Video of Dead U.S. Pilot?

From the AP, via Forbes:

An extremist group posted an Internet video Wednesday that it said showed a U.S. pilot being dragged along the ground, burning, after the crash of his Apache helicopter. The video, posted by a group that called itself the Shura Council of Mujahedeen, claimed that its military wing had shot down the craft, which the U.S. military said went down Saturday.

More here.

Comments

[joe]

These bastards just don't get it: this doesn't make me afraid. It doesn't make me more determined to pull out of Iraq. It doesn't make me hate Bush more.

It makes me want to make sure the Army sticks around long enough to put their heads on pikes. Abusing bodies - freaking degenerates.

[Mark]

The Shura Council of Mujahedeen?

What the fuck? Talk about the Judean Popular People's Front....

Poor bastard if it's true.

[Phil]

Uh, OK, what has someone done with joe? Because that doesn't sound like him.

[R C Dean]

Uh, OK, what has someone done with joe?

Reminded him that, regardless of your differences over how we got there, we are in fact the good guys in Iraq?

[Ironchef]

If found true, is the MSM media going to show this video?

Of course, they weren't afraid to show US pilots getting dragged through Mogadishu, but since then things seemed to have changed. You don't see pics of those jumping off the Towers, nor extensive Abu Gharaib pics for fear of "enabling outrage" or whatever.

[joe]

Phil,

You drinking GOP Kool Aid now?

Yeah I oppose the war. Does that mean I'm not supposed to get angry when an atrocity is carried out against our troops? That I'm supposed to sympathize with a gang of theocrat thugs?

If you recall, I posted something quite similar the day of the London bombings.

[VM]

Iraq?

[Mark]

Abusing bodies - freaking degenerates

Why is it that, no matter how you use the word 'freaking' - it never, ever sounds angry?

[joe]

RC,

The peaceful civilians of Iraq are the good guys in Iraq. The troops following their orders are the good guys in Iraq.

If by "we," you are referring to the United States goverment, whose policy decisions put those troops and civilians in harms way, then no, "we" are not the good guys.

Support the troops.

[Mike]

These bastards just don't get it: this doesn't make me afraid. It doesn't make me more determined to pull out of Iraq. It doesn't make me hate Bush more.

You really think those videos are for *you*? This is a Toby Keith video for murderous Islamists. They want it aired every five minutes on Al Jazeera. They could care less if Americans see it, much less agree.

[Number 6]

For once, I agree wholeheartedly with Joe. His post at 11:17 says it nicely.

[Phil]

You drinking GOP Kool Aid now?

Huh? WTF is that supposed to mean.

Yeah I oppose the war. Does that mean I'm not supposed to get angry when an atrocity is carried out against our troops? That I'm supposed to sympathize with a gang of theocrat thugs?

Uh, you're making a lot of leaps here, joe. In fact, one might say you're battling a rather large army of strawmen. I didn't say either of those things.

Just curious why you're suddenly on that bandwagon for dealing out extra brutal punishment for abusing dead bodies. What, the actual act of shooting the 'copter down doesn't merit "heads on pikes," but abusing the corpse does? Come on. You're better than that. That's GOP Kool-Aid: "Fucking animals! String 'em up!"

If you recall, I posted something quite similar the day of the London bombings.

Yeah, well, you also supported the London cops blowing away an innocent man with a series of head shots, but I don't hold that against you.

RC: . . . we are in fact the good guys in Iraq?

I guess that depends on who you are, no? Some Iraqis -- even those that are neither insurgents nor terrorists -- sure don't seem to think so. But I'd hate to throw sand in your Black-Hats-vs-White-Hats machine gears, so forget I said anything.

[Mark]

Just curious why you're suddenly on that bandwagon for dealing out extra brutal punishment for abusing dead bodies. What, the actual act of shooting the 'copter down doesn't merit "heads on pikes," but abusing the corpse does? Come on. You're better than that. That's GOP Kool-Aid: "Fucking animals! String 'em up!"

I agree with Joe. And why exactly should he be 'better than that', whatever that is. I think there is a difference between shooting down helicopters (legal act of war) and dragging around the dead bodies (an illegal act of war).

Isn't it the Geneva Convention?

PS No one mention G-Bay.

[dave]

I disagree Mike. A video of a soldier being dragged through the streets of Somalia caused us the question why we were there to begin with. I in no way condone this act but is a very good tactic for a technologically overmatched enemy.

[Mark]

Just curious why you're suddenly on that bandwagon for dealing out extra brutal punishment for abusing dead bodies. What, the actual act of shooting the 'copter down doesn't merit "heads on pikes," but abusing the corpse does? Come on. You're better than that. That's GOP Kool-Aid: "Fucking animals! String 'em up!"

I agree with Joe. And why exactly should he be 'better than that', whatever that is. I think there is a difference between shooting down helicopters (legal act of war) and dragging around the dead bodies (an illegal act of war).

Isn't it the Geneva Convention?

PS No one mention G-Bay.

[John]

This is a Toby Keith video for murderous Islamists.

WTF? I can honestly say that I have never watched a Toby Keith video but I think it is a prettty good bet that if he ever made one that showed some Taliban getting incinerated by a JDAM or blown in half by a chain gun I would have heard about it.

"Some Iraqis -- even those that are neither insurgents nor terrorists -- sure don't seem to think so."

Well, a lot of Germans and Japanese didn't look at the U.S. as being particularly nice guys either. Your point is?

[John]

"I disagree Mike. A video of a soldier being dragged through the streets of Somalia caused us the question why we were there to begin with. I in no way condone this act but is a very good tactic for a technologically overmatched enemy"

No, it caused Bill Clinton to pull out and paint an accomplished mission that inflicted 500 dead on an enemy, captured the person they were there to get at the cost of 18 dead Americans to be perceived as defeat worldwide and probably caused Bin Laden to think that if he could just kill enough Americans on American soil, the U.S. would pull out of the middle east altogether.

Further, even if it were effective, what if the U.S. followed the John Pershing theory of suppressing a Muslim insurgency and started dipping bullets in pigs blood and chopping up dead insurgent bodies with pig guts and burying them. It worked like a charm in the Philippines in the early 20th Century. Pretty good technique for a country fighting an insurgency. Since you seem to have no problem with them abusing our dead, I guess you would have no problem with the U.S. doing the same.

[rob]

"I think there is a difference between shooting down helicopters (legal act of war) and dragging around the dead bodies (an illegal act of war).
Isn't it the Geneva Convention?
PS No one mention G-Bay."

Mike,

Frankly, I don't care what happens to my corpse after I'm dead, so dragging corpses doesn't offend me. Insurgents illegally committing acts of war asnd trying to kill US military personnel is far more offensive to me.

That joe finds this reprehensible enough to get mad strikes me as a bit funny considering how much spleen he usually vents at anyone above the rank of E-5, or anyone in the Bush Administration charged with conducting what is essentially a very complex anti-insurgency campaign.

Illegal combatants (insurgents) who violate the Geneva Conventions by failing to act in accordance with the GC by shooting down aircraft (while not in uniform, not part of a standing army, etc etc etc ad nauseum) aren't acting in accordance with Geneva. That's why the insurgency is made up of ILLEGAL combatants.

Lastly, here's a quick primer for you on detention of illegal combatants:

Gitmo - Legally cleared actions. Abu Ghraib - Bored sadists illegally committing abuses. Neither of those qualify as the US conducting military or detention operations in a way that violates Geneva.

[joe]

Phil,

I'm just a little surprised that you would find it odd that a war opponent would object to atrocities commited against our troops. The idea that the two concepts are incompatible is GOP Kool Aid.

Killing soldiers in combat is not immoral. We do it, they do it, and none of the combatants on the ground who do that is committing a crime. That's war, and while it's sad, I can't blame a combatant for acting like a combatant in combat (although I can blame his leaders for putting him in that position). But abusing dead bodies is crime. That's not acting like a combatant; it's acting like a ghoul.

Distinguishing between war and war crimes is not "GOP Kool Aid." It's a meaningful distinction that knows no party. Nor is wanting to see those who commit such crimes against our troops punished specific to Republicans, conservatives, or war hawks. Although quite a bit of Republican propaganda has been created to allege that it is.

"Yeah, well, you also supported the London cops blowing away an innocent man with a series of head shots, but I don't hold that against you." When the story first hit the wires, it was reported that the man was wearing a bomb vest. For the record, I still support shooting people in bomb vests who go into the subway in the head several times.

[joe]

I'm in the middle of reading "1776," rob, and you just wrote a justification for the execution of virtually the entire Continental Army upon capture. At one point, the only "uniform" they had was a "sprig of green" in the band of their hats.

[Phil]

I'm just a little surprised that you would find it odd that a war opponent would object to atrocities commited against our troops.

Luckily, I don't find it odd. Who said I did? I simply see some daylight between "objecting to atrocities" and "lynch them camel-fuckers," that's all. (Colorful paraphrasing mine, of course, but not so far from the hyperbole of "heads on pikes" as to be meaningless.) Just didn't sound like the kind of thing you'd say.

FTR, they make non-piss-covered Cheerios now.

When the story first hit the wires, it was reported that the man was wearing a bomb vest.

Er, well, no, it was reported that he was wearing an "unseasonably warm and bulky jacket" and didn't respond to police requests to stop. I don't recall any reports claiming he was wearing a bomb vest -- or even that police claimed he was -- but I'm certainly willing to be corrected.

[dave]

John:

I said I don't condone these actions. That doesn't mean they don't work. As the stronger of the two sides the United States using these tactics would be met with outrage from inside our nation and outside. Our soldiers would never partake...

People often don't take time to ponder facts like 500 dead versus 18 dead. All it takes is the correct picture or video to hit their emotions and change their perception of how well we are going. The insurgents know this and it is a tactic they have to use because they cannot defeat in man to man combat.

[R C Dean]

The peaceful civilians of Iraq are the good guys in Iraq.

Agreed.

The troops following their orders are the good guys in Iraq.

A little ambiguity here. Who is "their" referencing? If you mean to say our troops in Iraq are the good guys when they follow orders coming down their chain of command, I'm wit' ya generally speaking.

If you mean only those troops in Iraq taking commands from peaceful Iraqis, um, not so much. I mean, if the US government at the top of the US chain of command isn't the good guys, as you say below, how can the people executing its orders by good guys?

If by "we," you are referring to the United States goverment, whose policy decisions put those troops and civilians in harms way, then no, "we" are not the good guys.

The peaceful civilians were already in harm's way, joe, just because they lived in Saddam's Iraq. The purpose of the troops is to go in harm's way so we don't have to, back here at home.

Support the troops.

I do.

But I doubt they feel very supported by someone, like you, whose 'support' is so couched and conditional and convoluted, and basically amounts to telling them that everything they are doing is wrong and they should abandon it immediately.

I don't think you can so easily separate supporting the troops carrying out the mission from supporting the mission itself.

[Lurker Kurt]

At one point, the only "uniform" they had was a "sprig of green" in the band of their hats.

Well, that may not be much of a uniform, but it is a uniform.

Combatants who do not distinguish themselves form civilians are in violation of the GC as well as those units (mobs?) without a chain of command to higher authority.

[joe]

Phil,

If my posts over the last couple of years have seemed much more dovish, it's because of the circumstances.

The "unseasonable jacket" story was actually a downgrading from the initial reports, which included wires sticking out and a bomb vest. Though it should be said, it took less than a day for the reports to change.

RC, I meant following orders from the legal chain of command.

"if the US government at the top of the US chain of command isn't the good guys, as you say below, how can the people executing its orders by good guys?" Quite easily - the troops have an obligation to obey legal orders. We can't have them decided whether or not to obey their superior officers and civilian authorities based on their individual judgements about the wisdom of those orders. The commitment of our armed forces to follow their orders is the reason we don't have a guy in epaulets and sunglasses serving as President for Life.

"I don't think you can so easily separate supporting the troops carrying out the mission from supporting the mission itself." I feel sorry for you, then. Until you straighten out this shortcoming in your poltical outlook, you are doomed to forfeit your capacity to think critically about any action that involves military personnel. I hear you say you support the troops, but with the criticism you've posted of the Army Corps of Engineers' mission and project, I guess you don't really support the troops.

[anon]

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gazette/2005/11/taliban-corpse-burnings-report-us-army.php

Taliban corpse burnings report [US Army]
9:50 PM ET

Investigation into the Gumbad incident, executive summary, US Central Command [US Army investigation into US military burnings of the bodies of deceased Taliban fighters at Gumbad, Afghanistan, concluding that the bodies were burned for hygienic purposes and recommending disciplinary action without criminal charges as the soldiers involved were unaware their actions were wrong, as Islam bans cremation]. Released November 26, 2005. Read the full text of the executive summary [PDF] from US Central Command. Reported in JURIST's Paper Chase here.

[joe]

Lurker Kurt,

OK, prior to Washington's order to put the sprig in their hats, many of them where wholly indistinguishable from civilians. Illegal combatants?

And what about the US Special Forces who went into Afghanistan, blended in with the locals, grew their beards, and donned local garb? Since I'm sure you would agree that the United States military is responsible for prosecuting war crimes committed by our soldiers, where do you suggest the trials be held?

[rob]

"I'm in the middle of reading '1776,' rob, and you just wrote a justification for the execution of virtually the entire Continental Army upon capture. At one point, the only 'uniform' they had was a 'sprig of green' in the band of their hats" - joe

joe - Glad to hear you're reading some military history. Too bad you're drawing the wrong conclusions from your reading. The Continental Army fought as a recognizable standing Army, including uniforms whether they were no more than a sprig or an armband or not, and was recognized as one by the British for the reasons Lurker Kurt points out. It's apples and oranges, joe, comparing the Iraqi insurgency as tho they are operationally and morally equivalent. Not to mention more than a bit creepy.

"I hear you say you support the troops, but with the criticism you've posted of the Army Corps of Engineers' mission and project, I guess you don't really support the troops." - joe

God, please let this be sarcasm on joe's part!

A guy who doesn't understand the difference between the US Army Corps of Engineers mission and that of the US military is also someone to feel sorry for. Especially if that guy is a city planner who will probably rely on the USACE at some point. A little education for you on the USACE, which has very little to do with the combat mission on the ground and in the skies of Iraq beyond designing and managing construction projects:

"The Corps is made up of approximately 34,600 Civilian and 650 military members.... Our mission is to provide quality, responsive engineering services to the nation including:
- Planning, designing, building and operating water resources and other civil works projects (Navigation, Flood Control, Environmental Protection, Disaster Response, etc.)
- Designing and managing the construction of military facilities for the Army and Air Force. (Military Construction)
- Providing design and construction management support for other Defense and federal agencies. (Interagency and International Services)."

650 military members vs. 34,600 civilians for a mission that really only has one peripheral plank to the US military. The USACE is essentially a construction outfit for the federal gov't who oversees a bunch of civilian sub-contractors.

Likening criticism of the USACE to criticism of the US military in Iraq is like criticizing an NFL team for MLB team's performance. Apples and oranges, in other words.

[Confederate Yankee]

I've only seen the still pictures from the SITE Institute (can't get my work PC video software updated), but the March 19, 2000 timestamp makes me suspicious as to the authenticity of this video, as does the fact that the helicopter shown in the right picture on that page appears to show an out-moded UH-1 Huey (it seems to have skids) instead of a current UH-60 Blackhawk (wheels). I can't debunk it as of now, but I have reason to have doubts.

[Les]

Joe, did John ever apologize for accusing you of supporting and enabling Sadaam Hussein?

[rob]

"OK, prior to Washington's order to put the sprig in their hats, many of them where wholly indistinguishable from civilians. Illegal combatants?" - joe

Not illegal combatants. Geneva didn't even EXIST back then, and the Law of Armed Conflict was considerably different as well. Today is your apples and oranges day, joe - you keep trying to apply today's standards to things they didn't apply to in the past. I expect a follow-on argument that Washington should have been arrested and tried for unlawful detainment of his slaves, and that he should have been pulled in front of the then non-existent Hague Court...

But that doesn't matter, because according to the provisions of Geneva, even non-uniformed armies who fit the following criteria meet the Geneva standard:

coverage for "members of other militias and members of other volunteer groups." But to gain coverage four requirements must be met. These are basically: 1) a command structure; 2) a fixed and recognizable sign; 3) carrying arms openly; and 4) following the laws of war.

http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/pow-elliott.html

I recommend reading the whole article, joe. The 16th paragraph is the answer to your Special Forces question, as considered by a retired Army Judge Advocate General Lt. Col. back in 2002.

[Lurker Kurt]

OK, prior to Washington's order to put the sprig in their hats, many of them where wholly indistinguishable from civilians. Illegal combatants?

Well, if the GC and the Laws of War had been in effect in the 18th century, they would have been.

And what about the US Special Forces who went into Afghanistan, blended in with the locals, grew their beards, and donned local garb?

I think you are mixing apples and oranges here and part of it is my fault. When I said "Combatants who do not distinguish themselves form civilians " I meant to imply combatants who deliberately hide amongst non-combatants. The SF who went into Afghanistan joined up with the Northern Alliance, who where combatants, and stayed in their camps, separate from civilians.

I can't prove it, but I assume that when the SF donned local garb, there was a tiny U.S. flag sewn onto it or someone used a sharpie and wrote "U.S." on their clothing, thus making it a uniform.

If the SF donned completely civilian clothes and where trying to pass themselves off as civilians and had been captured by the Taliban, they could have been summarily executed because they would have become illegal combatants and where not elligible for GC/LoW protection.

[rob]

joe - More succintly on the Special Forces uniform question, via a news conference held with, among others, W. Hays Parks, Special Assistant to the Army JAG conducted on April 7, 2003...

"Q: Yeah, can you help us, we've been struggling with this one over the last several days, and that is the issue of in uniform and out of uniform. Just as a specific issue, American forces do operate out of uniform in some settings. In Afghanistan, virtually all of the special operators operated out of uniform. Why is that considered a war crime, or is it only operating out of uniform in combination with other kinds of behavior?

PARKS: Let me first make a slight correction. Most of the Special Forces in Afghanistan operated in uniform, full uniform. There were some who worked in what we referred to as a non-standard uniform that was at least a partial uniform so they could be identified. They also carried their arms openly.

The basic distinction between those types of operations where there was no attempt to conceal their combatant status, and what we're saying with the Fedayeen Saddam in Iraq is that they are purposely concealing their combatant status, concealing their weapons, wearing no part of a uniform, wearing no distinctive device, in order to engage in acts of treachery or perfidy, as I referred to earlier. They are purposely using the soldiers' -- the U.S. soldiers' respect for civilians as a way to conceal their intent and engage in treacherous killing of coalition forces. So there is a big difference between the two."

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t04072003_t407genv.html

[rob]

"Well, if the GC and the Laws of War had been in effect in the 18th century, they would have been." - Lurker Kurt

Actually, LK, that's not true, per my previous couple of posts.

The Continental Army met all 4 criteria - 1) a command structure; 2) a fixed and recognizable sign; 3) carrying arms openly; and 4) following the laws of war.

Al Qaeda and the insurgency in Iraq definitely does not meet the last three.

Of course, since the US grants illegal combatants the protections of Geneva anyway, this is probably splitting hairs that the US has decided not to split based on our national principles...

[Lurker Kurt]

Thanks Rob,

I kind of thought the Continental Army would have been ok especially because of a command structure and carrying arms openly but didn't have a copy of the Laws of War handy.

BTW, I think today's phrase that pays is "Apples and Oranges". 🙂

[rob]

Great minds think alike, Kurt! All this apples and oranges talk has me hungry... I'm off to lunch!

[joe]

rob,

"The Continental Army fought as a recognizable standing Army, including uniforms whether they were no more than a sprig or an armband or not, and was recognized as one by the British for the reasons Lurker Kurt points out." No, not really. For much of the war, there were many soldiers dressed entirely in civilian gard (which is why Washington had to give the "sprig of green" order), and the British didn't recognize the "rabble" or "mob" as a standing army.

"It's apples and oranges, joe, comparing the Iraqi insurgency as tho they are operationally and morally equivalent." As vehemently as you clearly with me to, I never compared any of the Iraqi insurgents to the Continental army morally. I'll leave the task of comparing civilian-slaughtering terrorist to the Patriots to the Reaganites.

I know what the Army Corps is, thanks. They are still under the command of the military, the top people in organization are uniformed military, and, just like the soldiers in Iraq, they are carrying out the orders given to them by the Pentagon, the civilian leadership (both executive and legislative) and their unit commanders. Nice little diversion with the irrelevant details, but on the question that matters for this debate, they are indistinguishable.

But you did answer the question about US Special Forces in Afghanistan - I was unaware they were including some insignia when they dressed up as locals.

[joe]

Les,

John never acknowledged any error in referring to me as a longtime supporter of Saddam Hussein. But, then again, he never worked up the stones to even repost on that threat.

rob,

"joe - Glad to hear you're reading some military history" You have no idea how amusing this statement is.

[rob]

joe - Maybe you won't agree, but I think the SF uniform question has been thoroughly answered at 1:45 and 1:54 p.m.

Also, I sense some snark in your comment "'joe - Glad to hear you're reading some military history' You have no idea how amusing this statement is."

I wonder why that's amusing to you... I've served - both as enlisted and officer - a total of 10 years on active duty. I'm also nearing completion of a Master's Degree in Military History, so I can't wait to hear the punchline that makes my comment seem funny to you.

[rob]

"the British didn't recognize the 'rabble' or 'mob' as a standing army." - joe

And yet they fought them as, and accorded them the same status as, a standing army. (See surrender to GENERAL Washington - which was actually conducted on behalf of Cornwallis by his subordinate, Gen. O'Hara and by Washington's subordinate, Gen. Lincoln).

This is much akin to claiming the Confederate Army was a rebellious mob, which Lincoln did to raise funds and armies to fight the South (not to mention suspend habeus corpus and prosecute sedition and so forth) while the armies fought one another in a manner according the status of armies of warring nations. (See surrender by GENERAL Lee).

[joe]

rob,

I thanked you for a very good response to the SF insignia question. If that's the case, then that's that.

The "punchline," the reason I find that comment amusing, is the condition of my bookshelves. You responded as if I'm finally getting around to reading some military history. Meanwhile, the wife keeps after me for all the large black and red books with swastikas on them throughout the house. I didn't intend that quip as a commentary on your background or education.

As far as General Washington goes, the British did come around to recognizing the Continental Army as an army by war's end, but did not initially. They even refused to address him as General Washington, sending letters to him in New York addressed first to "Mr. Washington," and then, when that letter was refused, to "Mr. Washington, etc. etc." There was a change over time in the British response - which makes sense, since those British gentlemen would certainly never surrender to the officeless leader of a mob.

[John]

Joe,

I still you are an enabler of Saddam. If it were up to you, he would still be in power. You are no less of an enabler than Hitler's apologists were in the 1930s. Its not like you would go shoot someone yourself, but the fact is you think the world is better off with him than without him, if that is not support then the term doesn't mean a whole lot. Its not a question of stones, its a question of having a life instead of posting on these damned boards all the time, which I do too much anyway.

[joe]

Fortunately, John, no one cares what you consider me.

[Tim]

The Iraqi people and all Muslems are barbarians. They desecrate dead bodies and during their "religious" holiday flagellated themselves. Even children!! until they were covered in blood. I would like to see a cartoon of their Prophet Mohammud with a pile of Shit on his head then we could call him PMS or so as not to be disrespectfull MR. PMS 🙂

[Les]

John, joe's right. No one cares. Your assertions are as insightful and fact-based (and purely emotional) as those of 9/11 conspiracy nuts.

[john]

What a bunch of pussies ya'll are. It's your war and now your complaining about how you dearly beloved troops are being treated. Deal with it!

[Amir]

US troops should be draged naked! Rememer the whining when Iraqi TV showed US POWs? Where was the outrage when US troops were trading grisly photos of dead and mutilated Iraqis for access to porn? see:

http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/2005/09/barbarism-update-september-26.html

[rob]

joe,

Sorry I got a bit defensive - we've certainly been snarky enough to one another in the past that it probably isn't TOO surprising that I mis-read your post. My bad.

Fair points all, regarding the status of the Continental Army. I'd argue that they fit the Geneva Convention criteria to be treated as (at least) a militia while the insurgency and Al Qaeda simply don't. (Even tho Geneva didn't exist back then - the C.A. certainly met the higher, modern standard.)

Sounds like your personal library and mine have a few things in common - my fiance' gives me no end of grief about all the "heavy, hard-cover door-stops" I tend to leave lying around the house. Being Jewish I think the swastikas tend to make her nervous, tho now that she's a better shot than I am I think she has very little to worry about from the average U.S.-version skin-head or neo-Nazi.

John - joe may be a lot of things, but he's no supporter of Saddam or any other tyrant (ok, MAYBE Castro...). For example, you should hear him go off on the current administration - and they're not even in Saddam's league!