The latest temper tantrum from STACLU is over the ACLU filing an FOIA request to have the military's investigation of the Haditha incident made public. And believe me, you're gonna laugh at the, uh, "reasoning" they use. After quoting an article about the ACLU's request and how they hope that this will lead to a credible and comprehensive examination of the incident with real accountability, this is the STACLU response:
Ok then, should we also give the media, the UN, the EU, and Al Jazeera 7 days notice prior to troop movements? Should we be required to inform them how many troops from what units armed with which weapons and a list of equipment being used.
Okay guys, we know you've got the collective IQ of a grapefruit, but even a dullard like Gribbit can grasp the difference between making troop movements available to the enemy in advance and making information publicly available from an investigation of an incident that already took place. Then he writes dismissively of the fact that someone could actually doubt the Pentagon's investigation by demanding transparency:
This lawyer, Jameel Jaffer, however let it be known how much trust he has in our military.The request we filed today is meant to encourage an investigation that is credible and comprehensive," he said.
Uh, yeah. How outrageous that someone would doubt the Pentagon's ability or willingness to tell the truth. I mean, they've never lied to us before to cover up an embarrassing incident, have they? I suspect Pat Tillman's parents might have a thing or two to say about that. No, the Pentagon wouldn't lie to us. Not the same people who fed the media stories of the brave and heroic Jessica Lynch "fighting to the end" against an enemy attack when the truth was that she got into a car accident and her weapon jammed. The same Pentagon that brought us the gulf of Tonkin attack. The same Pentagon who told us that the Iraqis would be so happy to have us there that they would throw roses at our feet, resulting in a quick and easy war without an insurgency. The same Pentagon who told us that the war would pay for itself through oil revenues, while the cost is now over $300 billion just for the direct costs.
For crying out loud, the Pentagon has a whole department full of PR flacks who do nothing but crank out lies like this. It's their job to cover up anything that might embarrass the military and to plant stories that will bring tears to the eyes of old ladies everywhere. Truth is the first casualty of war, the old saying goes, and it's as true for our side as for our enemies. The Pentagon cranks out volumes of war propaganda every week, and we're supposed to trust them blindly? Only the naive or the deluded would do so.
Has Gribbit considered this: the investigation might actually exonerate the soldiers involved. Indeed, I think we all hope that it does. But if that investigation takes place only internally, with no public access to the facts compiled, who would have any reason to believe it? The Pentagon's track record of lying to cover their butt demands skepticism. If the outcome of the investigation implicates our soldiers, then we have not only a right but an obligation to make that public. And if the outcome exonerates them, then we have an obligation to make all of the information available to the public so that, for the sake of those soldiers, no one can doubt their innocence.
- Log in to post comments
Jessica Lynch was pretty brave and heroic in my book. Unlike many others she had no trouble whatsoever saying this is all a lot of bullshit and I'm not gonna cash in on heroism or back the Fox News version of events. They tried to smear her with nude photos when she called bullshit.
Sometimes we need a girl from West Virginia to show us how to behave, even if she wasn't officially a hero.
Has Gribbit considered this: the investigation might actually exonerate the soldiers involved.
Why have a public trial and maybe exonerate them when we can have a secret trial and definately exonerate them. If no one knows the facts how can they question us?
It's the Bush Administration way!!
Jessica Lynch was pretty brave and heroic in my book. Unlike many others she had no trouble whatsoever saying this is all a lot of bullshit and I'm not gonna cash in on heroism or back the Fox News version of events.
Um, I think the 2 million dollar book deal she got counts as cashing in.
Apparently, these wingers have forgotten their hero Reagan's adage of "Trust, but verify." Why doesn't that apply to our own government?!?
The fact this admin CAN'T be trusted only makes the "verify" part more important.
I've got nothing against Jessica Lynch. I hope she made a bundle on her book and lives a happy life. She didn't do anything other than be in the wrong place at the wrong time and it happened to turn into a lottery ticket for her. It's the Pentagon that tried to use her for propaganda value, and to her credit she blew the whistle on them.
Plus I'm betting that if Jessica Lynch went along with the story the Pentagon had fabricated, her book deal would have been even larger. It's good to see her rewarded despite her honesty.
I heard back when that she got $500K out of a $1M deal that she split with the author. I wasn't looking at that as cashing in (I was speaking "cashing in" politically), but you're right -- $500K is pretty good and I forgot about the book deal. I didn't hear that it was $2M before today.
I still like her low profile even if she did cash in. I think that what I was really saying is this: In this war where many have wrapped themselves in shame, to me, she wasn't one of them. And Abu Ghraib wouldn't have come out if another American soldier hadn't been sickened by what was passing for normal. The media embeds get wind of this kind of stuff, but it's not that often that they act aggressive on it.
Today there's another article from AP trying to excuse misbehavior. This misbehavior needs to be laid at the feet of the leaders much more than it has so far.
Holy Hannah!
"The recent flurry of accusations against U.S. servicemen has stunned military analysts and experts."
What freakin' planet are those experts from?
Please read carefully: I served for a total of 14 years in both the Air Force, Air National Guard and the Army National Guard. I deployed to OIFII and was medically discharged after a total of about 10 months of active service. What I am about to say is not an overarching idictment of the US military.
Gulf War I: Actual incident reported to me by a vet from that war: We were bringin presioners back to camp and the gunner on the tank got tired of them and just opened up with the 50 cal.
Me: What did you do?
Him: What could I do?
Gulf War II(Occupation phase): Reported to my by a fellow Seargent while we were at the hospital at Landstuhl:
One of my guys had a bad week. His buddy was shot through the neck while they were on guard duty. The other day, while he was manning the 50 cal on the wire, some protesters through a rock at him and he opened up on the crowd.
Me: Were they armed?
Him: Not that I know of.
Me: What happened to him?
Him: They put him on medical leave with a suicide watch for a couple days.
Me: Then what?
Him: He's back on duty.
I cannot verify if these claims are true. They are rumors, told to me by people I would consider to be active supporters of the military.
American solidiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are facing the worst possible situation (not unlike the soldiers in Viet Nam, according to my father and uncle - vets of that war). There is no way to tell who is an enemy and who is not. In fact, someone who is a friend today, could be a foe tomorrow.
If the politicians expect the American military to act as police officers, then they need to recieve the same training regarding how to deal with people of other cultures, how to read a situation and try to diffuse it before it escalates, and how to work with people who hate them. We did not receive any training like that when I was activated.
In other words, if the current administration really wants success in this endeavor of brining democracy to Iraq, they need to train our soldiers in hwo to be a stabilising, rather than just and occupying, force.
My non-expert opinion, based solely on my experience and desires for American to be "the good guys."
I want this to be perfectly clear:
American soldiers are the best trained, best outfitted, and smartest on the battlefield. They are excellent at doing their job: Rolling over the enemy and winning the war.
The overwhelming majority do their job out of the highest motives, and work very, very hard to do the right thing. All soldiers are volunters (there are many, many legal and ethical ways to "un-volunteer" if someone no longer wants to participate).
They are human beings, aiming for the same things and suffering the same setbacks as the rest.
But, they are not the same as civilians who have never served. Surviving combat changes a person. No one else can understand what it feels like to sight and kill the enemy - humans are not "natural born killers," there is no "killer intinct." Soldiers have to overcome all of their normal inhibitions against killing, and learn to live with the consequences. Most do. A few do not.
War is hell.
When soldiers come back from their tour of duty, the rest of us should throw roses at their feet and buy them drinks for the rest of their lives. We don't have to praise the war they served in, but their best efforts mean that the rest of us can sleep soundly in our beds.
And I would counsel any young person to stay as far away from the military as they can get.
Spike - I think the "military" experts they are taling about are the sort who, if they did in fact do any service it sure as hell wasn't boots on the ground. Personaly I have never been, never will be in the military but I have a lot of respect and appreciation for those who serve. I suspect most of the "Military" experts they are talking to haven't even ben in, they would have an academic and cinematic view of thje military.
I don't believe that it is reasonable, however, to try to retrain soldiers to become peacekeepers, which is basicly what you suggest. Especialy those who have been in combat. I am not in any way detracting from what you and others have been through but it just isn't feasible to turn an occupying force into a peace keeping force - any more than it was really feasible to turn an invading force into one.
Then we ought to have an "offense" and "defense" teams.
Half as many troops, properly trained, would be much more effective.
One of the contractors I talked to outside a US base in Kuwait was a former MP, now working as a civilian armed gate guard. He told me that the behavior of the active duty and NG troops who worked with him on the gate was more likely to escalate trouble than make things go smoothly. I believed him based on what my brother had told me from his time as base security in the Navy.
My brother told me that most of the other guys acted like they were some kind of supercop and they had to put everyone else in their place. My brother acted like somebody whose job it was to make sure the base was secure, and treated everyone with respect until they gave him reason not to. For some reason, those other guys got promoted, and my brother did not. When my brother retired, he was offered a job as an Everett police officer. He asked about who else from the Navy was on the Everett force, and when he found out it was the "supercops," he declined.
It occurs to me that it would make a lot of sense to train the national guard troops going over to act in just the rle you suggest. Instead of sending them into combat, under conditions they didn't sign up for, train them to act as the defense. I think you have a great idea there.
I have known a couple of ex-mp's. One of them was an arrogant prig who I would imagine falls under the "super cop" mentality your brother spoke of. My friend Roge though, he was an interesting guy. He spent most of his service after training loaned out to the DEA. They had him sit on the Mexican border and call in plane sightings. When they suddenly pulled him into guard duty on a base, 10 weeks before his out date he had a hell of a culture shock. From sitting by himself in the desert from late afternoon to early morning to driving around a base all night with a guy he called Rambo.
One of the things driving my shift from the right was seeing the utter fantasy world that the right-wing cheerleaders live in when it comes to war.
I remember reading an article on someplace like RedState in which the author wrote about how Jack Bauer ought to be the nations rolemodel in the war on terror. At no point did he indicate any appreciation that Jack Bauer is a fictional character whose methods work because the writers decide they will, and not necessarily because the actually "work" in real life. On ProteinWisdom, Kaiser Sose from "Usual Suspect' was quoted as an authority on being a successful badass. If someone told you to attract women by emulating Zack Morris would you take them seriously? Somehow the writers of the "liberal hollywood elite" suddenly become gurus of counter-terrorism when it's convenient for the cheerleaders.
Rightwing heads dimissed the important of V. Plame's outing with sarcastic comments about "like she was some sort of James Bond superspy whose outing hurt us". Of course they 'know' that Bond, with all his gadgets and women, is fiction - but the idea that intelligence is done by agents with ninja-skills who go "undercover" around the world and break into places to photograph documents, or whatever, seems to have taken root - and it is almost complete fiction.
Furthermore, as an avid student of military history I am quite aware that you can always find at least 1 real-world example of pretty much any oddball strategy proving successful. Still it is amazing how infrequently "the fighting keyboardists" will cite appropriate examples from actual military history (which they could find) compared to examples from movies and television shows - and, of course, its always 'Dirty Harry' type shit.
It has happened enough that I've begun to wonder if the tv-naysayers weren't more correct than I had thought. I understand that in the deeper parts of our subconscious we do not make clear distinctions between fantasy and reality - pre-event "visualization-techniques" often work because they fool your mind into feeling familiar with the event before actually experiencing it. Perhaps exposure to thousands of action & spy-thriller movies and tv shows has deeply affected the notion of some people of what "works" and "doesn't work".
I also see evidence in the way that the Fighting Keyboardists will spout off stretegic and tactical "advice" without bother to learn if the necessary capability to implmement that advice exists. For instance, Oreilly has talked about how we need to "lockdown" Baghdad - and idea that is provably impossible given the number of troops we have there. The worst offences come when the discussion touches on high tech gizmos. Some people seem committed to unrealistic expectations Predator drones, Satellite Surveillance, etc. can do. There is a HUGE gap between the technical reality and public expectation. In Operation Anaconda we landed helicopters almost on top of unobserved fortified enemy positions - who held their fire until we were almost touched down and then opened up at close range. No one "failed", they had been missed by multiple pre-battle observers - including Predators and a Delta Force team because of a variety of factors including their excellent camoflauge. This never enters the minds of those offering sage advice on how we should fight this war.
In my opinion, there are several types of military/paramilitary analysts spouting off in the media:
1. Relatively independent analysts like John Pike that are pseudoscientific but rely on military connections to do their work. Not much actual military experience but willing to get into the minutae of budgeting, force management, etc. William Arkin is in this group because his military service is relativly minimal but has significant connections and geek quotient.
2. Academic analysts like Charles Moskos that are somewhat authoritative due to their longevity but really are long in the tooth and stopped being relevant. Aside from that Moskos is a rightwing nut that should be read carefully; he says good stuff occasionally but needs to be crosschecked with Family Research Council or other moonbattery organizations.
3. Retired colonels and generals. These guys have boots on the ground experience and usually combat experience (but from the last war) and are not idiots, but they are politically beholden, and their moral compass has decalibrated long ago.
4. Majors and LTCs that have left the military due to ambition and search for the buck or fame, sometimes by mercenary operations (suitable for bullethead SF types providing high priced security operations) and sometimes through book deals (West Point professors, NDU scholars, NPS types and so on).
Of these the closest to any real truth is the LTC in point four; he's/she's not too far out to understand current tactics and understands the mindset of the fighters due to close proximity. He also hasn't fully bought into the political promotion system yet. The higher they go, the more they have to lose by being honest in their analysis. McMasters is good reading but at this point he may be too close to the action to be credible as an analyst, although he can still be credible as a leader and warrior.
The problem that Ed posited in the original post is close to being on the money. The current crop of leaders are results oriented people and don't like to have their hands bound by the Geneva Convention or by following basic laws of war -- following the rules is inefficient and slow. It coddles the enemy while exposing their own men to risk. I don't expect the military to be truthful or thorough about this -- if you go back and review the initial Abu Ghraib testimony, there are significant lies/obfuscations told to congress (by Cambone, by Miller, by Sanchez) but so far no consequence . The troops interpret slow and deliberate as a sign of weakness in leadership unless they understand the full rationalization, and that takes time which is a luxury. Instead, in those situations, most troops prefer the motto of, "Do something. I don't care if it's the right or wrong decision, but do it and lets move on. I'll follow you and if we fuck it up, we'll deal with it together. But act now!" You can't look slow or indecisive because that can result in a lack of confidence but quick.
Having said that, I pay their salaries, and I don't want them behaving like Huns, because they represent America when they're doing these things and the blowback outside of military operations can be significant and longterm. I think most of the members of the military are not from Mars -- they're my neighbors, so I know them to be at least as good as me if not better -- but the optempo involved in this ill-conceived war has displaced many reasonable people with poorly educated trailer trash and those are the people that don't understand that well trained, professional behavior is what saves the day when in a pressure situation.
Charles Moskos is the nut who came up with the "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" proposal regarding gays in the military. He claimed that allowing openly gay people to serve in the military would damage "unit cohesion." A few years later, he opined that, if the US were to return to conscription, openly gay people should not be excluded from the draft, completely undermining his earlier contention that having openly gay people serve in the military would damage "unit cohesion."