Radicals wanted to create carnage at Fort Dix

[graceanne]

Huh? I am so confused.

First of all, you're Jewish? I missed that one!

Genetically - my family came over from Germany during their Great Depression. We converted so that no one would know - after all at that time it wasn't safe to be Jewish. After a while we were truelly Christians. But my g g grandfather told my aunt when she was a little girl, that his earliest memory was playing in a large ball room with a star of david on the floor.

Anyway - don't hurt yourself with the head banging. I don't think people who disagree with me are idiots. That would make me an idiot, and I'm not one.

Shabat Shalom!

C'mon, I'm a masochist, I might wanna hurt myself.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

And for those who would decry terrorist tactics because they "kill innocent civilians" but support "conventional state-sponsored warfare," "collateral damage" - click here for the Wikipedia definition - has been a chief U.S. military tactic since WWII.

Whoa there, Nelly. Don't confuse a label for unintended damage with a tactic for closing with, engaging, and destroying an enemy. The former is usually a fuck-up while intending to do the latter. When it's not "usually," quite a few conversations have run up and down the command structure prior to weapon(s) release. i've seen enough operational/tactical maps covered in No Fire Zone graphics and seldom saw a counterpart Free Fire Zone to boggle the mind how a US or NATO conventional force ever gets the job done.

i'll agree WWII produced some of the most devastating intentional instances of non-military target engagement on both sides of the conflict, but the shelling and/or bombing of London, Stalingrad, Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to name a few wasn't collateral damage. The powers that be on both sides of the conflict decided breaking the will to resist of the people on the opposing side would lead them to victory faster at the cost of fewer lives. In recognition of that time period's state of affairs, signatories of the Fourth Geneva convention adopted Part II : General protection of populations against certain consequences of war. As an aside, take note of Part I, Article 4, specifically:

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.

Which leads to beginning of your quoted piece.

And for those who would decry terrorist tactics because they "kill innocent civilians" but support "conventional state-sponsored warfare,"

i'll simply call bullshit and pass a few links back to you.

Hague Convention of 1907.

The Third Geneva Convention of 1949. Pay particular attention to the following:

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

* 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
* 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
o that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
o that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
o that of carrying arms openly;
o that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 on the treatment of civilians during wartime.

List of countries that have ratified the First through Fourth Geneva Conventions. Note that both Iraq and the US have signed this treaty, with the following Reservation from the United States. Specifically:

"The United States reserves the right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the provisions of Article 68, paragraph 2, without regard to whether the offenses referred to therein are punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory at the time the occupation begins" (Reservation formulated by the Representative of the United States of America at the time of signature.)

Prisoner Status of Francs-tireurs versus lawful combatant, and yes, i understand the uproar over unlawful combatant. The international community addressed this issue in Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, specifically Article 44. - Combatants and prisoners of war. Take note of the signatories that have ratified the additional protocol. Notice anyone missing? Iraq has neither signed, much less ratified the protocol. The US has signed, but not ratified meaning

a signature is not binding on a State unless it has been endorsed by ratification.

You can blame the US reticence for agreeing on hard earned lessons in Vietnam with the Viet Cong, but i'll let Ronnie say it for me.

Another provision would grant combatant status to irregular forces even if they do not satisfy the traditional requirements to distinguish themselves from the civilian population and otherwise comply with the laws of war. This would endanger civilians among whom terrorists and other irregulars attempt to conceal themselves. These problems are so fundamental in character that they cannot be remedied through reservations, and I therefore have decided not to submit the Protocol to the Senate in any form, and I would invite an expression of the sense of the Senate that it shares this view. Finally, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have also concluded that a number of the provisions of the Protocol are militarily unacceptable.

i personally believe a sea change on the horizon, but that knife cuts both ways. According to the world court of opinion, you're either a combatant or a civilian. Fine. Combatants of 194 signatory countries are subject to the laws of war and can be prosecuted for War Crime violations of those laws. Civilian's are subject to the laws of the terra firma in which they commit an offense. So, go ahead and roll those dice. Just remember, the US held the reservation for application of the death penalty. When you roll snake eyes, Gitmo will look like heaven in comparison.

And last, but not least, the bonus prize:

Palestine : On 21 June 1989, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs received a letter from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations Office at Geneva informing the Swiss Federal Council "that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, entrusted with the functions of the Government of the State of Palestine by decision of the Palestine National Council, decided, on 4 May 1989, to adhere to the Four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two Protocols additional thereto".

On 13 September 1989, the Swiss Federal Council informed the States that it was not in a position to decide whether the letter constituted an instrument of accession, "due to the uncertainty within the international community as to the existence or non-existence of a State of Palestine".

i'll simply refer you back to Convention IV, Section 1, Article 4.

Sorry, minx. i'll have to address your questions at a later date. i'd like to post a few lighter things.

 

[minx1]

.

Sorry, minx. i'll have to address your questions at a later date. i'd like to post a few lighter things.

lol tell me about it! Thanks AA, as it happens I don't think there's much of mine to address.....but I leave that for you to decide.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

lol tell me about it! Thanks AA, as it happens I don't think there's much of mine to address.....but I leave that for you to decide.

Oh, there is. i believe Sun Tzu was a genius.

 

[minx1]

Oh, there is. i believe Sun Tzu was a genius.

Then I shall look forward to your comments, since I know very little about the art of war lol

 

[neonflux]

Just a short note to AA - promise a considered response tomorrow. (Too tired tonight to say much of import, except, briefly, to sign a treaty is not to live up to it...)

~ Neon

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Just a short note to AA - promise a considered response tomorrow. (Too tired tonight to say much of import, except, briefly, to sign a treaty is not to live up to it...)

~ Neon

i'll be looking forward to it. It's just a pity some of the folks that attended this concert won't have that luxury. Live w/ Usher and Chris in Madison Square Garden 10 September 2001.

 

[minx1]

i'll be looking forward to it. It's just a pity some of the folks that attended this concert won't have that luxury. Live w/ Usher and Chris in Madison Square Garden 10 September 2001.

Yes it is...too many people have been killed, in the USA, UK, Iraq and elsewhere. I find terrorism abhorent in ALL its forms and to me, one is not more acceptable than another.

 

[neonflux]

i'll be looking forward to it. It's just a pity some of the folks that attended this concert won't have that luxury. Live w/ Usher and Chris in Madison Square Garden 10 September 2001.

OK, trying again! Last time I lost everything right before I posted... Will respond to your first post later (probably tomorrow as work and housekeeping and lover call).

I would like to assume that you weren't being flip in your second sentence. Whenever I read/hear someone recall those who died in 911 so lightly, I cannot help but see it as an "easy shot" to exploring very complex and difficult issues. I also cannot help but feeling baited, but in this case, I will bite (yes, I know you give fair warning in your sig pic - then again, I'm not afraid of deep water, LOL).

First, I must begin by asking if there was anything, anything at all in my first post that would indicate that I didn't value the lives taken by terrorism? I think I stated pretty unequivocally that I did and that I though terrorism was a terrible thing. Where I suspect we differ is in what our answers/solutions to the problem is, although that is still to be determined.

I am troubled when people automatically bring up 911 in such a seemingly "off the cuff" manner. There seems to me to be an implication in this when combined with your prior post (and I would love to stand corrected) that the deaths of innocent victims of terrorism are somehow "more tragic" than those of conventional warfare, since "collateral damage" is a "mistake."

(excerpted) ...Don't confuse a label for unintended damage with a tactic for closing with, engaging, and destroying an enemy. The former is usually a fuck-up while intending to do the latter.

Our continued calling up of 911 in the wake of all the continuing death and destruction (including additional terrorist attacks) that followed seems overly "self-concentrating to me, born of the type of hubris that is part of the reason so much of the world has come to hate us (when they felt so strongly for us immediately after, as they should have.

I doubt that an Iraqi grandmother whose children and grandchildren became "collateral damage" would feel the same, nor do many of those who lost loved ones in the Twin Towers collapse. My family is from the east coast and I can also say that my NYC friends and relatives don't either.

Lest anyone accuse me of taking the deaths of those lost in the 911 attacks lightly, my best friend (we've known each other since we were 12 and are both now 50) came very close to being one of them. He had an appointment on one of the top floors of the second tower to collapse on 9/11, and had it not been postponed at the last minute (literally right as he was about to walk out the door), he would have been there when the tower was hit. He knew people who died in the attack, as did several others in our circle.

The day after 911, my friend was working in a building opposite where the Twin Towers had stood (he's a decorative painter and works odd hours), and spoke to one of the housekeepers who had watched the attack as it occured. She described seeing people jump to their deaths rather than being caught in the blast, as well as body parts flying before they disintegrated...

Am I unconcerned about terrorism, living in "liberal San Francisco?" The Golden Gate Bridge is often mentioned as a prime "symbolic" terrorist target, the City is a seat of Pacific Rim business and is one of the most densely populated west of the Mississipi, making it a great target for bioterrorism, and the Bay Area is home to Livermore Labs, the seat of much military research.

A last comment: I have been to "Ground Zero" (and in any other context, I would find it amusing that people in the U.S. have named it that, as though no other country has one). When I have opened myself up to its silence, I've found it overwhelmingly difficult to bear. I have a hard time understanding some of the reactions of the tourists I have seen there (poem follows), most of whom I am sure see themselves as "patriotic." I just don't think we can afford that type of patriotism - I want something deeper.

Just my take...
Neon

the poem ----->

CLICK

Click-click!
Here we stand, close to Wall Street.
I pose my family in just the right spot
And grab a fellow tourist to take our picture
In front of the chain link fence
That separates us from the concrete covered pit
Barely visible in the background.
We smile wide saying, "Spaghettieeeeeee!"

Click-click!
I point my camera upwards,
At the billboard exhibiting the City's history,
And the sky which blue and bright today
Blots out visions of ash-dark cloud
Raining hands and feet,
Arms and legs,
Torsos and headless eyes.

Click-click!
I get a shot of the construction workers
The gaping hole covered by their activity
Their activity taking attention from
The vague cries of DNA reduced to atoms,
An extinguished indistinguishable mass
Created again and again in retaliation for,
In the names of "The Heroes" listed here.

Click-click!
Click-click!
Click-click!
I've been three days in New York City
I've seen 3 Broadway shows,
I've eaten at Sardi's,
I've shopped at Bloomingdales,
And now I can tell my friends that
I've been to Ground Zero.
When I get home I'll dump
These last photos into my computer
And post them on a web page
That I'll decorate with
The American Flag.

Copyright, S M Nestor 2006

 

[graceanne]

I doubt that an Iraqi grandmother whose children and grandchildren became "collateral damage" would feel the same, nor do many of those who lost loved ones in the Twin Towers collapse. My family is from the east coast and I can also say that my NYC friends and relatives don't either.

Um, actually some of the iraqi's support our presense. Quite a few, although you wouldn't know it by what our media shows. K's in the national guard and has quite a few friends over there right now. My brothers in the army (although in Germany, thank God), and he's got friends over there (his best friend died over there two years ago). I'm not just spouting off the top of my head about this.

Plus, not all the Iraqi's over here are against the war, as people would like to believe. My sister in law is an Iraqi Kurd. Her father saw which way the wind was blowing when Hussein rose to power, and left - most of her Iraqi family are dead. (Do you want a run down on how they died? It wasn't pretty.) She sent me a pro war thing in the mail the other day that I didn't put here, cause it would have SERIOUSLY pissed off a bunch of you.

 

[neonflux]

Um, actually some of the iraqi's support our presense. Quite a few, although you wouldn't know it by what our media shows. K's in the national guard and has quite a few friends over there right now. My brothers in the army (although in Germany, thank God), and he's got friends over there (his best friend died over there two years ago). I'm not just spouting off the top of my head about this.

Plus, not all the Iraqi's over here are against the war, as people would like to believe. My sister in law is an Iraqi Kurd. Her father saw which way the wind was blowing when Hussein rose to power, and left - most of her Iraqi family are dead. (Do you want a run down on how they died? It wasn't pretty.) She sent me a pro war thing in the mail the other day that I didn't put here, cause it would have SERIOUSLY pissed off a bunch of you.

Graceanne, in my quote, I was not suggesting that there aren't those in Iraq who support a U.S. presence, although as we continue to so badly bungle the war there, less and less of the populace does so.

My quote was a comment on the tendency to view the death of victims of terrorism as somehow "more tragic" than the deaths of those who are classified as "collatoral damage." My point was that both deaths are tragic and both lives have equal value. In the case of the Iraqis, who never supported terrorism nor were a breeding ground for the same before the war, how can one view any of them as any "less innocent" than those who died in 911...

Regarding the letter from your sister in law - I would not have been pissed off had you posted it, but interested. Actually, I would have loved to read it. I do understand that some Iraqi's and most Kurds support our presence. My understanding is that they are an ethnic group that has been severely oppressed throughout the region, whether they live in Iraq, Iran, or within the borders of our ally, Turkey. And I feel strongly that they deserve our full support. (Although I don't hold my breath for us to ever pressure the Turkish government to give Kurds more autonomy...)

Neon

P.S., Being half Irish and half Slovak, both groups of which have experienced "occupation" and suppression of their language - my grandmother was taught in Hungarian when she went to school, even though she lived in Slovakia - I have a soft spot for those who are Kurdish, actually...

 

[neonflux]

One more note about my first response to AngelicAssassin. I do not mean in any way shape or form to suggest that it is wrong to remember those who died in 911, rather that I think that "calling up their memory" is often used to support current U.S. policy without thinking about it critically - and I am not suggesting that folks here are doing that. ~ Neon

 

[graceanne]

Graceanne, in my quote, I was not suggesting that there aren't those in Iraq who support a U.S. presence, although as we continue to so badly bungle the war there, less and less of the populace does so.

My quote was a comment on the tendency to view the death of victims of terrorism as somehow "more tragic" than the deaths of those who are classified as "collatoral damage." My point was that both deaths are tragic and both lives have equal value. In the case of the Iraqis, who never supported terrorism nor were a breeding ground for the same before the war, how can one view any of them as any "less innocent" than those who died in 911...

Ok, I read it wrong then. My apologies - any death is sad.

Regarding the letter from your sister in law - I would not have been pissed off had you posted it, but interested. Actually, I would have loved to read it. I do understand that some Iraqi's and most Kurds support our presence. I certainly have great empathy for people who are Kurdish, no matter where they live - Iraq, Iran, or within the borders of our ally, Turkey. I know that they are an ethnic group that has been severely oppressed throughout the region and feel strongly that they deserve our full support.

Neon

P.S., Being half Irish and half Slovak, both groups of which have experienced "occupation" and suppression of their language - my grandmother was taught in Hungarian when she went to school, even though she lived in Slovakia - I have a soft spot for those who are Kurdish, actually...

Huh. It was forwarded, so I'll probably get it again, but I deleted it. It pretty much called for turning Iraq into parking lot (just not in those words).

 

[minx1]

OK, trying again! Last time I lost everything right before I posted... Will respond to your first post later (probably tomorrow as work and housekeeping and lover call).

I would like to assume that you weren't being flip in your second sentence. Whenever I read/hear someone recall those who died in 911 so lightly, I cannot help but see it as an "easy shot" to exploring very complex and difficult issues. I also cannot help but feeling baited, but in this case, I will bite (yes, I know you give fair warning in your sig pic - then again, I'm not afraid of deep water, LOL).

First, I must begin by asking if there was anything, anything at all in my first post that would indicate that I didn't value the lives taken by terrorism? I think I stated pretty unequivocally that I did and that I though terrorism was a terrible thing. Where I suspect we differ is in what our answers/solutions to the problem is, although that is still to be determined.

I am troubled when people automatically bring up 911 in such a seemingly "off the cuff" manner. There seems to me to be an implication in this when combined with your prior post (and I would love to stand corrected) that the deaths of innocent victims of terrorism are somehow "more tragic" than those of conventional warfare, since "collateral damage" is a "mistake."



Our continued calling up of 911 in the wake of all the continuing death and destruction (including additional terrorist attacks) that followed seems overly "self-concentrating to me, born of the type of hubris that is part of the reason so much of the world has come to hate us (when they felt so strongly for us immediately after, as they should have.

I doubt that an Iraqi grandmother whose children and grandchildren became "collateral damage" would feel the same, nor do many of those who lost loved ones in the Twin Towers collapse. My family is from the east coast and I can also say that my NYC friends and relatives don't either.

Lest anyone accuse me of taking the deaths of those lost in the 911 attacks lightly, my best friend (we've known each other since we were 12 and are both now 50) came very close to being one of them. He had an appointment on one of the top floors of the second tower to collapse on 9/11, and had it not been postponed at the last minute (literally right as he was about to walk out the door), he would have been there when the tower was hit. He knew people who died in the attack, as did several others in our circle.

The day after 911, my friend was working in a building opposite where the Twin Towers had stood (he's a decorative painter and works odd hours), and spoke to one of the housekeepers who had watched the attack as it occured. She described seeing people jump to their deaths rather than being caught in the blast, as well as body parts flying before they disintegrated...

Am I unconcerned about terrorism, living in "liberal San Francisco?" The Golden Gate Bridge is often mentioned as a prime "symbolic" terrorist target, the City is a seat of Pacific Rim business and is one of the most densely populated west of the Mississipi, making it a great target for bioterrorism, and the Bay Area is home to Livermore Labs, the seat of much military research.

A last comment: I have been to "Ground Zero" (and in any other context, I would find it amusing that people in the U.S. have named it that, as though no other country has one). When I have opened myself up to its silence, I've found it overwhelmingly difficult to bear. I have a hard time understanding some of the reactions of the tourists I have seen there (poem follows), most of whom I am sure see themselves as "patriotic." I just don't think we can afford that type of patriotism - I want something deeper.

Just my take...
Neon

Thankyou Neon. I have to say I thought your post was wonderful

 

[neonflux]

Thankyou Neon. I have to say I thought your post was wonderful

~ ~

 

[neonflux]

Ok, I read it wrong then. My apologies - any death is sad.



Huh. It was forwarded, so I'll probably get it again, but I deleted it. It pretty much called for turning Iraq into parking lot (just not in those words).

Apology not necessary - I appreciate a good, cordial debate and feel like I learn a great deal, whether or not I end up changing my mind (and I can be pursuaded). If you should ever get the letter again, I for one, would love to read it if you are up for sharing.

Neon

 

[graceanne]

Apology not necessary - I appreciate a good, cordial debate and feel like I learn a great deal, whether or not I end up changing my mind (and I can be pursuaded). If you should ever get the letter again, I for one, would love to read it if you are up for sharing.

Neon

That will depend on whether I feel up to getting jumped. I might just IM it to you.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

One more note about my first response to AngelicAssassin. I do not mean in any way shape or form to suggest that it is wrong to remember those who died in 911, rather that I think that "calling up their memory" is often used to support current U.S. policy without thinking about it critically - and I am not suggesting that folks here are doing that. ~ Neon

Thank you for the further explanation. My "short and sweet" was in direct response to yours, specifically:

... to sign a treaty is not to live up to it ...

Likewise, i'll assume your quoted comment not to be a broadbrush "free to disregard at leisure" approach to International Relations and in particular warfare. i'll further assume you and i are subject to human frailties and will cut to the chase late at night.

In answer to your latest query, rather than go through a laundry list of attacks prior to 9/11/01, i'll simply refer any and all, especially those that believe(d) 9/11 the first terrorist attack on US soil, to an earlier posted link on terrorist attacks starting in 1979. You might have to sift through them a bit, but i gave the ballpark figure and reasoning for the current US edition's starting point in my previous post. If not, don't expect me to walk, in general, you through it.

Specifically, i have nothing in common with the subjects in your posted poem. i haven't, nor ever will visit Ground Zero, any of them. (i did get the underlying irony.) i have been to Chickamauga, Normandy, Dachau, Auschwitz, and the memorials on Unter den Linden in Berlin on mandatory terrain walks. While i understood and respect the significance of those particular locales, i couldn't shake a feeling i can only describe as ill at ease to have the temerity to walk in the halls of the Dead Men of Dunharrow. i was never so happy in a particular position than the day the proposed trip to Kursk got canceled. i know the background behind the 160th disaster in Mogadishu and dealt with portions of the recovery first hand, but will not watch Blackhawk Down to this day. i've done time in the sandbox. In short, i don't take the subject at hand in all of its facets lightly.

Thank you for http://peacefultomorrows.org/article.php?id=582 in your longer post. i found it quite informative, and with a nod to News World Communications Inc. i'd rather quote the entire thing here.

Iraqi civilian casualties

by UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL, www.wpherald.com
July 12th, 2005

An Iraqi humanitarian organization is reporting that 128,000 Iraqis have been killed since the U.S. invasion began in March 2003.

Mafkarat al-Islam reported that chairman of the 'Iraqiyun humanitarian organization in Baghdad, Dr. Hatim al-'Alwani, said that the toll includes everyone who has been killed since that time, adding that 55 percent of those killed have been women and children aged 12 and under.

'Iraqiyun obtained data from relatives and families of the deceased, as well as from Iraqi hospitals in all the country's provinces. The 128,000 figure only includes those whose relatives have been informed of their deaths and does not include those were abducted, assassinated or simply disappeared.

The number includes those who died during the U.S. assaults on al-Fallujah and al-Qa'im. 'Iraqiyun's figures conflict with the Iraqi Body Count public database compiled by Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies. According to the Graduate Institute of International Studies' database, 39,000 Iraqis have been killed as a direct result of combat or armed violence since March 2003. No official estimates of Iraqi casualties from the war have been issued by the Pentagon, which insists that it does not do "body counts." The Washington Post on July 12 reported that U.S. military deaths in Iraq now total 1,755.

i don't think we have a debate here on the relative value of human life in either locale. If anything (you're going to hate me for this neon), you've underscored my point about the despicable cancer quality of terrorism.

i'm going to make the huge assumption you haven't served in the military to elaborate on a few things, and before anyone takes offense, none is intended. With the possible exception of a ground based retrograde river crossing in Mission Oriented Protective Posture (MOPP) gear IV while in contact and under fire, Military Operations in Urban Terrain or MOUT is the hairiest dingleberry one might ever have to pull off, pun and disgusting imagery intended. The subject has its own field manual, dated with references to Soviet formations though it might be. In conventional symmetrical warfare, ground commanders are told

Bypass built-up areas when possible in order to maintain attack momentum and lessen casualties.

Attack a built-up area only as the last resort, and only when major advantage accrues through its seizure or control.

Keep in mind the opposing force faced in symmetrical warfare wears a uniform and has no desire to have civilians anywhere near them interfering in the defense whether by accidental or deliberate action. The days of WWII leveling a block by artillery fire don't exist. Soldiers reduce strong points by direct fire ranging from small arms to 120mm main gun tank rounds. On occasion, a ground forward air controller will bring in fixed wing aircraft to deliver precision laser guided bombs the GFAC more often than not "paints" himself from positions danger close (650 meters and less) to the impact. Rotary wing aircraft fire wire tracked or laser guided missiles on call and for what it's worth hate being sitting ducks when we do.

With all that said, flip to the asymmetrical battlefield and add deliberate blending by the opposing force with civilians. Your first indication of direct conflict are the rounds impacting in and around your current position. Your first and correct instinct is to return fire in the general direction from which the attack came, pinpoint the actual location, lay down suppressive fire, maneuver to the flanks and eliminate the threat. Seldom, if ever, do the Rules Of Engagement established for any mission deny a soldier the right to return fire if fired upon.

Except Gumby just shot at you from the edge of a crowded open-air market, or a hospital window, or the tower of a religious building.

Grant me the one sarcastic quote alloted for this post.

Frost: What the hell are we supposed to use man? Harsh language?

Go for it.

Goddamnedjesusfuckingjosepheandmarypissantfucktardshiteatingpieceof vomitousrecycledcuntjuiceasstasticdickheadworthlesspieceofassmeat

FUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!

(for those in shock, here's your confirmation. i'm still rolling.)

Getting serious again, no, i don't mean to imply every one of those civilian deaths mentioned in the quoted article occurred as a result of the above scenario. i'll go so far to say some soldier and his chain of command up to the Regimental/Brigade Commander fucked up royally and more than one soldier and chain of command have done so. In return, however, i ask you to honestly name the intended target. i used the word cancer in reference to terrorism, and i did it for a specific reason. Cancer affects the body in many ways. The cells themselves either don't do their job, prevent other cells from doing their job, and in the worst case scenario attack and kill other cells. In any case, the body doesn't get the original intended benefit from the cell's existence. i'll skip past the obvious metaphors in treating cancer. Yes, i do know "watch and wait" is an acceptable treatment, but that falls under the earliest stage of selected carcinomas and/or when no hope for recovery ~ quality of remaining life balance has been reached. i think we can agree we're past any early stage. Regardless, i sure as hell haven't reached the latter.

 

[neonflux]

Hi AngelicAssassin, sorry for the very long wait for a response. Life (personal and professional) is full of demands right now and I wanted to truly give your very thoughtful response to my post a deserving reply. Unlike topics such as gender (my field professionally), I find it more difficult to fully articulate my thoughts without giving it some time. This is not an excuse – Out of common courtesy, I should have answered earlier…

Thank you for the further explanation. My "short and sweet" was in direct response to yours, specifically:

Originally Posted by neonflux
... to sign a treaty is not to live up to it ...

Likewise, i'll assume your quoted comment not to be a broadbrush "free to disregard at leisure" approach to International Relations and in particular warfare. i'll further assume you and i are subject to human frailties and will cut to the chase late at night.

Point very much taken.

In answer to your latest query, rather than go through a laundry list of attacks prior to 9/11/01, i'll simply refer any and all, especially those that believe(d) 9/11 the first terrorist attack on US soil, to an earlier posted link on terrorist attacks starting in 1979. You might have to sift through them a bit, but i gave the ballpark figure and reasoning for the current US edition's starting point in my previous post. If not, don't expect me to walk, in general, you through it.

Thank you for this link – it was fascinating and brought up many thoughts, as I read through it. I would not, of course, expect a walk through. While I would never suggest that 9/11 was the first terrorist attack on U.S. soil, it was certainly the first to which we seem to have such an unmeasured response. But I also believe that from the beginning, the Neo-Cons within the Bush administration were looking for a pretext to invade – by now most folks are familiar with the position paper by the Project for the New American Century that stated as much.

Specifically, i have nothing in common with the subjects in your posted poem. i haven't, nor ever will visit Ground Zero, any of them. (i did get the underlying irony.) i have been to Chickamauga, Normandy, Dachau, Auschwitz, and the memorials on Unter den Linden in Berlin on mandatory terrain walks. While i understood and respect the significance of those particular locales, i couldn't shake a feeling i can only describe as ill at ease to have the temerity to walk in the halls of the Dead Men of Dunharrow. i was never so happy in a particular position than the day the proposed trip to Kursk got canceled. i know the background behind the 160th disaster in Mogadishu and dealt with portions of the recovery first hand, but will not watch Blackhawk Down to this day. i've done time in the sandbox. In short, i don't take the subject at hand in all of its facets lightly.

I apologize if it seemed that I was placing you in this group – I wasn’t necessarily, which is why I qualified the poem before I added it. It was perhaps an overreaction, aimed not at you per se (certainly not as our conversation has continued) but at people who use 9/11 so cavalierly to support their “patriotism.” You have certainly clariied your position here.

Thank you for http://peacefultomorrows.org/article.php?id=582 in your longer post. i found it quite informative, and with a nod to News World Communications Inc. i'd rather quote the entire thing here.
i don't think we have a debate here on the relative value of human life in either locale. If anything (you're going to hate me for this neon), you've underscored my point about the despicable cancer quality of terrorism.

No, I don’t hate you for it at all actually! This is the kind of discourse I crave and only rarely find offline – it’s difficult finding anything but very progressive views in my fair city (SO excepted – perhaps one of the reasons that we so enjoy each other’s company). Clearly, you and I value human life equally. And I also (surprise!) actually view your analogy as apt. However, be careful, here! Remember, you are speaking to a health educator, LOL. Cancers in the human body most usually have a complex series of antecedents – for instance, while there may be a hereditary component to colon cancer, with most types, bad genes alone are not enough to cause cancer by themselves. Diet and exercise (or lack thereof) having a major impact on whether or not a particular person with the proper genetic predisposition will actually develop the disease.

I would suggest that the Bush Administration and the war in Iraq are contributing to the exponential growth of terrorist attacks originating in the Middle East that we’ve seen in the past several years. (This was one of the rather frightening trends that was so noticeable within the list to which you linked.) Give me Kissinger pragmatism and attention to national interest over Neo-Con arrogance, which on the pretext of “spreading democracy” (certainly, a very liberal notion) goes far beyond watching out for our national interests and makes the whole world hate us for what they see as our imperialism.

i'm going to make the huge assumption you haven't served in the military to elaborate on a few things, and before anyone takes offense, none is intended.

Your assumption is not so huge and is correct (although much to the consternation of my friends who are even more progressive than I, I've done a fair amount of work for veterans groups fighting DADT). I found the information here fascinating and want to thank you for the education – I am not being flip. I assume that you do have a great deal of experience in the military – I should say that nothing I’ve said was ever directly aimed at our armed forces per se, but to military ventures to which I object – I do realize that one’s duty in the military is to serve when required…

With the possible exception of a ground based retrograde river crossing in Mission Oriented Protective Posture (MOPP) gear IV while in contact and under fire, Military Operations in Urban Terrain or MOUT is the hairiest dingleberry one might ever have to pull off, pun and disgusting imagery intended. The subject has its own field manual, dated with references to Soviet formations though it might be. In conventional symmetrical warfare, ground commanders are told

Quote:
Bypass built-up areas when possible in order to maintain attack momentum and lessen casualties.

Attack a built-up area only as the last resort, and only when major advantage accrues through its seizure or control.

Keep in mind the opposing force faced in symmetrical warfare wears a uniform and has no desire to have civilians anywhere near them interfering in the defense whether by accidental or deliberate action. The days of WWII leveling a block by artillery fire don't exist. Soldiers reduce strong points by direct fire ranging from small arms to 120mm main gun tank rounds. On occasion, a ground forward air controller will bring in fixed wing aircraft to deliver precision laser guided bombs the GFAC more often than not "paints" himself from positions danger close (650 meters and less) to the impact. Rotary wing aircraft fire wire tracked or laser guided missiles on call and for what it's worth hate being sitting ducks when we do.

With all that said, flip to the asymmetrical battlefield and add deliberate blending by the opposing force with civilians. Your first indication of direct conflict are the rounds impacting in and around your current position. Your first and correct instinct is to return fire in the general direction from which the attack came, pinpoint the actual location, lay down suppressive fire, maneuver to the flanks and eliminate the threat. Seldom, if ever, do the Rules Of Engagement established for any mission deny a soldier the right to return fire if fired upon.

Except Gumby just shot at you from the edge of a crowded open-air market, or a hospital window, or the tower of a religious building.

Grant me the one sarcastic quote alloted for this post.
Quote:
Frost: What the hell are we supposed to use man? Harsh language?

Go for it.

Yes, please, LOL.

To return to your more serious note, one can expect no less from soldiers than to defend themselves. I see one of greatest travesties of this particular occupation as the fact that it was so ill-planned – and not due to military but administration arrogance. The administration has always compared the occupation in Iraq to the economic and political restructuring the U.S. “engineered” in Germany and Japan after WWII. But if they’d had less arrogance and more concern for ground troops, they would never have put our young fighting men and women into that country without also giving them professional support from people who knew the culture. I was horrified to learn that they sent in not one anthropologist. And let’s not get started on the Arab linguist question. One of the most awful examples of the results is one that could have been easily avoided occurred in 2003:

31 March : Soldiers with the US Army's 3rd Infantry Division killed seven women and children when they opened fire on an unidentified four-wheel drive vehicle as it approached a US checkpoint near al-Najaf. According to a Pentagon spokesman, initial reports indicated that "the soldiers responded in accordance with the rules of engagement to protect themselves". However, this does not appear to be consistent with the version reported in the Washington Post, which indicated that the officer in command at the scene believed at the time that no warning shots were fired. It asserts that the officer roared at the platoon leader, "You just [expletive] killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!" http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3466.htm

My understanding from a recent Democracy Now broadcast is that what actually occurred was due to a simple cultural miscommunication – the gesture that we use in the west to indicate someone should stop – holding one’s hand palm out at arm’s length – is viewed by Iraqis as a welcome – the family couldn’t hear the commands but they thought that they were being “flagged on.” There is NO EXCUSE for these soldiers being put in this situation. And I DON’T blame this on the military – General Shinseki among others was at odds with and fired by the administration for their lack of planning.

This is the type of incident/ignorance which begets greater terrorist actions, because it makes it so difficult for the Iraqi public to continue to see us as liberators rather than occupiers. We are then forcing young men and women to do an increasingly difficult job under increasingly difficult circumstances and so end up with the Sgrena incident.

Getting serious again, no, i don't mean to imply every one of those civilian deaths mentioned in the quoted article occurred as a result of the above scenario. i'll go so far to say some soldier and his chain of command up to the Regimental/Brigade Commander fucked up royally and more than one soldier and chain of command have done so. In return, however, i ask you to honestly name the intended target. i used the word cancer in reference to terrorism, and i did it for a specific reason. Cancer affects the body in many ways. The cells themselves either don't do their job, prevent other cells from doing their job, and in the worst case scenario attack and kill other cells. In any case, the body doesn't get the original intended benefit from the cell's existence. i'll skip past the obvious metaphors in treating cancer. Yes, i do know "watch and wait" is an acceptable treatment, but that falls under the earliest stage of selected carcinomas and/or when no hope for recovery ~ quality of remaining life balance has been reached. i think we can agree we're past any early stage. Regardless, i sure as hell haven't reached the latter.

I would never have suggested “watch and wait.” But one does not use the most aggressive treatment possible at the beginning of the disease – one begins by taking out the infected tissue and targeting subsequent radiation / chemotherapy as much as possible. While I also disagreed with the invasion of Afghanistan, it certainly had a logic to it and can be compared to reasonable treatment. (I would have preferred an international investigation leading to capture and arrest – certainly the world would have cooperated with us fully after 9/11 – followed by other programs to reach out to the middle class educated young men who are most likely to “become the cancer’s converts.”) Iraq was not a center of terrorism when we invaded. I can only compare what we did there to cutting off the arm of a woman who has breast cancer, when it still hasn’t metastasized – to ensure that it won’t do so - and then expecting the patient to be grateful that we were so aggressive in our treatment. (I’m sorry, there is nothing you can write to convince me that the administration invaded Iraq on the belief that it was a terrorist hotbed or that it had WMD).

I guess that the question now, as you've already suggested, is how do we stop the cancer from spreading? And this is where I suspect we have our greatest disagreement. It also brings me back to the Wikepedia list of terrorist attacks. Some things that I found interesting in reading through it:

1) So many of the terrorist attacks mentioned were NOT connected to Middle Eastern groups, although the number of terrorist attacks perpetrated by people from this part of the world (regardless of where they occurred) greatly increased after 9/11. I would venture to say that this is not all due to Bin Laden or Iranian Shiites, but also due to the poorly thought out actions we have taken in response to the event. I would be interested in your take on this.

2) I am potato-famine Irish (half) and cannot help but have a positive identification with the IRA, despite being a pacifist who decries their acts, as much as those of any other terrorist group. I am disquieted by my own response because, as I think we have both now established we feel, all human life is to be valued. And yet, knowing my history, I understand at some level the feelings of powerlessness that can bring people to such a point of despair that they resort to such means after they feel that they’ve run out of other options for affecting change. I know it’s only a television show, but I was fascinated by Battlestar Galactica’s examination of this phenomenon during this past season (and thankful for the bravery of Olmos - another uber-progressive, LOL - and the other producers).

Regarding the use of collateral damage as a military tactic in modern day warfare – you have made some excellent points in regards to current treaties and military training. I would like your opinion on three things:

1) One of my professors at UC Berkeley (a veritable campus pariah, btw), worked with the military during the Vietnam war – he was a specialist in a number of Southeast Asian cultures and used his knowledge to help determine, based on village layouts, which villages were most likely friendly to the Viet Cong and which were not – the military used this information in planning bombing strategies.

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe The military doctrine of “Shock and Awe” was a product of the National Defense University of the United States in 1996. It is a tactic that was employed in Iraq. According to Wikepedia, “Shock and awe, technically known as rapid dominance, is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming decisive force, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of power to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight.” It seems to me that this tactic would have to include an assumed amount of collateral damage, no matter how careful the planning…

3) http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/38828.html During the Clinton administration (yes, I can and will criticize “liberals ), we worked to contain Sadam in part by destroying his infrastructure, including water processing plants upon which the country depended for clean water. This resulted in the deaths of, by some estimates, 500,000 children. Those who planned and supported the bombings had to have known ahead of time that it would have a devastating impacting on the country’s civilian population, children in particular (since they are most vulnerable to diseases like cholera). Could this be considered “collateral damage” or is it something entirely different?

Again, my apologies for taking so long to respond. My appreciation for the dialogue.

Neon

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Hi AngelicAssassin, sorry for the very long wait...Out of common courtesy, I should have answered earlier… I apologize ...

i appreciate the courtesy, but no need to apologize exists. i come by here to relax, have fun, share, and learn. We all, however, have lives. If we were here every moment not required for something else, how the hell would we have any "true" fun?

While I would never suggest that 9/11 was the first terrorist attack on U.S. soil, it was certainly the first to which we seem to have such an unmeasured response.

Speaking strictly in the framework of terrorism, perhaps, although Muammar al-Gaddafi might tend to disagree.

But I also believe that from the beginning, the Neo-Cons within the Bush administration were looking for a pretext to invade – by now most folks are familiar with the position paper by the Project for the New American Century that stated as much.

i haven't waded through the entire site, but this particular item stated the case in verbose language. We can debate, privately if you wish, the validity of the invasion, but unlike George i'd rather address terrorism within the scope of resources (my time) i'm willing to commit rather than begin another debate on top of the one present. i'll be the first to admit we Americans are a rather short attention span, fickle bunch of people as a whole, but if you want full and sustained backing, a legitimate Gordian Knot beats a dramatic intelligence best guess. Suffice to say, W and his spokespersons blew it when they dumbed down the reason to the American people for going into Iraq.

No, I don’t hate you for it at all actually! This is the kind of discourse I crave and only rarely find offline – it’s difficult finding anything but very progressive views in my fair city (SO excepted – perhaps one of the reasons that we so enjoy each other’s company). Clearly, you and I value human life equally.

Glad you're enjoying it as well. i've enjoyed the thought provoking facts you've presented versus regurgitated news media sound bites i usually hear/read.

And I also (surprise!) actually view your analogy as apt. However, be careful, here! Remember, you are speaking to a health educator, LOL. Cancers in the human body most usually have a complex series of antecedents – for instance, while there may be a hereditary component to colon cancer, with most types, bad genes alone are not enough to cause cancer by themselves. Diet and exercise (or lack thereof) having a major impact on whether or not a particular person with the proper genetic predisposition will actually develop the disease.

Wicked grin ... glad you mentioned the bold highlight. i believe we agree that a person sitting on one's ass stuffing bonbons has not only increased the risk factors for cancer, but opened the door to diabetes and heart disease as well. Amazing what a lack of activity/diligence as well as overindulgence will do.

I would suggest that the Bush Administration and the war in Iraq are contributing to the exponential growth of terrorist attacks originating in the Middle East that we’ve seen in the past several years. (This was one of the rather frightening trends that was so noticeable within the list to which you linked.)

If you refer to the attacks occurring in Iraq, i'll agree the number has increased. When you choose to engage near/on the other guy's home turf, it's part of the price you pay. If forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, however, better against folks prepared to deal with armed conflict than on US soil against clueless civilians.

Give me Kissinger pragmatism and attention to national interest over Neo-Con arrogance, which on the pretext of “spreading democracy” (certainly, a very liberal notion) goes far beyond watching out for our national interests and makes the whole world hate us for what they see as our imperialism.

Whether you call it spreading democracy, nation building, or watered down colonialism, don't be so quick to pin it on Bush as a new thing. The US has been dabbling in such activities since the origination of the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny.

Your assumption is not so huge and is correct (although much to the consternation of my friends who are even more progressive than I, I've done a fair amount of work for veterans groups fighting DADT). I found the information here fascinating and want to thank you for the education – I am not being flip.

Thank you for your service. i'll reserve my comments on one of Slick Willy's first legislative acts as out of context of this discussion. As an interesting side note, here's a touch more history. Note the 1805 date. Rather than make you wade around on your own, and for the lurkers out there, i'll point you directly at

• Treaty of Tripoli
• Article 11
• First Barbary War
• Peace treaty and legacy of the First Barbary War
• Second Barbary War

Anyone else see multiple patterns on both sides of the coin developing here?

I should say that nothing I’ve said was ever directly aimed at our armed forces per se, but to military ventures to which I object – I do realize that one’s duty in the military is to serve when required…

None taken, i assure you. The conversation would likely have ended if you had. i'll never deny anyone's right to objection of the use of warfare.
It's the absolute last step in the diplomatic process between nations to resolve differences. In actuality, its prosecution gets the suits back to the table with level heads and a willingness to compromise on both sides.

I see one of greatest travesties of this particular occupation as the fact that it was so ill-planned – and not due to military but administration arrogance. The administration has always compared the occupation in Iraq to the economic and political restructuring the U.S. “engineered” in Germany and Japan after WWII. But if they’d had less arrogance and more concern for ground troops, they would never have put our young fighting men and women into that country without also giving them professional support from people who knew the culture. I was horrified to learn that they sent in not one anthropologist. And let’s not get started on the Arab linguist question. One of the most awful examples of the results is one that could have been easily avoided occurred in 2003. My understanding from a recent Democracy Now broadcast is that what actually occurred was due to a simple cultural miscommunication – the gesture that we use in the west to indicate someone should stop – holding one’s hand palm out at arm’s length – is viewed by Iraqis as a welcome – the family couldn’t hear the commands but they thought that they were being “flagged on.” There is NO EXCUSE for these soldiers being put in this situation. And I DON’T blame this on the military – General Shinseki among others was at odds with and fired by the administration for their lack of planning.

This is the type of incident/ignorance which begets greater terrorist actions, because it makes it so difficult for the Iraqi public to continue to see us as liberators rather than occupiers. We are then forcing young men and women to do an increasingly difficult job under increasingly difficult circumstances and so end up with the Sgrena incident.

Do you really want to get into a cynical cyclical swords into plowshares into swords discussion? Tongue in cheek i admit but an old Jody call says it best.

"Pick up your left when you put down your right, 'cause boots cost money, boots cost money."

For the lurker in the thread, let's see if you pick up the connection to polystyrene, jet fuel and chickens.

In all seriousness, we deployed folks into Sandbox II without the latest casualty reducing gear, specifically uparmor on light wheeled vehicles and improved "flak" vests. Any idea why? We had a young woman and fellow members of her combat service support unit become POWs, but not from a Spetznatz style attack in our rear echelon (hush DVS). Any idea why? The US military has had a garrison in Monterey since 1946 with the mission to teach language including "history, culture, and current events of the nations in which the language is spoken." This isn't a two week correspondence course. If you look at the last link, Arabic is in the 63 week arena. Look a little closer and you'll see a reference to teaching other federal agencies as well. Care to guess how much funding got cut to the running of this program and other associated costs while we enjoyed the Peace Dividend following the end of the Cold War? Take a look at the Foreign Language Pay Lump Sum for a hint. In an effort to keep my promise concerning Slick Willy, let me say even Bush Uno saw no need for a standing military force of the size held by the US in 1989-90. With the outbreak of common sense (i'll not say we defense spent them into the ground) in the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, Bush Senior initiated a slow ramped drawdown of active duty forces in service. Then, along comes Mister "We want back our sovereign 19th Vilayet" aka Arab Nationalism in August of 1990. When in debt, invade the debt holder? Bad, bad, underestimation there Mister. The American people get "Shocked and Awed" for real by US military technology, we lose fewer military personnel to enemy fire than we do to accidents, Kuwait regains its sovereignty, and all is right with the world. Everybody, and i mean EVERYBODY is thinking Saddam is going to be another Muammar al-Gaddafi, tuck tail and be a good boy. So, we start beating swords into plowshares like nobody's business, however ... which leads into ...

I would never have suggested “watch and wait.” But one does not use the most aggressive treatment possible at the beginning of the disease – one begins by taking out the infected tissue and targeting subsequent radiation / chemotherapy as much as possible. While I also disagreed with the invasion of Afghanistan, it certainly had a logic to it and can be compared to reasonable treatment. (I would have preferred an international investigation leading to capture and arrest – certainly the world would have cooperated with us fully after 9/11 – followed by other programs to reach out to the middle class educated young men who are most likely to “become the cancer’s converts.”) Iraq was not a center of terrorism when we invaded. I can only compare what we did there to cutting off the arm of a woman who has breast cancer, when it still hasn’t metastasized – to ensure that it won’t do so - and then expecting the patient to be grateful that we were so aggressive in our treatment. (I’m sorry, there is nothing you can write to convince me that the administration invaded Iraq on the belief that it was a terrorist hotbed or that it had WMD).

It's October, 6th game of the World Series, Reggie Jackson is at the plate for the Yankees, i've tried to give you the 2nd inning option and settle for a walk, but you're determined to play Charlie Hough and deliver a fast ball low and outside.

Keith Jackson: High...

Tom Seaver (interrupting): Good-BYE, that's WAY out...

As the ball bounced into the black bleachers, the first time a Yankees player had hit those stands in Yankee Stadium's post-renovation configuration...

For the sake of argument, i'll skip the Howard Cosell commentary and point back to an earlier reference to a Gordian Knot. The US led conflict with Iraq, Desert Storm, began in January 16, 1991. The signing of UN Security Council Resolution 687 established a formal cease fire, but did not end the war. If you find it hard to believe, take a real close look at the cease fire from the 1950s Korean War. Continuation of the Iraqi cease fire was predicated upon

Section (letter)I​

33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);

34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.

You mention the embargo further below, but few remember/realize the cease fire rarely existed and the consequences involved with patchwork enforcement of Resolution 687. Re your comment concerning Kissinger above, following Operation Desert Fox, 1998 ...

Other critics, such as former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said the attacks didn't go far enough: "I would be amazed if a three-day campaign made a decisive difference," Kissinger said just after the operation ended. "[W]e did not do, in my view, enough damage to degrade it [Iraq's programs for weapons of mass destruction] for six months. It doesn't make any significant difference because in six months to a year they will be back to where they are and we cannot keep repeating these attacks. [. . .] At the end of the day what will be decisive is what the situation in the Middle East will be two to three years from now. If Saddam is still there, if he's rearming, if the sanctions are lifted, we will have lost, no matter what spin we put on it."

Full transcript of the Jim Lehrer NewsHour "Mission Accomplished?" dated December 21, 1998. i'd really like to hear your response to these tidbits.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me go back to a question that Mr. Brzezinski raised. What is the alternative, in your view, to this containment policy?

HENRY KISSINGER: Well, I think if we - I believe that once we resorted to military force we should have planned a campaign that would last long enough to at least impose some specific conditions on Saddam. For example, a return of an inspection system under Saddam, ironclad guarantees, it might have been degraded again over a period of months, but I think the mere fact that he was forced to return the inspectors would have been a humiliation. But I would have also hoped that if the campaign were conducted long enough and if it were targeted on the ground forces with which he maintains his rule, that sensible Iraqis might have concluded that he's the obstacle to coexistence with us. Now we are sort in-between. We did a three-day campaign, which no doubt did a lot of damage. But I do not - I think we lost the opportunity we had three times during the year to do something decisive, or at least to try to do something decisive.

MARGARET WARNER: Secretary Kissinger, your take on the allied reaction both allies and other members of the Security Council and also in the region.

HENRY KISSINGER: In my view, the most likely outcome is that Saddam - sanctions will be lifted, Saddam will gradually re-arm, and we will desist from carrying out repeated bombing campaigns because the pressures will become too great. We should have used the opportunity we had when we - when we had it.

Regardless of the Syrian interpretation of UN security Council Resolution 1441, regardless of France's use of its position on the UN Security Council to block physical enforcement, and regardless of Iraq's objection to US weapons inspections teams as agents of espionage, guess what? When you get your ass kicked into unconditional surrender, you don't get to dictate the meaning of unconditional. The simple fact that US warplanes in the no fly zones over Iraqi sovereign territory mandated by the UN repetitively destroyed Iraqi SAM and ADA positions in track mode sometimes actually firing upon said aircraft should have been reason enough to end the cease fire. Have all the war reparations been paid to Kuwait? Has the UN had no notice unimpeded access by its weapons inspections teams in Iraq? Pardon me, United Nations doctors, but after 11 years of ongoing heart disease with little improvement, we need a second opinion, and a more potent solution.

I guess that the question now, as you've already suggested, is how do we stop the cancer from spreading? And this is where I suspect we have our greatest disagreement.

And thank you for reminding me of my obligation to answer minx1's similar question. i should apologize to her as you did for letting it slide for so long.

It also brings me back to the Wikepedia list of terrorist attacks. Some things that I found interesting in reading through it:

1) So many of the terrorist attacks mentioned were NOT connected to Middle Eastern groups, although the number of terrorist attacks perpetrated by people from this part of the world (regardless of where they occurred) greatly increased after 9/11. I would venture to say that this is not all due to Bin Laden or Iranian Shiites, but also due to the poorly thought out actions we have taken in response to the event. I would be interested in your take on this.

2) I am potato-famine Irish (half) and cannot help but have a positive identification with the IRA, despite being a pacifist who decries their acts, as much as those of any other terrorist group. I am disquieted by my own response because, as I think we have both now established we feel, all human life is to be valued. And yet, knowing my history, I understand at some level the feelings of powerlessness that can bring people to such a point of despair that they resort to such means after they feel that they’ve run out of other options for affecting change. I know it’s only a television show, but I was fascinated by Battlestar Galactica’s examination of this phenomenon during this past season (and thankful for the bravery of Olmos - another uber-progressive, LOL - and the other producers).

In a word, consistency. It shouldn't matter who's in the White House, nor what party has control of the Congress of the United States. i mentioned taking the Chinese concept of the long view a few posts ago in this thread. i've also repeatedly referenced the short attention span of people in the US . As much as i hate to regurgitate a sound bite from the not too distant past, we've got high school kids that couldn't find Afghanistan on a map if given the "football" and control of the button much less basic civics comprehension to understand why they shouldn't push the raised red thingy. Care to play high stakes poker? What do you think the pass rates would be for those legal US citizens 18 years of age and older? Keep in mind these are the folks that will vote the next representative democracy/kleptocracy/plutocracy depending on your view into power.

Hindsight is 20/20, but take a little time to review our foreign policy since 1805. i reiterate we don't have an excellent track record for consistency. In the most altruistic sense, we've followed Sun Tzu theory and don't use that final card until we know we can win. In the most pragmatic sense, we procrastinate, allowing a problem to fester until we have no choice but to act. In the most honest review of the US interactions in the Middle East since 1945, it's hard to say who was playing whom. We back Iran (after helping overthrow a legitimately elected official in 1953 because of his reliance on the country's Communist party) until the eviction of the Shah to offset Soviet backed Iraq in the region. We provide intel, money, and material to Iraq when the 1980-88 war starts going bad for Hussein because regardless of the Soviet's presence, we sure as hell don't want Khomeni holding the reins. We don't warn Hussein in clear and direct terms that he can't invade Kuwait. We don't back Iraqi regional Kurds and Shi'ites during their uprisings following Hussein's humiliating defeat. We expect the Shi'ites to calmly go along with a suitable redistribution of power based on population percentages and distributions following nearly 30 years of subjugation by the Hussein led Ba'ath party. And that's just two of the pieces in the game.

On the other end of the spectrum, we've sometimes quietly, others, not so quietly backed Israel regardless. While the Soviet Union and China were prime bugaboos since the assumption of Superpower status by the US, and many dirty deeds have been done in the interest of maintaining a fragile balance since then, that time has passed. i'll be the first to admit China scares the hell out of me, and i still think a major day of reckoning exists in the not too distant future with the PRC.

Until that time, however, we'd do well to level the field and play by the same rules with everyone. In comparison, i'm seriously thinking of revising my disease analogy of Al-Qaeda and other like organizations to "neglected tropical illnesses." After reading an article on Jimmy Carter in the June issue of Smithsonian, i'm still trying to decide whether Al-Q fits the description of the black fly Simulium, or what they carry, Onchocerca volvulus. i'm leaning towards the black fly. If nothing else that should give you a surprised laugh. That peanut farmer may have sucked pond water as a President save his work between Israel and Egypt, but i'm coming to admire his post presidency humanitarian efforts more and more. He and the Carter Center have decided to eradicate malaria in Ethiopia. He's going to do it with mass distribution of nets impregnated with deltamethrin. The nets prevent Ms. Anopheles from biting by forming a barrier, and if the bitch doesn't take the hint by charging the barrier, the impregnation kills her. Death by Bohica works for me.

So, moving forward, (1) we level the playing field and use the same rule of law playbook with every one. (2) We lead by spending the money and encouraging other developed countries to spend the money as well to prevent indoctrination, intimidation, and incapacitation rather than paying ransom to encourage the former. (3) When those best efforts don't work, we rely on the impregnated deltamethrin to kill the fuckers dead in their tracks.

Since you used Battlestar Gallactica, i get to use The Peacemaker.

(In a discussion of how to find WMD)
Thomas Devoe: Doctor, you can run your charts and your theories all you want. In the field, this is how it works: the good guys, that's us, we chase the bad guys. And they don't wear black hats. They are, however, all alike: they demand power, and respect, and they're willing to pay top dollar to get it. And that is our highly motivated buyer.

Julia Kelly: What about other motivations?

Thomas Devoe: Not important to me.

Julia Kelly: Whether it's important to you or not, there are people out there who don't care about money, who don't give a damn about respect. People who believe the killing of innocent men and women is justified. For them it is about rage, frustration, hatred... they feel pain and they're determined to share it with the world.

Thomas Devoe: Okay, that does me no good. Now let's deal with the facts at hand. 23 hours ago, General Alexander Kodoroff stole ten nuclear warheads.

Julia Kelly: He's just a delivery boy. I'm not afraid of the man who wants ten nuclear weapons, Colonel. I'm terrified of the man who only wants one.

[a tape meant to be played after his bomb explodes]
Dusan Gavrich: You will look at what I have done and say, Of course - why not - they are all animals. They have slaughtered each other for centuries. But the truth is, I'm not a monster. I'm a human man - I'm just like you, whether you like it or not. For years, we have tried to live together, until a war was waged on us, on all of us: a war waged by our own leaders. And who supplied the Serb cluster bombs, the Croatian tanks, the Muslim artillery shells that killed our sons and daughters? It was the governments of the West who drew the boundaries of our countries - sometimes in ink, sometimes in blood - the blood of our people. And now you dispatch your peacekeepers to write our destiny again. We can never accept this peace that leaves us with nothing but pain, pain the peacemakers must be made to feel. Their wives, their children, their houses and churches. So now you know, now you must understand. Leave us to find our own destiny. May God have mercy on us all.

If you're left scratching your head at my reasoning, it's intended. Think about it in the grand scheme of things and it might cause a rueful smile.

Regarding the use of collateral damage as a military tactic in modern day warfare – you have made some excellent points in regards to current treaties and military training.

i'm going to let the discussion of what constitutes a tactic versus what constitutes battle damage slide. i'll simply say cause and effect and not use a French accent in the process to avoid looking like Merovingian. While it might feel like wiping my ass with silk, i'm enjoying the conversation more.

I would like your opinion on three things:

1) One of my professors at UC Berkeley (a veritable campus pariah, btw), worked with the military during the Vietnam war – he was a specialist in a number of Southeast Asian cultures and used his knowledge to help determine, based on village layouts, which villages were most likely friendly to the Viet Cong and which were not – the military used this information in planning bombing strategies.

1A) Did they pass the information up to Johnson and McNamara after the consultation, or was this after 1968? Did you know target designation, especially planned aerial bombardment, occurred at that level? In answer to your question, i'd disagree with the method of servicing those targets. We had Special Forces A teams, Seal Teams, and Ranger groups in those days that would have handled them in a more surgical manner to include verification of the professor's estimation. Here's my follow-up to you: 1B) It's June 7, 2006. You've located the man in the link. You don't know how long the target will remain fixed. If you get extremely lucky and get the necessary ground forces in place to encircle the safehouse, you put said ground troops and non-combatant civilians in the surrounding area at risk from possible insurgent attempts to maximize your losses while you wait out the primary target. Based on his known history and behavior, the primary target will make extraction of non-combatants in the house extremely difficult if not impossible. Your chances of capturing him alive are even less. You have two F-16Cs equipped with precision weapons on call in the area of operations. Do you issue weapons release?

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe The military doctrine of “Shock and Awe” was a product of the National Defense University of the United States in 1996. It is a tactic that was employed in Iraq. According to Wikepedia, “Shock and awe, technically known as rapid dominance, is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming decisive force, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of power to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight.” It seems to me that this tactic would have to include an assumed amount of collateral damage, no matter how careful the planning…

Depends on whom is shocked and awed. As a Bn/Co level officer in any of the units, my first response (bitten off at mid tongue) would be, "You want me to do WHAT?" In the same manner, i've bitten my (tongue/fingers) for my first response here. Regardless, someone took what they had and succeeded, and with all due respect to that particular sound bite, Shock and Awe (with its attendant definition) has been part of US doctrine since the 80s following the Reduction in Force after Vietnam. With the switch (read reduction) in actual unit organization sizes circa 1986, smaller units exercised under the mindset of moving quickly, at our determination, engaging the opponent from up close through follow on units and hitting them all at the same time. Simply put: (yes, i realize the gag of the acronym, pun intended) Agility, Initiative, Depth, and Synchronization.

Desert Shield took 6 months to prep. The first units on the ground were elements of the 18 Airborne Corps including the 82d Airborne, 101st Air Assault, and 24 Mech, the latter minus much of their armor. Can you say speed bump? Apache units were scrambled out of Germany within the first two weeks to provide additional anti-armor capabilities. The majority of two armored Corps were subsequently deployed from Europe during the buildup to Desert Storm as well as other units from the United States, not to mention another 26 percent of troops other than US from 19(?) nations forming the coalition. You had already well trained units in country for months running battle drills over and over on terrain similar to where they'd fight. When the ground component of Desert Storm began it only lasted 100 hours.

Now, fast forward from 1990 to 2002. The 311870 European troop level has been slashed by two thirds, so the majority of your previously forward/foreign deployed units aren't there for the quick jump. i won't bore you with the reduction in training levels, nor the lecture in spare part logistics stocking/funding levels. i'd really love to bore you with the differences in Principles of War between countries, but it's tangent to the conversation. One mentioned in "Shock and Awe," however, is mass. It's a tricky thing. You need it to make your presence felt, but the more you have, the longer it takes to get where you need it, whether initial deployment, or point of impact. So, in absence of overwhelming mass, you make up for less than you want in some of the other tenets: Offensive, Maneuver, and Surprise/Audacity. Regardless, Unity of Command and Simplicity still exist to reduce if not eliminate most cases of collateral damage. While the eleven years may not have done wonders for the force structure and to a lesser extent the training levels of that structure, technology moved forward. UAV use (dominant battlefield awareness) became almost ubiquitous. The Apache went from laser designated Hellfire missiles to millimeter wave radar upgrades. MLRS artillery employment converted from battery (6/8 weapon systems firing 12 rockets) fire reduction of a grid square (carpet bombardment of 1 square kilometer) to GPS precision engagement of a point target by a single weapon system firing one rocket with better than twice the range of its predecessor. And again, the main battle unit engagements didn't occur in populated, if at all, areas.

Does that mean no collateral damage occurred? i'd be willing to bet it did. Why? No battle plan, no matter how well researched and rehearsed survives the first shot down range. It's in Murphy's Laws of Combat.

3) http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/38828.html During the Clinton administration (yes, I can and will criticize “liberals ), we worked to contain Sadam in part by destroying his infrastructure, including water processing plants upon which the country depended for clean water. This resulted in the deaths of, by some estimates, 500,000 children. Those who planned and supported the bombings had to have known ahead of time that it would have a devastating impacting on the country’s civilian population, children in particular (since they are most vulnerable to diseases like cholera). Could this be considered “collateral damage” or is it something entirely different?

No, i'd call that diplomacy, UN style, and rank it right up there with the success of the Oil for Food program.

Again, my apologies for taking so long to respond. My appreciation for the dialogue.

Neon

Again, no apologies needed, and here's a tidbit from the Japanese Principles of War.

War is a struggle between two parties that have free will; and this struggle is an act of violence employed to cause the opponent to submit, and to realize our will.

 

[Netzach]

Backing up for the freedom of religion issue -

If you read what BF and TJ have to say about God and Jesus etc. you have a whole refreshing and fascinating concept that flies in the face of the US being a "Christian Country" as a lot of US Christians would understand it. BF was raised puritan. Hell, BF grew up a few years after the Salem witch trials in a world where lightning strikes were considered just punishment from an angry God, there was resistance to the lightning rod because the ministers saw it as interference with Gods' will.

I'm seeing my country beginning to adopt THIS kind of mentality again. The lightning rod was the stem cell and condom of its day.

BF wound up a perfect example of an enlightenment era DEIST rather than much of a Christian at all.

To me, "everyone should be able to pretty much do what you want at home, but we're all here to make a dollar so pelase refrain from being too too disruptive at work/school " IS one of the finest contributions I can think of. Johnny drawing a cross at easter is as fine as Ibrahim praying on his mat, it's "hey kids we're going to make crosses" is a problem. Even if 99 percent of the publicly funded class is down with that and there's one atheist kid, you have now gone too far.

If you are Christian, the work calendar was made up around your schedule. If Passover and Saturday were considered blackout work days you would need the dispensations.

If people are making you slightly uncomfortable about your religious practise - that is not the same as banning them. Welcome to everyone else's world.

 

[Netzach]

So, moving forward, (1) we level the playing field and use the same rule of law playbook with every one. (2) We lead by spending the money and encouraging other developed countries to spend the money as well to prevent indoctrination, intimidation, and incapacitation rather than paying ransom to encourage the former. (3) When those best efforts don't work, we rely on the impregnated deltamethrin to kill the fuckers dead in their tracks.

The degree to which I agree with you on this is scary.

The problem is we've never done 1, we've GOT to do 2 and don't, and we're really eager to do 3 before 1 and 2.

It's a lot easier to keep the status quo provided by the military-industrial machine rather than argue for pumping a region that hates our guts (with many a valid reason) economically. I mean pumping IN not out. And I don't mean "here's some well water, and we killed your family, so have some C rations on us" charity BS, I mean infrastructure, education, jobs, culture, health care - stuff we're loathe to give our own selves let alone anyone else.

For those saying "fix us first" fine - but this is what keeps us from getting blown up.

There's also the issue of the fact that the guys in the region with the obscene amounts of money are in bed with us to a degree. And they don't care for the notion of economic parity, democracy, etc. So we placate them.


But honestly, it's only when there's a remotely acceptable standard of living for people that fanaticism loses its edge. Then there will be fewer fuckers to kill, and people of the region will be more eager to do it themselves.

 

[neonflux]

To AA

Working on it, working on it... Responses & lots of questions next week...