If You Really Loved Me You'd Let Me Eat Your Brain

Tommy, guess ya ain't familiar with the old sayin' "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

This is certainly how that white dude convicted of bombing abortion cliniics in the heart of ol' Dixie saw himself. As a freedom fighter that is. And our chicken shit liberal press was hesitant to call a spade a spade and refer to him as a terrorist in the press coverage.

Posted by: Dick | 20 April 2005

Nobody is my freedom fighter if they willfully murder non-combatants. Once you cross that line you become a murderer, not a soldier.

Posted by: 3XHAR | 21 April 2005

For 3XHAR: How cognizant of collateral damage to do this leaders going into warfare should be? I myself was appalled when Timothy McVeigh dismissed the deceased children in the Oaklahoma Fed Building daycare center as "collateral damage." On the other hand, he himself served in the first Gulf War and no doubt picked up the term there andlikely saw evidence of it.

Though I know it's not the preferred viewing of many posters I would like to point out a relevant sequence in "Fahrenheit 9/11." It's the one where Donald Rumsefeld makes an ass of himself going on about "the humanity" of selecting targets in Iraq only to have the viewer confronted in the next scene with a hospital room full of badly wounded babies and toddlers.

Posted by: Joe | 24 April 2005

Response to Joe’s query: ##For 3XHAR: How cognizant of collateral damage to do this leaders going into warfare should be? I myself was appalled when Timothy McVeigh dismissed the deceased children in the Oaklahoma Fed Building daycare center as "collateral damage." ##

How cognizant of collateral damage should leaders be when making the decision to use armed force? Per international law, attacks cannot be indiscriminate. Article 57 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions states that, in an international conflict, “constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians, and civilian objects.” Also, collateral damage from an attack has to be proportional to the anticipated military advantage. [Crimes of War, Gutman and Rieff, 1999]

Since Thaa Rev’s post was about Israel and Palestine I’ll take my examples from that conflict. Israeli troops have often used armed force to assassinate Hamas leaders and other Palestinians who Israel has deemed are either enemy combatants or are controlling enemy combatants. As often as not these attacks kill innocent bystanders. Israel’s rationalization of the collateral damage is that it’s proportionate to the anticipated military advantage. By killing a high ranking Hamas member, his bodyguards and a half dozen bystanders, Israel would argue, hundreds of innocent Israeli civilians would be saved.

Palestinian suicide bombers take no care to limit civilian casualties; obviously, their methods are designed to maximize these non-military deaths. In my opinion, the Palestinians who engineer these attacks and those who enact them are murderers, not soldiers. Their chosen methods, mass murder of civilians, make it difficult for me to empathize with their plight or argue on their behalf. Thankfully, for Israelis and Palestinians alike, a change in management on the Palestinian side may be the beginning of the end of this stupidity and cruelty.

Oh, as far as McVeigh is concerned, he had no leader, no country for which he fought. He seemed to me to be a deluded and angry man with some technical know-how on how to build a big, primitive and effective explosive. He was stupid and cruel enough to use this device against innocent people. I hate people like that.

As far as the American military is concerned I think the US often tries to adhere to the ‘rules of war’. I recall early reports of troops taking care not to direct fire against mosques and hospitals in Iraq until fire was received by them. The development of smart weaponry is not only better to kill with, but by design limits civilian casualties (if limiting civilian casualties was not in our interest, wouldn’t weapons designers build huge payloads and be less precise?). I don’t know if I’ve ever read about a war without collateral damage, but I do believe that the American military generally tries to avoid it. (tactics utilized in Vietnam are an obvious exception to this rule: carpet bombing, free fire zones, etc)

The exact opposite of trying to limit collateral damage is to purposefully target non-military civilian targets. The 9/11 hijackers fall into this end of the spectrum. And again, I see those 19 men as little more than mass murderers with the technical skills to allow them to pull off their mission. I believe they had intellectual blinders on allowing them to rationalize the murder of thousands of innocents and the cruelty to put their plans into action. And I hate people like that.

Posted by: 3XHAR | 26 April 2005

Proportionality is a crucial issue in assessing the morality of warfare. Do you remember last year when in Al-Fallujah, a flashpoint of Iraqi resistance, U.S. forces launched an assault on the city shortly after the murder of four American security men there on March 31st? (The gruesome images of the charred bodies of the four dead American security men played out in living room TVs around the world begged a response that would play well on TV too.)

The short-lived siege soon followed and some Iraqi politicians began accusing U.S. troops of using disproportionate force and heavy-handed tactics in the city as a reported 600 civilians died before the Marines withdrew. The U.S. military gave the stock response that figures for civilian deaths are impossible to verify but that its soldiers are obeying international law and are not targeting civilians. But what about the proportionality, particularly since these people posed no threat to the United States prior to our invasion of THEIR country?

By late 2004 Fulluja was already being bombed daily, as it was softened up for the long-awaited post-U.S. Presidental election siege. When the marines retreated months earlier they left the city in the hands of 18 armed groups, including tribesmen, Islamists, Baathists, former criminals and an assortment of non-Iraqi Arab fighters. Fallujans, in short, were offered a choice: hand over the outsiders they dislike (mostly Arabs) who are protecting them from the outsiders they really hate (the Americans), or get blown apart by the world's most lethal killing machine, the US marines.

While many Fallujans are no doubt tired even of their own mujahideen, they trust the US Army even less, and with good reason. In 2004 a Bush Administration official told The New York Times the bombing was driving a wedge between the citizenry and the non-Iraqi fighters. If, indeed, the civilian population was being bombed for this end, this is a grave war crime.

Posted by: Betzee | 28 April 2005

Response to Betzee, discussing proportionality: You mention the two US actions in Fallujah to illustrate the US using disproportionate force in it’s war with Iraqi insurgents.

In April, US Marines were ordered to move in to Falluja, only for them then to be ordered to halt because of concerns about the political fallout of high casualties in the operation. (bbcnews.com)

This first example, the fighting between US Marines and insurgents in April, is interesting because the Americans stopped fighting and turned to diplomacy to avert disproportionate civilian casualties (with attendant political fallout). This example supports my initial point, the ‘world’s most lethal killing machine, the US marines’ stopped fighting to limit collateral damage. If only the world could say the same about the insurgents, eh?

The second round of American attacks on Fallujah is another interesting point.

##It's unclear how many civilians remain in Falluja. The city's population was believed to be between 250,000 and 300,000, but U.S. and Iraqi officials estimated that 90 percent fled before the assault.) (cnn.com, 11/14/04)##

As I recall, the situation shaped up thusly: Fallujah was an insurgent strongpoint. It accorded the insurgency freedom of movement, a supply base, torture and murder cells, and command and control infrastructure. The American forces surrounded Fallujah and then waited for the majority of the civilian population to leave, leaving about 10% in harms way. Then the Americans attacked and took the city.

Did the Americans take care to spare the civilian population? I’d argue that waiting for them to leave did just that. Did this waiting benefit the Americans or the insurgents militarily? I’d argue the waiting benefited the insurgency, giving them time to set myriad booby-traps and strengthen their defenses. Did the Americans limit collateral damage in this case? Yes. Many civilians lives were spared by the American pause.

OK. I’ve tried to address some of your points. Now I have a few questions about some of your statements:

## But what about the proportionality, particularly since these people posed no threat to the United States prior to our invasion of THEIR country?##

I do not understand what you are asking. Please clarify this question.

## If, indeed, the civilian population was being bombed for this end, this is a grave war crime.##

Where did you read this? I’ve never read any account of the US purposefully bombing civilians in Iraq. Are you making this up? If not, I'm very interested. Please site your source so I can research this assertion further. Thanks.

Posted by: 3XHAR | 28 April 2005

When you have an insurgency where so many men are willing to Blow themselves up for little or no gain with insignificant individual impact you have lost. How can one say we are winning? My God I spent two years in Vietnam and we never had attacks like this in Saigon or anywhere in that Country's Cities. We should declare defeat and come home. Let them sort this out themselves. After all it's their Country. I'm tired of all the mindless death and suffering of people who never threatened us.
A Vietnam Vet.

Posted by: USMC70 | 09 May 2005

My point was merely that IF the Bush administration was bombing civilians in Fullujah last fall for the purpose of driving a wedge between the insurgency and the civilian populace that most certainly is a war crime. Of course thy are not going to admit it but somebody within the Bush administration did publicly say that appeared to the effect. I heard this on NPR while stuck in LA traffic in mid-October so I can't give you an exact citation.

As for declaring defeat USMC70, it's not in the cards. George W Bush's legacy is tied up in winning. So it appears the new strategy relies on the counterinsurgency program used successfully by the Reagan administration in El Savador in the 1980s. Specifically, arm death squads to take out those deemed enemies, in that case leftists and, in the process, terrorize those who might be tempted to support them. It also took out a lot of civilians, about 70,000 in a country of under 6 million. Not to mention creating a U.S.-bound exodus of rural El Salvadoreans fleeing their homeland to escape a civil war financed by Uncle Sam.

It's not clear this will be so easy to execute in multiethnic Iraq. What's not been mentioned is that the Sunni Muslims are what social scientists call a "dominant minority" like the Chinese in Southeast Asia. They didn't just happen to end up in control. Historically they achieved greater levels of education and excelled in commerce. And in post-Saddam Iraq they've created extremely sophisticated networks capable of inflicting great harm on non-Sunni Iraqis in an effort to "convince" them to support a U.S. withdrawal.

The only conclusion one can reach with certainty is that a lot more blood is going to be shed--ours and theirs--before this reaches some sort of conlusion.

Posted by: Betzee | 09 May 2005

USMC70 wrote: #When you have an insurgency where so many men are willing to Blow themselves up for little or no gain with insignificant individual impact you have lost. ##

If the other guys side are dying, by their own hand or ours, with little or no gain… Uh… That’s not bad for your side. But I’m guessing you’re not just writing about the military arithmetic. Your point is that the other side (the Glorious and Noble Iraqi Insurgents) is willing to die for their cause in suicide attacks which gain nothing for their side. And if the other side is suicidal then the US has lost because, well, we just can’t win against people who wish death before liberty. Because if you’re suicidal then you’re very dedicated and you just can’t beat that kind of dedication. Like the US war with Japan (which utilized suicide attacks also) the US could not possibly have won that war. Japan was suicidal and dedicated and the US lost WWII… Wait a second… Is it possible that just because another culture values the group over the individual and is willing to sacrifice the individual for the good of it’s group, is it possible that that isn’t enough to win wars? Perhaps. Perhaps there are other factors other than suicide attacks that win wars.

##How can one say we are winning?## and ## We should declare defeat and come home.##

Well, I’d say you have to focus on specific goals to determine if you’re making progress towards the win/lose column. Has the previous mass grave producing, non-weapons of mass destruction owning, kleptocracy been ousted from power? Yes. Has Hussein and sons been killed or captured? Yes. Have the Iraqi people started the long journey towards democracy by voting? Yes. Is there security for the average Iraqi? No. Is the pipeline up and running? No. Has the insurgency defeated indigenous Iraqi forces on even a company level engagement? Maybe, it depends whose reporting. Has the insurgency defeated American forces on even a platoon level engagement? No. So, one could say it’s a mixed report, but the Evil Republican foreign policy has made some headway, eh?

Then Betzee went on to write: ##As for declaring defeat USMC70, it's not in the cards.## I don’t know whether to celebrate or weep: Betzee and 3XHAR agree! And then, WHAM!, again with ##The only conclusion one can reach with certainty is that a lot more blood is going to be shed--ours and theirs--before this reaches some sort of conlusion.##

Well, not total agreement, of course. I think there are more than one conclusion to be reached before this reaches some sort of conclusion. But I just don't have the time right now.

Posted by: 3XHAR | 11 May 2005