Six Of One...
One of my earliest posts on this blog was a particularly vehement rant about the futility of violence. Recently I reitirated my point with my remembrance of the final act of WWII. And today I read on the BBC about the continued escalation of tensions in the Middle East.
In the last couple of days there have been a number of stories linked to Iraq. The first that caught my attention was on Saturday. It was the headline (which originally read "US launches assault in west Iraq"; I wonder why they changed it) that initially drew me to the story, and I had a reaction all ready to publish here on Sunday when I noticed that the text had been changed. I can appreciate that journalism, especially on the internet, is organic but along with an update of just what was going on, the tone and perspective of the story had changed.
Even with the change of sympathies, this story is kind of shocking, if you want my opinion. A thousand US troops have been sent into the field to hunt down terrorists. I can't even begin to count how many things are wrong with that whole concept, especially when you consider that the world's best intelligence agencies have trouble with that game of hide-and-seek every day. Suddenly the average US soldier is expected to be capable of doing a better job than entire teams of CIA, British Intelligence and Mossad experts have ever done? Or is it simply the philosophy of "...kill enough people and eventually we'll get the right ones..."?
The report suggests that so far the fatalities stand at eleven... or maybe nineteen; it's not exactly clear. US Military PR suggests "...it killed eight "armed terrorists" on the first day of Operation Iron Fist...", but the report then goes on to tell us "...Hospital officials in the town of Qaim said 11 people were killed in US air attacks, including an ambulance driver..." I'm guessing that the fact that these casualties are quoted as being from air attacks, they don't include the eight "armed terrorists". A thought occurs... how did they know they were definitely terrorists? "Armed opposition" I can accept, along with "armed combatants", "armed insurgents" and at a very extreme push "armed soldiers", but where's the justification for "terrorist"? Is it just because they're not US troops?
The report goes on to confirm that so far the US-led offensive has done nothing to slow down extremist activity in the area. The whole region is a hotbed, and as I've said before a lot of the problem stems from the fact that the bullies can't stop their fist-waving. I was given more of a reminder of this when I read the news tonight. In the latest story from the Middle East, the british government are now suggesting that Iran have direct involvement in the continued hostilities.
Unfortunately, in this instance I can see the justification for such an accusation, but I do seriously question the sense behind making such a statement to the press. Is there any proof? I doubt it. But if it is true (and I seriously hope that as the full story suggests it is just a dissident faction) I can also understand Iran's stance, especially in light of the recent discussions over their nuclear program. The bullies have pushed them around for a long time, so who would blame them for pushing back?
The biggest problem is that there is no magic solution. There's very little stability in the whole region with the US and her lap-dogs ruling the roost, but there's no real evidence to suggest that there'd be any more stability if the troops went home. A hundred different factions are trying to rule a thousand different cultures, and nobody's stepped forward yet to help them do it peacefully. I'm even beginning to suspect that things are just going to continue spiralling downwards until the keg explodes. It's a scary thought.
Anyhew, I'm off to write about the world after that happens.
G'nite Sleepsville. Pleasant dreams.
In the last couple of days there have been a number of stories linked to Iraq. The first that caught my attention was on Saturday. It was the headline (which originally read "US launches assault in west Iraq"; I wonder why they changed it) that initially drew me to the story, and I had a reaction all ready to publish here on Sunday when I noticed that the text had been changed. I can appreciate that journalism, especially on the internet, is organic but along with an update of just what was going on, the tone and perspective of the story had changed.
Even with the change of sympathies, this story is kind of shocking, if you want my opinion. A thousand US troops have been sent into the field to hunt down terrorists. I can't even begin to count how many things are wrong with that whole concept, especially when you consider that the world's best intelligence agencies have trouble with that game of hide-and-seek every day. Suddenly the average US soldier is expected to be capable of doing a better job than entire teams of CIA, British Intelligence and Mossad experts have ever done? Or is it simply the philosophy of "...kill enough people and eventually we'll get the right ones..."?
The report suggests that so far the fatalities stand at eleven... or maybe nineteen; it's not exactly clear. US Military PR suggests "...it killed eight "armed terrorists" on the first day of Operation Iron Fist...", but the report then goes on to tell us "...Hospital officials in the town of Qaim said 11 people were killed in US air attacks, including an ambulance driver..." I'm guessing that the fact that these casualties are quoted as being from air attacks, they don't include the eight "armed terrorists". A thought occurs... how did they know they were definitely terrorists? "Armed opposition" I can accept, along with "armed combatants", "armed insurgents" and at a very extreme push "armed soldiers", but where's the justification for "terrorist"? Is it just because they're not US troops?
The report goes on to confirm that so far the US-led offensive has done nothing to slow down extremist activity in the area. The whole region is a hotbed, and as I've said before a lot of the problem stems from the fact that the bullies can't stop their fist-waving. I was given more of a reminder of this when I read the news tonight. In the latest story from the Middle East, the british government are now suggesting that Iran have direct involvement in the continued hostilities.
Unfortunately, in this instance I can see the justification for such an accusation, but I do seriously question the sense behind making such a statement to the press. Is there any proof? I doubt it. But if it is true (and I seriously hope that as the full story suggests it is just a dissident faction) I can also understand Iran's stance, especially in light of the recent discussions over their nuclear program. The bullies have pushed them around for a long time, so who would blame them for pushing back?
The biggest problem is that there is no magic solution. There's very little stability in the whole region with the US and her lap-dogs ruling the roost, but there's no real evidence to suggest that there'd be any more stability if the troops went home. A hundred different factions are trying to rule a thousand different cultures, and nobody's stepped forward yet to help them do it peacefully. I'm even beginning to suspect that things are just going to continue spiralling downwards until the keg explodes. It's a scary thought.
Anyhew, I'm off to write about the world after that happens.
G'nite Sleepsville. Pleasant dreams.
More worrying now on the escalation front is that I have just learnt that the current tenant of the oval office is justifying his invasion by saying God told him to do it! That will certainly help the situation, not! It worked so well for David Eyck after all!
Just what we need Bush turning it into a Holy War!
I think its already being pointed out that America under their own system of classification currently fall under the description of Terrorists for the Iraq/Afghanistan situation. Hell they even have political prisoners!
Just holding my breath for Bushes next cock up. Luckily I doubt I'll have time to turn purple!
I understand feelings about Bush and the feeling about the killing of innocent people. Here in America we feel the same way. I guess this comment is more to Tybalt than anything. Maybe we haven't done the right things all the time, but to classify us as terrists is to say the least hurtful. I am a member of the armed services, and our job is to listen to the commander and chief. If he wants us to go, then we go. I feel it is insensitive, to say the least, to suggest that we have ill-intent on our level. We do what we are told because we have no choice (at least till our contract is up). Many American soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our big question is...for what?
I agree with both of you, which is a little weird.
On the one hand, I can see where Tybalt is coming from. The orders of the US CIC are tantamount to terrorism, and should be investigated. Sending armed troops into civilian areas in search of a faceless, nebulous enemy is just plain stupidity.
At the same time, I can also understand your view Meredith. It is wrong to lable an entire nation terrorist simply because of the actions of a minorit. The troops in Iraq are just following orders.
Unfortunately, the arguments for both sides are shot down by the way that Nazi soldiers were treated during the WWII war-crimes trials. If the CIC says kill civilians, should the soldier simply do as they're told (and risk public condemnation and self-guilt) or should they refuse (and risk court-martial and possibly execution)? It's Joseph Heller's favourite Catch again.
I know Tybalt personally, so I'm pretty sure that he wasn't applying his comments to the whole US population, or the members of the armed forces. As for Bush, I'm just glad to hear that even the people he gives his orders to are questioning his stance.
Many soldiers from a lot of different nations have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of them may even have been Iraqi or Afghanistani (?). Why should anybody need to die at all?
[Post a comment]