tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post439350405952591358..comments2023-10-30T06:31:05.501-07:00Comments on MilPub: The Current Crisis in US CounterinsurgencyFDChiefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-11365782718671034012010-02-28T17:53:42.296-08:002010-02-28T17:53:42.296-08:00A story of interest both on this thread, and perha...A story of interest both on this thread, and perhaps as fodder for a new thread...<br /><br />Washington Post --<br /><br />February 28, 2010 <br /><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/27/AR2010022703754.html" rel="nofollow">COMBAT GENERATION: DRONE OPERATORS CLIMB ON WINDS OF CHANGE IN THE AIR FORCE</a><br />by Greg JaffeCharles Gittingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14669296162762355112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-56946912261046327932010-02-21T10:27:10.588-08:002010-02-21T10:27:10.588-08:00Charlie,
That's correct ,there was a whole lot...Charlie,<br />That's correct ,there was a whole lotta collateral damage, and without the Constitution that could happen with impunity.<br />It must've seemed like a good idea to somebody OR it would not have happened.<br />jimjim at rangerhttp://rangeragainstwar.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-32224024410226968312010-02-21T10:11:46.665-08:002010-02-21T10:11:46.665-08:00bg,
I think we've pretty much covered things,...bg,<br /><br />I think we've pretty much covered things, but I'll say this...<br /><br />Some things are black and white, including murdering civilians and waging war for no rational purpose.<br /><br />Criminals are just criminals. The Iraqis and Afghans are fighting against foreign invaders who have no business being in their nations and are murdering their people. We're the criminals, not them. There is no excuse for this nonsense.<br /><br />*<br /><br />And I've enjoyed the discussion too.Charles Gittingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14669296162762355112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-30319677732359448932010-02-21T09:07:30.768-08:002010-02-21T09:07:30.768-08:00Jim,
I remember that. As I recall, they wound up ...Jim,<br /><br />I remember that. As I recall, they wound up burning down an entire city block and caught holy hell for it.Charles Gittingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14669296162762355112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-28555616334420446742010-02-21T08:21:20.943-08:002010-02-21T08:21:20.943-08:00Charlie,
Back in the 80's the Philadelphia Pol...Charlie,<br />Back in the 80's the Philadelphia Police did lower an explosive charge into a house to blow out the perps ,and this did not play well in Peoria OR anyplace else,BUT we're allowed to do it in sandbox scenarios with no sweat.<br />It's no good in conus,but ok in AFGH.<br />jimjim at rangerhttp://rangeragainstwar.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-48011256716083255022010-02-21T07:42:32.954-08:002010-02-21T07:42:32.954-08:00Charly, just want to add, thanks for taking the ti...Charly, just want to add, thanks for taking the time and entertaining my questions/comments. Your patience and time is greatly appreciated.bgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-79117217897643240172010-02-21T07:41:13.499-08:002010-02-21T07:41:13.499-08:00Ok, agreed, we won't drop GBU's on crimina...Ok, agreed, we won't drop GBU's on criminal suspects in the US. Your logic is sound, if there were no US troops in Iraq/AFG, they wouldn't get shot at. But the reality is there are troops there, for right or for wrong. The commander's don't make that decision. The decision they make is whether or not to carry out orders and capture bad guys. And when they decided to do that, they must then decide how to capture the bad guys. When you do the numbers, let's compare the probability of a criminal in the US setting up an ambush with the "Suicide by cop" intent compared to the probability of the same in Iraq/Afg. A total SWAG, but I bet the percentage of US criminals fighting back with deadly weapons to be in the less the 1% category, while in Iraq in Afg it is probably closer to 25%. In risk management, that is the probability of the hazard, and the overall risk is based on the combination of the probability and the severity of the hazard. A typical criminal in the US might have a pistol and little training or preparation for a full SWAT assault. In Iraq/Afg, the criminal has machine guns, explosives and are highly experienced and trained. We aren't comparing apples to apples. <br /><br />And let's look at what the US law enforcement does do when they confront a high probability of attack scenario. David Koresh ring any bells? It wasn't a bombing, but it wasn't exactly surgical either. Makes you wonder if LE would use more helicopter gunships if they had them. Law enforcement agencies in Colombia who do have access to gunships and bombers use them frequently, not saying that is right, but we often see that when someone has a capability, they use it. I will bet you the farm if US LE had that capability and authority, they would use it at one point if they did the same math as the military does and encounters a similar situation. <br /><br />Again, don't get me wrong, I personally feel that 98% of the time, dropping a JDAM is the wrong thing to do. But, there are cases when it can be justified. As you say, it becomes a risk vs. gain , cost vs benefit argument. If we can agree that there are cases where it is justified, than I think we can come up decision criteria. I feel like you are taking a black and white stand, and I have a hard time accepting black and white arguments. My study of philosophy and ethics is seriously lacking, but am I wrong in saying that right and wrong is relative and therefore clearly defined right and wrong in black and white terms is not always possible or feasible?bgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-4445446963303425482010-02-21T06:40:27.434-08:002010-02-21T06:40:27.434-08:00bg,
Every year a number of police officers are ki...bg,<br /><br />Every year a number of police officers are killed in the line of duty too... <br /><br />But we still don't drop GBU's on criminal suspects. No one in Iraq or Afghanistan would be shooting at US soldiers if there weren't any US soldiers there to shoot at, and both operations are all costs and no benefits -- do the math.Charles Gittingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14669296162762355112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-29992652489214715852010-02-21T05:16:22.262-08:002010-02-21T05:16:22.262-08:00bg,
Well the focus of the story is on DOJ, but Do...bg,<br /><br />Well the focus of the story is on DOJ, but DoD had a prominent role in the big picture.<br /><br />David Addington has been working with / for Dick Cheney since Cheney was in Congress. During the Bush I administration and the first Iraq War, Cheney was SecDef and Addington was the DoD General Counsel. In the Bush II administration Addington was Counsel to the VP, and after Scooter Libby was convicted, Cheney's Chief of Staff. Starting right after 911 Addington headed a working group that included Yoo, Jim Haynes (the DoD General Counsel, and a friend of Addington's), and John Rizzo from CIA.<br /><br />Addington was running legal policy for Cheney from start to finish. Yoo wrote the memos at OLC until he left DOJ, Haynes and Rizzo operationalized things at their respective agencies. Addington's style is to keep and ultra low profile and work in the shadows.Charles Gittingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14669296162762355112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-35537386709217406792010-02-21T04:50:09.682-08:002010-02-21T04:50:09.682-08:00Interesting in the article about Yoo, no mention o...Interesting in the article about Yoo, no mention of DoD lawyers. Although DoD enabled actions by DoJ and CIA, DoD never allowed such actions to be conducted by DoD members. This helps to explain the disconnect between what I experienced in regards to detentions and interrogations and what other agencies are being accused of doing. Often when you and others talked about this crimes, I was dumbstruck because I couldn't imagine them happening based on the DoD rules.<br /><br />Have there ever been official responses to any of your articles? Has there ever been any interest from investigative media?bgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-17253108483632957752010-02-21T04:49:57.095-08:002010-02-21T04:49:57.095-08:00Good points, it is hard to argue for the justifica...Good points, it is hard to argue for the justification for part of an operation when the entire operation isn't justified. It weakens what arguments I try to make. The best I can do is try to help you understand my perspective (so you can better tear it apart, I suppose, but that is why I am here, so go at it). <br /><br />I really wish I took more logic and philosophy in college. I went about college all wrong, it was just another stepping stone on the path of life for me, just another part of my advancement. I went to a large local college because it was economical and close to home, I really wish I went to a smaller, better school. I really miss the academic environment, and when I return one day, I look forward to taking the classics such as philosophy and logic, two things that as a brash 21 year old I thought were completely irrelevant subjects. If my discussions with you and others on this site have taught me anything, it is the value of such academic pursuits. One day I will have time, but until then, this is as close to school as I get.<br /><br />Comments about the accidental killing of a civilian: Is the decision maker aware of the presence of the little girl? Not likely, our intel is not perfect, although for what it is worth, observed children is a "no go" criteria for kinetic ops (bombings). Not an excuse, just a fact. And no, we don't bomb criminals in the US, but occasionally they do fight back. One of the deciding factors in bombing a target is the expectation of a fight. With Zarqawi, and many others, we fully expect that if we try to take them alive with ground/police forces, there will be a firefight that will very likely result in the death of the target and a high risk of a death to the friendly forces. I was involved in a firefight in Ramadi back in Sep 2003 when we tried to detain two suspected AQ fighters from Egypt and Chechnya. Our team rolled up in their vehicles, approached the front door with the intent to detain them (called a "cordon and knock"), and the resulting fire fight (which the other guys initiated) resulted in 2 of our guys killed, several wounded, and both suspects were killed as we defended ourselves. (This was the first time anyone from my own unit, someone who I knew, was killed, thus this event had an impact on my thinking). As our intel suggested, they were international jihadists with plane tickets in their pants from Tbilisi, Georgia (which likely means they came from Chechnya), among other evidence.<br /><br />Over the years, we've lost of a lot of good people going onto objectives with bad guys that we had a great deal of evidence against, and when we arrived to detain them, the suspects chose fighting over being captured. <br /><br />I have no delusions, it is likely our treatment of detainees and the lack of a justice system that led to the fact that the suspects preferred to fight than be captured. But that is outside of our control. In Iraq, after Abu Gurayb, firefights during detentions went down significantly because Iraqis had a greater expectation that they would be "caught and released" which was often the case. However, the really, really bad guys who wanted to be martyred, well, they always fought back. Therefore, when a fight is expected, and there are no visible civilians on the objective, dropping a bomb is preferred. Not trying to rationalize it, but just explaining to you the thought process so you can further understand the dilemma from my perspective.bgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-6317970879967821682010-02-20T14:25:54.639-08:002010-02-20T14:25:54.639-08:00bg,
So back to cases. First, the facts about Pat ...bg,<br /><br />So back to cases. First, the facts about Pat Tillman came out because he was Pat Tillman. We have no way of knowing how many lies haven't come out or have been buried under layers of cover-ups and classifications. All I know is that I've seen enough from the unlawful detentions, torture scandals, the phony justifications for these two criminal "wars", and all the fraudulent legal memos cooked up to provide CYA for those criminal enterprises, to know that it's all nothing BUT lies -- and that of all the liars involved, DoD lies more than most.<br /><br />And here you're lying to me just by stating your honest view of the facts, because you've been indoctrinated into a false paradigm: you're like Alice in Wonderland, stuck in an endless array of tautologies and nonsense.<br /><br />So you weren't there yourself, yet you know enough from your friends (which you can't tell me about because it's all classified for precisely the reason that the brass doesn't want any public scrutiny) to assure me that it really was necessary to drop that GBU on an eight year-old girl and her mom in order to kill her daddy. And while I'm perfectly willing to accept that the facts are as you say, there is still a fatal flaw in your reasoning -- there simply isn't ANY set of facts that would justify dropping a GBU on an eight-year-old girl.<br /><br />The problem here isn't the facts, it's the paradigm. You think this idiotic crime spree is a "war", and I know it's just an illegal, pointless occupation of a country too weak to defend itself from our wanton, murderous aggression. The war -- which was nothing but a crime against peace based on false pretenses from the start -- ended after 34 days, remember?<br /><br />This is an occupation, and the only legitimate function the US occupation forces have is essentially law enforcement. This idiotic "war" is no more a real war than the war on drugs or a Mafia gang war -- and the most murderous gang of criminals in this particular gang war is the US military. Do we drop GBU's on criminal suspects in New York or Los Angeles?<br /><br />No, we don't. Fortunately, for the time being at least, our police departments don't consider the lives of American children to be disposable in the way the US Army regards the lives of Iraqi and Afghan children. To claim such a thing was necessary is plainly fallacious.<br /><br />Just yesterday, DOJ finally released the report of its Office of Professional Responsibility re the drafting of the torture memos by Yoo and Bybee et al. It's nothing but an elaborate cover-up, and indeed, an overt criminal act intended to aid and abet war crimes in and of itself. Words cannot adequately describe my contempt for criminals like Dick Cheney, David Addington, John Yoo, Jim Haynes, Jay Bybee, Donald Rumsfeld, and Michael Mukasey, etc. We need to prosecute and convict ALL of them.<br /><br />See, e.g.:<br /><br />Newsweek --<br /><br />February 20, 2010 <br /><a href="http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/02/19/report-bush-lawyer-said-president-could-order-civilians-to-be-massacred.aspx" rel="nofollow">YOO SAID BUSH COULD ORDER CIVILIANS 'MASSACRED'</a><br />by Michael IsikoffCharles Gittingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14669296162762355112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-39923243701338194552010-02-20T09:14:20.523-08:002010-02-20T09:14:20.523-08:00bg,
Oh man. Have I studied language?
Not in the ...bg,<br /><br />Oh man. Have I studied language?<br /><br />Not in the exact sense you mean. Oh, I took a semester of Spanish in high school and one of French in college, but wasn't interested in either and dropped both.<br /><br />But I've been studying logic one way or another almost as long as I've studied military history, and as Wittgenstein said, "The world is everything that is the case," meaning the sum of all propositions which are demonstrably true. Everything else is speculation, fallacy, or nonsense.<br /><br />I began with ancient Greek and Chinese philosophy. Then I decided to be a Chess-player when I was 16 and spent a couple of years at it. Then I switched to Bridge, which is a game that has an algorithmic aspect like Chess, but also has a strong linguistic aspect in the form of bidding systems, which are used to exchange information about your cards with your partner during the auction in order to decide what contract to play, and also defensive card signals, which are used to exchange information during the play of the hand. The a friend got me an opportunity to learn computer programming, and it turned out that being an expert Chess player and a master Bridge player was pretty much the equivalent of masters in computer science. Systems analysis doesn't just involve computer languages, it also includes the rules and regulations that govern the use of the system by the users. My philosophical studies since 1987 have included extensive study of Kant, Wittgenstein, and modern linguistics, etc.<br /><br />And I've spent the last eight years investigating the United States government for war crimes, using linguistic analysis of their public statements and documents as my primary investigative technique, starting with the PMO on 2001.11.13. That includes more time studying law than it takes to get through law school, all of it focused on the specific issues of the investigation. You can read much of my analysis right here: <br /><br /><a href="http://pegc.us/articles.html" rel="nofollow">http://pegc.us/articles.html</a><br /><br />And it's all pretty much in plain English. So much for my education. I have more to say, but need to take a break.Charles Gittingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14669296162762355112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-56439619259365659852010-02-20T04:22:58.132-08:002010-02-20T04:22:58.132-08:00But Charly, the Pat Tillman lie came out, just lik...But Charly, the Pat Tillman lie came out, just like they all do. Don't assume that the DoD or the US government can keep a secret about bad things or conspiracies, those secrets are never kept, never. They always come out eventually. <br /><br />You can believe me about the Zarqawi thing because it isn't the Army telling you this, it is me. I was not there, but many of my close friends were directly involved and I know the full, unreleased story from those who executed the op, and based upon my three tours in Iraq, everything they said made perfect sense. But, that is just one instance, not worth arguing about. I still feel that Zarqawi was a bad guy we created and of no real value except what we placed on him. <br /><br />But, I believe and agree with you on all other comments. I don't consider 911 attackers or plotters monsters or evil. In my mind, they did what they thought was right. Just as I have always done what I thought was right. As unacceptable as it all is, I chalk it all up to human fallacy and accept it as a reality in the world. What I respect about you so much is your ability to reject this reality. Perhaps one day I will be in a position where it is feasible for me to do the same. <br /><br />Charly, have you studied a language? I don't want to make a big deal of this point, but I just want to remind you that nothing is "perfectly obvious" to a casual observer. I again respect the fact that you have studied the military all your life, but surely you recognize that academic studying and knowledge will never make one fluent, just like a language. You can study books all the time and know the semantics and vocab of a language, but unless you are immersed in the language, and more importantly, the living culture of that language, your assumptions will always be suspect and skewed. I see this all the time with my linguists, they are as good as non native speakers get through academic study and some immersion, but they make wrong transcriptions because they base it on their academic knowledge, and a native who has lived the culture points out the error.bgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-25269511598962108502010-02-19T06:57:26.657-08:002010-02-19T06:57:26.657-08:00bg,
I can believe that you sincerely believe what...bg,<br /><br />I can believe that you sincerely believe what you're saying, but the fact remains: <br /><br />I don't believe you, and I don't believe the US Army because I've heard them lie too many times about crap like this, Pat Tillman for example.<br /><br />You say it couldn't be done, yet you describe a situation where it's completely obvious that it could have been done, except somebody decided doing his job was too difficult or risky, ergo, time for some CYA. It's just so easy to kill them all and let god sort them. If you asked me to authorize that air-strike, what you'd get is an order to unload your weapons, fix bayonets, and either take the place by assault without firing a shot or die trying.<br /><br />And it *IS* a law enforcement situation to whatever extent you might have a colorable claim to be doing anything legitimate, but you really can't claim any such thing. The bottom line for me is simple: NOTHING the US has done in Iraq from start to current lingering fiasco is worth the life of that one little girl. We are war criminals; she is one of the countless innocent victims of our crimes. The same is true of Afghanistan since the success / failure of the initial invasion. <br /><br />Military operations are supposed to have a rational, lawful purpose. Ours don't, as we have discussed previously. Afghanistan and Iraq are purely for political expedience, both are a disgraceful waste of resources, and both have accomplished nothing but make a bad situation worse.<br /><br />And see my last comment on Seylitz' recent thread: the lives of the children in Iraq and Afghanistan are more important than your career. Worse, if what we're doing in those places is legitimate, then 911 was also legitimate -- and a whole lot more effective. Do you really suppose these people don't have a right to defend themselves from our endless aggression and interference?<br /><br />Omar Khadr is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of all this idiocy. The kid is fifteen years old, and he's in a house that's hit with an air-strike. Our troops then enter the house shooting the wounded as they go, Omar being shot twice in the back. And now we're charging him with murder for a grenade attack that he was obviously in no shape to make, and which would only be an act of self-defense even if he did make it. Fraticide seems a much more likely explanation to me.Charles Gittingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14669296162762355112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-89673207695803039312010-02-19T04:52:05.978-08:002010-02-19T04:52:05.978-08:00Charly, re: Zarqawi, no, we did not have adequate ...Charly, re: Zarqawi, no, we did not have adequate forces to surround the area. We had a small handful of troops in hide sites with "eyes on key enablers", the rest of the force was miles away in helicopters/trucks. Believe it or not, surrounding a farm in Iraq is actually very hard to do, partly because your cordon forces are spotted so early there is lots of time to escape. Hard to explain it to you fully, but often times we don't actually see him, but we know he is there. Once you upset the situation with ground troops, they scatter and you no longer know where (or who) your target is. Sorry for being cryptic, trust me, if it was as simple as a capture, it would have been done, we tried. A capture is worth a lot more than a kill due to intelligence value. When you bomb a house, not only do you kill the people, but often you incinerate much of the evidence against them and the valuable intelligence. And bombing also comes at great risk from a public relations stand point, so it is NEVER the preferred option. <br /><br />But again, from an ethical perspective, is killing Zarqawi's wife and child any different from killing Hitler's family and house staff in an assassination attempt? If we define the difference as a war vs. a law enforcement issue, I agree. But Iraq wasn't treated as an LE, despite what the fact that we really believe it should have been. <br /><br />I want to comment on the Judgement later, thanks for the link.bgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-16295175260039036242010-02-17T10:45:11.124-08:002010-02-17T10:45:11.124-08:00bg,
As for the military, I never been in myself b...bg,<br /><br />As for the military, I never been in myself but I've been studying military history seriously since age nine. I think military people are just like every body else. Most perform within the limits of basic competence and try to do their job without getting themselves or their buddies or their subordinates killed. Some are fools or cowards who have no business being responsible for anything, and some are psychopaths or martinets who are a danger to everyone around them. T'was ever thus -- the Greeks and Romans were just the same.<br /><br />But organizations and cultures go through cycles, and we are clearly in a down-swing that got massively worse under the subversion of the Bush-Cheney gang. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR BEHAVING LIKE NAZIS, AND THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR GOING ALONG WITH SUCH PEOPLE.<br /><br />And I'd suggest you read the <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/judcont.asp" rel="nofollow">JUDGMENT</a> of the Nuremberg Tribunal from start to finish.Charles Gittingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14669296162762355112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-69394918097161330412010-02-17T10:15:49.295-08:002010-02-17T10:15:49.295-08:00bg,
My understanding is that his wife and 8-year ...bg,<br /><br />My understanding is that his wife and 8-year old daughter were killed. It is also my understanding that we had adequate forces on hand to completely surround the location and take him prisoner or at least allow the civilians an opportunity to get out.Charles Gittingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14669296162762355112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-76379128453006898362010-02-17T09:58:16.209-08:002010-02-17T09:58:16.209-08:00Charly,
From an ethical perspective, or a rules o...Charly,<br /><br />From an ethical perspective, or a rules of warfare perspective, is there a difference between bombing Zarqawi and killing his closest associates (I suppose since none of them were uniformed, they were all civilians, Zarqawi included) and between an attempt to assassinate Hitler which might have resulted in Eva Braun and house staff getting killed? Please, I know that Zarqawi is hardly Hitler, he was a bad guy that we created so that we could have a "face" on our enemy, but without getting hung up on that piece of the analogy, what do you say? <br /><br />I guess the reason I often believe what is put in the press by the Army is because in my experience, I've never seen anything put out in the press that was absolutely untrue that wasn't revealed as a lie by a whistle blower. I heard about Abu Gurayb in Oct 03, and was warned to stay away from there because bad stuff was happening. A few months later, it broke in the news. One fact I don't think you can dispute is that the military tends to receive very idealistic people. You many have 95% who salute and drive on regardless of what happens, but in just about every situation, you will find someone who will do what they consider right, regardless of the consequences. And that includes leaking classified information and whistle blowing. I've seen it many times, and for that reason I know that covering up bad things doesn't work. Well, we have a saying, "bad news doesn't get better over time, it just smells worse." <br /><br />As far as the dilemma, I know you understand it. I fully understand legal vs. illegal orders, and my duties when I receive and illegal order. But, the dilemma remains, should we reasonably expect a military member, senior leader or junior soldier, to question an order that is considered "legal" by the highest levels of our government, and every lawyer in between the POTUS and your local JAG?bgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-56518519668925370172010-02-17T09:52:57.187-08:002010-02-17T09:52:57.187-08:00Charlie,
I think the that the military mind just d...Charlie,<br />I think the that the military mind just doesn't get what you are saying b/c we are a nuclear power that can blow away the entire world if we so desired. <br />Literally.<br />So who can sweat the small stuff? What me worry?<br />We ended the cold war which was based on the premise that we would light up Europe like a Christmas tree simply to defend it from the nasty commies.<br /> We destroy villages to protect them, and of course some asshole Officer then tells us that the Taliban forced this action b/c they used the civilians as shields. And this makes everything good,forget the dead bodies just littering the landscape.Oops-xin loi.<br />In Nuclear Weapons Employment Training in the 70's it was OFFICIAL POLICY that we accepted 35% civilian casualties as the starting point for our planning.Now just think about Europe and what that meant,and we didn't have a clue why the Euros didn't want our nucs in their countries.<br />Now we get our shorts in a wad over nucs that Iran doesn't even possess.<br />We lack the ability to think about what it all means.<br />Hope this helps you to understand the blockheadedness that you fight so stubbornly.<br />jimjim at rangerhttp://rangeragainstwar.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-43549882561783803582010-02-16T13:42:24.679-08:002010-02-16T13:42:24.679-08:00bg,
The air-strike on al-Zarqawi in Iraq is a cla...bg,<br /><br />The air-strike on al-Zarqawi in Iraq is a classic example. The air-strike on those two gas tankers stranded in the river a month or two ago is another.<br /><br />They murdered twelve more yesterday in the current idiotic offensive. They claim they "missed," but based on eight years of endless lying BS and excuses I can't imagine why anyone would believe anything the US Army says about anything.<br /><br />And as we discussed recently, there simply are no legitimate military objectives in Afghanistan, just as there are none in Iraq. Both of these idiotic, phony wars are simply crimes against peace at this point. Worse, they are both an utterly pointless waste of time as was proved BARD years ago. If this is the best our military can do, we'd be better off with no military at all. As it stands, the US military is on a moral par with Nazi Germany. <br /><br />As for orders, read what the IMT Charter says about that. Equally, it is a breach of military duty to either issue or obey an unlawful order, and a breach of military discipline to act on an order which you do not understand. <br /><br />I appreciate the dilemma, but after eight years it's simply preposterously credulous to suppose there is a dilemma. Idiocy and criminality just don't get any more clear than this.Charles Gittingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14669296162762355112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-86469208999640755102010-02-16T08:52:23.781-08:002010-02-16T08:52:23.781-08:00Charly,
"There isn't any doubt that both...Charly,<br /><br />"There isn't any doubt that both have been feeding detainees into the unlawful detention / torture mill, but it's the indiscriminate attacks on civilians (both in Iraq and Afghanistan) that really pisses me off."<br /><br />I know we've talked about this before, but it still isn't sinking in, so please bear with me.<br /><br />No doubt that we have been feeding this system with detainees. No doubt, I have a role in this process. And I agree, based on the evidence you've provided, the legality of the way these detainees are being treated after capture is very much an issue.<br /><br />But...if you are part of the machine, and you have what appear to be legal orders, as per your own lawyers, to kill/capture individuals identified by the national command authority, should each soldier from the top down, be reasonably expected to go against what is being described to them as legal orders based upon their own layman's understanding of the law? Is there is a reasonable expectation for them to do it? As simple and black and white as you lay it out, surely it is hard for the average person to feel reasonably justified in believing their understanding of the law is more accurate than trained legal professionals (especially to the point where their objection risks their career).<br /><br />As far as indiscriminate attacks, please define indiscriminate. I want to use the definition: haphazard, random, without regard. Do you feel that the military, specifically these leaders are haphazardly or randomly dropping bombs or pulling triggers without regard for civilians? Do you feel that these leaders look at a target and say, "Civilians, I don't care, bomb it!" Do you really feel that indiscriminate is the right word? Dead is dead, regardless of whether it was indiscriminate or accidental/unintended, but the words you choose have a connotation which seem unfair. (I would say your words are indiscriminate, but I know you are using them purposefully). I really want to understand you view and your reason for feeling these attacks "indiscriminate". Would "discriminate" attacks that result in killing civilians be any better? No, of course not, so why say "indiscriminate" unless you intend to defame someone's efforts especially when you have no evidence of "discriminate" vs. "indiscriminate".bgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-48648975661866633222010-02-16T07:49:41.720-08:002010-02-16T07:49:41.720-08:00Publius,
Points well taken, IRR wouldn't agre...Publius,<br /><br />Points well taken, IRR wouldn't agree with me. That was meant to be written as "he makes great points, but here I disagree." You are right though, bases are throughout the US, but Army bases that have endured and grown have been in the south for reasons you list (cheap land and good weather, IMO, being important reasons, along with the Life long senators as we saw in Hawaii where military posts remained everywhere despite high land prices).<br /><br />But I stand by my point that as a group, in this blog site we tend to be very Army heavy in our assertions and discussions and tend to ignore DoD as a whole, we very very rarely discuss Marines, AF or Navy. Not sure if that is because we use the term "Army" and "soldiers" as a catch all phrase for military. But as everyone on this site knows, the branches are very distinct each with their own culture, set of problems, etc.bgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-14011397522258473282010-02-16T07:48:22.302-08:002010-02-16T07:48:22.302-08:00Charlie,my man,get a grip.
Gen McC just yesterday...Charlie,my man,get a grip. <br />Gen McC just yesterday apologized for the killing of the 12 civilians in the glorious battle presently raging in AFGH.<br />This makes it alright.<br />jimjim at rangerhttp://rangeragainstwar.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-22716658854199115922010-02-16T07:42:23.068-08:002010-02-16T07:42:23.068-08:00Publius,
Yes,i know ,you are a hard sell, but i...Publius,<br />Yes,i know ,you are a hard sell, but i'm not on commission so f..k it.<br />The point is that your hypothetical intel ofcr is only breaking laws of the host nation,and i'll assume that this does not include assassination.No problemo.<br />The secret society that we've built around the secret society of SPECOPS has effectively blocked all oversight of their actions to include many violations of international law.We accept black ops as legitimate when in fact they are designed to skirt legality.<br />We still don't know how many secret prisoners may be/or not held in AFGH. McC is the CDR so he's responsible.<br />Contrary to what is said by Active duty bullshit assassination is NOT a military term.<br />Killing on the battlafield is an entirely different ball of wax. I've done an essay on this at RAW to be pubbed this week re Khadr. In effect we are saying that we can kill the hell out of them in their own country, but when they kill one of us on the battlefield then they are murderers,this is emotional thinking.Pls remember that assas.is always listed as a Terrorist tactic<br />It's weak mindedness that thinks assassination is a legal tool. Nobody ever were prosecuted for Phoenix Program even though it was a criminal activity. US soldiers and agents CANNOT legally whack citizens of another country whatever the reason.Being a Commie/terrorist is not an automatic death sentence to be inflicted at the discretion of a CIA agent or military commander.<br />We have crossed into some dangerous terrain and we fail to acknowledge this fact.OPSEC and security classifications were not designed to hide criminality, unless we have adopted 3rd Reich protocols.<br />This is a touch much for a non lawyer to attempt to analyze.<br />jimjim at rangerhttp://rangeragainstwar.comnoreply@blogger.com