SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: cnyndwllr who wrote (130149)4/27/2004 9:09:28 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Bush Afraid to let American People See Deadly Reality of Needless War
______________________

by Bill Gallagher

Published on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 by the Niagara Falls Reporter

Editors' note: As of Sunday, April 25, a total of 718 American sons and daughters have come home from Iraq in flag-draped coffins, 117 in April alone. While President George W. Bush does not seem to be concerned about this -- he hasn't attended a single military funeral since launching the war -- he does seem to be concerned about the American people seeing images of the carnage his disastrous policies have wrought.

DETROIT -- It is an image of dignity and respect -- photographs of flag-draped coffins. Some of the pictures show white-gloved soldiers doing their somber duty carrying the remains of the fallen. One is a poignant scene of the inside of a cargo plane where 20 coffins are secured to be flown to the military mortuary in Dover, Del.

The photos are riveting and thought-provoking. You think of young lives lost and the grief anguished families are experiencing. There is nothing exploitive about the pictures. They are, above all, respectful and reverential.

The images, however, capture the tragic reality of war and that's why George W. Bush doesn't want you to see any more of them. The truth is the president's torturer, and any image that challenges his arrogant fantasies must be stopped.

He has succeeded in creating a false image of himself, and he has been widely successful in selling the phony reasons for war and images he's fabricated to the American people. Grim, vivid reality cannot be tolerated.

The first picture published came from a military contract employee who took the shot of a transport plane loaded with the coffins while it was parked at the Kuwait International Airport. Tami Silicio and her husband, David Landry, were fired because they "violated Department of Defense and company policies by working together to photograph and publish the flag-draped caskets of our servicemen and women being returned to the United States," said William Silva, president of Maytag Aircraft.

Silva admits the firings came after the Seattle Times published the picture and he told the Washington Post the military had "very specific concerns" about the photo. The couple did not accept money and Silicio says her only motive was to let Americans share in the grief and to show parents of the dead how respectfully remains are treated and that "their children weren't thrown around like a piece of cargo."

A few days later, Russ Kick, a First Amendment activist, won a long struggle with the Air Force to obtain photos of Iraq war dead. He filed a Freedom of Information Act request that was initially denied. Kick appealed and the Air Force relented, sending him 361 pictures of coffins arriving at the Dover Air Force Base.

Military photographers took the pictures for historic reasons. The photos are professional, subdued and, of course, dignified. But when Kick posted the pictures on his Web site, www.thememoryhole.org, the White House and the Pentagon went into a tizzy.

President Bush said he wants to protect the privacy of the families and no more coffin photos will be released. A Pentagon official insisted the ban was not related to any concern about public opinion. Sure.

John Molino, a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, said the censorship is necessary because "we don't want the remains of our service members who have made the ultimate sacrifice to be subject to any kind of attention that is unwarranted or undignified."

The censorship has nothing to do with protecting dignity and has everything to do with protecting George W.'s political hide. Actually, his father first initiated the ban on public access to pictures and videos of returning war dead in 1991.

As Gulf War I began, Bush the Elder feared a repeat of the Vietnam-era images of an unrelenting stream of coffins returning home. Forget a free society and a Constitution that protects expression, these are forbidden images, unfit for the eyes of the American people.

Barbara Bush, wife and mother of the presidents, already stated her aversion to such unpleasant images, and perhaps she's making the call here.

In March of last year, as the invasion of Iraq began, Mrs. Bush told Diane Sawyer of ABC News that she wouldn't watch any television reports about her boy's war because, she said, "Why should we hear about body bags and death and how many? ... Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

Jane Bright of West Hills, Calif., disagrees. Her 24-year-old son Evan Ashcraft was killed in combat in Iraq last July. She told CBS, "We need to stop hiding the deaths of our young. We need to be open about their deaths."

President Bush fears openness about anything, especially Iraq. He and his handlers want to control every image and the reality of war -- death, suffering and destruction -- must be suppressed.

It's all about images. While money is the mother's milk of politics, image is the honey. Sweet and smooth, it cloaks and covers, dominating what it touches.

The bees in the Bush White House are always busy, working to ensure that the images they create will stick in the public's mind. Any other image, not of their making, will be forbidden, squashed or censored.

One image they hoped would endure forever was the triumphant commander in chief in his flyboy suit strutting across the deck of an aircraft carrier draped with a banner reading "Mission Accomplished."

We never saw the reality of worried Pentagon professionals who knew Iraq was still a tinderbox and that planning for a post-Saddam nation ranged from little to nonexistent.

We never saw the image of the search for the outlawed weapons arsenals we were told were there and were the most urgent reason for the invasion and war. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld told us he knew "exactly" where to find them.

Then there is the image of the brave and compassionate crusader -- the president paying a surprise visit, serving a prop Thanksgiving turkey dinner to the thrilled and hungry troops in Iraq. Those chosen for the meal, the image -- and, thus, the politically correct photo op -- were picked based on their race and gender.

The reality we didn't see was the other troops eating cold sandwiches because Halliburton, the company given the no-bid contract for military food service in Iraq, regularly screwed up and used the concession to overbill the taxpayers millions of dollars for meals never served.

The image of Saddam's big statue toppling left the desired impression that this was not aggression and imperialism but rather liberation, and that George W. Bush, the father of freedom in the Middle East, was doing God's work.

We never see the reality of occupying forces shutting down newspapers and shooting reporters and photographers.

Bush loves the image of the despised, bearded and disheveled Saddam Hussein rooted from hiding in his spider-hole. Here's the murderous dictator whose regime posed an immediate threat to our national security. The next picture we'll see of him will be in the hangman's noose.

The reality we don't see is President Reagan's special envoy to Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld, presenting the then-beloved Saddam an expensive pair of cowboy boots from Ronald Reagan in recognition of their great friendship.

Rumsfeld also provided Saddam with U.S. satellite photos the Iraqi "madman" would then use to guide nerve gas attacks on Iranian soldiers and Kurdish villages. We helped Saddam use horrible weapons on his own people, and now we're going to put him on trial.

In his new book, "Plan of Attack," Bob Woodward tells us Bush gave the order to commence the war with the image of noble, public purpose, as the gallant protector of our national security, telling the generals this must be done "for the peace of the world and the freedom of the Iraqi people."

The realty is a world with less peace and more violence, and the Iraqi people are far from freedom in a land increasingly hostile to the "liberating" armies. It's a bloody mess. America is less secure and we have never been more despised in the Arab world.

George W. and Field Marshall Rumsfeld sell the image of free enterprise and a new, sovereign Iraqi government bringing freedom, peace and stability there.

The reality is that the "privatized" war has produced profiteering, mercenaries, cronyism and corruption, and the American taxpayers will get stuck with the tab as our Iraqi puppets enjoy the looting.

But, sadly, Bush's use of image works very effectively and truth doesn't trump it. A new poll shows that 57 percent of Americans still believe Saddam gave "substantial support" to al-Qaeda. The University of Maryland survey also shows 45 percent have the impression that there was "clear evidence" Iraq worked closely with Osama bin Laden, and 60 percent believe that Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction or a major program to develop them.

There is no evidence or truth to any of those beliefs, but it shows we are clearly living in an age of cognitive dissonance, in which people cling to whatever fits their own opinions and facts don't interfere with their false beliefs.

That's just the way the president likes it and his drones in the corporate media helped him do it. George W. Bush is politically secure as long as the American people are content licking the honey of his images and refuse to swallow the bitter reality and truth of his deeds.
_____________________________________

Bill Gallagher, a Peabody Award winner, is a former Niagara Falls city councilman who now covers Detroit for Fox2 News.

©2004 The Niagara Falls Reporter

commondreams.org



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (130149)4/27/2004 11:47:17 PM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hi cnyndwllr; Re: "While it's true that the army learned how to teach some men to actually overcome the reluctance to kill another, it's also true that a significant number, and maybe a majority, of men still wouldn't shoot at the enemy. I don't think, however, that we were "better trained." Like many jobs, training is overrated and doing the job is the real "training.""

Few people who've not seen combat will admit that so many men are unable to overcome the reluctance to kill. Here's a USMC guide to training men to kill, it ain't easy:
mcu.usmc.mil

You're right that the figure in Vietnam was somewhere around 50%. That is, about 50% of the soldiers in a position to do so, actually used their weapons effectively. This may seem like a very small percentage to you, but if you research the figures for previous wars you will discover that the 50% "shooting rate" was incredibly high. I doubt that the Vietnamese had better than a 5% shooting rate, which is what is normal for badly trained soldiers (and every non 1st rate power's soldiers are badly trained).

Some examples of the techniques that the military uses to increase the shooting percentages are: (a) The buddy system instead of individual foxholes. That way you've got another guy to fortify your courage a little. The Greek hoplites fought shield to shield, arranged next to their kinfolk, and they achieved close to 100% effective rates. Modern fire power makes it impossible to keep infantry so close together, but the buddy system helps. (b) Crew served weapons. The highest effective firing rates in battle are the crew served weapons on ships. Even in the days of wooden ships it was normal for damn near 100% of the individuals to be effective. Humans really are pack animals. (c) Training on man shaped silhouettes that pop up and down like those fleeting glimpses you get on a battlefield. The idea is to get the soldier to shoot automatically without thinking.

Military psychologists figured out the problem in WW2, partly solved it in Korea, and then pretty much completely solved it in Vietnam. Here's a link showing that the figure for Vietnam was much higher than the figures for previous wars. (Note that the figures he's quoting are not people who manage to take useful aimed shots, but instead just the people who shoot generally in the direction of the enemy. Combat has incredibly debilitating effects on accuracy. Most people in a firefight can't hit the side of a barn from inside the barn. You'll find plenty of barns with holes in the roof, the door, pretty much everywhere but the side.)

...
One major modern revelation in the field of military psychology is the observation that such resistance to killing one's own species is also a key factor in human combat. *Brig. Gen. S. L. A. Marshall first observed this during his work as an official U.S. Army historian in the Pacific and European theaters of operations in World War II. Based on his post-combat interviews, Marshall concluded in his book Men Against Fire (1946, 1978) that only 15 to 20 percent of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their own weapons at an exposed enemy soldier. Key weapons, such as *flame-throwers, were usually fired. Crew-served weapons, such as *machine guns, almost always were fired. And action would increase greatly if a nearby leader demanded that the soldier fire. But when left on their own, the great majority of individual combatants appear to have been unable or unwilling to kill.
...
Ardant du Picq's surveys of French officers in the 1860s and his observations about ancient battles (Battle Studies, 1946), John Keegan and Richard Holmes' numerous accounts of ineffectual firing throughout history (Soldiers, 1985), Holmes' assessment of Argentine firing rates in the Falklands War (Acts of War, 1985), Paddy Griffith's data on the extraordinarily low firing rate among Napoleonic and American *Civil War regiments (Battle Tactics of the American Civil War, 1989), the British army's laser reenactments of historical battles, the FBI's studies of nonfiring rates among law enforcement officers in the 1950s and 1960s, and countless other individual and anecdotal observations, all confirm Marshall's fundamental conclusion that human beings are not, by nature, killers. Indeed, from a psychological perspective, the history of warfare can be viewed as a series of successively more effective tactical and mechanical mechanisms to enable or force combatants to overcome their resistance to killing other human beings, even when defined as the enemy.

By 1946, the US Army had accepted Marshall's conclusions, and the Human Resources Research Office of the US Army subsequently pioneered a revolution in combat training, which eventually replaced firing at targets with deeply ingrained conditioning, using realistic, man-shaped pop-up targets that fall when hit. Psychologists assert that this kind of powerful operant conditioning is the only technique that will reliably influence the primitive, midbrain processing of a frightened human being. Fire drills condition schoolchildren to respond properly even when terrified during a fire. Conditioning in flight simulators enables pilots to respond reflexively to emergency situations even when frightened. And similar application and perfection of basic conditioning techniques increased the rate of fire to approximately 55 percent in Korea and around 95 percent in Vietnam.
...

killology.com

Modern 1st rate infantry armies are famous for absolutely beating the crap out of 2nd or 3rd world armies despite huge inverse force ratios largely because of these techniques. What you end up with is a force that shoots about 5 or 10x as effectively as the other side. The evidence of high non firing rates during the Civil war is partly the very large number of weapons dug up from the battlefields that have multiple rounds packed into the rifle by men who imitated shooting at the enemy but didn't pull the trigger. The other part of the evidence consists of calculations for what the wound rates should have been based on historical data about the number of soldiers, and their distance to the enemy.

What happened is that these battles largely consisted of a bunch of guys yelling and shooting over each other's heads. This is normal intra species animal behavior (i.e threat display). Effective killing is not.

What I'm saying here is that you probably had a 5x advantage over the Vietnamese in your firing effectiveness. This is the same rate that every modern 1st world infantry unit has against every modern 2nd or 3rd world infantry unit, and it's enough to make a BIG difference in the kill rates. It's why our soldiers now in Iraq kick their butts in urban fighting even in the absence of all the usual technological advantages.

-- Carl

P.S. I have a comment on the concept of "battle hardened", but I'll save it for a separate post.

Here's SLA Marshall's assessment of Vietnam from late 1966:
web.usf.edu