"isolated incident"

[glatt]

I read this thread before I opened the link, and I fully expected to see more photos of guards inside a prison, abusing prisoners.

I don't think that's what these pictures show. I think the pictures are of the nighttime raids performed by the US military on suspected insurgents' homes. I remember at the time when reading of those raids that I was concerned they would backfire. That a lot of innocent people were having their homes entered and that there was a growing animosity against the US military for these raids. At the time I viewed it as a possible strategic blunder, not as abuse. After seeing these pictures, I still think that it doesn't rise to the level of abuse. But I think history proves it was a blunder, just as the entire war was a blunder.

If I recall correctly, informants would tip off the military that a particular house contained insurgnets. We would go in and interrogate the suspects. Pictures were taken to keep track of the different players. Clearly some souvenir pictures were taken here. It's immature, but I don't think it's abuse.

These photos were clearly taken in "the field." The soldiers are fully outfitted with armor, helmets, and rifles. The prison guards in the other pictures were in t-shirts.

I am much more willing to forgive events that happen in the battlefield than events that happen in a controled environment like a prison. In Gitmo and Abu Grhiab the US military has time to write memos on prisoner treatment. Any abuse there was planned out and pre-meditated. In the field, the soldiers are all excited from battle, and much more likely to do questionable things in the heat of the moment. I'm much more likely to forgive the latter.

[jaguar]

No jag, it's like this. War is fucking hell. You only have to look a few images down to see "insurgents" aiming RPGs at US AND IRAQI forces, so what kind of pussy, frankly, do you have to be to look at some pretty fucking innocent images above that and cry abuse?

War is hell. The "insurgents" would kill you too if they could. Do you know who the enemy is? This is no time to be such a whining, simpering, crying little baby. Pull your nappies off and put on some pants and be a man, for crying out loud.

Put me in that theoretical position and I'm doing the same goddamn thing. Put you in and I bet you are too - after you soil yourself multiple times, of course.

You know, I've been called a lot of things, innocent however is a new one. Firstly, go fuck yourself you goddamn red cheeked armchair warrior. I'm very, very aware of the realities of the situation on the ground, I have a friend who will be heading over next year with the Australian forces and a number of friends in the media who have gone, are going or work with those over there reporting how fucked up it is. Secondly, war it may be (though I could have sworn someone said something about major combat operations being over....no, oceania has always been at war with eurasia, silly me) when you go about 'liberating' countries from brutal dictatorships on the basis of moral authority you better fucking stick to some goddamn high standards of don't claim you have any moral authority to do anything, you're just as bad as those you claim to be liberating them from. Consistently, thoughout this invasion and occupation US forces have been shown to operate on an eye-for-an-eye basis, justice be damned. I wonder if you know who the enemy is? Depends where you go. It could be some splinter of someone that claims to be Al Queda, whatever that means now, it could be Iran-back militias, angry Sunnis, it could be radical Kurds who want a separate state.

The thing about an asymmetrical war in this day and age is the little guy can strike a real blow just by getting the enemy to sink to their level, score one of the insurgents.

[Undertoad]

Let's agree the war was a *ahem* bad idea but whether it was or was not, you still need imperfect men to imperfectly carry out the bloodiest and worst of duties on earth.

I'm sure the military has high standards but A) there will still, inevitably, be war crimes amongst 130,000 people of even the highest stripe carrying out this particular job, and B) no matter what, you will find some way to criticize whatever happens, even if in the long run it helps to save your sorry ass from getting blown up.

I mean look at this case. It's dumb on its face, but you have absolutely no context and yet you are seeking to describe it as "eye for an eye". What if you were in a firefight with these gentlemen for three hours, and at then end of it you had to patiently guard them for two days waiting for the paddy wagon, or you could give them a rifle butt to the head to get them to lie down in the truck while you transport them an hour to another unit? I know what I'd do.

"Sinking to their level" - OK, what's their level? What would they do with US prisoners?

[jaguar]

Probably torture them. Sounds familiar.

This sorry mess has shown no sign of doing anything but create yet another focus point for anger and shows no sign of changing direction, it's made us all less safe, not more.

The eye for an eye is broader, the torture, the shooting of unarmed, possibly wounded in fallujah, the messages on the bridge, the way it's clear it runs all the way up the command chain. That's just the stuff that's surfaced.

Personally I'd probably keep a gun trained at them and load them into the truck? Of course that probably doesn't appeal to that badass warrior persona you seem keen to try on for size.

[Undertoad]

I'm not really a badass warrior but I'm glad we pick only the badass warriors to go. In reality I too would probably soil myself multiple times before doing something that got the rest of my unit killed. In light of that factor I do expect badass warrior behaviour from the badasses that actually do sign up and go. In the long run it probably saves a lot of time and trouble.

As for what we've seen indicating that the entire situation is eye for an eye, I suppose if the only war coverage you see is of the worst events of it, you would come away with such a narrative. It's kind of like seeking through a sack of rice, finding a stone, and declaring that the entire bag is stones. But in this case the [reflexively anti-war, anti-US] media does the seeking for you. Look! Look at the stone!

[lookout123]

i think you are both arguing valid points, but UT has struck upon something important. *this is not about media bias* journalists are paid to tell a story. ratings = $$$ and the outlet that provides the most compelling story gets the best ratings and most money.

*newscaster voice*

Today in Iraq, 2 more schools have opened in the previously insurgent controlled area of Sadr City. 83 Children are now able to continue their education...
this isn't going to make it into the nwes rotation.

16 Marines were killed in Baghdad today as insurgents...
will lead.

both stories are true, but one will cause people to put the remote down and pay more attention. the danger is that some people only pay attention to one aspect of day to day operations in Iraq. the world isn't as black and white as we would like it to be, both good and bad things are happening over there.

[jaguar]

The thing is I don't rely on media reports, I get to hear what doesn't make the news - on both sides - the positive stuff, gradual rebuilding and the really ugly stuff, the GIs missing half a face and the 3 year-olds losing limbs to shrapnel. In the end this is what I'm hearing. If anyone has come out of this mess well it's the British troops, don't think I'm any kind of patriot for this country or that they should be there but their actions have done more to pacify the country than anything else despite their shitty treatment by blair.

[lookout123]

that being said Jag - having worked with British troops under the auspices of the UN, i can tell you part of why they are coming out a bit more cleanly. better control of the media that is with them and they haven't forgotten the primary rule of combat - holding the moral high ground is particularly irrelevant to a corpse.

in another country a couple of years ago, the british commander who had immediate authority over US troops literally tore up a certain young US soldier's ROE card and laughed saying that he'd rather take the heat for being un-PC than be shot. standing orders for clearing houses were to drop a few mortars into a house before going in. US troops don't generally do that. if you were standing outside a door and had to clear the room - grenades first, then go in.

not one of our guys got smoked during that timeperiod. media types were not present during these raids. to the best of my knowledge british troops are maintaining better control of the media than US troops are in Iraq as well.

edit: i'm not saying that we should start indescriminately taking people out. i am saying that it is extremely difficult to win battles and accomplish goals and maintain your "nice guy" image in front of cameras that only report snippets of the whole story.

[jaguar]

Yes and no, this is a rough synopsis of what I've been getting.

British troops have been using a carrot/stick system, they've moved into areas comparatively softly and tried to interact with the local community, then when shit has hit the fan they've gone in hard and it's gone away, partly because of greater local support of their presence.

[warch]

Images are weapons. Insurgents, terrorists use the gruesome images of beheadings, carnage to scare the opposition into behaving as they wish. Its played for horrid, evil effect. The images here are not all media images, they are taken as souvenirs by the soldiers there. That has its own creepiness and the real debate is "how do these play?" Image control and interpretation is a front of this war. Its journalists' jobs to reveal what we may not want to know or what may not be convenient- that might be an insurgent begging for his life in a "cowardly" way or a US soldier beating a kid. Its the perps job to be accountable. Its tricky when one cultural group seeks to rule through the power of perceived horrific God given force and the other by embracing God given human rights and freedoms. You can see how it can become confusing, message-wise.

I do think these images, however spun, however less evil, are ammo for the bad guys. Our culture is based on an assumption of critique! We are strong enough to deal with them, thats the check. And when it works, that the beauty and power.

[xoxoxoBruce]

And how would you spin this image?

[wolf]

I know that this is one of those "images seen round the world" and all ... but does anybody else think that the cigarette looks photoshopped?

[404Error]

Originally Posted by wolf

I know that this is one of those "images seen round the world" and all ... but does anybody else think that the cigarette looks photoshopped?

Nope, looks real enough to me. Besides, cigarette or not, I think it's a great image representative of the true grit and resolve of our soldiers doing a tough, exhausting job, yet ever vigilant and alert.

[garnet]

Originally Posted by wolf

I know that this is one of those "images seen round the world" and all ... but does anybody else think that the cigarette looks photoshopped?

It does to me. It's too clean and way too bright compared to the rest of the lighting in this photo.

[wolf]

That's what I meant. The lighting seems different, and the damn thing is pristine.

I don't spend my days crawling around getting shot at, and my cigs tend to be crumpled. It should at least be smudgy, slightly crinkled, something.

The way it's hanging in his mouth also looks odd.