No Comment Is Necessary II

The BBC reports:

An American air strike in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul has hit the wrong target, the US military has admitted.

The bomb demolished a house in Aaytha, killing 14 people, according to local officials. The US put the toll at five.

The military said it "deeply regrets the loss of possibly innocent lives", and promised an investigation.

Who came up with the phrase "possibly innocent lives"?

Comments

[Ken Shultz]

"Who came up with the phrase "possibly innocent lives"?"

I'd guess it was a lawyer.

You know: "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

[Henry]

Well, since they were likely Muslims, they are presumed guilty until proven innocent--provided, of course, we felt like giving them a chance to prove themselves innocent. Who knows--if we hadn't bombed them, perhaps we would have just detained them for life. You can't be too careful with these people you know.

[Mike Lenox]

Hey Jesse, if no comment was necessary, why did you add one?

[Lord Duppy]

At least we stopped Saddam's nucyuler program!

[Jesse Walker]

Hey Jesse, if no comment was necessary, why did you add one?

It's not a comment, it's a question.

OK, so it's a comment disguised as a question.

[Ken Shultz]

I took it as meaning that the military's silly comment wasn't necessary.

[Howard Carlson]

The comment is rather trying to be subjective rather than objective. Who knows, the airstrike "possibly killed innocent lives, each with an estimated height of 5'4 and above. With a slim chance that they were trying to hide WMD's"

[thoreau]

Well, since we killed them first at least there's no chance that any of them will be able to kill us.

[Ersatz Datura]

... until we find the secret Iraqi zombie facility...

Then you'll see.

[thoreau]

... until we find the secret Iraqi zombie facility...

Is that why John Kerry looks like Herman Munster?

[Agammamon]

"... until we find the secret Iraqi zombie facility...

Then you'll see."

Looks like somebody's been reading Charles Stross

[Pavel]

Even if they *were* innocent, they probably wouldn't have been in a few years time. Thanks to our pre-emptive strike, they got to go to heaven before doing anything stupid.

[thoreau]

Every "possibly innocent" Arab who dies is one more who won't be able to have a change of heart and join the terrorists.

Every American who dies is one more who won't be able to turn into a traitor later on.

The more people who die, the fewer are left to kill the rest of us!

[John]

Unfortunately, things happen and innocent people get killed all the time in war. I wish that was not the case. Unlike the clowns who post on this site and Monday morning quarterback everything done in Iraq, I have actually been in a targeting cell and know what lengths our military goes to to prevent this kind of thing from happening. The terrorists of course, kill innocent people everyday in Iraq and no one on here seems to care beyond the concern that if the U.S. was able to capture them, they might not be treated with all the precautions we give American criminals. I just wish people like Jesse Walker and the folks who post on this forum would get out in the world a little bit more. Leave this nice tolerent country we live in and go out to places like Iraq and Afghanistan and the Sudan and meet some of the people out there whom you really don't want to meet. Perhaps then you might find out that its a lot easier to be a freedom loving, government hating libertarian living in the most powerful nation in history then it is to deal with the messy realities facing the rest of the world and those people defending it.

[thoreau]

John-

My posts weren't actually mocking the people in the military, they were mocking some of the posters who concoct theories about how every supposed problem we face is actually an advantage or proof of victory.

When you say, as somebody who has been there, that civilian casualties are awful but inevitable and at least we try take great care to minimize it, well, I can accept that. But when people here (some of whom have no military experience, just like me) point to everything happening in Iraq and say "It's not a bug, it's a feature!", well, I have to mock them.

[Rick Barton]

"possibly innocent lives"

"it's not really torture"

What in the Hell has happened to us? It seems that this war is being prosecuted at the cost of our national character. But, if we can get control of our government and pull them back from this barbarous insanity, it will be a reaffirmation of the good character of the American people and a demonstration of fealty to the founding principles of our republic.

[Jesse Walker]

Thanks for the smug little lecture, John. Care to tell us what you think about the phrase "possibly innocent civilians"?

Feel free to answer the query I posed to you in the torture thread as well. In case you've forgotten, you had written something even more estranged from reality than your comment here. If you need a reminder, here it is again:

I find it interesting that so many people who are so appalled at what is happening at GUTMO [sic] didn't seem too concerned when Bill Clinton and Janet Reno burned our own citizens to death at Waco. Libitarians [sic] and liberals love and will die to protect facist [sic] muslims [sic] but don't seem to give two shits about the strange if generally harmless Christian kooks down the road.

I pointed out that I, this magazine, and libertarians in general had actually said and done quite a bit in opposition to the Waco disaster. Then I asked, "What were you doing then?" I'm still waiting for a reply.

[Rick Barton]

John,

The Iraq war was and is unnecessary for our defense. Don't forget the WMD and "connections" lies that were used to fabricate compliance among American people. The chief motivators behind the war believed that it would be a good thing for the agenda of the Israeli government. There is a long and well documented history in this regard and remember that right after 9/11, Wolfowitz actually pounded the table for going directly after Iraq instead of Afghanistan!

[Rick Barton]

John,

If you really believe that libertarians were unconcerned about Waco and Clinton's and Reno's responsibility for that slaughter, you're just ignorant of the history. Also, the criticism coming from libertarian quarters was, on the whole, far more severe than that emanating from the liberals. Some liberal comment even took the form of shameful and ridiculous apologetics. Just google it up and compare the comments on the tragedy from Reason and Liberty to the liberal, The New Republic.

[Pavel]

I know it must hurt your feelings, John, when in our attempt to Win Hearts and Minds we actually call upon our side to treat the opposing side humanely.

And as flagrantly unfair as it is that our half a trillion dollar a year military be treated in accordance with standards asymmetric to those of an insurgent underground, you still managed to contain your impotent rage and make a relevant contribution to the topic at hand.

[Trooper Jones]

Mr. Barton,

The Irag war was never about oil or WMD or 'flypaper' or democracy or Hussein (that was for public consumption) but was conceived as the beginning of the solution to the problem of Arab terrorism. The Iraq war is a utopian project to remake the Arab states of the Middle East so that the inhabitants won't want to blow themselves and us up. In a way, it's Clintonian foreign policy do-goodism writ very large. Utopian projects are difficult to achieve, to say the least.

That's just my take.

As for the question at hand, I think perhaps some boneheaded officer really meant to say "possible loss of innocent lives". Weasely, but not as sinister.

John,

The problem is not with the targeting that identifies the possible presence of the enemy but the idiotic tactic of dropping bombs on houses. I'm a tanker not a groundpounder but if it was my decision I'd send a platoon of infantry to seize and search the house. When we do that we don't create as many enemies and we demonstrate to the enemy that we're coming to get them, mano a mano. It's nice that we try not to blow up the wrong buildings but if we're not under fire, and the story indicates no one was under fire, I don't see any reason to drop a bomb on a house. We didn't get our man and we made new enemies. Not good.

Dragoon!

[John]

We don't know. Maybe they did hit the right house and we don't know it yet. Possibly innocent is as good of a term as any. The point is that these are hard decision. Torture is another good example. What is torture? Is keeping someone awake torture? Is not releasing them torture? As a result of Abu Gahrib we now turn everyone loose after three days and have no coercive interrogation techniques. The insurgents know that, shut up for three days and get released. I don't support torture, but I don't support a catch and release program for terrorists either. These are tough question with no easy answers. How to target, who to target, what to do with people you think are bad guys. The people at Reason and on this site never offer any answers to these questions. They just bitch and moan. I have no doubt that if the FBI had foiled 9-11, Jesse Walker and the folks at reason would be screaming at the roof tops about how the FBI is holding a bunch on innocent muslims named Mahaumad Atta and gang and how horrible it is. Well, fortuenately for you guys they didn't get them and 3,000 people are dead. You can never win on these things. Had Bush done nothing and Saddam gassed a city, he would have been responsible for not acting. That doesn't justify every action, but it makes it a hell of a lot harder to in a position of responsibilty, which thank G-d in heaven no one on the site is in.

[thoreau]

John, we clearly won't agree on the issues, but why do you write "G-d" instead of "God"?

[John]

In the long run you are right, its up to the Iraqis to save their country Thoreau. We can't do it for them. Its not as simple as get the Americans out. The mistake America made in Iraq was to assume that only a few people at the top were responsible for Saddam. Hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq were part of the regime and profited from it. The Iraqi people are no less to blame for Saddam than the Germans were for Hitler. The people who lived well under the regime and profited from it, certainly don't have the same future in a democratic Iraq. Some of them are willing to fight and die to get back into power. Ultimately, we and the Iraqis who don't suppor them either have to kill enough of them to show the others its hopeless, or let them take back over. That really is more the Iraqis choice than ours.

[John]

Its a habbit I picked up from a Jewish friend of mine. ITs a long story

[Gary Gunnels]

John,

...Monday morning quarterback...

Because we know that everything should be left to the experts. Criticism of the state, that's just not something we should do. 🙂

...have actually been in a targeting cell and know what lengths our military goes to to prevent this kind of thing from happening.

Care to be more specific?

...no one on here seems to care beyond the concern that if the U.S. was able to capture them, they might not be treated with all the precautions we give American criminals.

No, we are concerned about their efforts and about what happens to them post-capture. Unlike you, other people can keep more than one thought in their head at a time.

Leave this nice tolerent country we live in and go out to places like Iraq and Afghanistan and the Sudan and meet some of the people out there whom you really don't want to meet.

I've been to places like these. And?

As a result of Abu Gahrib we now turn everyone loose after three days and have no coercive interrogation techniques.

That's simply not true; for example, the CIA has quite a few long-term prisoners in special facilities and they use coercion and torture as information gathering tools.

The people at Reason and on this site never offer any answers to these questions.

No, we offer answers that you don't like; there's a difference.

Your comments regarding 9/11 border on the absurd and are hyperbolic in the extreme.

BTW, we're stilling waiting for you to asnwer Jesse's question. Grow a pair.

[thoreau]

Ultimately, we and the Iraqis who don't suppor them either have to kill enough of them to show the others its hopeless, or let them take back over.

Already, the utopian project takes on an even bloodier aspect.

All I know is that if liberalization is to come about it will have to be an Iraqi project.

[Gary Gunnels]

John,

Here you are castigating the bloggers here as unrealistic, cowardly, etc., and you won't even answer Walker's question. You are the very definition of a paper tiger.

[Trooper Jones]

John,

Dude, if you're a targeter and you don't know if you hit the right house ... You can't throw 500 pound bombs around hoping to hit the target. And you certainly can't do that in a residential neighborhood. Maybe we hit the right house but the wrong people were in it?

The only analogy I can think of is tank gunnery where not hitting the target or hitting the wrong target is a great big no-no. But then the only people who get pissed off are your superiors.

Don't give me that "we're at war" line. I refuse to admit I am at war. When did Congress declare war? I've got no problem shooting at people who are trying to kill me but that doesn't apply to avoidle killing like dropping a bomb on a house when I could use some infantry.

I also refuse to treat Arabs worse than we treated Nazis. Shit, we gave Nazis trials and everything before we hanged them.

Dragoon!

[Gary Gunnels]

Trooper Jones,

A declaration of war is not required for the U.S. to be at war.

[Gary Gunnels]

I can't believe the Vikings beat the Packers.

[a]

John:
"Had Bush done nothing and Saddam gassed a city, he would have been responsible for not acting. "

Actually, Bush did nothing when Saddam gassed a city back in 1988 (back when he was a friend of the US). So spare me the bull shit. This war was never about saving the Iraqis or democracy. These were execuses that the Bush administration came up with when other justifications for the war fell flat.

[Rick Barton]

John:

Torture is another good example. What is torture?

Look at this!
http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

Scroll down to the May 19 photo. The guy was beaten to death! That's torture and it's murder. And if you care for the founding principles behind our country, you must demand that all those responsible, however high up the chain of command, be prosecuted and punished if found guilty of these crimes. A decent people should not let their government behave like this.

Also John, in your 08:23 post, you seem to trying to make it as though most of the opposition to our government in Iraq is from Saddam loyalists. This seems like an attempt to justify the occupation, which it doesn't anyway. But also, doesn't it seem reasonable that there would be a lot of folks there who don't like our government or Saddam?

[pragmatist]

For all the beating up John is taking, I say he's still raising some valid points that too many people -- and not just libertarians -- are avoiding. Slamming perspectives like John brings is at least partly a cop out, because there ARE hard questions in there.

Trooper Jones, if we're not at war then what the hell is it? Sure congress made no declaration, and I'm all on your side about how those formalities *should* work. But they don't work that way any more (to my great consternation). Still, saying we're not at war in Iraq today is a cop out.

And we can all say "we never should have gone into Iraq". I'll second that with everybody else. I've long believed that Iraq was a Utopian project. But -- we are in Iraq fighting a war. Now a) we fight or b) we get out. We're there, so by now the rest of it is all hot air and fog.

I'll try and drive to the center of the hard questions that nobody (I've seen, anywhere) has really answered.

Suppose, just for a moment, that Iraq was a fully justifiable war, with US security genuinely at stake. And suppose, under those conditions, we came up against the kind of monsters we're facing in Iraq today. The "insurgents" don't see civilians as we do (people), they see them more like bushes to hide behind, which one may pull up, cut, or burn, as convenient.

I say (again) that attitude in our enemy is *the* significant similarity between Iraq and Vietnam. The hard question is, how do you fight that kind of enemy?

We haven't figured out how. The Isrealis (forget whether *they're* justified for the moment) haven't figured out how. The south Vietnamese never figured it out. We can all say "it's up to the Iraqi people", just like we said before "it's up to the Vietnamese". But I don't think the Iraqis are going to figure it out either.

Consider this fact: in Vietnam, both north and south, popular support for the communists never exceeded 10% of the people. Yet these tactics I've described above have to date been invincible, against all popular opposition. I bet, if you could get on the ground and get the info, that the same is true in Iraq -- the insurgents lack popular support.

So the question stands: how do we fight an enemy that uses civilians for camaflouge????!!!!!

"National character" is a great concept, and sure, I'd rather not be out there burning innocents and children myself. But if you're in a fight to the death with a wild animal, what constraints will you place on yourself while you fight?

And if you *don't* constrain yourself, then what will you be when it's over, if you win?

A battle tactic is now out there, that we have yet to find a way of defeating. I don't see answers. Anybody got suggestions?

[Rick Barton]

Trooper Jones:

The Iraq war is a utopian project to remake the Arab states of the Middle East so that the inhabitants won't want to blow themselves and us up.

I think that terror and democratization are among the rationalizations. But the evidence is that the main concerns for the chief propagators behind the Iraq war are: First, Israel- second, Israel- last, Israel. For years, the neocons have been pushing regime change in Iraq for the sake of the Israeli government. Also, it was interventions by our government in the Mideast that made us the targets of terrorists in the first place.

[Rick Barton]

pragmatist:

The "insurgents" don't see civilians as we do (people), they see them more like bushes to hide behind, which one may pull up, cut, or burn, as convenient.

It's not "we". It's the US government. Now how many more Iraqi civilians has our government killed than the insurgents have? I'm thinking tens of thousands.

[Rick Barton]

The hard question is, how do you fight that kind of enemy?

There are alternatives to fighting. Our government's fighting needlessly makes enemies for us.

[pragmatist]

Rick,

Maybe right now we (US gov't) is killing more than the insurgents. But when the US is gone? The tide will probably turn. But that misses my point.

If you want to say "get the hell out" I can respect that. But slamming the people who are doing the fighting, when they're up against that kind of enemy -- and nobody can tell us how we're supposed to beat that enemy in a "civilized" manner -- is lame.

The fact stands that there will be innocent casualties in any war, try though we may to minimize them. The two central questions are 1) should we be fighting this war and 2) if yes, then how are we supposed to win against the enemy's tactics?

[Rick Barton]

pragmatist,

1) NO

[Jesse Walker]

I have no doubt that if the FBI had foiled 9-11, Jesse Walker and the folks at reason would be screaming at the roof tops about how the FBI is holding a bunch on innocent muslims named Mahaumad Atta and gang and how horrible it is.

I'm sure you "have no doubt" about all sorts of things, John. Unfortunately, many of them aren't so.

[pragmatist]

Ok Rick, fair enough. "Get out of Iraq" is a position I can grasp (and largely agree with). "Get Out of Iraq" even fits on a bumper sticker.

Nonetheless, the fact that we don't have a good way of defeating this kind of enemy bothers me.

[Pavel]

The two central questions are 1) should we be fighting this war and 2) if yes, then how are we supposed to win against the enemy's tactics?

These are important issues, but I think it's a mistake to separate them out so neatly. But for the sake of argument.

1) A big reason many (including myself) are against this war is precisely because we believe it to be unwinnable on its own terms. That is to say, it makes use of pure military tactics to address a series of broad non-military developmental socio-cultural goals.

2) To beat an insurgent movement to have to win over its populace (rather than, say, obliterate it). "A guerilla moves among the people as a fish swims in the sea," Mao said. If that sea becomes an enemy to it purposes, the fish drowns.

That is why incidents like the one that started this thread do more damage than a thousand successful military operations do good.

[pragmatist]

Pavel,

I agree with you on 1) but not 2). How familiar are you with Viet Cong tactics? If anything, they've perfected those tactics in Iraq. It's really, really hard to drown that fish because, it uses a sort of ju-jitsu (sp?). It uses our own sense of civility against us. That's our vulnerability, I say. Iraq may be wrong, but what if we come up against this tactic in a justified war?

[pragmatist]

Pavel, btw, why do you think it's wrong to separate out the questions as I have?

[pragmatist]

One more btw. I agree we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. But now that we're there, does anybody really think we should run off now and leave the Iraqis to their own devices? That impresses me a bit like getting a woman pregnant, then saying "gee I shouldn't have done that, see ya". Running off right now says little more for our "national character" than bombing innocents.

Our grand gov't has us in a bind, methinks, and the hard questions aren't to be waved aside.

[Jim Henley]

Just google it up and compare the comments on the tragedy from Reason and Liberty to the liberal, The New Republic.

The New Republic was actually pretty good on Waco. They were never part of the Janet Reno Hype Machine.

[Pavel]

pragmatist,

It doesn't seem to me that the defining traits of asymetric warfare have to do with one side being more "civil" rather than just larger. Like judo, it's about using the lumbering momentum of the attacker against them. Russia has had much the same problem in Chechnya and previously in Afghanistan. It'd be a stretch to say that being too civil was their weakness. You hardly need a sense of civility to decide against wiping out an entire nation on account of the fuzzy line between combatant and non-combatant.

[Gary Gunnels]

pragmatist,

Slamming perspectives like John brings is at least partly a cop out, because there ARE hard questions in there.

Care to detail these "valid points?" To be frank John has accused a lot of people of things that he can't establish (just see silly his comments about Waco, etc.). So if you could detail these "valid points," I am all ears.

Consider this fact: in Vietnam, both north and south, popular support for the communists never exceeded 10% of the people.

If that's the case one wonders why the U.S. resisted having an election there as the peace accords between France and the Vietnamese Communists called for? I'm not going to say that the communists would have been better for Viet Nam, but it seems that the U.S. government was not as confident in non-communist electoral success as you are.

[Pavel]

why do you think it's wrong to separate out the questions as I have?

What I meant was that the kind of tactics you think are successful against guerilla "terrorists" (2) will inform your answer about whether you think we should have entered this war or should continue fighting it (1).

Running off right now says little more for our "national character" than bombing innocents.

Of course one could have adopted this same stance towards Vietnam until the last helicopter left Saigon. If defeat is inevitable, one should hope for defeat sooner than later. Of course that would damaging to our precious American pride. But considering our grotesquely inflated pride:sense ratio, I don't think that's such a bad thing.

[Shem]

Pragmatist, this is off-topic, but do you have any sources for that Vietnamese support figure? It just seems sort of low.

[Junyo]

I'd send a platoon of infantry to seize and search the house. When we do that we don't create as many enemies and we demonstrate to the enemy that we're coming to get them, mano a mano.

And in doing that, if you had taken a casualty it would've been viewed in certain quarters, such as by a great many here, of the continuance or deepening of the "quagmire". Of course, if you didn't take any casualties, but one of your men backhands, or God forbid puts one into, while wrestling with Grandpa during the entry (who everyone in the house swears was just going for his glasses, although he did ignore instructions to stay still, and you found your targets upstairs) it would be seen as evidence of how the US is no longer the "good guy", how we weren't prepared because undoubtedly there weren't any native Arabic speakers on the team, and after all he's-just-defending-his-home-against-foreign-invaders-wouldn't-you-do-the-same? And if everything had gone perfectly, the entry gone off w/o a hitch, the people in the neighborhood made you lunch, and your men had built a school, a daycare center, a market and a mosque before you left the town, it would have passed without note, and been viewed as evidence of nothing. And that's assuming that you got the right house. From the viewpoint of meeting impossible standards of performance dropping a bomb is a no brainer. Almost no risk of friendly casualties, no potential detainees to torture, and frankly roughly the same collateral damage is gonna be reported by the Beeb hit or miss so you can preprint the settlement checks.

...'Course you still get screwed if you hit the wrong house.

...when in our attempt to Win Hearts and Minds we actually call upon our side to treat the opposing side humanely.

Yeah, like when we humanely bombed the shit out of Dresden. Like we humanely atom bombed a couple of Japanese cities. To paraphrase Grant, war is cruelty and you can't refine it. All you can do is win it as efficiently as possible. Pussyfooting around terms like the "rules of war" ignores the fact that those rules, while ostensibly created to limit suffering, can, like most hard and fast rules be manipulated to increase suffering. The most logical rule is don't fight, but if you fight, win fast and completely. All rules and tactics should flow from that.

Nonetheless, the fact that we don't have a good way of defeating this kind of enemy bothers me.

What bothers me is no one was complaining when the Air Force was dropping shaped concrete blocks rather than bombs to limit the damage done in neighborhoods, using s'loads of precision munitions when simple cheaper area effect weapons would've worked better, and started patrolling on foot rather than sitting at intersections in tanks. Again, we're making the mistake of conducting this war as a PR exercise rather than a military operation, and that does nothing but makes both sides bleed longer. We could've attrited a lot of these fighters in the field by actively trying to destroy their units, we chose to tiptoe instead rather than 'give Saddam the PR victory' of tons of civilian casualties. Guess what? Despite all that we got blamed for tons of civilian casualties, have that blame ongoing, and allowed who knows how many fighters to get away, that we're now having to kill singly, while avoiding the aforementioned civilians. We would've killed the same number of people, with considerably less hassle, had we gone about the task in earnest from the start.

We have a tactic that'll work; give the civilians a greater incentive to distinguish themselves from the targets, by demonstrating that come hell or high water the targets (and anything in their general vicinity) will die. Once a critical mass of the population fears the consequences of allowing the insurgents to hide among them more than they fear the consequences of refusing the insurgents santuary, then the chief tactical advantage of the insurgent goes away.

Of course that would damaging to our precious American pride. But considering our grotesquely inflated pride:sense ratio, I don't think that's such a bad thing.

It damages more than pride, it validates the essential strategic assumption of terrorism in general; that they can inflict asymetrical damage on an opponent and thereby impose their will. Validating that point proves the tactic effective and therefore makes it more likely to be used in the future. What's fundamentally dangerous about that is that underneath it's completely wrong; the US could, if sufficiently provoked, instantly and completely eliminate virtually any threat posed by any nation or group on the planet. It's only because of the viewpoint that our conventional forces should be enough of a credible threat to deter aggression against us and our interests that it's not our primary option. Maintain the wealth, influence and status of a superpower,concede the point that the conventional forces alone cannot defend that superpower, and encourage aggression, and you move closer, not further from a point where the unthinkable could happen.

[pragmatist]

shem, see _Vietnam: A Political History_ by Joseph Buttinger.

I'm married to someone who grew up in Vietnam, their family was there in '75. I've never been to Vietnam but talked to many who were there. I think Buttinger is largely on target. By and large, the Vietnamese people did not want communism.

[Ken Shultz]

I was one of the ones interested in John's response to Walker's observations about libertarians and Waco. Considering John's comment about Waco in the other thread, it seemed to me that he doesn't know much about libertarians in general.

...If he did, I think I would join the chorus here, but he doesn't seem to, so I won't. Not knowing much about libertarians doesn't seem to stop him from criticizing us though, but that's neither strange nor new. There are a lot of people out there who only know what they know because someone else told them about it.

[Bruce]

This is certainly a complicated issue. Here are some things we need to consider.

It has been said many times on hit and run that many Iraqis resent the US occupation just as most of us wouldn't like foriegn occupation. This is certainly a valid point. However suppose we did witdraw next week and the country collapsed into civil war. How many people who are now in Iraq saying "Those damn Americans they should leave already" would say "Those damn Americans why did they leave already?" ? I'd like to see a poll of Iraqis with the question "If you knew American troops leaving tomorrow would result in civil war would you want them to leave tomorrow?"

Obviously we have a moral obligation to do everything possible to avoid innocent casualties during millitary operations. To my knowledge the millitary is doing that but our targeting methods aren't perfect. Should we, as some have suggested on this thread, go into battle only with infantry and refrain from bombing until actually under fire? Would this tactic reduce innocent casualties? If so that is a strong argument for it. But we might also ask if it will put our troops in greater danger. If the answer to both questions is "yes" then what?

As far as I can see the best thing to do is to train an Iraqi millitary under the control of the constitutional government to be able to fight the insurgents on their own as quickly as possible. Then we should witdraw.

I have not seen the Iraqi constitution and I would imagine it isn't exactly "utopian" (much less the blueprint for a libertarian paridise); but as long as it secures the basics (freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, due process, rule of law, equal legal protection and rights, accountable government, etc.) its good enough. The Iraqis should be left to argue amongst themselves to about the details.

[Jack]

Junyo wrote: "We have a tactic that'll work; give the civilians a greater incentive to distinguish themselves from the targets, by demonstrating that come hell or high water the targets (and anything in their general vicinity) will die. Once a critical mass of the population fears the consequences of allowing the insurgents to hide among them more than they fear the consequences of refusing the insurgents santuary, then the chief tactical advantage of the insurgent goes away."

Yep there's a good tactic, because slaughtering over two million Vietnamese worked *so* well, and a million or more Afghans for the Soviets, and 500,000 or so Algerians for the French, etc. That's a perfect model for winning a war, that's for sure.

[pragmatist]

Gary,
True the US wasn't sure the communists wouldn't win. Problem in Vietnam was the fact that there was no realistic alternative to the communists. Communists won be default. But my whole point is that the communist tactics in Nam were quite similar to what the insurgents in Iraq are using. See also my response to shem. Beyond that, the similarities break down fast.

I'm not defending everything John says, and am not aware of what he said outside this thread. But the frustration I hear him express has, I believe, some validity. We ARE at war, right or wrong. The question is now what? How do we fight this enemy, or else, how do we gracefully (and humanely) exit? It's real easy to gripe and moan about everything that happens over there. It's much harder to answer the question of what to do now that we're there.

So, the validity (my opinion) in what I perceive as John's frustration, is the fact that so many people aren't asking "now what?", they're just griping about what's happening -- which by itself solves nothing. Tell me how to humanely exit Iraq now.

I think Junyo is right, we're holding US forces in Iraq to an absolutely impossible standard. That, more than anything else, could be our undoing.

Pavel, you've got a point -- if we don't see a way to win, we should get out sooner than later. But I still think the questions "should we be there?" and "how do we win?" are distinct.

I consider our pride irrelevant in Iraq. I'm more concerned with being humane, given all the conditions that now exist, mistakes and all.

I'm also very concerned with a question nobody here has really addressed: now that we're in Iraq, are we going to try and win or are we going to cut and run? If run, are you really, really sure that's a) humane and b) strategically intelligent -- all things given, as they actually exist today. I mean cut the crap about "oh we shouldn't have done this".

And Junyo may be right, if we bomb and fight hard enough, in Iraq we just may win it. But we're going to have to have the stomach for it. And that means there WILL be innocent casualties. The insurgents will make very sure of that, and count on our sense of "national character" to prevent us from pulling it off.

[pragmatist]

Bruce, I second that. I have limited confidence in the survival of whatever gov't we set up over there, but what you say may be the only humane way for us to exit.

Now, can we actually get a gov't set up and a militia trained?

[Ken Shultz]

"I just wish people like Jesse Walker and the folks who post on this forum would get out in the world a little bit more. Leave this nice tolerent country we live in and go out to places like Iraq and Afghanistan and the Sudan and meet some of the people out there whom you really don't want to meet. Perhaps then you might find out that its a lot easier to be a freedom loving, government hating libertarian living in the most powerful nation in history then it is to deal with the messy realities facing the rest of the world and those people defending it."

I don't know why, but it seems to surprise a certain kind of person to learn that some, who thought the Iraq War was a good idea it was about defending America from WMD and al-Qaeda, are against the War now that it's about creating a nominal democracy for the people of Iraq.

There are those who think that the lives of American troops are too precious to be squandered on Iraq's democratic pipe dreams, and they have a valid argument to make. However, the people who seem most likely to make that argument often, for some reason, don't, and the people most likely to respond to that argument often seem to think that whoever is making that argument is more concerned about Iraqi civilians or not torturing insurgents than anything else.

[raymond]

Who came up with the phrase "possibly innocent lives"?

"Innocent lives" is a "pro-life" catchword.

Its use allows "pro-life" people simultaneously to defend the unalienable right to life of "unborn children" and to support capital punishment and war.

The person who came up with the expression "possibly innocent lives" is undoubtedly a strict-constructionist pro-lifer.

--0--

(a theological aside - Since from about 7 (the age of reason) we all begin sinning, and since anyway we are born in original sin and carry it in us until baptism. we can determine the period of innocence of the post-born with some - but not with total - accuracy. Ie, from baptism to about 6 or 7.

(So. Among the dead were some kids. Maybe baptised, maybe not. Six, seven years old - we can't be sure. Only God - or B-sh - knows.)

[thoreau]

Russia has had much the same problem in Chechnya and previously in Afghanistan. It'd be a stretch to say that being too civil was their weakness.

That is an excellent observation that deserves to be reiterated!

[pragmatist]

Being overly civil has never, historically, been a Russian character trait. And Mongolian tactics (take no prisoners, and leave no men of fighting age alive behind you) is not only barbaric, it doesn't always work.

Still, if we had a ready way of defeating the enemy in Iraq, this whole problem would be sooo much simpler. Then we could set them up with their own gov't, and get out.

My whole drive on this thread has been to get right here. I think cutting and running today is not exactly moral of us. So how do we beat this enemy? The Iraqis use tactics similar to the Viet Cong, but their motives are different. We need some counter-ju-jitsu, which is what (I think) we should put a lot of effort into coming up with.

I'm convinced there's a lot of brain power among us libertarians, if we can focus it on the right questions. Finding counter-tactics in Iraq is, I think, one of the right questions -- basically, how do we win over there, now that we're stuck with the mess?

[Ken Shultz]

"So, the validity (my opinion) in what I perceive as John's frustration, is the fact that so many people aren't asking "now what?", they're just griping about what's happening -- which by itself solves nothing. Tell me how to humanely exit Iraq now."

There is no humane way to exit now. If the Bush Administration hadn't stupidly alienated the UN, there might have been; but it purposely alienated our most pragmatic option, so there isn't a humane way out.

Am I to put my faith in the Bush Administration's magic beans then? This is the problem--there may not be a humane way to stay either.

Believe me, John's frustration is matched by my own. Would he feel better if I pretended that a non-existent, humane exit strategy existed? Given that none exists, should I pretend that staying is likely to work as advertised?

I can hope I'm wrong--real hard--but that's not much of a plan of action. I think the most pragmatic thing I can do is keep pointing out that the emperor has no clothes on in preparation for the day that a) we have to decide between slouching into the middle of a civil war or coming home, and the day that b) we have to decide whether or not to follow the emperor into some fresh adventure.

...That's the most pragmatic action I can think of, do you have any new ideas?

[Junyo]

Yep there's a good tactic, because slaughtering over two million Vietnamese worked *so* well, and a million or more Afghans for the Soviets, and 500,000 or so Algerians for the French, etc. That's a perfect model for winning a war, that's for sure.

Slaughter is your word and interpetation of the tactic. I'm talking about redefining acceptable risks and collateral losses if it will generate lower total losses. The Vietnam analogy is apt; for political considerations, a desire to win with "a relatively low level of violence" we dropped thousands of tons of ordnance on Shock and Awe type targets, while failing to ever implement the coherent, effective strategies the military wanted, like a sustained strategic bombing campaign against the North like the Air Force wanted. We actully did destroy the insurgents; by the end of the war the the Vietcong were no longer a viable a fighting force and NVA regulars were doing most of the fighting. Vietnam was a failure, not of tactics, but of strategy and will. And the French won in Algiers, and again public opinion forced a political loss of the military victory. Politics are for before wars start, once engaged they are a secondary consideration at best.

And Junyo may be right, if we bomb and fight hard enough, in Iraq we just may win it. But we're going to have to have the stomach for it.

Which is the point. We invite them to hide among the populace by demonstrating daily that we don't have the stones to stop it. The once it were made clear that that tactic won't work, it becomes a bad deal both for the insurgents and the normal citizens, and the tactic becomes depreferred. The unseriousness of the debate is that some of the most pragmatic people on the planet seem to believe that combat can be conducted like a church social. and everyday that we demonstrate that unseriousness, that lack of stomach, by conceding the tactical and strategic initiative, we prolong the situation.

[kwais]

I think that I am with Junyo on this.

I think that if we leave Iraq now and concede victory to the jihadists, the jihad will follow us home, ever strengthened in their belief that we are indeed a paper tiger that they can defeat even in our own home(with Gods help).

I really don't think that playing that much harder or more ruthlessly will help. I think that you have to balance the harm it will do.

I hate to sound like a champion for the government. But I think that the war is being won the way it is being fought now. And with minimal casualties on both sides. I think that one way of doing it better would be to get Shiites and Kurds special units to do more dirty work in the Sunni triangle. That of course is much easier said than done. Specially on a large scale.

I have seen the iraqis learn to march, I have seen them learn to shoot, I have seen them learn a bunch of shit. But to teach someone to always be alert and to be disciplined when no one is grading in order to save their own lives. That is hard to teach. It is much easier to be a terrorist than to fight terrorism.

[R C Dean]

But my whole point is that the communist tactics in Nam were quite similar to what the insurgents in Iraq are using.

At various times and places, certain groups in Vietnam certainly engaged in the kinds of hit and run raiding that certain groups in Iraq are using, but anyone with much of a grasp on what happened in Vietnam will realize that these tactics were not sufficient to win the day.

The force that prevailed in Vietnam was not the proto-asymmetrical warriors, swimming in black pajamas through the ocean of Vietnamese civilians. Indeed, the Viet Cong guerrillas were pretty much of a non-factor by the latter stages of the war.

The force that prevailed was a conventional army of North Vietnamese Communists, driving tanks, flattening towns with heavy artillery, organized into divisions that any European general would recognize, and wearing uniforms (dark olive trimmed with red, if memory serves). That is who drove the ARVN troops from the field, occupied Saigon, and imposed Communist rule and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians on the South.

In short, it was not asymmetrical or guerrilla warfare that won in Vietnam, but a very conventional surrogate Soviet army. There is no such force on the horizon in Iraq.

[Gary Gunnels]

Looks like they can take out our tanks:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6727646/

R.C. Dean,

Indeed, the Viet Cong guerrillas were pretty much of a non-factor by the latter stages of the war.

They were harmed immensely by the Tet counter-stroke. Some think that the Tet Offensive was indeed planned by the North Vietnamese as a means to destroy the Viet Cong.

In short, it was not asymmetrical or guerrilla warfare that won in Vietnam, but a very conventional surrogate Soviet army.

That ignores all the years that the Viet Cong was a relatively effective fighting force though. After all, when the U.S. was the backbone of the fighting force there, they were engaged by the Viet Cong and PAVN, but traditional fighting was rare.

[SR]

For those who are pushing the "Let's kill civilians to dry up support for the insurgents" strategy, this is morally different from the reprisals at Tulle, Oradour, and the Ardeatine Caves how?

http://www.dasreich.ca/oradour.html
http://www.zchor.org/italy/caves.htm

[Junyo]

For those who are pushing the "Let's kill civilians to dry up support for the insurgents" strategy, this is morally different from the reprisals at Tulle, Oradour, and the Ardeatine Caves how?

I don't see anyone pushing for arbitrarily "killing civilians"; I'm certainly not. But the fact remains that there are a finite number of ways to win a war; primarily they all focus on removing your enemy's ability and/or will to fight. Our enemies are driven by ideaology, removing their will is a very involved task. And removing their ability to fight is problematic if we're going to voluntarily allow them respite to train, rest and rearm, simply because they shield themselves with civilians, especially if those civilian have a choice in the matter. You simply can't allow the enemy to dictate the ground and terms of the conflict and expect to win. Traditionally we've considered infrastructural targets, factories, transportation centers, barracks and their support facilities, as legitimate targets, and destroyed them with the full knowledge that we'd be killing non-military personnel. Now we're supposed to give the enablers a free pass because they support the targets on a micro rather than macro scale? A guy who loans an insurgent his car is the equivalent of a troop train engineer, a person that feeds them the mirror of a worker in a mess hall, legitimate civilian targets all (our enemy certainly has those rules, and kills accordingly). That isn't the same as punitive raids directed entirely at the general populace and intended to broadly terrorize. But the standard that we're being held to is that in an instance where insurgents are operating in a small neighborhood, so small that they can't operate and maintain cover without the active assistance of some portion of the civilian population, and the tacit approval of the rest, humping a volley into what is in effect a enemy staging area makes us the equivalent of Nazis.

[SR]

"Now we're supposed to give the enablers a free pass because they support the targets on a micro rather than macro scale? A guy who loans an insurgent his car is the equivalent of a troop train engineer, a person that feeds them the mirror of a worker in a mess hall, legitimate civilian targets all (our enemy certainly has those rules, and kills accordingly)."

And under the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) program, American air carriers lend their commercial passenger and cargo jets (with crews) to the U.S. military. And through taxes, American businesses and citizens finance the U.S. military. Now, applying your logic above, finish this completely factually parallel line of reasoning...

[Junyo]

SR, not really sure what your point is. The enemy we're fighting has already demonstrated a willingness to attack targets far softer than those you mention, and fairly regularly kills completely neutral targets, like aid workers. It's already been stated that all Americans, at home or abroad, were considered legitmate targets. If you're arguing that their target selection would loosen in response, I'm not sure how that would even be possible.

[SR]

Junyo, are you actually that dense? To spell it out, the point is this: morally distinguish a hypothetical new 9/11-style attack on U.S. soil by supporters of the Iraqi insurgency from what you've described.

[gaius marius]

1) A big reason many (including myself) are against this war is precisely because we believe it to be unwinnable on its own terms. That is to say, it makes use of pure military tactics to address a series of broad non-military developmental socio-cultural goals.

2) To beat an insurgent movement to have to win over its populace (rather than, say, obliterate it). "A guerilla moves among the people as a fish swims in the sea," Mao said. If that sea becomes an enemy to it purposes, the fish drowns.

That is why incidents like the one that started this thread do more damage than a thousand successful military operations do good.

absolutely.

mr pragmatist, the methodology of the insurgents are not new -- they are in fact very very old. and the book on defeating it is exactly as mr pavel notes.

it should be said that an insurgency doesn't need majority support -- it needs only a significant minority to thrive. it had that in vietnam for most of the war (i have no context for your 10% number) and it has it now (and more) in iraq.

and for that reason

From the viewpoint of meeting impossible standards of performance dropping a bomb is a no brainer. Almost no risk of friendly casualties, no potential detainees to torture, and frankly roughly the same collateral damage is gonna be reported by the Beeb hit or miss so you can preprint the settlement checks.

And Junyo may be right, if we bomb and fight hard enough, in Iraq we just may win it. But we're going to have to have the stomach for it. And that means there WILL be innocent casualties. The insurgents will make very sure of that, and count on our sense of "national character" to prevent us from pulling it off.

this shit is to be reviled everywhere it is seen. not only is it the sure course to loss, but it is utterly unnecessary and inhumane in every respect. it is sheer romantic militarist fantasy -- completely counterproductive. fighting harder will get you nowhere. taking more risks -- the true risks attendant to war -- will.

you cannot win an insurgency by blowing everything up. what would win you the insurgency is putting our men out there to get shot -- but in doing so preserve innocent lives.

the fantasy of rumsfeld was that this was not so -- that bombs and fewer troops would win wars faster with fewer casualties, making the whole job easier. that has been proven wrong; it plainly prolongs wars and turns the people against you because they see you trading their lives for yours.

mr junyo -- you're wrong. this war needs to be fought with far greater risk to american men precisely because it cannot be fought in the papers. american men must die -- they must die because 500-pound bombs act as a cowardly shield for our guys as it kills innocents -- and every iraqi knows it and holds us in comtempt for it. it is precisely because we have abandoned our "national character" -- or rather, that which we would aspire to -- that we are losing.

[gaius marius]

I don't see anyone pushing for arbitrarily "killing civilians"; I'm certainly not.

indeed, mr junyo, you may not mean to -- but the advocacy of bombing where we should be policing is exactly that.

[gaius marius]

A guy who loans an insurgent his car is the equivalent of a troop train engineer, a person that feeds them the mirror of a worker in a mess hall, legitimate civilian targets all (our enemy certainly has those rules, and kills accordingly). That isn't the same as punitive raids directed entirely at the general populace and intended to broadly terrorize. But the standard that we're being held to is that in an instance where insurgents are operating in a small neighborhood, so small that they can't operate and maintain cover without the active assistance of some portion of the civilian population, and the tacit approval of the rest, humping a volley into what is in effect a enemy staging area makes us the equivalent of Nazis.

so you advocate the slaughter of the general population, mr junyo, to meet the goal expediently? amazing. you ARE pushing for arbitrary slaughter, you know, because that's how such directives will be carried out.

how about instead we actually pretend to be human for a moment, understand that they assist the insurgency because of how we've conducted the occupation -- that is, by JDAM -- and change out tactics to try to bring them over to our side?

i agree, it's much harder -- but it has the advantage of actually being a strategy that CAN be won.

[Junyo]

To spell it out, the point is this: morally distinguish a hypothetical new 9/11-style attack on U.S. soil by supporters of the Iraqi insurgency from what you've described.
You mean a moral distinction other than the basic validity of the underlying grievance itself, the ultimat ends that the contrasting sides are attempting to achieve, or the fact that the 9/11 attacks were directed indiscriminately at a target that verifibly contained neutral and friendly targets (and one would assume that a "9/11-style" attack would follow the same pattern)? I couldn't care less about abstract moral posturing. The fact that such an attack has already been conducted indicates means that regardless of our moral stance, our opponents use such tactics as they see fit. If it helps with your sense of outrage to cling to a moral superiority over insurgents go for it, but I don't see where it actually accomplishes anything other than makes us bigger targets and hampers our ability to defend ourselves. Personally I'll settle for the simple deterent effect of the credible threat of a wildly disproportionate response.

[Junyo]

so you advocate the slaughter of the general population, mr junyo, to meet the goal expediently? amazing. you ARE pushing for arbitrary slaughter, you know, because that's how such directives will be carried out.
Since I gave specific instances of people offering direct aid to combatants I'm advocating nothing against the general population, unless you're alleging that the general population gives direct aid to the insurgency. As for how such directives would be implemented, you have your opinion and a pout, but precious little by way of actual argument, which seems to be a running theme which most of your replies.

how about instead we actually pretend to be human for a moment, understand that they assist the insurgency because of how we've conducted the occupation...
I love the smug underlying assumption, that these people are incapable of reason, and driven by animal instinct, lash out wildly. They've reacted as they have because we've created a false risk economy; when faced with the choice of whether or not to aid an insurgent, the citizen is faced with the explicit threat to life and limb if they refuse, accompanied by an at best an abstract promise of a long term payoff. When faced with the choice of whether or not to aid the occupiers, the citizen realizes that essentially no threat is faced from the occupiers for refusal, versus a significantly higher risk of reprisal from insurgents if they agree. In such an environment, the smart thing to do is to aid the insurgents, and wil remain so as long as we represent a greater real threat to wrong addresses than we do to the ground level infrastructure of the insurgents.

...change out tactics to try to bring them over to our side.
Outside of rebuilding their country, and making them the first self determining Arab state in history what do you suggest? Sing alongs around a campfire and s'mores?

[kwais]

dammit I'll try to post it again;

Gaius,
I don't think a bigger army would solve the problem. I think it would in fact be worse than the 500lb bomb thing. More Americans would not only mean more targets, it also means more Americans having sex with Iraqis and doing other similar stuff that upsets their fragile egos.

I think Rumsfeld was right about the small footprint thing. I don't know if he was right about not destroying their army totally on the way in.

[hoof in mouth]

I didn't see anything particularly Orwellian in the use of "possible innocents" -- it seems an appropriate term prior to investigation, especially in a situation where every casualty can be claimed innocent for whatever press organ is present.

Mr. Marius seems awfully enamored of hand-to-hand combat. Maybe we should be calling out the insurgents for some mano-a-mano trident and net action to establish some good old-fashioned moral authority. Scimtars at 12 paces? What if we sent out our knights for a joust and they sent a car-bomb for the crowd instead? Since this is the first time I have ever seen a hint of suggested ACTION from the joe/rick/gaius-bots, I'll give it a C+ for effort.

[kwais]

This line;
"this shit is to be reviled everywhere it is seen. not only is it the sure course to loss, but it is utterly unnecessary and inhumane in every respect. it is sheer romantic militarist fantasy -- completely counterproductive. fighting harder will get you nowhere. taking more risks -- the true risks attendant to war -- will."

And others made earlier in the thread seem to imply that going meaner can never work against an insurgency. I don't thing that is true historically. It worked for the russians in Chechnya, it worked for them in Easter Europe. And for the Chineese in Tibet.

My guess is that it almost always works for a stronger power that has no moral qualms about it.

I don't think it would work for us because we do. That is just not who we are. But to claim that you cant employ that tactic against an insurgency is wrong IMO.

[gaius marius]

I'm advocating nothing against the general population,

i agree, mr junyo -- you're not. but you should know that you *are*. the pragmatic implementation of what you're prescribing will be arbitrary application. the problem is that we can't tell the difference; the result is my lai.

precious little by way of actual argument

and, as argument, i'll cite the loosening of the rules of "interrogation" to get more information which almost immediately became systemic and arbitrary torture in the hands of typically irrational people.

that these people are incapable of reason, and driven by animal instinct, lash out wildly.

an overstatement, but a trait that i would apply in equal measure to ourselves as well as to them -- and that because we're both human, and not rational monads. only a few on either side exhibit much reason under circumstances like these.

In such an environment, the smart thing to do is to aid the insurgents, and wil remain so as long as we represent a greater real threat to wrong addresses than we do to the ground level infrastructure of the insurgents.

beyond pointing out how stupidly reductive your schematic is -- as though nationalism, religion, patriarchy and tribalism play no part whatsoever in the iraqi population because (again, ridiculously) all men are rational monads coldly evaluating their self-interest -- i would comment that your solution is essentially to make the united states into a stalinist totalitarian power in iraq and intimidate and slaughter our way to Achieving The Noble Goal of a Free and Democratic State.

i'll let you ponder the irony of that. it is precisely such butcherous rationalization of murder states that leads me to abhor the stupidity of noble heroism.

[gaius marius]

My guess is that it almost always works for a stronger power that has no moral qualms about it.

I don't think it would work for us because we do. That is just not who we are. But to claim that you cant employ that tactic against an insurgency is wrong IMO.

i agree, mr kwais. the possible other path is to institute the very terror regime we went there ostensibly to upset.

i don't treat this as a serious plan of attack, as mr junyo does, and so don't devote much thought to it. but, considering the men in the white house, maybe i should.

[gaius marius]

Mr. Marius seems awfully enamored of hand-to-hand combat.

to the contrary, mr mouth, i abhor it. i never wanted this war precisely because i think the right way of fighting it is appalling, and the wrong way of fighting it is even more so.

but such a change in tactics would mean an order of magnitude fewer innocents killed, several orders of magnitude less property and infrastructure destruction, and do much to shake the popular image that americans are strategically weak because they are afraid of dying and morally vapid because they're unafraid to kill innocents to protect themselves.

it would, in short, be the most ethical of a lot of unethical choices: if you're going to have your trotskyite utopian war, pay the *whole* bill.

[hoof in mouth]

I thought this was a serious discussion of serious topics, but yet again it is a single-handed fanboy exercise. Are trotskyite utopian views a -3 or -4 on a 500lb JDAM? Do I roll the 12 sided for collateral damage?

[hoof in mouth]

I thought this was a serious discussion of serious topics, but yet again it is a single-handed fanboy exercise. Are trotskyite utopian views a -3 or -4 on a 500lb JDAM? Do I roll the 12 sided for collateral damage?

[custom jerseys]

i love this place,i love this layout,and i have a website too,i hope you will visit and guide,because we supply cheap NFL jerseys with high quality,we also supply custom jerseys,with you name,which number you like,if you like it,don't forget contact us:
http://www.custompersonalityjerseys.com
or send a E-Mail to us:[e-mail]