Sunday, November 28, 2004
Support Our Troops
I was going to drop this topic, but then I received an email from a buddy here in my unit. The email, with the subject line, “Support Our Troops,” has a link to an online petition of Congress asking them to stop any punitive action against the Marine who shot the wounded Iraqi insurgent in the mosque in Falluja.
The petition cites Charles Heyman, a British infantry veteran and senior defense analyst, who defended the Marine, saying in an AP story, that they are taught that the enemy "is at his most dangerous when he is severely injured." I wonder then if we should shoot all enemy wounded as a matter of routine.
We all got the mandatory briefing before deploying: adhering to the Geneva Convention is not only the right thing to do because it’s humane, it’s also pragmatic: for if the enemy thinks that they will be treated well, they are much more likely to surrender. And in most cases, that costs fewer lives on our side. In Falluja, the military actively encouraged surrender with psyops teams equipped with loudspeakers.
Yes, there are many insurgents who fight to the death, but there are many who won’t. Over 1,000 insurgents surrendered in Falluja. It’s pretty much a given that none of us over here will let ourselves be taken alive. That’s because we know what they would do to us if we were captured.
And then there’s the argument that we shouldn’t have independent reporters with cameras in war zones: The presence of the camera will allow liberal scum sitting in their climate controlled living rooms to pass judgment on the kid risking his life thousands of miles away from home. The court of public opinion as well as international pressure would call for “a hanging”, like that of Harry “Breaker” Morant in the Boer War. But the action was either acceptable or not acceptable; it was either defensible or indefensible.
Many believe that if they don’t play by the rules, we shouldn’t either. But if the US government tried to make a policy of abiding by the lowest common denominator of humanity, in this case, taking no prisoners and killing enemy wounded, 90% (I hope it’s more) of Americans would be against it.
I don’t think people get it. Yes, I think being here is a good thing and I think that Iraqis are people just like anyone else. And sure, I have an almost obsession about waiving to people and acknowledging them. But there is a side effect to this: when you treat people nicely and with respect, they are more likely to see you as a fellow human being and less likely to want to kill you or help those who want to kill you.
Some one from home sent me a story on our government’s first attempt to get American Soldiers understand this. It was called “A Short Guide to Iraq,” and was written in 1942. An excerpt states that: "American success or failure in Iraq may well depend on whether the Iraqis ... like American soldiers or not. ... One of your jobs is to prevent Hitler's agents from getting in their dirty work. The best way you can do this is by getting along with the Iraqis and making them your friends. ... Every American soldier is an ... ambassador of good will." This idea is absolutely not stressed.
Every time we crash into a car, throw a flash bang grenade, or throw a rock at a windshield, we create hard feelings. How many Iraqis, after having their mirror removed by a humvee, say, “Whoops, my bad”? Sure, sometimes we absolutely need do things like that, but we need to be mindful of the consequences of what we do and try to do it as little as possible. When we injure an Iraqi or damage their property, that Iraqi tells his friends, family, and neighbors about it. And this gives people sitting on the fence one more reason to be less helpful to the US or even pushes them to join the insurgency.
That Marine had a duty to show restraint. This incident has made it harder for American forces and may cost more American lives.
I was going to drop this topic, but then I received an email from a buddy here in my unit. The email, with the subject line, “Support Our Troops,” has a link to an online petition of Congress asking them to stop any punitive action against the Marine who shot the wounded Iraqi insurgent in the mosque in Falluja.
The petition cites Charles Heyman, a British infantry veteran and senior defense analyst, who defended the Marine, saying in an AP story, that they are taught that the enemy "is at his most dangerous when he is severely injured." I wonder then if we should shoot all enemy wounded as a matter of routine.
We all got the mandatory briefing before deploying: adhering to the Geneva Convention is not only the right thing to do because it’s humane, it’s also pragmatic: for if the enemy thinks that they will be treated well, they are much more likely to surrender. And in most cases, that costs fewer lives on our side. In Falluja, the military actively encouraged surrender with psyops teams equipped with loudspeakers.
Yes, there are many insurgents who fight to the death, but there are many who won’t. Over 1,000 insurgents surrendered in Falluja. It’s pretty much a given that none of us over here will let ourselves be taken alive. That’s because we know what they would do to us if we were captured.
And then there’s the argument that we shouldn’t have independent reporters with cameras in war zones: The presence of the camera will allow liberal scum sitting in their climate controlled living rooms to pass judgment on the kid risking his life thousands of miles away from home. The court of public opinion as well as international pressure would call for “a hanging”, like that of Harry “Breaker” Morant in the Boer War. But the action was either acceptable or not acceptable; it was either defensible or indefensible.
Many believe that if they don’t play by the rules, we shouldn’t either. But if the US government tried to make a policy of abiding by the lowest common denominator of humanity, in this case, taking no prisoners and killing enemy wounded, 90% (I hope it’s more) of Americans would be against it.
I don’t think people get it. Yes, I think being here is a good thing and I think that Iraqis are people just like anyone else. And sure, I have an almost obsession about waiving to people and acknowledging them. But there is a side effect to this: when you treat people nicely and with respect, they are more likely to see you as a fellow human being and less likely to want to kill you or help those who want to kill you.
Some one from home sent me a story on our government’s first attempt to get American Soldiers understand this. It was called “A Short Guide to Iraq,” and was written in 1942. An excerpt states that: "American success or failure in Iraq may well depend on whether the Iraqis ... like American soldiers or not. ... One of your jobs is to prevent Hitler's agents from getting in their dirty work. The best way you can do this is by getting along with the Iraqis and making them your friends. ... Every American soldier is an ... ambassador of good will." This idea is absolutely not stressed.
Every time we crash into a car, throw a flash bang grenade, or throw a rock at a windshield, we create hard feelings. How many Iraqis, after having their mirror removed by a humvee, say, “Whoops, my bad”? Sure, sometimes we absolutely need do things like that, but we need to be mindful of the consequences of what we do and try to do it as little as possible. When we injure an Iraqi or damage their property, that Iraqi tells his friends, family, and neighbors about it. And this gives people sitting on the fence one more reason to be less helpful to the US or even pushes them to join the insurgency.
That Marine had a duty to show restraint. This incident has made it harder for American forces and may cost more American lives.
Comments:
Post a Comment
