I have beenreading your posts elsewhere, and I wanted to share my thoughts with you
Well, the point I kept trying to make, and didn't make very well, is this -- what concerns me isn't any particular atrocity, it's the fact that there have been something like five or so very high profile atrocity cases in a very short period of time, and I am worried that it isn't a coincidence, it signals something, perhaps a breakdown in morale, or in discipline, or (even worse) increasing dehumanization of Iraqis so that they are all "the enemy."
Not enough data points, and thus, I don't see how the above statement can offend.
Atrocities towards "the enemy" is one thing, but objectively we've finished the war and are now attempting something rather difficult, using soldiers, and only soldiers, as peace-keepers, a mission they aren't trained for, IMO. Thomas P.M. Barnett says they aren't trained to be peace-keepers, and I believe him. He says if we intend to keep getting ourselves in situations where we need peace-keeping forces, use older, well-trained people, not young ill-trained men.
We've won the war but appear to be at risk of losing the peace. I don't have to tell you that.
While trying to talk about this "elsewhere" I was reminded of Viet Nam -- memories came flooding back that I had put aside. I remembered how and why the country became so polarized. The people who are still angry about losing the war blame the media, but I remember now how repulsively they themselves behaved, with bloodthirsty cries like "bomb them back to the Stone Age!"
They didn't care about the wellbeing of our South Vietnamese allies any more than they cared about the North Vietnamese. To them, these people were all "gooks."
In some ways what's going on now is worse. Defending atrocities against innocent Iraqis by reference to 9/11 is simply insane. Why not blame them for Pearl Harbor, the Maine and the fall of Fort Sumpter while they're at it?
BTW, I agree with all your points, these are just mine. |
