U.S. at War

I've decided to start a more general thread about the U.S. at War around the globe. It's not limited to any particular theatre of operations.

I'm not sure what to make of the news lately. First came the recent allegations that 24 Iraqi civilians were massacred by US Marines in Haditha last November. The initial investigation cleared the soldiers, but now there are allegations of a cover-up. So presently there's two new investigations going on: one to revisit the events in Haditha, and another to investigate the initial investigation. Oops...make that three... Iraq's government has also opened up an investigation into what happened. Meanwhile, all US troops in Iraq (and perhaps elsewhere) will have to take a refresher course in legal, moral and ethical standards, aka "core warrior values training".
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/me...ing/index.html

Back in Afghanistan, Germany has now taken over command of ISAF in the northern half of the country so a few more US soldiers will be freed up for other duties. A hard and bloody summer is expected and the death toll of military and civilians continues to mount. Canada recently lost her first female warrior in combat in Afghanistan. Many more have been injured and killed in the southern half where fighting is going on almost non-stop this last month.

Meanwhile, US forces have been busy, too: "US commanders in Afghanistan admitted on Wednesday that American soldiers might have shot at unarmed civilians in Kabul who had been outraged by the killing of five people when a US military truck rammed into civilian cars on Monday. US Colonel Tom Collins said there were signs that American soldiers used their weapons "in self-defense." "
(Yet another investigation coming up, eh?)
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...037984,00.html

This has not been a good month for US soldiers, most of whom are honourable, hard working, loyal and simply doing their best under increasingly more difficult and dangerous circumstances. Unfortunately, a few bad apples are starting to create the false impression that the U.S. is turning into a war-mongering State intent on simply bludgening its opponents into submission.

Bush is now trying a diplomatic approach with Iran but nobody is really taking him very seriously, least of all the Iranians. They're taking a calculated risk that the US is spread too thin and can't open up another front in the "War on Terror". How it all plays out is still up in the air.

So what's the real cause of such military blunders? Lack of training? Lack of experience? Problems in the chain of command? Too many soldiers spread out too thin? Extended tours of duty without enough relief? Simple stress? All of the above?

Whatever the cause, it is providing easy fodder for the radicals and extremists, and turning more Arabs into US-haters. To paraphrase Martha, this is NOT a good thing!

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by Bipa

This has not been a good month for US soldiers, most of whom are honourable, hard working, loyal and simply doing their best under increasingly more difficult and dangerous circumstances. Unfortunately, a few bad apples are starting to create the false impression that the U.S. is turning into a war-mongering State intent on simply bludgening its opponents into submission.

So what's the real cause of such military blunders? Lack of training? Lack of experience? Problems in the chain of command? Too many soldiers spread out too thin? Extended tours of duty without enough relief? Simple stress? All of the above?

Whatever the cause, it is providing easy fodder for the radicals and extremists, and turning more Arabs into US-haters. To paraphrase Martha, this is NOT a good thing!

This is what's scaring me lately, and it popped it's ugly head out during the Vietnam War also. A mixture of a few bad apples plus the extreme stress of continuous vigilence cause a limited number to snap. This is the area to watch like a hawk, and give routine R&R to the soldiers in peaceful areas... preferably out of the war country completely.

In my view, these situations fall directly in the "I don't condone, but I understand how it could happen" category. There are times I'm ready to shoot a driver during a daily commute. In a warzone, with people blowing up your friends, AND you happen to have a gun on you? In a free for all area for gun use?? Very bad conditions... Extremely bad indeed. I don't condone, but I do see how it could happen.

[Electrophil]

Snicker...

If Lee and I were out there, Lee would be missing a toe.

Snicker, snicker...

[lhopp77]

Blame it ALL on William J Blythe, III.

Lee

[WGJ]

In my view, these situations fall directly in the "I don't condone, but I understand how it could happen" category. There are times I'm ready to shoot a driver during a daily commute. In a warzone, with people blowing up your friends, AND you happen to have a gun on you? In a free for all area for gun use?? Very bad conditions... Extremely bad indeed. I don't condone, but I do see how it could happen.
Robert

In the immortal words of Richard Pryor:
"Sometimes it's all you can do to get throught the day without killin' a motherf**ker." And that's just here at home. How many of your brothers could you see get mutilated or die before you lost it? 'Fraid I wouldn't last very long under the conditions our guys are dealing with.
BRING THEM HOME!
WGJ

[WGJ]

Blame it ALL on William J Blythe, III.
Lee

OK I'll bite. By what right wing, bizzaro world, paranoid hallucination, does President Clinton's dad get stuck with the responsibility for the war in Iraq?
According to you it's ALL Clinton's fault even when it's directly attributable to George H.W. Bush, Bill's new best friend.
You do remember the FIRST Iraq war...the one where we hung the Iraqi revolt out to dry after we FAILED to FINISH THE JOB? Wasn't George H.W. Bush in charge at the time?
WGJ

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by WGJ

Blame it ALL on William J Blythe, III.
Lee

OK I'll bite. By what right wing, bizzaro world, paranoid hallucination, does President Clinton's dad get stuck with the responsibility for the war in Iraq?
According to you it's ALL Clinton's fault even when it's directly attributable to George H.W. Bush, Bill's new best friend.
You do remember the FIRST Iraq war...the one where we hung the Iraqi revolt out to dry after we FAILED to FINISH THE JOB? Wasn't George H.W. Bush in charge at the time?
WGJ

I said the IIId not Jr or the IId. I believe that was Slick Willy's name prior to adoption by Clinton.

Lee

[Electrophil]

I was wondering who William the 3rd was. I was just keeping my mouth shut until I looked it up.... Which I never did get around to doing.

WGJ: Was stopping the war at Kuwaiti's liberation a good idea? That would make an outstanding thread. You should start a poll thread on the subject. I wouldn't mind seeing how people feel about that.

I'm leaning toward saying Bush Sr. did the right thing by stopping. They all were saying it would be a quagmire.... which... it turned out to be.

[WGJ]

I come from a military family and an extensive martial arts background. Basic tenent of fighting, finish what you start and make damned sure your opponent can't get up and get you before you leave. We caved on going all the way to Baghdad in the Persian Gulf War largely because of the unique media coverage, way too graphic and in real time! I don't think we had seen anything like the carnage on the road to Baghad since liberating the concentration camps in WWII. Also Powell and others opted to be humane.
I disagree. I think we should have crushed Saddam's sick party right there, (I think we were morally obligated, after all we did to support him.), then supported a popular uprising, and organized elections. Iraq would likely now be a democratic theocracy and our ally and Iran would be too busy dealing with their own revolution instead of trying to develop nukes.
I think Truman screwed up in a couple of areas, not the least being kicking Minh to the curb and giving the Frogs BILLIONS in 1950's dollars to continue to make Viet Nam a colony. Another was not going all the way in Korea and uniting that country. He should have listened to MacArthur instead of firing him. There was a lot of justifiable concern that we could start WWIII when the Chinese entered the war. However, had we been able to push the Chinese back to their border and united Korea, without triggering another World War, is a very interesting scenario to speculate on. How much different the world might be now? And we're still in Korea!
This same half assed mind set of engaging in warfare without fully committing is one of my major beefs with the Bush crowd. Bush I had it right when we attacked with overwhelming force in the first Gulf War, but failed to follow through. When 'W' retired Zinni because Zinni rightly said we need another 150,000 troops over there, that was the last straw for my Dad, that's when he declared Bush a "Complete fool". My father retired a Major General, USMC. He's ONE of my authorities on Viet Nam.
WGJ

Although this could have been serious, I can't help but laugh at this one:

June 9, 2006
Donkey bomb plot foiled
By SUN WIRE SERVICES

KANDAHAR -- Security forces thwarted a bombing in an Afghan town by capturing a donkey laden with explosives and a man who was plotting to blow up the animal in a rebel attack, a government spokesman said yesterday.

The donkey had 30 kilos of explosives and several land mines strapped to its back hidden in old sacks, the spokesman said. The charge was linked to a remote-controlled detonator.

[WGJ]

it's one loaded with explosives. However, as low tech as an explosives laden donkey is, if you're close enough when it goes boom, you're just as dead as if you were hit by a cruise missile.
WGJ

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by WGJ

it's one loaded with explosives. However, as low tech as an explosives laden donkey is, if you're close enough when it goes boom, you're just as dead as if you were hit by a cruise missile.
WGJ

When is an act of suicide hanging (no bombs or weapons) actually an act of "warfare"?
How is it possible that men in a maximum security facility could hang themselves, especially when they'd tried before and thus guards were supposed to be keeping an even closer eye on them?

I couldn't believe it when I heard a US officer describe the three suicide hanging deaths as warfare. Isn't that pushing it?

I wonder how many folks will actually accept and believe that? Not me.

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Bipa

When is an act of suicide hanging (no bombs or weapons) actually an act of "warfare"?
How is it possible that men in a maximum security facility could hang themselves, especially when they'd tried before and thus guards were supposed to be keeping an even closer eye on them?

I couldn't believe it when I heard a US officer describe the three suicide hanging deaths as warfare. Isn't that pushing it?

I wonder how many folks will actually accept and believe that? Not me.

In the terrrorist way of thinking it can definitely be considered part of the war. Whether the psychological war or the real war would be debatable. They probably considered it dying for Allah and expect to see the how ever many virgins they get.

Simple to hang yourself---they had clothes didn't they? You can hang yourself with a shirt. Hanging does not necessarily mean you have to suspend your total body weight. Just enough weight to cut off the air passage.

I have stated my opinion about equipping prisons before---I think every prison cell (both civil and POW) should be equipped with a length of stout rope and a good anchor point. If someone wants to hang themselves that is definitely their right. Even more of a basic right than the freedom of speech as far as I am concerned.

These suicides do not bother me at all except that people like you will use it for the exact propaganda purposes intended by the terrorists.

Lee

[lhopp77]

Watch the O'Reilly Factor on Monday evening and see how the prisoners are being treated in Guantanamo. It is interesting that nearly all prisoners have gained nearly 20 pounds since being there. You might also learn a few other facts by watching the show.

Lee