parting thoughts of iraq

[ElHombre]

from an editor of newsweek.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8101422/site/newsweek/


June 13 issue - Two years ago I went to Iraq as an unabashed believer in toppling Saddam Hussein. I knew his regime well from previous visits; WMDs or no, ridding the world of Saddam would surely be for the best, and America's good intentions would carry the day. What went wrong? A lot, but the biggest turning point was the Abu Ghraib scandal. Since April 2004 the liberation of Iraq has become a desperate exercise in damage control. The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib alienated a broad swath of the Iraqi public. On top of that, it didn't work. There is no evidence that all the mistreatment and humiliation saved a single American life or led to the capture of any major terrorist, despite claims by the military that the prison produced "actionable intelligence."

The most shocking thing about Abu Ghraib was not the behavior of U.S. troops, but the incompetence of their leaders. Against the conduct of the Lynndie Englands and the Charles Graners, I'll gladly set the honesty and courage of Specialist Joseph Darby, the young MP who reported the abuse. A few soldiers will always do bad things. That's why you need competent officers, who know what the men and women under their command are capable of—and make sure it doesn't happen.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The most shocking thing about Abu Ghraib was not the behavior of U.S. troops, but the incompetence of their leaders

I disagree. The most shocking thing was that the US was so willing - some would say compelled to subject ourselves to an anal examination over the incident. And for some reason, we are still willing to come out with details about alleged urine splashing on Qurans and similar nonsense. If we continue to be willing to shoot ourselves in the foot like this, to expose ourselves to criticism and to energize the enemy, we cannot win.

We want everybody to like us. We want everybody to understand that America is not like this. We want the bad people to be our freinds, and to stop thinking bad things about us. It is useless - our friends already know we are not like this, and our enemies will not be convinced no matter what we do or say. But they are bolstered by every story like this.

That abuses happen is not new, it is not unique to the US, to the military, or to the Iraq conflict. But what is unique is that the media is allowed to drive up their advertising revenues at the expense of the war effort. If I was running the show, I would come down with an iron fist on not only those committing the acts, but on the access of the press as well. Anybody who thinks a war like this can be won while giving the hungry press 100% access like this has failed to learn from history.

[Secret Squirrel]

The most powerful army in human history can't even protect a two-mile stretch of road. The Airport Highway connects both the international airport and Baghdad's main American military base, Camp Victory, to the city center.

The above seems sad but true.

[pistol]

The most shocking thing about Abu Ghraib was not the behavior of U.S. troops, but the incompetence of their leaders

I disagree. The most shocking thing was that the US was so willing - some would say compelled to subject ourselves to an anal examination over the incident. And for some reason, we are still willing to come out with details about alleged urine splashing on Qurans and similar nonsense. If we continue to be willing to shoot ourselves in the foot like this, to expose ourselves to criticism and to energize the enemy, we cannot win.

We want everybody to like us. We want everybody to understand that America is not like this. We want the bad people to be our freinds, and to stop thinking bad things about us. It is useless - our friends already know we are not like this, and our enemies will not be convinced no matter what we do or say. But they are bolstered by every story like this.

That abuses happen is not new, it is not unique to the US, to the military, or to the Iraq conflict. But what is unique is that the media is allowed to drive up their advertising revenues at the expense of the war effort. If I was running the show, I would come down with an iron fist on not only those committing the acts, but on the access of the press as well. Anybody who thinks a war like this can be won while giving the hungry press 100% access like this has failed to learn from history.

What do you mean you disagree? The fact that disgusting abuses like this were going on for weeks/months in a facility staffed and run by the American military is unacceptable. The fact that American army officers allowed such activity, either by ignoring it, or being completely ignorant of the activities of soldiers under their command, is by definition a failure of leadership.

Like it or not, America is held to higher standard that the rest of the world. More is demanded of us, because we demand more of other countries. If you invade a country to "liberate them from tyranny" (that's what it is this week right?), and then commit acts that could be described as "cruel and unusual", even if only in a few isolated incidents, then YOU, not the press, not the internet pudits, are undermining the integrity of your mission. If your only solution to this problem is to censor the press and deny accountability, then you have failed to understand the significance of mass media in modern warfare. This story was leaked long before the Pentagon wanted to comment on it, all it takes is a few digital photos and someone with a popular website.

If you really want to impose indefinite martial law and government censorship on the press, then feel free to take your commie ideas to North Korea where that sort of activity is normal and accepted. These kinds of ideas are not welcome in the America I know and love.

[Midav]

Everyone is the final connection to the perfect circle...

Next!

[2Sheds_Jackson]

If you really want to impose indefinite martial law and government censorship on the press, then feel free to take your commie ideas to North Korea where that sort of activity is normal and accepted. These kinds of ideas are not welcome in the America I know and love.


rofl

I don't recall mentioning anything about martial law or any "indefinite" terms on anything - but by all means, if it helps your argument any, feel free to pretend I suggested implementing all kinds of draconian measures - gulags, public whippings, you name it. Seriously - you can add brown shirts and jack boots too, just for their iconic value.

But I do wonder exactly what America you know and love. Because the one that exists in this space-time continuum won W.W.II while imposing strict censorship not only on the press, but on correspondence to and from the troops as well. Therefore "your" America exists only inside your head. What's it like in there? Was America run buy a bunch of "commies" during W.W.II? Seems to me that they were just a bunch of people who were serious about prosecuting a war, had no confusion about which side unfavorable news reports helped, and who wanted to win. Was it wrong then? If not, why is it wrong now?

[Sir Zach of R.]

If you really want to impose indefinite martial law and government censorship on the press, then feel free to take your commie ideas to North Korea where that sort of activity is normal and accepted. These kinds of ideas are not welcome in the America I know and love.


rofl

I don't recall mentioning anything about martial law or any "indefinite" terms on anything - but by all means, if it helps your argument any, feel free to pretend I suggested implementing all kinds of draconian measures - gulags, public whippings, you name it. Seriously - you can add brown shirts and jack boots too, just for their iconic value.

But I do wonder exactly what America you know and love. Because the one that exists in this space-time continuum won W.W.II while imposing strict censorship not only on the press, but on correspondence to and from the troops as well. Therefore "your" America exists only inside your head. What's it like in there? Was America run buy a bunch of "commies" during W.W.II? Seems to me that they were just a bunch of people who were serious about prosecuting a war, had no confusion about which side unfavorable news reports helped, and who wanted to win. Was it wrong then? If not, why is it wrong now?

owned













Actually I was just testing to see if my new avatar was up. But ownage anyway. p-)

[RGRBOX]

The most shocking thing about Abu Ghraib was not the behavior of U.S. troops, but the incompetence of their leaders

I disagree. The most shocking thing was that the US was so willing - some would say compelled to subject ourselves to an anal examination over the incident. And for some reason, we are still willing to come out with details about alleged urine splashing on Qurans and similar nonsense. If we continue to be willing to shoot ourselves in the foot like this, to expose ourselves to criticism and to energize the enemy, we cannot win.

We want everybody to like us. We want everybody to understand that America is not like this. We want the bad people to be our freinds, and to stop thinking bad things about us. It is useless - our friends already know we are not like this, and our enemies will not be convinced no matter what we do or say. But they are bolstered by every story like this.

That abuses happen is not new, it is not unique to the US, to the military, or to the Iraq conflict. But what is unique is that the media is allowed to drive up their advertising revenues at the expense of the war effort. If I was running the show, I would come down with an iron fist on not only those committing the acts, but on the access of the press as well. Anybody who thinks a war like this can be won while giving the hungry press 100% access like this has failed to learn from history.

I've nothing to add to this.. but your 100% correct...

[pistol]

If you really want to impose indefinite martial law and government censorship on the press, then feel free to take your commie ideas to North Korea where that sort of activity is normal and accepted. These kinds of ideas are not welcome in the America I know and love.


rofl

I don't recall mentioning anything about martial law or any "indefinite" terms on anything - but by all means, if it helps your argument any, feel free to pretend I suggested implementing all kinds of draconian measures - gulags, public whippings, you name it. Seriously - you can add brown shirts and jack boots too, just for their iconic value.

But I do wonder exactly what America you know and love. Because the one that exists in this space-time continuum won W.W.II while imposing strict censorship not only on the press, but on correspondence to and from the troops as well. Therefore "your" America exists only inside your head. What's it like in there? Was America run buy a bunch of "commies" during W.W.II? Seems to me that they were just a bunch of people who were serious about prosecuting a war, had no confusion about which side unfavorable news reports helped, and who wanted to win. Was it wrong then? If not, why is it wrong now?

Well what exactly were you suggesting? Opening an "Office of Censorship"? Hiring thousands of people and giving them "absolute discretion" to censor mail, phone calls, newspaper articles, TV, movies, radio and all internet sites hosted in the United States? Were you suggesting passing another Sedition Act? Were you suggesting making dissent illegal? Were you suggesting that whistle-blowers like Specialist Joseph Darby are dangerous to America? By all means, please clarify your "iron fist" censorship policy. Just remember, in the digital age absolute censorship of incidents like Abu Ghraib are a pipe dream. It will never happen.

Don't get me wrong, censorship is necessary in certain circumstances, like when it prevents tactical information being reported in the field from falling into enemy hands, but incidents like Abu Ghraib do not provide a tactical advantage to the enemy. It may serve to energize the enemy, but that is not the fault of the press. As Lieutenant Colonel Willy Buhl said before the start of the battle for Fallujah:



"We're the good guys. We are Americans. We are fighting a gentleman's war here -- because we don't behead people, we don't come down to the same level of the people we're combating. That's a very difficult thing for a young 18-year-old Marine who's been trained to locate, close with and destroy the enemy with fire and close combat. That's a very difficult thing for a 42-year-old lieutenant colonel with 23 years experience in the service who was trained to do the same thing once upon a time, and who now has a thousand-plus men to lead, guide, coach, mentor -- and ensure we remain the good guys and keep the moral high ground."


Our troops are in Iraq fighting for the very freedom that allows the press to do their job right? Difficult circumstances do not negate or invalidate the guiding principles of our nation. It is the duty of the press in war to report both the good and evil, the positive and negative. Otherwise, what would we be left with? George Bush's Rose Garden optimism as our only source of what is going on in Iraq? Who would our military be responsible to should they lose the moral high ground? The combination of freedom of the press and freedom of speech have made us more aware of the full impact of our governments foreign policy than ever before. We must not allow the government to advance a certain political agenda, or mislead the citizens of the United States by encroaching on these very important freedoms.