It is well past time that the gloves came off.
An Iraqi military official said Tuesday that the bodies of two missing U.S. soldiers showed signs of torture, and that men appeared to have been killed “in a barbaric way.” Also, the umbrella group for Iraqi insurgents claimed responsibility for the soldiers’ deaths.
“We give the good news … to the Islamic nation that we have carried God’s verdict by slaughtering the two captured crusaders,” said a statement in the name of the Mujahedeen Shura Council, which groups five insurgent organizations including al-Qaida in Iraq.
We have been playing pattycake for far too long with these so-called insurgents. Obviously, the terrorists that call themselves the Mujahedeen Shura Council do not balk at brutality and apparently have no knowledge of the Geneva Conventions that some of our fellow Americans wield like a cross before a vampire and understand about as well as a gnat undersands quantum physics. It is well past time that we deliver a schooling on what, exactly, the Geneva Conventions allow us to do, and that we do so without blinking and without mercy.
I am pleased with how quickly Iraq has gone from despotism to democracy. I am more pleased that their democracy bears closer resemblance to ours than it does in other supposed democracies like Egypt and Iran. I realize that our restraint has helped that effort immensely and that it has also cost us the lives of many soldiers that would not have died had we waged a more aggressive and less discerning war.
But the enemy is clearly declared and the battle lines are clearly drawn. It is time that we started wiping them out en masse.
UPDATE: The WaPo Headline: “Missing Soldier’s Uncle Criticizes U.S.”
Well, geez! Of course he did. He’s known for less than 24 hours that his son was tortured and murdered. How, exactly, is this a news story?
DALLAS — The uncle of a U.S. soldier who disappeared after a firefight in Iraq lashed out at the government Tuesday after learning two bodies had reportedly been found not far from where his nephew and another soldier were last seen.
“The news is going to be heartbreaking for my family,” Ken MacKenzie, uncle of Army Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, told NBC’s “Today” show. “Because the U.S. government did not have a plan in place, my nephew has paid for it with his life,” he said.
Ohhhh…I see. Because of the Democratic talking point right in the middle there.
Now I doubt very seriously if Mr. MacKenzie is anything but a grieving relative who didn’t mind sharing his grief on national television. It sure is curious to me, though, that the Post would just happen to glom onto that one particular quote that just happens to sound like something fresh off the anti-war fax machine.
Wipe who out en masse?
I wasn’t clear enough?
No, please explain.
One of the more difficult sayings of Jesus was “Love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you.” These insurgents are my enemies. I pray for them – not for their success, but that their eyes would be opened and that justice would be done.
One of the arguments against the use of torture is that it inflames the enemy makes makes them more committed to fighting. And the Mujahedeen Council seems to have done just that. Strangely, we can all easily see how their use of torture has backfired, yet we still don’t see how our use of torture may have backfired as well.
Well, Andy, I would have thought that my specific mention of the Mujehadeen Shura Council would have ben a clue.
Tom – It’s not the torture that has inflamed me, but the revelation for what must be the bazillionth time, that our enemies in this war are not signatories to and indeed have no intention on honoring in even the smallest way, the Geneva Conventions. We have heard for four years how the GC must be our guiding light even as those waging war against us have used civilians for cover, have committed actual acts of torture, and have sawed off the heads of hostages. I simply point out that for all the warbling about the GC, we remain fairly ignorant of what it does and does not allow us to do.
That doesn’t make any sense, Jimmie. Of course we’d obliterate the Shura Council, etc. if we only knew who they were. Mao’s “fish and the sea” and all that.
What’s the “restraint” you want removed? You seem to be implying that we should be, at mimimum, much less discriminate in picking targets. Or, to take that line of logic to it’s extreme, we should be broadening the responsibility for the insurrection beyond the insurgents. But I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
I also don’t get the reasoning that says the Geneva Convention(s), or at least the idea, is null and void because of the terrorist’s tactics. We’re not trying to convince the terrorists to behave humanely. We’re trying to prove to a sceptical Middle East public that we’re capable of behaving humanely, even in the face of brutality.
As you admit, that our enemies are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions is hardly a revelation. My guess is that you didn’t even need a reminder of that fact. My take on the Geneva Conventions is that they need some updating for modern warfare. There needs to be a more clear definition of whom it applies to. However, that does not mean we should just ignore the Geneva Conventions because of their flaws. If we are looking for some ‘guiding light’ on how to deal with prisoners, it should be this: we should engage in no practice that is likely to inflame our enemies should that practice see the light of day. Our current ‘interrogation techniques’ do not meet that standard, and Iraqi support for our troops has been the casualty. Perhaps we have gained some valuable intellegence, but we have paid a very high price for it.
Tom, I’ll adress your point about inflaming our enemies in more detail shld you wish it but I’ll make three quick points. 1) Our enemies targeted civilians and killed about 3000 of them. 2) Our enemies were beheading hostages before any “violations” of the GC came to light.
How much more inflamed do you expect them to be?
I would argue that nothing we do can inflame our enemies further than they are already inflamed and I’ve not seen a shred of evidence to say otherwise.
Andy – What I am referring to is our general gentility toward our enemies because of misguided political of humanitarian motives. We have refrained from attacking enemies in mosques, despite ample proof that they use them as weapon supply depots, ambush points, and sniper nests. We have chosen not to lay siege on terrorist strongholds for fear of causing injury to civilians in that same area who have chosen to remain there. We have allowed such murderers as Moqtada al-Sadr not only to live but to actively fight against us even though we know well who and where he is, and that his strength comes largely from his Iranian backing because we worry about inflaming the distinct minority of Iraqis.
Note, by the way, that I’m not saying that the GC is null and void but that it is a treaty. Treaties are only valid between signatories. I am also not saying that we shold not abide by the GC. I happen to believe that we are. I do believe, though, that in dealing with those who do not abide by the treaty, we err in using the GC as the sole guide of our behavior. What should guide our behavior in this war is what defeats the enemy quickly and decisively.
Ah, I see. I could quibble over definitions – “Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations” – and the meaning of “politics” blah blah blah but we’ve all been there and done that.
I tend to get a bit edgy at the sight of phrases like en masse. My bad.
Sure we have, and the GC isn’t the point of my comment, though it’s an easy distraction from the reality of the situation.
But as for your unease, I’m guessing you didn’t read far enough into your link. I quote:
If you contend that the “insurgents” are a levee en masse you ‘ll have a hard time deying that they have not separated themselves from civilians. In fact, they have done just the opposite.
The Missing Soldiers: The reactions
I want to say coming out of the chute on this that I am very heartsick for the families of the latest two soldiers killed in Iraq. I won’t dwell on their brutal deaths, enough other people are doing that. What I am concerned about is the r…
When I wrote of inflaming the enemy, I did not mean to imply that our enemies have worsened their tactics as a result of anything we may have done. They certainly have not. It’s just that there are more of them doing it. Two years ago the Army estimated the size of the insurgency at 2000-3000. Now it’s ten times that size, by their estimate. Obviously, a lot of people joined that insurgency or it would not have grown so much. When we fail to uphold humane standards of warfare, we make the terrorists’ recruiting job much easier. People are far more willing to drop their standards of humanity when they see that all sides have already done so. But that’s just the effects on the general public. The direct victims of our indiscretions are even more inflamed. Of the thousands we tortured and released, I’d guess at least a thousand of them our now fighting our troops. No doubt many of them have already claimed their revenge.