What it means when the US goes to war

[Sarajevo071]

What it means when the US goes to war
by Chris Hedges

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

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.

[AmericanPride]

I haven't yet experienced war -- so take my words for what they're worth. As a Catholic and an officer, it seems that there's a moral dilemma in war because innocent life is taken. But I think that moral dilemma is often misunderstood, and in some cases artificial, constructed to make a political point. For example, the article compares US forces in Iraq to NAZI Germany's extermination policy. I'm certain there's a moral difference in responding to threats and rounding up civilians with the intention of shooting them in mass. Have there been mistakes? Yes. Are these mistakes sometimes fatal? Yes. And is criminal activity committed at times? Yes. People can barely keep their milk from souring in the fridge -- how can we expect a large, bureacratic warfighting machine to not make mistakes?

And I think we've done much work in addressing the problems faced by Soldiers and civilians, as far as "murder" is concerned. Sometimes I wonder if we're pushing it too far (e.g. I recall several years ago a Major who was relieved because he had fired a shot near an insurgent's head during interrogation), but I know the rules are in place ultimately to protect our soldiers and our interests.

[patmc]

What makes the American military unique is that murder, genocide, etc are not our strategy, tactic, or policy. In the rare instances where an American purposely murders or harms an enemy or civilian, he/she is charged and tried, while the rest of the military and the American public are disgusted. American Soldiers as murderers is a popular, but wrong, image and legacy of Vietnam, created to end the war and disparage the troops. Bad things happen, war is hell, but we hold are troops to a standard.

My Soldiers experienced IEDs and ambushes in Iraq, but did not rage out at civilians. They reacted to the attacks with battle drills and courage, and continued their mission. There were no shooting sprees, even after injury or a truck destroyed. The one mission where they actually saw the insurgents, they returned accurate and controlled fire at the individuals shooting at them, not wild bursts regardless of the surroundings.

I can't speak for others, and I am sure accidents have happened, but if any unit had a policy of shoot 'em all, they would quickly be found out, and they would fail in their mission. Soldiers who make an honest mistake need the support and counseling to ensure they don't blame themselves and live with an un-necessary inner burden.

Though not beloved by all, I am quite certain a statue of a US Soldier in Iraq (or elsewhere) would not earn a nickname similar to the often referred Eastern European Soviet Soldier statue "The Unknown Rapist." Americans are different.

Off the soapbox.

[Rob Thornton]

Well, overall I've found our soldiers to be amazingly discriminate when pulling the trigger. Yes, I've seen some instances where the soldier could have done things differently - they are far and few between, and continue to grow more scarce. Yes I've seen instances where civilians were caught in the middle - mostly due to insurgent actions. I've seen both U.S. and Iraq Army and Police officers make a bad shot, or a wrong call - almost always for the right reasons - they were shooting at a confirmed enemy. I've seen far more instances where insurgents deliberately killed civilians, and willingly took advantage of civilians to mask an ambush. I've seen over a dozen civilians killed in a single SVBIED aimed at a single U.S. HMMWV in which none of the soldiers were killed. It almost always involved children. I've seen countless U.S. and Iraqi soldiers treat and evac wounded civilians from the results of terrorist SVBIED into an IP station, mortar attacks, IEDs, etc. I've seen far, far more uplifting and compassionate acts by ISF and U.S. forces toward civilians that saved countless lives while craven terrorist made their exfil and went off to some hole to lick their wounds so they could kill civilians again.

Perhaps Mr. Hedges might get out a bit more. He honestly would not have to look far to find the type of examples I just spoke of. However, that might require weening himself from poetic diatribe to serve his pale vision of reality.

[Ken White]

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:

"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.

[Sarajevo071]

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.

[Ken White]

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.

[Watcher In The Middle]

Interesting diatribe.....

When I read stuff like this, I always wonder if the writer holds the same opinion of the US intervention in Kosovo (now, of course, that was courtesy of an administration from a different political viewpoint), or Haiti, or even let's say a potential military intervention in Darfur.

Of course, I'm sure Mr. Hedges would hold to his same principles no matter the environment, be it geographic, military, or political.

Yeah.

In fact, would Mr. Hedges also prefer that our humanitarian efforts by our military in response to recent natural disasters like a Tsunami should be avoided, because members of the military could overreact in creating a security environment resulting from such an "atrocity producing situation" (a natural atrocity, but still an "atrocity")?

[MattC86]

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!?)

I don't think anyone has argued that such things aren't factors. This is the root of the extreme emphasis on perception and "information operations" currently being made throughout the military. Atrocities on a battlefield - whether premeditated like the 101st Airborne's rape case a few years ago in Mahmoudiya, purposeful in the heat of battle, or accidental - are as old as war itself, and hardly limited to insurgency. Even an Ambrose-style popular history of World War II will have numerous instances of American soldiers accidentally killing civilians with artillery fire or shooting Germans attempting to surrender in the heat of a firefight.

Americans are perhaps more messianic than most peoples and can therefore be more defensive about these happenings, but I don't think anyone here denies that they occur, or that they can have an impact on an insurgency. Certainly the Mahmoudiya rapes were at least the stated rationale for the kidnappings of US soldiers in Yousifiya, and atrocities can spur nationalist resistance sentiments among a population. Our cordon-and-search techniques and detainee operations, I would argue, definitely contributed to the Sunni insurgency in the immediate aftermath of the invasion. Anger and resentment from indiscriminate use of American firepower in Vietnam helped the Viet Cong.

I think we had more currency, so to speak, to spend in France or Italy in World War II in terms of atrocities before the population soured on us. We were unquestionably liberating their nations from the Nazis, and the local populations understood the tremendous effort it took to defeat them, and as such wasn't about to turn on us because of occasional civilian casualties inflicted by American firepower. To an extent I believe this held in Korea as well. In the Vietnamese "People's War" every wrongful death or property destruction eventually became a rod for our own back - this continues in Iraq. Hence, again, the extreme emphasis on avoiding such incidents; look at the rapid and extremely apologetic response for the Qur'an shooting incident and the passing out of Christian tokens in Fallujah.

Finally, the proliferation, decentralization, and dramatically increased worldwide access to media (both its production and consumption) has made these incidents more visible and accessible to the public. Shooting a German prisoner in World War II as he left a house with his hands above his head is as regrettable as the Marine killing a wounded enemy fighter with a single shot to the head in Fallujah in 2004 - yet the former incident happened countless times in WWII with nary a mention in the media (American or German) and the Fallujah incident was shown endlessly on CNN and even more endlessly on al Jazeera, al Arabiyya, and the like. Every time such an event occurs, it is made known to more people, and its impact is far greater. Vietnam was the television war - Iraq has gone from the 24-television news war to the blog/YouTube/cellphone camera war. None of this is to say that committing such acts is in any way justified, but I believe that to be the legitimate context, and as such why it seems so unique and profound to someone like Hedges.

(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)

I admit - the article doesn't exactly give me a nice warm feeling. It makes me defensive, and I believe much of it to be somewhat ignorant, but I can agree with your stated concept that cases of wrongdoing or atrocity are [a part] of the reason behind insurgencies in Vietnam, Iraq, or elsewhere. But I emphasize part, because poor American treatment of detainees did not spark JAM or other Shi'ite militias; nor are those smugglers and organized crime elements who resist the Iraqi government and the Americans doing so because they are redressing American atrocities.



For what it's worth, Sarajevo, I urge you to stay. You are a viewpoint we don't have, and while it may be hard for us to stomach some of what you tell us (and undoubtedly harder for you to stomach what we write), I think it's probably good for all concerned.

Just as Abu Buckwheat wrote about the moral hard deck on the Lone Survivor thread, I don't think it's bad to be reminded that we cannot overlook these occurrences because we know we tried harder than anybody else would to avoid them, or only try to prevent them because it complicates a COIN effort. They need to be prevented if possible and prosecuted if necessary because they are wrong. . .

Regards,

Matt

[Sarajevo071]

OK, my post is still here and you answered nicely to me so I will answer back…

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.

If I mistype my apologies but I didn’t meant to say that people here denying bad things happened, what I am trying to say is that when those are happened you will not jump to denounce those and call for justice (like you denounce and accusing “other side” putting more and more people into that one group instead to look at that ONE incident and ONE person or ONE group who did it). 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?

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. 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.

You are right when you point on those numbers and other, honorable people (he did mention some of them) and my point all this time is that “other side” is similar… Some people fight because they hate but others only to defend them self and to stop injustice. If war is hell and trauma then it is hell and trauma for everyone.

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?

Going back on your first comments… I don’t think I need to be there to know how is look like and what is going on. I don’t need to see every clip of attacks (either side) to know how that looks like there. And then, I can see aftermath of “justice” for killings in Iraq and Afghanistan by US soldiers. After 2 years handful with minor sentences and much, much more with slap on the wrist. On the other hand, for the same crimes (indiscriminately attacks and killings of civilians) groups and groups of people are shoot at, bombed, they homes invaded… Difference? Victims are American civilians or soldiers. If one guy get to shoot at you, you will responded with everything all around you (like so many cases in Iraq and Afghanistan proves), killing many innocent civilians in they homes or on the streets, but if one of your guy kills someone well that’s just big ops and should be understood because “war is hell”… And, not to forget, we can't just jump on the conclusions but we need to wait for (American?!) justice… Well, where is justice for others in Iraq and Afghanistan who didn’t have a thing to do with 9/11 then?!

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?


PS.
About my “abrasiveness” and not being fair… Like I always said: my words and my attitudes are reflection of what I see and get from others. I am honest and open, and I am not afraid of voicing my opinions or feelings. Especially when I feel I am right.

Thank you for your honest and open talks and responses. Sometimes when I talk to you (or to someone else) I also talk to other people here and responding on they words and opinions. That's when I can sound that bad. Please do not take my words to much personally.

You do have my respect and my thanks for your open mind and honest talk. Many more here too.