What it means when the US goes to war
What it means when the US goes to war
by Chris Hedges
Quote:
Troops, when they battle insurgent forces, as in Iraq, or Gaza or Vietnam, are placed in "atrocity producing situations". Being surrounded by a hostile population makes simple acts, such as going to a store to buy a can of soda, dangerous. The fear and stress push troops to view everyone around them as the enemy. The hostility is compounded when the enemy, as in Iraq, is elusive, shadowy and hard to find. The rage soldiers feel after a roadside bomb explodes, killing or maiming their comrades, is one that is easily directed, over time, to innocent civilians who are seen to support the insurgents.
Civilians and combatants, in the eyes of the beleaguered troops, merge into one entity. These civilians, who rarely interact with soldiers or marines, are to most of the occupation troops in Iraq nameless, faceless and easily turned into abstractions of hate. They are dismissed as less than human. It is a short psychological leap, but a massive moral leap. It is a leap from killing - the shooting of someone who has the capacity to do you harm - to murder - the deadly assault against someone who cannot harm you.
The war in Iraq is now primarily about murder. There is very little killing. The savagery and brutality of the occupation is tearing apart those who have been deployed to Iraq. As news reports have just informed us, 115 American soldiers committed suicide in 2007. This is a 13% increase in suicides over 2006. And the suicides, as they did in the Vietnam War years, will only rise as distraught veterans come home, unwrap the self-protective layers of cotton wool that keep them from feeling, and face the awful reality of what they did to innocents in Iraq.
American marines and soldiers have become socialized to atrocity. The killing project is not described in these terms to a distant public. The politicians still speak in the abstract terms of glory, honor and heroism, in the necessity of improving the world, in lofty phrases of political and spiritual renewal. Those who kill large numbers of people always claim it as a virtue. The campaign to rid the world of terror is expressed within the confines of this rhetoric, as if once all terrorists are destroyed evil itself will vanish.
The reality behind the myth, however, is very different.
...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF07Ak01.html
Quote:
Chris Hedges is the former Middle East Bureau Chief of the New York Times, a Pulitzer Prize winner, and a senior fellow at the Nation Institute. He is the author of several books including War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. This piece has been adapted from the introduction to the just-published, Collateral Damage: America's War Against Iraqi Civilians (Nation Books), which he has co-authored with Laila al-Arian.
Hedges is entitled to his opinions and to state them.
I am entitled to mine. I think he's an idiot who talked to people that would reinforce his views and penned a rather silly diatribe. Of course war is not pretty and there is no real glory in it; it's hard and dirty work, period. It is not pleasant and it does bad things to innocent people. War is immoral and stupid.
Regrettably, wars occur. Some are necessary. Many think this one is not, many think it is. Time will tell
Sarajevo did no more than post it under Hedge's title; fair enough. Whether he believes what Hedges wrote is unknown but I'm sure he'll tell us and give us his rationale for believing Hedges if he does.
Ordinarily I don't waste time responding to such idiocy. This one is pathetic enough in its whining to merit an exception. His final paragraph reads like a parody:
Quote:
"Prophets are not those who speak of piety and duty from pulpits - few people in pulpits have much worth listening to - but are the battered wrecks of men and women who return from Iraq and speak the halting words we do not want to hear, words that we must listen to and heed to know ourselves. They tell us war is a soulless void. They have seen and tasted how war plunges us into perversion, trauma, and an unchecked orgy of death. And it is their testimonies that have the redemptive power to save us from ourselves."
Sad, unmitigated foolishness. Stupid, too.
...and I have my own opinion.
Ken W., like you correctly assumed (I suppose) my post showing you my opinion on the matter… Many times I tried to have dialog with you (many people) here and I read many post where you talking about reasons for this or that and none of you ever accepted real responsibility, never be honest openly, never admit that actions of aggressions toward you coming from your actions of aggression toward others, never look on your own doing and reaction on that but always look at other reasons for terror, war and threats… Always something or someone else but never you and your actions (reasons why Iraqi people are hating you and fighting you is “wrong” Islamic ideology, money and foreign elements” but never like reactions of bombings, killings and rapes by US soldiers!?) . That is absolutely amazing to me. And every time I tried to talk with some of you, you will never step up and be honest but just shut me down and even ban me.
So, no, you will not read what I really think and feel (I think article is AMAZINGLY open and honest, and talks about real picture you all ignoring for either being to pride or to patriotic to admit)… Nor should I hope anymore that we can talk openly and like equals. The first post I did here (deciding to post again and try to have some conversations here after I was banned) was deleted minute after I post it! Strangely, post appeared after but first reaction on my post told me volumes. They are many more things to say and to explain, but I just don’t see possibility here nor chance for that… And with that I will finish leaving you the floor and this (your) place to rant against me and my opinions and beliefs.
You're entitled to your opinion but unless you've been there
and actually witnessed what takes place on the ground, you have to develop that opinion based on your own convictions or beliefs and on what others say. You may be right and you may be wrong -- point is you don't know whats right, only what you believe and have read.
You have engaged in dialog with me and with others and have done so reasonably on occasion. I hope I've been reasonable on occasion. I do not know why you got banned but I do know you get a little abrasive at times. Everybody does that and weblogs are not the greatest communication medium. Still, you provide value here and you have provided a lot of good links. If you elect to go, that's your choice but I'd hate to see it.
As to your positions in the post above; I don't think I've seen anyone here deny aggression on our part; I know I haven't nor have I denied any responsibility for that aggression. We have disagreed on whether it was merited or not; I think it was and you think not. That to me should be acceptable; people can disagree. Just because you don't agree with me is no reason to think you're evil or dishonest; we just happen to see the same facts and come to different conclusions. I haven't seen anyone here deny the occasional rape and murder by us, that bad things happen or that we got overly aggressive in the early days in Iraq.
I think most of us understand that many Iraqis do hate us and that most all of them wish we were gone. So I don't think you're being fair by saying no one has accepted these things.
On the article; he hates war -- who doesn't. I've been in a few and I sure hate it. However, IMO, he goes to an extreme and he has interviewed people who have told him what he wants to hear. It seems that you want to hear that as well. What he's ignoring but I believe you're smart enough not to ignore is that those people he believes have lost their souls or part of their minds are a minority; that happens to about 5 -15% of the people in any war; war is trauma, pure and simple. He forgets the other 85-95% who have acted as honorably and fairly as they can and who are not traumatized.
I recall one exchange between you an I wherein you complained that the US was evil to all Muslims -- when I pointed out that we had sort of helped in Bosnia, your reply was "yes but..." and said that we took to long to do that!
If that's the way you wish to see it, that's the way you will see it -- but it's not right to accuse others of not admitting flaws and responsibility when one is determined to find fault and not really interested in exchanging views. That may be an incorrect assessment of why you're here, to find fault -- but that's the way you come across. Look at the posts above these three of yours and mine -- not one bluster, denial or unreasonable comment in my opinion; just a rebuttal of the tenor of Hedges article.
It is not the critic who counts...
I will take a separate side to this debate which will probably be refuted by all. I believe there is some truth to Hedges’ piece, but it’s only a partial truth. He selectively interviewed veterans who did not practice COIN, live amongst the populace, and work to secure the populace. Furthermore, Hedges needs to study the concept of jus in bellum before throwing out terms like murder.
However, his overall premise is correct- War sucks. It is brutal, ugly, and tragic. People die, and psychological scars abound. Yet, it is a part of our nature.
As with the natural condition of mankind, over time we swell with the pride of nationalism, disdain for our neighbors, or coveting of other’s property. In those times, we make war. From the secret jealousy of Cain to the collective madness of Hitler’s Germany, we murder one or millions. This decision is reached regardless of the state of modernity, industrialization, democracy, or rationalization- it is part of the cycle of life. Locke’s social contract becomes void.
We enter a state of compartmentalized psychosis, and it can only be resolved by the sword.
It is what it is.
The below metaphor describes the nature of our work much better than wanton rape and murder.
INITIAL STAGE: “STOP THE BLEEDING”
5-4. Initially, COIN operations are similar to emergency first aid for the patient. The goal is to protect the population, break the insurgents’ initiative and momentum, and set the conditions for further engagement. Limited offensive operations may be undertaken, but are complemented by stability operations focused on civil security. During this stage, friendly and enemy information needed to complete the common operational picture is collected and initial running estimates are developed. Counterinsurgents also begin shaping the information environment, including the expectations of the local populace. -FM 3-24 COIN
Hopefully, the American intervention in Iraq will lead to a better future for the Iraqis. Regardless, the secondary and tertiary effects will be felt on that society for years- PTSD, population displacement, loss of friends and family, loss of faith.
Again, Kern’s has no right to attack the man in the arena. Although we may stumble at times, at least we are in the breech.
"Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world."
Sarajevo, thanks for the response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarajevo071
OK, my post is still here and you answered nicely to me so I will answer back…
A lot of what you say has been answered by others so to save space, I'm going to just address a few things
Quote:
I was not in Iraq, you are correct, but I was in the war for 4 years (live it, breathe it, eat it) with no bases and no safe heavens for R&R. I bleed it, I cried for my teenager brothers killed for being Muslims, my girlfriend at the time was taken on rape, I lost at least two dozen friends and brothers in arms, I lost my home, country, my whole life… So, yes, I know hate and I know war and atrocities in it.
Proving that war is dumb and terrible. We both know that and Hedges is correct on that score. Still, he is a vehement anti war campaigner and while we are all products of our experiences, we can draw different conclusions from the same sorts of experiences. We are all entitled to our beliefs -- and to have them respected by others.
Quote:
...When US soldiers kill or rape you all here say "let's wait for official statements or court proceedings", but when attack came from another side you are all full of judgments and “solutions”. Another thing is, when US soldiers kill innocent people, that’s always accidents and someone else’s fault but not when others do something and innocents get killed. Is not possible other making “mistakes” too?
I acknowledge some do that; others of us do not -- and yes, it is probable that the 'other side' makes as many or even more mistakes than we do.
Quote:
Now you are to jumping on conclusions… How do you know that he did not talk with other people to? Point of his article (his book actually) is animalistic human nature and war that give us excuses and motives.
I don't jump to conclusions, too old to jump. I based my comment on the article in which he gave no alternate views.
Quote:
Other opinions have no merit on point he is trying to show. Especially since (his another point) everyone in US (public in large and media) lying about real cost of war and lying about victims. Civilians or soldiers. And you should know this better then me. And knowing that, you should be angry on such behavior by US administration or the media. But, that’s between you and people who lied and manipulated American sons and daughters to go there and do such a things, bleed and get killed or maimed for no real reason nor American security.
I do not know that. In fact, I disagree with it. Does some of that covering or omitting occur? Sure. However, mostly, the truth tends to come out. I do not agree that the fact we are in Iraq has no bearing on American security; as I said earlier, if the four earlier Presidents had done their job in the face of 22 years of provocations from the ME, Bush wouldn't have been moved to do what he did.
Quote:
You are remembering correctly about our conversations but did I mention why US (finally) decided to do something? After all that I went thru, all that I know, saw and learn, I can freely say that US did not help Bosnia due they “human nature” or “democracy” but they step up one for reason only… Failure to help us (refusal to help us for years, giving the Christian serbs and croats time to finish they job) opened doors for Mujahidden to came in, for Iran and for group that we now know like the AQ... Only reasons US “helped” was from the fear that white, European Muslims will get to hate US and fall under influence of Arab Mujahidden. C’mon, let’s be honest. You waited 3 years to put boots on the ground to help Muslims and only 3 months to go in and help Christians in East Timor?
I think you're wrong on several counts. First, the delay in coming to aid the Bosnians was due to our trying to avoid a war and get the Europeans to do something; only when it became too obvious they were not going to without our involvement did we get to work. If there's a fault there, it was in trying to make 'diplomacy' work. In Timor, the issue wasn't Christians -- it was that the Australians were going in without waiting, did go in and then we decide to help. Had Europe been faster in helping the Bosnians, I have no reason to believe we wouldn't have been just as quick there.
Quote:
See, it is not how I see it or someone else… It is only one way to look at things. Right or wrong way. Justice for all, remember. On the end (my apologies for ranting this long) I will ask again what I ask many times before here: After all this how do you expect for any Muslim to step up and help you when you imprisoned and killed, and still do, his innocent Muslim brothers and sisters?! Having this war, this injustice and onslaught already turn half Muslims away. What will happen if others follow that first group?
Been my experience that perceptions can be wrong. let me give you an example. You see this as an attack by evil christian America on poor Muslims. Many others do -- or say they do -- as well. Most of us see it as a bunch of Americans who happen to be Christian, Jewish, Agnostic, Atheist, Mormon, Shintoist, Confucian, Coptic, Taoists and, yes, Muslim, attacking Iraq -- not Iraqis, not Muslims -- Iraq; specifically Saddam Hussein's Iraq to send the message to the ME (NOT to Muslims, to the ME) to stop the attacks on US interests around the world (Afghanistan was different -- it was to not attack the US on its own soil. Afghanistan is NOT in the ME). So to us, there's no religious component at all. As for the shooting of people; we shoot at people who are or are (sometimes wrongly) presumed to be, threats or are shooting at us. Religion doesn't enter into it.
Justice for all is a good goal; hopefully that's what most of us strive for -- no matter how difficult it is to put into practice.
But there is more than one way to look at things...
War is not the worst of things
Quote:
Again true. There probably are moral issues around making "brutal, ugly and tragic" "population centric." If someone brings them up in a calm, logical, non accusative manner, I'm sure we'll be able to have a very interesting conversation about them.
This topic will continue to be emotional. As Rob Thorton posted the other day, we all have many new friends and brothers in Iraq that we care about.
I'm actually in the process of trying to research how to stabilize and rebuild Iraq after the majority CF presence is removed. I believe this is much more fruitfall and pertinent than describing the brutality of war.
After Iraq is no longer in the headlines, the real work will begin.
Despite the prolonged fight in Vietnam, the country is now a vacation spot.
Sometimes these things just work themselves out given a major factor- time.
The most difficult hurdle in any warzone is the security dilemma. Greg Mortensen overcame this in Pakistan and Afghanistan to some degree. It will be interesting to see how/if the international community, NGO's, etc. weighs in after the fighting is done.
Saving the children in Iraq and Afghanistan through education and employment will tremendously effect our national security and the world's overall stability for years to come.
Sarajevo, an added thought.
You said earlier:
Quote:
...Nor should I hope anymore that we can talk openly and like equals. The first post I did here (deciding to post again and try to have some conversations here after I was banned) was deleted minute after I post it! Strangely, post appeared after but first reaction on my post told me volumes. They are many more things to say and to explain, but I just don’t see possibility here nor chance for that… And with that I will finish leaving you the floor and this (your) place to rant against me and my opinions and beliefs.
First, I'll note that in this thread while some including me disagree with you on some things and more disagreed with Hedges, everyone has been more than reasonable IMO.
I spent some time, long ago, in the ME. Stationed in one country and visited many others. Had I walked in one of the many restaurants I ate in while there and said, loudly that "Islam is the problem and you all hate Christians" or something worse (and I'll emphasize that I do not and did not think that and would never have said such a thing) I suspect most of the people in the restaurant, being as polite as folks in the ME are, would have ignored me. Still, there's a strong possibility someone would've broken a chair over my head. If that had happened, I would have deserved it.
Yet, you seem to believe that if you come into a Weblog board that is heavily populated with Americans, many of whom are current or former US military people and say some extremely critical and sometimes controversial things while posting links to some great and good articles and occasionally to some that have a very anti-American slant (I include Hedges article in that category) that these people should simply uncritically agree with you. I think, perhaps, that is an unfair expectation.
I think you can add to this board but I suggest that fairly constant accusations of unmitigated evil can cause a certain lack of welcome. Seems unnecessary to me; we ought to be able to disagree without getting in cat fights. Your comments on this thread show you and we can discuss things reasonably even though it started out with an inflammatory link and it seems to me that reason can continue to be displayed by all of us.
Somewhat of a tangent, but not really...
I just got an email from MEMRI which is, by analogy, on point to the general discussion.
Quote:
Algerian Dissident Journalist Arezki Ait Larbi: Stop "Witchcraft Trials" For Christians in Algeria
In the western Algerian city of Tiaret, a 37-year-old convert to Christianity is currently on trial for "practicing a non-Muslim religion without authorization," under a 2006 law regulating the religious practice of non-Muslims. The charges were brought against her after police found copies of the Bible in her possession.(1)
In a May 27, 2008 article in the Algerian El-Watan daily, Algerian dissident and journalist Arezki Ait Larbi called the case a "witchcraft trial" and described a tightening alliance between the government and Islamists in the country. He argued that the only way out of the impasse was the formation of a popular movement that would confront intolerance and reaffirm respect for liberty of religion and conscience.
Arezki Ait Larbi, currently a correspondent for the French daily Le Figaro, is a well-known civil rights activist who has been imprisoned several times since he first became active in public affairs, during the "Berber Spring" of 1980. He was recently acquitted of charges of defamation brought against him for an article he wrote documenting torture in Algerian prisons.(2)
More...
As a number of you know, I've spent a fair amount of time studying witchcraft and witch trials. One point that comes through very clearly when you lok at the trials, whether they are in Europe, Africa, North America or the Middle East, is practice of social labelling and social blame associated with them. Put really simply, you identify a source of "Evil", you name it and, most importantly, you drench the symbolic environment with that association. After a while, it becomes almost impossible for people to dis-aggregate the associations. The reason I think this is relevant to the current discussion is because the labelling and association process is (apparently) a human universal that operates regardless of culture, although the punishments differ.
There is a second process, again universal, that needs to be brought up - "reification". This is just a fancy way of saying take a concept, idea or drug induced hallucination and treat it as if i were a real "thing" (or person). The process of reification operates in almost all settings and it is one of the most difficult processes for people, as individuals, to deal with, especially when emotions run high.
Food for thought...
Marc
