What it means when the US goes to war

[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.

[Sarajevo071]

Actually they did, MattC. Maybe not here and now but I read so much “reports” and “papers” and “studies” (latest one from the US Senate Committee on HS about “Violent Islamist Extremism and Internet) where writer spend pages and pages “proving” that Islamic extremist videos (war footage and tape attacks) with AQ messages making people terrorists. Not a word about anger of Muslims on invasions, killings and rapes… And what about those one million Iraqi kids killed “thanks” to US sanctions? Same sanctions Albright said that are “worthy” risk and “sacrifices”.

And then I see here all this smart, professional, educated and experience people talking about same things with same ideas not calculating killings, torture, rapes like big factors!? Don’t you think if some your soldiers have different attitudes and bigger morals, less racism and bigotry, all this would be different game?! Do you realize that AQ was marginal organization that Muslims ignored en mass until you start bombing and killing kids in Iraq and Afghanistan?! Until renditions, Abu Gharib, Guantanamo, tortures, rapes… In my country they say, "what one idiot can do, hundreds of smart can't fix it".

And, please, stop minimizing war atrocities insisting that those killings and incidental and in the heat of a firefight. Not all of them are. Not are all attacks by insurgency deliberate attacks on civilians (logic is if US soldiers can “by accident” kill dozens civilians then other can to, right?). Bunch of them are deliberate created by hate, bigotry and revenge. Those are war crimes by any definition.

I agree with you with your parallels on WWII and today’s war and with part media plays in it, but we are here and now and I know more about today then about war my grand father (RA) was in… I believe I read Iraqis from Basra in The Telegraph saying something like, “Brits like occupators were more brutal then US but they were more fair and respectful”. That is huge for one to understand and learn from it. I did searches and I did interrogations and I know that one can do them in different manner then how US is doing in Iraq or Afghanistan. Plus, supporting all those moronic leaders, dictators and tortures is not helping US avoid guilt for tortures in Egypt, SA or whenever… I believe that’s what US justice system calls “guilt by association”, right?

Now, when you talk about all those incident and how they were not responded in some big way… I think they were.

Look at Bosnia. Case of Bosnia (and deliberated staying on the sides by Europe and US) was used like recruitment cry and “revenge” for WTC bombing and then for recruiting some of the 9/11 attackers… Case of Fatima (raped by Americans in Abu Gharib) and her plea was responded by numerous attacks in Iraq… Case of those stupid cartoons was responded in couple different countries… Abu Gharib was respond on to and it is still in minds of many…. And almost monthly there is some more cases to remember and be angry for.

PS. Thank you for your words. I am happy is someone can understand me and be open to my words and what I am trying to say, and to be open and honest back. Who knows, maybe we all have chance after all?

[Jedburgh]

The article is a gross insult to all who serve, and have served, in Iraq. It is simply an anti-war diatribe that uses the current conflict as a target for exaggerated rhetoric that paints all of the troops in-country as criminals. I was utterly disgusted by his use of Reserve Police Bn 101 as a comparative point for US soldier actions. Using phrases like unchecked orgy of death, license to kill with impunity, abuse of the powerless becomes a perverted sport, etc. ad nauseum makes it sound as if OIF is a rerun of the worst of the Balkan conflicts or that our forces are Nazi-equivalents. It is all literary imagery and absolutely no substance.

Sarajevo - you continue to look at all events through the prism of Bosnia. This twists your vision and mitigates against a clear view of events in their context. This is especially evident by your constant harping on the crime of rape of civilians - which has been very rare in Iraq, in stark contrast to what occurred in the Balkans. Yes, individual crimes have taken place in Iraq - which the services do their best to address. Tragic accidents happen - which do have a horrible impact upon Iraqi families. However, what this article states - that the US is engaged in and encourages systemic violence directed against Iraqi civilians is utterly and completely false. The article is little more than one long narrative insult of the US armed forces.

[Sarajevo071]

Any given person is shaped by his experienced and what he learned or witnessed. To say that I am and other not (by they own bias and experience, or patriotic feeling or what they learn) is gross misrepresentation. I mean, you can say whatever you wish to diminish my opinion but I think Bosnia helped me to understand everything better. Of course, I notice you didn't say I was not right and that my examples was not true.

You, like American and the member of US Armed Forces have right to feel that way and I expected that reactions, but to say that it is not true or that other members of Military did not say this or that... I don't know. There are soldiers talking about those things for years! All of them veterans and (former maybe) big US patriots, your own former brothers in arms... Just because one doesn't like certain thing it doesn't meant it is not true.

Won't you call US sanctions and then bombardment, invasion and occupation of Iraq "systemic violence directed against Iraqi civilians", since we all know that around 75% victims in modern wars are civilians? How do you wage war on country, killing they civilians without being engaged in "systemic violence"?

Now excuse me, I have to go....

[Rank amateur]

This is especially evident by your constant harping on the crime of rape of civilians - which has been very rare in Iraq, in stark contrast to what occurred in the Balkans.

True. In any group of 150,000 men, there's going to be at least one or two rapists. Sad but true. It doesn't say anything about the other 149,998.

However, his overall premise is correct- War sucks. It is brutal, ugly, and tragic.

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.

[MikeF]

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.

[davidbfpo]

THis is not an easy thread to read, it is a pandora's box of issues and history. The original article, which I've not read, can hardly be seen as open minded and placing it on SWC was boudn to lead to a robust reaction.

We are here to learn from each other's different experiences. Painful thtough they maybe, debate and learning is not conflict-free.

I watched the Bosnia conflict, which was regularly reported in the UK, often with a news report every night, notably by Martin Bell of the BBC. Yes, many got bored and confused by our role in UNPROFOR. Colonel Bob Stewart's description of Bosnia and asking why we were there had a massive public impact.

The UK government's policy, a Conservative government, held to the crazy policy of a "level playing field", which nothing like level or a playing field. It disgusted me, but I was in a tiny minority who wanted forceful action taken. The UK public, let alone others in UNPROFOR, were unwilling to accept casualties until very late on.

Many subscribe to the view that the reporting and imagery of the mortar bombing of a Sarejevo market, by CNN and others, finally changed public opinion in Europe and the USA. General Sir Michael Rose's book, one of the few I've read on Bosnia, has good chapters on this period.

We need to learn all the time and it is difficult.

davidbfpo

[Ken White]

You said earlier:

...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.

[Backwards Observer]

I agree with Ken White's added thought; the degree of level-headedness and "adult leadership" shown responding to some of these rather provocative posts is remarkable given the current climate.
Having said that, I imagine that very few military organizations would produce an individual like Hugh Thompson.



"all warfare is based on self-deception"

[Uboat509]

I tried to read this thing but I didn't get very far. This is Ward Churchill level of rhetorical garbage. As a career soldier I am sick to death of of the stereotypes that the anti-war crowd keeps trying to attach to us. Apparently we are all either viscous cold blooded baby killers or tortured victims on the ragged edge of suicidal break down or possibly even both. Did I miss something? I never killed or witnessed the killing of a civilian during my tour in Iraq nor do I have flash backs and I am not suicidal (I did inadvertently watch an episode of Sex in the City with my wife once but that is as close to suicidal as I have ever been). This stuff wouldn't bother me but I know that a large percentage of the public has never been to Iraq or Afghanistan and does not even know anyone who has. This kind of agitprop is the only way many of them get their information about what is going on in those places. As it is many people assume that orders to one of those places is tantamount to a death sentence. It never fails to irritate me when I tell someone that I have been to Iraq and they get that sad look and tell me they are sorry, like a relative just died. It doesn't happen every time. Some say thank-you. Some say Dude, what's it like? But enough of them tell me that they are sorry to make me avoid mentioning it around anyone I don't know. At times it seems like I should feel guilty that I came back normal and well adjusted or at least as much as I was when I left.

SFC W

[Ken White]

...I am not suicidal (I did inadvertently watch an episode of Sex in the City with my wife once but that is as close to suicidal as I have ever been).

I was resuscitated by my daughter with massive quantities of bourbon. Good kid...

[Schmedlap]

It never fails to irritate me when I tell someone that I have been to Iraq and they get that sad look and tell me they are sorry, like a relative just died. It doesn't happen every time. Some say thank-you. Some say Dude, what's it like? But enough of them tell me that they are sorry to make me avoid mentioning it around anyone I don't know.

Same here. A few weeks ago, I was at a social function full of people who are not like me. I had to wear a suit and pretend that I wanted to be there. I generally avoid telling people that I was in the military or that I served in Iraq for the very reasons that you cite. One woman asked what I was doing for work - I pointed out that I quit my job and became a full-time student and tried to focus the discussion more on the latter. She then asked what I did for work. I reluctantly disclosed that I was in the Army. At that point, I was debating whether to rifle through her purse for her nitroglycerin pills because she clutched her chest, nearly fell over, and exclaimed, "oh no! That's terrible! Did you have to go to Iraq?"

[marct]

Hi Sarajevo,

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?

I'm afraid that may be part of human nature . Speaking only to the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, I certainly agree with you that that is the public reaction. Let me pull out some of the different factors, though.

First, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, US and Coalition troops are, technically, operating in support of the government (A government might be a better descriptor, but the constructed social context is of the government). There are certain things that go with this, in particular actually having access to the people who may (or may not) have committed the "atrocity" (I put that in quotes since all that initially exists is an accusation, not because I'm denying that they have or may happen). So it is both easy and generally viewed as legitimate (via a supposed rule of law) to require that there be investigations, hearings, etc. Within the general context of Western legal systems, one of the first claims of innocence is almost always "it was an accident".

Now we come to the other sides...

The supposed perpetrators (again, let's toss out a presumption of innocence) are not readily accessible. They cannot be investigated, or even identified most of the time, although the crime scene can examined. Certain radical irhabi elements have established a pattern of action that, contrary to the Qu'ran, is indiscriminate in its killings (e.g. suicide bombers, IEDs, etc.). This constructs almost any action taken by "them" (whoever THAT may be !), as being controlled not by "law" but by the breaking of "law" (of all types). The worst part about all of this is that quilt is established by association and not by trial because a trial is impossible at present.

You asked if it was possible for the other to make mistakes - of course it is! No question about that at all. But how can you tell? How often does an irhabi group apologize for an "atrocity"? How often do they punish the people who committed it? And, most importantly for this current discussion, how often are these apologies and punishments reported in the Western media which is, after all, one of the main sources of how perceptions are formed in the West (and we are talking about Western attitudes here)?

Sarajevo, I know you could turn around and point to cases where atrocities have been committed by Western forces that have never been brought to trial. Let me save you the trouble; yes they exist (the Blackwater case in Baghdad being a great example). This really does make me angry - from all that I have heard, those SOBs should have been tried, convicted and, IMHO, executed for their actions. I hope they will be tried in the future. I honestly see hat case, and one or two others I have heard of, as the irhabi getting away with their crimes (BTW, I have no hesitation in using that term either). At the same time, I think that it is crucial to note that other irhabi groups are getting away with their crimes.

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?

Nah, here I think you are really wrong - I honestly don't think that the vast majority of the US cares what white, European Muslims think about them - they know that all Europeans hate the US ! With a few exceptions, and I'll admit some of them are prominent, this is not about religion so much as it is about realpolitik.

[MattC86]

Nah, here I think you are really wrong - I honestly don't think that the vast majority of the US cares what white, European Muslims think about them - they know that all Europeans hate the US ! With a few exceptions, and I'll admit some of them are prominent, this is not about religion so much as it is about realpolitik.

Not even realpolitik - domestic politics in the United States. After Somalia in 1993, there was zero enthusiasm in the Clinton Administration (and, as is often forgotten, even less in Congress) for nation building or humanitarian relief operations. This was a sentiment in the White House, the Capitol, and among the population at large. Balkans, Rwanda, etc. We didn't even intervene in East Timor - we supported the Australians as they took the lead.

My point is that the slow US response in the Balkans had little to do with any discrimination against religion, ethnicity, or nationality - it had to do with a government paralyzed by the fear of the domestic political opposition a similar mission gone awry (Somalia) had engendered.

And don't forget that when the US was pushing for "lift and strike" after Srebrenica, there was no enthusiasm for it within the Western alliance as a whole. There were many factors involved in the tragic and unconscionable delays in proper UN/NATO/US responses to the Balkans crisis, as with Rwanda and others.

Finally, Sarajevo, I'd argue not that all such incidents are in the heat of battle, but that a good percentage of them are. Not that that in anyway excuses them - it simply is the reality of combat, and not limited to insurgency (take that for what it's worth coming from someone who has most definitely NOT seen combat).

Regards,

Matt

[MikeF]

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."

[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.