What it means when the US goes to war

[Ken White]

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

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.

...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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

[Tom Odom]

On 2003-05-17, just 2 weeks after president George W. Bush's famous "Mission Accomplished" speech, Hedges delivered a Commencement address at Rockford College in Rockford, Illinois, saying: "We are embarking on an occupation that, if history is any guide, will be as damaging to our souls as it will be to our prestige and power and security."

Ok that is the good Mr. Hedges and what he had to say before he wrote the article posted as the source of this thread. That is not to discount Mr. Hedges as a person but it certainly points to his point of origin. It is interesting to note that some of his work on the nature of war is lauded because of its lack of rhetoric; he makes up for the lack by slathering the rhetoric all over the page in this piece. To draw a parallel between US actions in Iraq and a Polish police battalion that shot 1800 Jews in 1942 is beyond the pale.

War is bad and bloody and emotions run hot, deep, and immediate. I didn't see anyone but crazed killers cheer in Rwanda or the Congo. I work shoulder to shoulder with Soldiers who mourn lost companions and try their very best to minimize further loss of life, whether civilian, host nation military, or coalition forces.

Tom

[Fuchs]

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...

This doesn't mean much for THEM, just for the West.
The perception is different, therefore also the impact.

The Iraq war was apparently being seen as an offence against a much larger group than just Iraqi Ba'ath leaders.
That will yield long-term problems even if the Iraq war will be 'won'.

It would be a good idea to care about this, and to do something against it that goes beyond plain info war.

The relations between European countries post-'45 were deliberately repaired by political cooperation/treaties, many low-level exchanges and a deliberate turn away from the past.
Maybe the Western world should do something like this (if the Arab world is really being perceived as important, which it should be at least in Europe since it's the southern flank).

The continuation of the war - even if atrocities are the exception of the rule - is obviously damaging relations to a huge part of the world.
Long-time poor relationships mean that many age-groups will get indoctrinated against us. It'd be much easier to revert the troubles if the bad relations period is short and not well-engrained in memories.

[Ski]

My favorite regarding my time in Afghanistan with a civilian friend of mine went as follows:

Dude: "So how was Afghanistan?"
Me: "Oh, it was ok, it was like the Wild West with high explosives, internal combustion engines and perpetual digestive discomfort."
Dude: "That sounds awful, was it stressful?"
Me: "Actually, I had a great time, just wish the military procured a softer brand of ####paper."

End of discussion.

[Ken White]

This doesn't mean much for THEM, just for the West.
The perception is different, therefore also the impact.

Of course it is; I was trying to explain to a Muslim that our perception is just as valid as their perception even though the two perceptions differ significantly. I did that with full knowledge that he was unlikely to be persuaded at this time -- but so he (and others) could recall years from now when it becomes more apparent to many in the world he heard it here first...

The Iraq war was apparently being seen as an offence against a much larger group than just Iraqi Ba'ath leaders.That will yield long-term problems even if the Iraq war will be 'won'.

There is no winning or losing in such wars, all one can do is, hopefully, achieve an acceptable outcome. "Long term" is relative. Folks in the ME have long memories, no question -- but they are also extremely pragmatic. My guess is that the problems will be minor.

It would be a good idea to care about this, and to do something against it that goes beyond plain info war.

Your suggestion is?

...Maybe the Western world should do something like this (if the Arab world is really being perceived as important, which it should be at least in Europe since it's the southern flank).

Having spent only a couple of years in the ME, I'm no expert but I did learn they have a different thought process on many things; treaties not being the least of them...

The continuation of the war - even if atrocities are the exception of the rule - is obviously damaging relations to a huge part of the world.

Whose atrocities? Looks to me like AQ is losing fans by the day and the west is gaining a few...

Long-time poor relationships mean that many age-groups will get indoctrinated against us. It'd be much easier to revert the troubles if the bad relations period is short and not well-engrained in memories.

Possibly true; equally possible that those who are now kids will be otherwise disposed. In any event, as I said, the folks in the ME do not think like we do -- not wrongly, just differently -- and they are the ultimate pragmatists.

[Norfolk]

In any event, as I said, the folks in the ME do not think like we do - [] - and they are the ultimate pragmatists.

[boldface added by Norfolk]

Granted, I know little of the ME, but even dim little me can say that that is very possible the most cutting and succinct statement that could ever be made regarding the modus operandi of that region. Not to mention the pairing of two diametrically opposite terms - "Ultimate" - reflecting an absolute quality; and "Pragmatic" - reflecting a relative quality; into a synthetic whole that is at once both self-contradictory and yet nevertheless fully explanatory. The ME makes sense to me now, and now I'm thoroughly confused!

You do indeed possess a sharp wit, Ken (just keep it away from my throat or any other such vital area.)

[Ken White]

rapier is blunted...