard isnt working well and i need some sleep.

 

[Kirkhill]

xFusilier

I find myself agreeing with you on all points


Oh well..

 

[xFusilier]

Well doesnt that just take all the fun out of arguing.