Nadine, re: "At some point, they will shoot an innocent family with a panicky driver...They will feel horrible about this. The terrorists will rejoice, as it is a success for them. They are counting on the fact that their enemies value the lives of their own women and children more than they themselves do."
Once again, you understate the problem and fail to recognize the aims of the insurgents.
First, in the face of a guerilla war waged by insurgents using hit and run tactics and remote ambushes, American troops will eventually "kill the village." It's not simply a mistaken killing of an innocent family at a checkpoint that happens, it's the cold blooded or anger induced decision to bomb a city into near oblivion, shoot up residences, execute onlookers or "take a chance" that the bad guys are gathered and then kill off a wedding party.
That's what happens when young men are scared and angry and their buddies are getting killed, even with Americans. It's a natural human emotion to want revenge and it's a natural survival instinct to suspend judgement and begin creating free fire zones around yourself when your life is threatened. In addition, you can bet your ass that there are a number of soldiers out there pushing the limits because a certain percentage of soldiers will get off on killing and that's what they WANT to do.
So it's not simply a few innocent mistakes that are driving the perception that American forces care too little for the lives of Iraqi civilians, it's much darker than that.
But the second conceptual error of your post is even more indicative of your skewed view of the tactics insurgencies use to succeed. They invite attacks and reprisals not primarily because "They are counting on the fact that their enemies value the lives of their own women and children more than they themselves do," but rather because they know that the Muslim population they rely on for support DO value those same lives and that they will be livid with anger at the perceived brutality of the American troops toward their innocent men, women and children.
It's a catch 22. Whenever the population initially supports an insurgency conducted by those willing to die for their goals, every man, woman and child killed by the occupying force drives another nail in the coffin of the occupiers. And that's true whether it's an innocent life that's taken or an insurgent's life.
In the modern world occupying forces NEVER win insurgencies no matter how "gloves off" the occupiers are. Take at look at the brutal measures Russians have taken in Chechnya and ask how that "win" is coming along. Absent total destruction the insurgencies grow bigger and more violent and the occupying forces grow more angry and more dead.
If you were clear eyed and honest Nadine, you'd acknowledge this. God knows you've followed this progression with Israel's attempts to "defeat" terrorists through occupation and now you've seen the same outcome with our efforts in Iraq. You should have previously recognized it in Vietnam and with the Russians in Afghanistan.
But maybe you're not blindly unrealistic. Maybe you're willing to acknowledge that in Iraq the population is supporting the insurgents, the Shiites are supporting the Shiite death squads, the Sunnis are supporting the Sunni death squads and both factions are privately, and sometimes publicly, celebrating the underdog local boys who are killing Americans? So, since they won't rat out the bad guys and we can't otherwise identify them, what's your "take the gloves off," not so "PC" solution?
Let me guess; you want to kill them all and let God separate the innocent from the guilty? Or you want to line them up and kill every tenth one of them until they rat out the leaders? Or you want to take them from their homes in the middle of the night and torture the "truth" out of them? Or you want to starve them and withhold heat, sewer or water until they recognize which side their bread is buttered on?
Those are some of the "take the gloves off" approaches that have been tried throughout history. And, by the way, the only one that might really work is the "kill them all" gloves off approach. Is that the approach you'd recommend for dealing with those so degenerate that they, according to you, don't value the lives of their own children as much as their enemies do?
What would that do to civilization and world peace?
The counter productive measures that we and the Israelis have employed have been a disaster.
True strength is demonstrated by having the confidence and the wisdom to do the right thing and do it well, even when it hurts, not by fearfully overreacting and doing exactly what your long-viewed enemies want you to do.
The real war on terrorism is not one of bullets but rather one of ideas. I wish all that bullshit Bush spouts about the purity of Democratic nations was true but our ideas are proving hypocritical, ineffectual and lethal for those who see the world differently than we do.
There are 6 BILLION people in the world. We need them to become more civilized, less warlike and more enlightened. We need that but we're driving the world in the wrong direction with our "for us or for the terrorists," "preemptive strike," and "we know what's good for you and we'll send our soldier with guns to 'help' you get it" silliness.
But you don't see any of that, do you? Ed |
