Mao was a successful General, not a moral role model.
I'm talking about successful and un-successful tactics in guerrilla war, not about morality.
Mao killed millions, during the Great Leap Forward, and the collectivization of agriculture, and the Cultural Revolution. That was after he had won his war, and there were no restraints on him. But, while he waged his war, till 1949, he maintained a strict discipline in his army, about how they treated civilians. He had to, or his army would have starved and been unwelcome everywhere.
The Viet Minh and Viet Cong had the same discipline, which is why they were able to operate freely in the country-side. Of course, these rules didn't apply to anybody they defined as a "counter-revolutionary", or "rich landlord", or "collaborator", or any other catagory of enemies.
We may have an official code, and that code may be even more strict than that of Mao. But, from what I read (including in conservative American media), our soldiers are routinely violating Mao's simple rules of courtesy and respect for civilians. In particular, our "area searches", are deeply humiliating to the Iraqi civilians, a fact which we are belatedly recognizing.
Is this the "implication"?:
<our soldiers "taking liberties with the women" (using the standards of the locals, which is the standard we should be applying)>
The point is, the locals have different standards than Americans, about how women should be treated. For many of them, when our soldiers talk to their women, or look at their faces, this is an insult. An insult which requires revenge. When we go into their houses, and make the men kneel blindfolded, and their wives and kids see this being done to them, this creates recruits for the opposition. How would you feel, if soldiers (for any reason, any at all) came into your house and did that to you? If you thought I was referring to rape, no, I haven't read any reports of that, in Iraq. |
