[POL] Winning Hearts & Minds...

[Jesse_Ewiak]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060128/...ltBHNlYwM3MTY-

The U.S. Army in Iraq has at least twice seized and jailed the wives of suspected insurgents in hopes of "leveraging" their husbands into surrender, U.S. military documents show.

In one case, a secretive task force locked up the young mother of a nursing baby, a U.S. intelligence officer reported. In the case of a second detainee, one American colonel suggested to another that they catch her husband by tacking a note to the family's door telling him "to come get his wife."
...........................

In one memo, a civilian Pentagon intelligence officer described what happened when he took part in a raid on an Iraqi suspect's house in Tarmiya, northwest of Baghdad, on May 9, 2004. The raid involved Task Force (TF) 6-26, a secretive military unit formed to handle high-profile targets.

"During the pre-operation brief it was recommended by TF personnel that if the wife were present, she be detained and held in order to leverage the primary target's surrender," wrote the 14-year veteran officer.

He said he objected, but when they raided the house the team leader, a senior sergeant, seized her anyway.

"The 28-year-old woman had three young children at the house, one being as young as six months and still nursing," the intelligence officer wrote. She was held for two days and was released after he complained, he said.

Like most names in the released documents, the officer's signature is blacked out on this for-the-record memorandum about his complaint.

Of this case, command spokesman Johnson said he could not judge, months later, the factors that led to the woman's detention.

The second episode, in June 2004, is found in sketchy detail in e-mail exchanges among six U.S. Army colonels, discussing an undisclosed number of female detainees held in northern Iraq by the Stryker Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division.

The first message, from a military police colonel, advised staff officers of the U.S. northern command that the Iraqi police would not take control of the jailed women without charges being brought against them.

In a second e-mail, a command staff officer asked an officer of the unit holding the women, "What are you guys doing to try to get the husband — have you tacked a note on the door and challenged him to come get his wife?"

Two days later, the brigade's deputy commander advised the higher command, "As each day goes by, I get more input that these gals have some info and/or will result in getting the husband."

He went on, "These ladies fought back extremely hard during the original detention. They have shown indications of deceit and misinformation."

The command staff colonel wrote in reply, referring to a commanding general, "CG wants the husband."

The released e-mails stop there, and the women's eventual status could not be immediately determined.

Of this episode, Johnson said, "It is clear the unit believed the females detained had substantial knowledge of insurgent activity and warranted being held."

What I have found amazing in all of the coverage of Jill Carroll's kidnapping is that no one has ever suggested it was done in reaction to the way the US acts in Iraq.

I guess US intelligence is so bad that they resort to war crimes to hunt down insurgents. Taking hostages is a war crime. I know it isn't a big deal to the chickenhawks, but to most people, it is a loathesome act.

Plus, it doesn't work. It just pisses people off and make people like Carroll's lives even riskier. She was listening to Iraqis. But if they toss your wife or mom in jail, you just don't give a fuck. She's an American and the Americans have your female kin in jail.

[amdaily]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060128/...ltBHNlYwM3MTY-




What I have found amazing in all of the coverage of Jill Carroll's kidnapping is that no one has ever suggested it was done in reaction to the way the US acts in Iraq.

I guess US intelligence is so bad that they resort to war crimes to hunt down insurgents. Taking hostages is a war crime. I know it isn't a big deal to the chickenhawks, but to most people, it is a loathesome act.

Plus, it doesn't work. It just pisses people off and make people like Carroll's lives even riskier. She was listening to Iraqis. But if they toss your wife or mom in jail, you just don't give a fuck. She's an American and the Americans have your female kin in jail.

blash fucking blash blah. idiot.

[JonInMiddleGA]

When you've got 'em by the balls ....

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

What I have found amazing in all of the coverage of Jill Carroll's kidnapping is that no one has ever suggested it was done in reaction to the way the US acts in Iraq.

Maybe because it wasn't?

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

I guess US intelligence is so bad that they resort to war crimes to hunt down insurgents. Taking hostages is a war crime. I know it isn't a big deal to the chickenhawks, but to most people, it is a loathesome act.

Guessing was your first mistake. I'm sure you know the whole story.

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

Plus, it doesn't work. It just pisses people off and make people like Carroll's lives even riskier. She was listening to Iraqis. But if they toss your wife or mom in jail, you just don't give a fuck. She's an American and the Americans have your female kin in jail.

Carroll knew the risks when she went over there, just like each and every soldier.

[Dutch]

America is evil. God save 'The Resistance.'

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Dutch

America is evil. God save 'The Resistance.'

Oh, save the horseshit. Your views fall into the "All people who disagree with America are evil" - America is perfect". You're not much better than Jesse - You're a frigging parody.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Oh, save the horseshit. Your views fall into the "All people who disagree with America are evil" - America is perfect". You're not much better than Jesse - You're a frigging parody.

I don't think Jesse would like you much.

And for yoru information, I am in the military so forgive me if I get a little pissed when all I ever see in the news is how terrible we are from a news media that cares very little for reporting good news.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I don't think Jesse would like you much.

Heh - I don't particularly care. Jesse's politics are nowhere near mine, but I find it absurd that you all of people criticize him for seeing the world in black or white terms - your criticism may have value, but the hypocrisy is amazing.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Heh - I don't particularly care. Jesse's politics are nowhere near mine, but I find it absurd that you all of people criticize him for seeing the world in black or white terms - your criticism may have value, but the hypocrisy is amazing.

Then take the lead on this one then.

[JW]

The implication of the story is that the women were not at all involved in the insurgency. But I see no evidence to support that implication. Having knowledge of the insurgency and of the location of insurgents might itself be viewed as being an accessory to the insurgency.

I think it is far from clear from the story whether the US military acted properly or improperly in the incidents noted, though the implication the writer wants us to draw is clear imho. The fact, for example, that the one woman was released after the one officer complained does not mean that the woman was released because the officer complained. And the fact that the woman had young children at home likewise has nothing to do with whether she should have been detained or not. And the fact that the military hopes the arrest of a wife might lead to the surrender of the husband does not of itself prove that the arrest of the wife was improper.

While it would not surprise me that US forces may have detained some females without good cause, I'm not convinced by this story that anything improper occurred here, and there is no evidence of a widespread policy of unwarranted detentions by US forces.

I also see no equivalence between these detentions and the kidnapping and possible execution of Jill Carroll or other innocents taken and sometimes brutally executed by insurgent parties.

One can always attempt to justify the actions of terrorists by saying they are reacting to some supposed wrong.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JW

The implication of the story is that the women were not at all involved in the insurgency. But I see no evidence to support that implication. Having knowledge of the insurgency and of the location of insurgents might itself be viewed as being an accessory to the insurgency.

I think it is far from clear from the story whether the US military acted properly or improperly in the incidents noted, though the implication the writer wants us to draw is clear imho. The fact, for example, that the one woman was released after the one officer complained does not mean that the woman was released because the officer complained. And the fact that the woman had young children at home likewise has nothing to do with whether she should have been detained or not. And the fact that the military hopes the arrest of a wife might lead to the surrender of the husband does not of itself prove that the arrest of the wife was improper.

While it would not surprise me that US forces may have detained some females without good cause, I'm not convinced by this story that anything improper occurred here, and there is no evidence of a widespread policy of unwarranted detentions by US forces.

I also see no equivalence between these detentions and the kidnapping and possible execution of Jill Carroll or other innocents taken and sometimes brutally executed by insurgent parties.

One can always attempt to justify the actions of terrorists by saying they are reacting to some supposed wrong.

Well scrutinized, JW.

[Solecismic]

What's frustrating to me is that our military (and the Israelis, and anyone else who happens to fall afoul of some Muslim extremist) is fighting a group of people that specifically targets civilians, often hides behind its own women and children when launching attacks and generally uses every dirty trick imaginable.

But as soon as any U.S. or Israelis individual responds with any kind of remotely questionable tactic, the left-wing media grasps on for dear life, claiming there's some sort of moral equivalence.

I don't say this to excuse tactics like holding the mother of a nursing baby to try and smoke out the criminal father. But painting the entire military with this brush for one exception, when the soldiers they are fighting refuse to act with any honor whatsoever, does seem very anti-American. And I mean that term not as a patriotic one, more in a "I hate Bush so everything the government does is bad" sense.

Now, I realize the terrorists are outnumbered, and some like to romanticize their tactics as constructed out of desperation. If they were to wear uniforms and stand up like men and fight, they would quickly be eliminated. But hiding behind women and children and targetting civilians is just pure cowardace.

And it's a stupid tactic. Want the U.S. out of Iraq? How 'bout putting away the weapons for a few months? This romanticized "insurgency" is the only justification for the troops in the first place. And don't think for a second they don't know this. Extremists strengthen their hold when everything is in disarray. These attacks are designed to keep the U.S. military in Iraq, not drive it away.

[Dutch]

A general from the Air Warfare College was in my squadron the other day. And he mentioned that the term "GWOT" was slowly fading away for a new term "The Long War" to describe US intervention in the Middle East.

He also mentioned that the insurgency is a tough opponent that knows how to fight. Not by taking on the US military, but by taking on US opinion and willpower.

It's a masterful tactic with great vision. They knew we would be in conflict for a long time and are way ahead of us in the battle for "hearts and minds".

And it is my contention, that the "resistance"--not in their wildest dreams--would have found the US and European media on their side of this conflict.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

I fail to see the part where I back the 'resistance.' I just get a bit peeved when our own armed forces take hostages. I expect the terrorists to do it. I expect better from our Army.

Also, if you don't think this will play like gangbusters in the Arab media - then you're dead wrong. It doesn't matter how many schools or hospitals we build if we continue to act against our ideals.

As for 'why don't they stand up and fight us man-to-man?' Well, if the soliders in the American Revolution did that, I'd be sitting down for teatime right now. Guerriela warfare is what works when fighting an enemy with much larger numbers and firepower. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's a tactic. Asking them to fight fair is like Mike Tyson asking me to stay still when he punches me in the face. I don't think so. Stick and move and then hit him with a lead pipe.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

I fail to see the part where I back the 'resistance.' I just get a bit peeved when our own armed forces take hostages. I expect the terrorists to do it. I expect better from our Army.

It's a matter of ratio. You may not back the terrorists, but you are supporting the erosion of support for our side.

Also, if you don't think this will play like gangbusters in the Arab media - then you're dead wrong. It doesn't matter how many schools or hospitals we build if we continue to act against our ideals.

Again, it's about ratio's. One negative news article is a drop in the bucket. But that buckets about full when you look at all the shit the media has said about us. And then when you look at the terrorist's 'bucket'....it's plumb dry. The perception, which is where you get your anger from, is that US soldiers are generally bad.

But if you put 100,000 soldiers in a hostile enviroment, you are bound to find some soldiers that break the law, that aren't fully aware of the law, or are put in situations that is sure as hell looks like they are breaking the law for fun.

And granted, I understand that there is nothing to report when a soldier does his job. Nothing to report when a soldier goes above and beyond the call of duty to risk his life to save others or to complete a mission. Nothing to report when a soldier works 30 hours straight. Nothing to report when they are shot at. Nothing to report when they are away from their families for months on end. Nothing to report when they have rebuilt schools, roads, a law-abiding foreign army, a government and a democratic nation out of the ashes of a thug infested dictatorship that threatened everybody and killed their own by the thousands and paid Oil for Food donations to Hamas suicide-bomber families.

But after all that, the only thing some left-wing snot-nosed ass-kissing reporter could come up with to write is that the US military are just a bunch of terrorists? Well, the journalists deserve to be scrutinized too.

As for 'why don't they stand up and fight us man-to-man?' Well, if the soliders in the American Revolution did that, I'd be sitting down for teatime right now. Guerriela warfare is what works when fighting an enemy with much larger numbers and firepower. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's a tactic. Asking them to fight fair is like Mike Tyson asking me to stay still when he punches me in the face. I don't think so. Stick and move and then hit him with a lead pipe.

Then stop asking for the armistace to be signed like they were back in the old days and to bring our troops back pre-maturely. Give them a break. Give them some support, and let them do their job.

As an insider of sorts, I can assure you that 99% of the armed forces is strictly regulated and monitored. If somebody is doing something wrong or against the LOAC (law of armed conflict) then somebody else is gonna complain. But just because it's the United States does not mean that everybody is perfectly good and lawful. Their are thugs in the military and they are dealt with.

To shoot off this article (and the many others before this) as proof that the US armed forces is fucked up....well...it's being 99% uninformed and short sighted. Tunnel-visioned due to prejudices, really. You don't know the first damned thing about how awesome and lawful and civil service minded for all people our armed forces are because all the mainstream-media ever tells you is when they screw up.

You sit there and point at Walter Jones and say, "Look at that loser, he gave up a sack in week #4, oh and by the way gave up another sack in week #9. He also was flagged for holding. If he's so great, why was he flagged for holding?. He sucks." And that's the wrong way to look at whether or not Walter Jones is a bad offensive tackle.

You have to look at the whole picture before you judge. And this article is another story to tip the scales of reality in the wrong direction.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

Guerriela warfare is what works when fighting an enemy with much larger numbers and firepower. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's a tactic.

LOL. So you refuse to take a stand when terrorists or guerrillas hide behind and use women and children? It's not right or wrong? You're judgmental of our armed forces yet you refuse to pass judgment on them?

Originally Posted by Dutch

Then stop asking for the armistace to be signed like they were back in the old days and to bring our troops back pre-maturely. Give them a break. Give them some support, and let them do their job.

As an insider of sorts, I can assure you that 99% of the armed forces is strictly regulated and monitored. If somebody is doing something wrong or against the LOAC (law of armed conflict) then somebody else is gonna complain. But just because it's the United States does not mean that everybody is perfectly good and lawful. Their are thugs in the military and they are dealt with.

To shoot off this article (and the many others before this) as proof that the US armed forces is fucked up....well...it's being 99% uninformed and short sighted. Tunnel-visioned due to prejudices, really. You don't know the first damned thing about how awesome and lawful and civil service minded for all people our armed forces are because all the mainstream-media ever tells you is when they screw up.

You sit there and point at Walter Jones and say, "Look at that loser, he gave up a sack in week #4, oh and by the way gave up another sack in week #9. He also was flagged for holding. If he's so great, why was he flagged for holding?. He sucks." And that's the wrong way to look at whether or not Walter Jones is a bad offensive tackle.

You have to look at the whole picture before you judge. And this article is another story to tip the scales of reality in the wrong direction.

Well said.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

LOL. So you refuse to take a stand when terrorists or guerrillas hide behind and use women and children? It's not right or wrong? You're judgmental of our armed forces yet you refuse to pass judgment on them?

If the United States were overrun by a foreign military, would you support the use of guerilla tactics to resist them (i.e. Red Dawn)? What is your feeling on the Allied resistance forces in WWII?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

If the United States were overrun by a foreign military, would you support the use of guerilla tactics to resist them (i.e. Red Dawn)? What is your feeling on the Allied resistance forces in WWII?

Whose family would you bomb first just to "stick it" to the foreign military?

[sterlingice]

I dunno, I see a couple of different things here:

1) I don't see how guerrillas taking cover behind civilians has anything to do with taking hostages. One is being put in a no-win situation while the other is voluntarily putting yourself in the situation.

2) I think JW is right, saying we didn't get the whole story from the journalist. It just seems like there are some inconsistencies in the story.

3) The "if you're not fer' us yer' agin' us" rhetoric is tired, tho, too. It's the "ends justify the means" theory. What it fails to note is that there are other ways to reach the ends that don't involve those means. Thankfully not a lot in this thread so far.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Whose family would you bomb first just to "stick it" to the foreign military?

There's these jerks downstairs who always play their music too loud. Not only that, but it's at all hours of the day and night. No one ever needs that much bass unless they're trying to be asshats to the neighbors. I'd uh-- never mind, perhaps I've said too much.

SI

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Whose family would you bomb first just to "stick it" to the foreign military?

Based on the examples I gave, I would guess that you'd bomb military convoys and such first...

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

Based on the examples I gave, I would guess that you'd bomb military convoys and such first...

Do you believe that the "resistance" in Iraq is primarily bombing military convoys? Are most of the people who have died at their hands American soldiers?

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Do you believe that the "resistance" in Iraq is primarily bombing military convoys? Are most of the people who have died at their hands American soldiers?

I thought we were having a discussion about guerilla tactics (the hiding behind women and children thing)...

But in answer to your question, it's pretty clear that most of the people who have died are not American soldiers, but I'm not sure that proves anything. There are Iraqi soldiers and police as well, and a damned lot of them have been killed. According the U.S. military statistics released less than a week ago "most" of 34,000 insurgent attacks from last year were aimed at military targets (U.S. and/or Iraqi).

Suicide and car bombings amounted to approx. 1.4% of attacks. Perhaps 99% of their military is strictly monitored and doesn't attack civilians. Maybe if you put 27 million Iraqis in a hostile environment you're bound to find a some insurgents who target civilians. But to use that to infer that the Iraqi insurgency is fucked up, well, it's being 99% uninformed and short sighted... or whatever...

Maybe everyone likes to be very selective about what data they read, and is just looking for something to fuel their existing prejudices... And maybe the reason that the U.S. military gets held to a higher standard is the fact that Iraqi insurgents have never claimed to be saints, while the U.S. has spent every day since 9/11/2001 explaining how vile and cowardly it is to wage war in a manner that does not respect human rights and the rules of warfare. Hypocracy always sells newsprint.

I know I was very upset to hear about the kidnapping of Jill Carroll. Truly this practice of kidnapping and executing journalists is about as low as you can go. I don't think it means I'm finding a "moral equivalence" to find it sad that at the same time we're violating internationally recognized human rights by kidnapping Iraqi women and holding them hostage. We don't execute them at the end, so that's a nice thing. Carroll will probably die. But it's still sad.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

I thought we were having a discussion about guerilla tactics (the hiding behind women and children thing)...

But in answer to your question, it's pretty clear that most of the people who have died are not American soldiers, but I'm not sure that proves anything. There are Iraqi soldiers and police as well, and a damned lot of them have been killed. According the U.S. military statistics released less than a week ago "most" of 34,000 insurgent attacks from last year were aimed at military targets (U.S. and/or Iraqi).

I'm not sure how an "attack" is defined by the military, but I'm not sure that number in any ratio means much of anything. Most of the "attacks" I'm guessing were during our numerous counter-insurgency operations last year. That, daily mortar fire, and suicide bombers at checkpoints is the bulk of the contact as far as I'm aware.

Suicide and car bombings amounted to approx. 1.4% of attacks. Perhaps 99% of their military is strictly monitored and doesn't attack civilians. Maybe if you put 27 million Iraqis in a hostile environment you're bound to find a some insurgents who target civilians. But to use that to infer that the Iraqi insurgency is fucked up, well, it's being 99% uninformed and short sighted... or whatever...

Do you have any meaningful numbers that reflect what % of deaths caused by the "Resistance" is Iraqi women and children and what % is American soldiers. 17,000+ attacks against American soldiers has caused how many casualties? 17,000- attacks against Iraqi civilians has caused how many casualties? That might help us better understand the motivations of the "Resistance".

Maybe everyone likes to be very selective about what data they read, and is just looking for something to fuel their existing prejudices... And maybe the reason that the U.S. military gets held to a higher standard is the fact that Iraqi insurgents have never claimed to be saints, while the U.S. has spent every day since 9/11/2001 explaining how vile and cowardly it is to wage war in a manner that does not respect human rights and the rules of warfare. Hypocracy always sells newsprint.

The US Military and the terror-insurgency get their respective reputations not based on what they claim, but how they have acted and reacted. Again, the media is distorting this for their own personal gain. Perceptions slowly becomes reality if you ignore the facts.

I know I was very upset to hear about the kidnapping of Jill Carroll. Truly this practice of kidnapping and executing journalists is about as low as you can go. I don't think it means I'm finding a "moral equivalence" to find it sad that at the same time we're violating internationally recognized human rights by kidnapping Iraqi women and holding them hostage. We don't execute them at the end, so that's a nice thing. Carroll will probably die. But it's still sad.

I've already responded to this sort of nonsense.

[st.cronin]

It's standard propaganda in any war to accuse the other side of conducting the war immorally or unfairly. What's curious is that American media, since Vietnam, has leveled that accusation primarily against American soldiers.

[MrBigglesworth]

Question for Dutch et al: This is not the first report of the US taking hostages, so even if it is not correct in this case it is more than likely happening. Is taking hostages justified for the US military?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Question for Dutch et al: This is not the first report of the US taking hostages, so even if it is not correct in this case it is more than likely happening. Is taking hostages justified for the US military?

There are many, many military situations where taking hostages is not merely justified but the correct strategic move. The problem in Iraq, is that the military is acting more like a police force, and police obviously should never be taking hostages. So it really depends on how you're looking at it.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

What's curious is that American media, since Vietnam, has leveled that accusation primarily against American soldiers.

Karl Rove couldn't have said it better.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Karl Rove couldn't have said it better.

I'm sure he could have - he's a lot smarter than I am.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

There are many, many military situations where taking hostages is not merely justified but the correct strategic move. The problem in Iraq, is that the military is acting more like a police force, and police obviously should never be taking hostages. So it really depends on how you're looking at it.

Originally Posted by 4th Geneva Convention, article 3

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons...

- Taking of hostages

The slow moral decay of America.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The slow moral decay of America.

Obviously, you have no idea what that actually means. When I was in the service I actually recieved training on how to take hostages, one aspect of which was how to make sure no laws were broken.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Obviously, you have no idea what that actually means. When I was in the service I actually recieved training on how to take hostages, one aspect of which was how to make sure no laws were broken.

Enlighten me. How did you take hostages?

[Dutch]

Taking innocent civilians hostage is against the Geneva conventions. Detaining combatants or unlawful combatants is not.

It should at least be investigated by the Army to find out what it's all about. There's no excuses on our side for behaving badly.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Taking innocent civilians hostage is against the Geneva conventions. Detaining combatants or unlawful combatants is not.

It should at least be investigated by the Army to find out what it's all about. There's no excuses on our side for behaving badly.

It's lawful to detail "civilians" who have information, or in the case of the mother in the article linked, is giving aid and confort to the enemy.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Taking innocent civilians hostage is against the Geneva conventions. Detaining combatants or unlawful combatants is not.

It should at least be investigated by the Army to find out what it's all about. There's no excuses on our side for behaving badly.

I think Jesse and I would both agree with you.

[st.cronin]

So, we all agree that there are legal and illegal ways to take hostages, and nobody really knows what this article describes. Where's the usual partisan bickering? Why can't we always be this reasonable?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

So, we all agree that there are legal and illegal ways to take hostages, and nobody really knows what this article describes. Where's the usual partisan bickering? Why can't we always be this reasonable?

No, Dutch and I agreed that taking hostages is illegal. We both agreed that detaining enemy compatants is legal. You said that there were legal ways to take hostages. Did you mean arresting someone?

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

There are many, many military situations where taking hostages is not merely justified but the correct strategic move. The problem in Iraq, is that the military is acting more like a police force, and police obviously should never be taking hostages. So it really depends on how you're looking at it.

I think that highlights the real problem in Iraq. As soon as any military organization starts having to behave like a police force, things become confused. It's not what we should ask them to do, and not what they are primarily trained to do. I think it's probably why Colin Powell thought invading Iraq was a bad idea, that this result was likely.

So what I'm saying is that people like this reporter shouldn't act suprised when the military carries out police-type orders in a military fashion. If they have a problem with it, they should be pushing the government to change how security is handled in Iraq, not hounding the Army for doing the job they were sent in to do.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

No, Dutch and I agreed that taking hostages is illegal. We both agreed that detaining enemy compatants is legal. You said that there were legal ways to take hostages. Did you mean arresting someone?

There are legal ways to take hostages, but I'm not a lawyer, so don't take my word for it and start taking hostages.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

I think that highlights the real problem in Iraq. As soon as any military organization starts having to behave like a police force, things become confused. It's not what we should ask them to do, and not what they are primarily trained to do. I think it's probably why Colin Powell thought invading Iraq was a bad idea, that this result was likely.

So what I'm saying is that people like this reporter shouldn't act suprised when the military carries out police-type orders in a military fashion. If they have a problem with it, they should be pushing the government to change how security is handled in Iraq, not hounding the Army for doing the job they were sent in to do.

Exactly, couldn't agree more.

[Dutch]

Someone who is providing aid or assistance to a combatant or unlawful combatant (Iraqi insurgents are unlawful combatants (not legal combatants) by the Geneva convention standards) become a legal belligerant target by Geneva standards.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I think Jesse and I would both agree with you.

I brush my teeth everyday. Do you and Jesse do that as well? We could hang out sometimes and share a cherry coke maybe?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I brush my teeth everyday. Do you and Jesse do that as well? We could hang out sometimes and share a cherry coke maybe?

Plaque is a figment of the liberal media and the dental industry to scare you into buying useless appliances and pastes. Now, I've heard the arguments on both sides, and there is nothing to convince me of the need to brush your teeth. Ever. I got rid of my teeth at a young age because... I'm straight. Teeth are for gay people. That's why fairies come and get them.

hxxp://www.mcpeepants.com/s015.shtml

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

As for 'why don't they stand up and fight us man-to-man?' Well, if the soliders in the American Revolution did that, I'd be sitting down for teatime right now. Guerriela warfare is what works when fighting an enemy with much larger numbers and firepower. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's a tactic. Asking them to fight fair is like Mike Tyson asking me to stay still when he punches me in the face. I don't think so. Stick and move and then hit him with a lead pipe.

The reason WHY the British lost the war is because they refused to "lower themselves" to the guerrila tactics of the Americans. Oftentimes abiding by the rules when absolutely no one else does causes you to lose. Of course, to some liberals, that's exactly what they want to have happen -- anything to make Bush look bad. This is why the liberal media just refuses to print anything positive about this war, or anything positive to what our soldiers are doing there -- just this drivel.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

The reason WHY the British lost the war is because they refused to "lower themselves" to the guerrila tactics of the Americans. Oftentimes abiding by the rules when absolutely no one else does causes you to lose. Of course, to some liberals, that's exactly what they want to have happen -- anything to make Bush look bad. This is why the liberal media just refuses to print anything positive about this war, or anything positive to what our soldiers are doing there -- just this drivel.

Let's assume for a second that Iraq isn't so dangerous that reporters can't venture outside a couple mile square area without a full military escort. What should be reported on that isn't that is more important than the 'drivel' of credible allegations of the US engaging in war crimes?

[WVUFAN]

Well, firstly, your assumption that US Solders are participating in war crimes is patently FALSE. Let's get that out of the way.

How about how the US is helping rebuild roads, and schools and buildings? How about what the US is doing in a positive way/ That's more important that anything else, in my opinion, but instead we get a bunch of crap like this article.

But keep on focusing on your "negative" since that's what you seem want to do.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Let's assume for a second that Iraq isn't so dangerous that reporters can't venture outside a couple mile square area without a full military escort. What should be reported on that isn't that is more important than the 'drivel' of credible allegations of the US engaging in war crimes?

These things happened this week. I'm not sure if you were aware of it. Not just Americans taking innocent Iraqi's "hostage". Surprised?

Title: IRAQI, COALITION FORCES CONTINUE OPERATION KOA CANYON

Release Date: 1/23/2006

Release Number: 06-01-27

Description: January 23, 2006
Release Number: 06-01-27

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

IRAQI, COALITION FORCES CONTINUE OPERATION KOA CANYON
FORWARD OPERATING BASE HIT, Iraq – Eight days of back-breaking searches through villages and fields along the western Euphrates River valley have yielded thousands of pieces of ordnance as Iraqi Army Soldiers and U.S. Marines continue Operation Wadi Aljundi (Koa Canyon) in Iraq’s Al Anbar province.
Aimed at isolating insurgents and their weapons, the combined Iraqi and U.S. force began the latest sweep Jan. 15, and have uncovered a staggering amount of weaponry. The Soldiers and Marines are making their way inch-by-inch through caves, fields, wadis, and islands in an attempt to disrupt the insurgents.
So far, the combined force has found and destroyed more than 4,300 artillery and mortar rounds, rockets, and mines; 267 kilograms (590 pounds) of explosive powder, 10,000 rounds of various types of ammunition (ranging from small-arms to tank main gun rounds), 300 blasting caps, approximately 100 feet of detonation cord, and several working machine guns and mortar systems.
"Every piece of ordnance that is uncovered is one less potential IED that may be used against Iraqi civilians, Iraqi Security and Coalition forces," said Marine Col. Kenneth F. McKenzie, Jr., the commander of the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable).
McKenzie also stated that the future of the Iraqi Army is bright, based upon the individual courage of the Iraqi Soldiers. "The basic ingredient is courage, and these Iraqi Soldiers are showing it," said McKenzie.
The Iraqi Army Soldiers are with the 1st Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 7th Iraqi Army Division and the Marines are with the 22nd MEU (SOC).
The 22nd MEU (SOC) is comprised of its Command Element, Battalion Landing Team 1st Bn., 2nd Marines, MEU Service Support Group 22, and Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron (Reinforced) 261.
The 22nd MEU (SOC) is conducting counterinsurgency operations with an Iraqi battalion in the Al Anbar province under the tactical control of the 2nd Marine Division.

Title: 7-10 CAVALRY SOLDIERS FIND LARGE CACHE

Title: MND-B SOLDIERS DETAIN SUSPECTED TERRORISTS, FIND WEAPONS CACHE

Release Date: 1/27/2006

Release Number:

Description: BAGHDAD, Iraq – Elements of Multi-National Division – Baghdad’s 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment and Explosive Ordnance Disposal found a roadside bomb south of Baghdad Jan. 25.
EOD performed a controlled detonation of the unexploded ordnance.
Post-blast analysis of the previous bomb strike determined that three daisy-chained charges were placed in oil barrels with 30 to 40 pounds of homemade explosives in each barrel.
There were no injuries or damages in this incident.
MND-B’s 2nd Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment discovered a weapons cache late Jan. 25.
The cache consisted of 56 sticks of TNT, one box of .50 caliber rounds, one block of C4 explosive, four 60mm rounds, three individual fuses and one box of fuses.
Soldiers from 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment conducted a cordon and search based on a tip from a local national Jan. 25.
The patrol found two local nationals whose names and descriptions matched those in the tip, a pistol and a diagrammed location of a planned ambush on Coalition Forces.
The patrol continued to search the house and detained the two local nationals for questioning.
The above incidents are under investigation.

Title: SHEIKS MEET WITH 2ND BCT COMMANDER

Release Date: 1/27/2006

Release Number:

Description: FOB KALSU, Iraq -- Local tribal leaders of the Babil province met here Jan. 22 to discuss issues and concerns within the community.
Col. John Tully, commander, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, and Iraqi Brig. Gen. Qais Hamza, Babil, provincial police chief, took the opportunity to discuss security and project building in the area with more than 15 sheiks.
This event marks the first time a meeting of this caliber was organized since the Warhorse brigade assumed responsibility of the area earlier this month.
“Our main mission is to help the Iraqi army and police establish security in the Babil province,” said Tully, in his opening statement to the forum.
The central and southern parts of the province have seen steady progress over the past three years, and the desire is that the north can soon catch up with the rest of the province, said Sheik Taha Al Janabi. The security there is still in question and it’s anticipated that the pressure being put on terrorists by 2nd BCT Soldiers will result in stability in the area.
Most of the sheiks spoke about the security and how it was important to continue to strive for a good life in Iraq, said Chief Warrant Officer Desi Roberts, information officer, 2nd BCT. Several of them discussed the need for water and road projects and school refurbishment in their tribal area.
With security comes stability, and with stability come investments, projects and jobs, Tully said. He asked the leaders, who have great influence with their villagers, to tell people to stop attacking Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces so stability can materialize.
“Iraqis have accomplished much in the past year and have much to be proud of,” he said. “Every day, more and more Iraqis want to be part of the new government.”
Democracy was a success when we had it in the 1940s, and it was a good era in Iraq history, said Sheik Kader Abass Shided. The spate of elections in 2005 renews hope that those times are on the horizon.
Both Tully and Qais explained to the sheiks how to contact the appropriate people to discuss any problems or issues they may have. Qais set a time when sheiks could come to his office and voice concerns, and Tully talked about bases and battalion leaders in the region available to offer assistance to anyone who needs it.
The group agreed to continue these meetings in the future in order to help move nation and its people in a positive direction

Title: SUSPECTS CAPTURED THROUGHOUT NORTHERN IRAQ

Release Date: 1/26/2006

Release Number:

Description: TIKRIT, Iraq -- Iraqi security forces and Task Force Band of Brothers Soldiers detained 51 suspected terrorists during a series of unrelated actions throughout northern Iraq Jan. 24.
In the largest action of the day, Iraqi troops from the 2nd Brigade, 5th Iraqi Army Division planned and conducted a large early morning raid in three villages outside of Baqubah. The unit detained 19 suspects, including eight known to have strong ties to terrorists in the area.
In the Bayji area, Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division’s 3rd Brigade Combat Team continued to make progress against terrorists that have plagued the area. Ten known or suspected terrorists were captured in and around the city.
Tips from Bayji area residents generated a series of early-morning searches south of the city which led to the capture of four men closely tied to a terrorist ring responsible for committing murders and beheadings in the area. A fifth man was killed after firing a pistol at the Soldiers searching his home.
In another positive development, a local tribal leader brought three suspected members of an IED cell from the Bayji area to a coalition base and turned them in to coalition forces.
Soldiers from the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment also had a good day taking terrorists off the streets in Tall Afar and the nearby city of Bi’aj.
Working with Iraqi troops from the 2nd Brigade, 3rd Iraqi Army Division, the unit discovered two caches of weapons and stolen Iraqi Army uniforms and captured 12 suspects.
The troops began their mission working from one tip and with each turn of events, another tip surfaced that carried the Soldiers to two separate caches and 12 individuals.
The citizens of northern Iraq continue to build confidence in the security forces protecting the newly established democracy, as the Iraqi Soldiers grow into a mature, capable force, directly responsible for safeguarding the rights and lives of the people of Iraq.

Title: IRAQI SECURITY FORCES TAKE CONTROL OF MNDCS BATTLESPACE

Release Date: 1/26/2006

Release Number:

Description:
CAMP ECHO, Iraq – Iraqi security forces took control of security of Diwaniya and Wasit provinces from Multinational Division Central South Jan. 26.
Battlespace assumption documents were signed by Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, Multinational Corps - Iraq commander, Lt. Gen. Quadir, Iraqi Land Forces commander, Maj. Gen. Piotr Czerwinski, MNDCS commander, Maj. Gen. Othman Ali Ferhood, 8th Iraqi Army Division commander, the governors of Diwaniyah and Wasit prowinces, chiefs of police and Iraqi Border Police.
Ryszard Krystosik, ambassador of Poland, Gen. George Casey, Multinational Force – Iraq commander, and Gen. Nazir, deputy Chief of Iraqi Army General Staff, as well as local sheiks and administration representatives were also in attendance.
During the ceremony, Casey underlined that battlespace assumption was the demonstration of growing capabilities of Iraqi security forces. He thanked the MNDCS commander for the results achieved in training process.
“People of Diwaniyah and Wasit provinces can be proud of Iraqi Army units,” said Czerwinski.
MNDCS in cooperation with Iraqi security forces started building the combat power of Iraq at the beginning of 2005. MNDCS Military Transition Teams conducted intensive training created by Polish, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Salvadorian and U.S. instructors. They focused their efforts in training the units of the 8th Iraqi Army Division and Iraqi Border Police.
As a part of the training, Iraqi soldiers took part in numerous counterinsurgency operations shoulder to shoulder with MNDCS troops. Their knowledge and experience was gained in combat.
In September 2005, as a result of the training process and good cooperation, MNDCS certified six 8th IA Div’s battalions operating in Babil, Diwaniyah and Kut (former Wasit) provinces.
The next step was certification on the brigade level in November 2005 when the staffs of two Iraqi brigades (3rd Brigade in Kut and 2nd Brigade in Babil provinces) were certified by MNDCS. As a result of the certification, these brigade’s staffs took over command of their battalions.
On December 20, 2005, training of the division level concluded and the 8th Iraqi Army Division’s staff was certified.
During the same time period, MNDCS trained Iraqi Border Police (Kut province) and cooperated and supported the Iraqi Police Service.
In total, MNDCS trained more than 20,000 Iraqi soldiers and policemen.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Well, firstly, your assumption that US Solders are participating in war crimes is patently FALSE. Let's get that out of the way.

Liberals and conservatives alike have already said that taking hostages is a war crime. There have also been a number of soldiers already convicted of war crimes in the Abu Ghraib etc. hearings. So, you're wrong, there are some soldiers that are participating in war crimes. The pandemic nature of some of the war crimes also suggests a central organization to it. There is also the fact that many people believe Guantanamo Bay to be a violation of the Geneva Convention.

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

How about how the US is helping rebuild roads, and schools and buildings? How about what the US is doing in a positive way/ That's more important that anything else, in my opinion, but instead we get a bunch of crap like this article.

But keep on focusing on your "negative" since that's what you seem want to do.

So what positive stories haven't been covered?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

These things happened this week. I'm not sure if you were aware of it. Not just Americans taking innocent Iraqi's "hostage". Surprised?

I think you are confusing news with propaganda.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I think you are confusing news with propaganda.

No, you and Jesse are by referencing the article referenced at the beginning of the topic.

If it's a positive aspect of the Iraqi occupation, it's "propaganda". If it's anything that tears down the military, it's news. Funny, that.