+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Human Shields and Choice (/thread-12051.html)
Human Shields and Choice - Occhidiangela - 03-03-2003
What's in a name? A rose by any other name still has thorns. Was it the Civil War, or the War of Yankee Aggression, or the War Between the States? Was in the Seven Year's War, or the French and Indian war, part IV. Was it World War II, or was it The Great Patriotic War? Was it really Queen Annes' War, and why did they go to war over Jenkin's ear. In a word, who you are determines what you call a war.
Modern Iraq arose from the interaction of the post Imperial changes of WW I, aka the War to End All WArs, and how lines are drawn on a map.
Iraq's movement to establish an Arab Hegemony in the Persian Gulf region, a hegemony that would put all Arabs under its influence, has to my mind been crystalized by the fact that Egypt took themselves out of the old UAR and "We Lead The Arab World" by two major events: The 1973 disaster of th Yom Kippur War, and the Camp David accords wherein Egypt was bought off by Pres Carter. That war also crystalized the OPEC and "Oil as an economic weapon" framework that drives the importance of the region to this day.
Iraqi expansionism was triggered by both a bit of a power vacuum with Egypt out to lunch, and a perceived opportunity versus Iran, 1979-80. That effort got Iraq into such debt, it went a conquering again in 1990. As I see it, they are the same war continued in a different direction. Gulf War III, should it come, is basically the third chapter in the trilogy that Tolkein wrote about . . . sorry, got lost there.
ON second thought, maybe it is all the same war, and it is just new chapters of the same book, or Saturday morning radio serial.
Gulf War: Chapter I- Iran, the First Rebuff
Gulf War: Chapter II- Kuwait, aka the Wrath of Bush
Gulf War: Chapter III- The Return of the UN? No. THe Return of the Bush? No, different Bush. How about . . .
Gulf War: Chapter III Allah's Well That Ends . . . Well . . .
Hmmm, I like that title.
'In war, the outcome is never final.' ==Clausewitz==
World War I and World War II were to a certain extent the same war with different tools, at least on the Eurpean side, fought twice for similar reasons.
Human Shields and Choice - Skandranon - 03-04-2003
kandrathe,Mar 2 2003, 08:39 AM Wrote:And, what do you mean by appearing callous?I mean, specifically relating to precision weapons, the appearance of callous is:
Military: We hit what we aim at. Our weapons are that good.
Reporter: But what about those Iraqi civilians that just got killed?
Military: Well, we aimed at them. Too bad.
Obviously the military doesn't say that, they say, "Well, we missed." Then the reporter goes on with "But you said you didn't miss!" and the public naturally assumes that the military is trying to cover up "Well, we aimed at them."
Human Shields and Choice - kandrathe - 03-04-2003
Quote:Military: We hit what we aim at. Our weapons are that good.Yes, that would be callous.
Reporter: But what about those Iraqi civilians that just got killed?
Military: Well, we aimed at them. Too bad.
Quote:Obviously the military doesn't say that...Sure, anyone could manufacture any number of inflamatory conversations. I'm not sure what value it adds to the debate. As a real world example; I remember quite a bit of detail regarding the infamous Iraqi bunker debacle. Seems the US military thought it was an Iraqi communications post, but it was actually an air raid shelter. I remember that the military was perfunctory, polite, and showed the appropriate level of sympathy for the non-combatants. We can go back to Occhi's point about their being no such thing as a perfect smart bomb, nor perfect intelligence.
From the CS monitor;
Quote:The 2,000-pound laser-guided bombs burrowed through 10 feet of hardened concrete and detonated, punching a gaping hole in the Amiriyah bomb shelter â and incinerating 408 Iraqi civilians.
The Pentagon targeted Amiriyah because it picked up electronic signals coming from the site, and spy satellites could see a lot of people and vehicles moving in and out of the bunker. It fit the profile of a military command center, says Charles Heyman, the London-based editor of Jane's World Armies. The Pentagon didn't find out until much later, says Mr. Heyman, that the Iraqis had put an aerial antenna on top of the bunker. The antenna was connected by cable to a communications center safely 300 yards away.
Of the 250,000 bombs and missiles dropped on Iraq in 1991, only two impacted here at the bunker, on Feb. 13. But those two bombs defined the war for many Iraqis, and, six weeks into the air campaign, prompted Washington to curtail further attacks on downtown Baghdad.
Quote:Newsweek reported later that the bunker had been previously identified as one of about two dozen meant to shelter Saddamâs inner circle, the leaders and families of the Revolutionary Command Council and the Baath Party. Saddam himself was reputed to have been spotted at the Amiriyah bunker in the latter days of the Iran-Iraq War, and again at the beginning of February. Asked whether the victims were in fact the families of the ruling elite, a visibly shaken Pentagon source had stated, âI donât know. [Burned] women and children all look much the same, donât they?â After the war, a doctor in Baghdad who was in a position to know admitted that the bunker had been reserved for VIPs up until two weeks before the strike, when the local population had been admitted.
I don't think that shows the US has a callous disregard for human life. On the contrary, if they did they would not have changed their behavior, or even used any precision weapons. Their intelligence assessment was wrong. Does that mean they should not have dropped that bomb? I don't know, but I suspect that even there was a 50/50 chance it was a military C&C site, you would still bomb it. I think when you are the "General", a down side of the job is that you have to decide who dies. The grim calculus of war.
Human Shields and Choice - WarBlade - 03-04-2003
kandrathe,Mar 4 2003, 09:16 PM Wrote:I don't think that shows the US has a callous disregard for human life.Really?
Let's see . . .
In the heart of my city about 5 minutes walk up the hill from What I presume is the densest shopping district in the country sits the TVNZ building. The top of this is packed with various communications transmitters and recievers. By the quotes you presented above this structure would appear to fit the profile of a legitimate military target to an American bomber (assuming of course spyplane-only intelligence as per the Iraq situation). Bearing in mind the heavy foot traffic passing just outside the building, I find myself thinking that a "callous disregard for human life" is exactly what a bombing on it would be.
Quote:On the contrary, if they did they would not have changed their behavior, or even used any precision weapons. Their intelligence assessment was wrong. Does that mean they should not have dropped that bomb? I don't know, but I suspect that even there was a 50/50 chance it was a military C&C site, you would still bomb it.
If it was a 50/50 chance based on a remote concrete bunker out in the middle of a desert surrounded by razor wire, maybe. A 50/50 chance anywhere inside a city?
Bugger that.
There are always options and blunders can be avoided if people operate with strong precautionary measures. Picking a city based target because it has some microwave emissions is stupidity deserving a strong reprimand IMO.
Human Shields and Choice - Skandranon - 03-04-2003
Kandrathe, stop being so bloody defensive. I'm not arguing with you. I don't think the military is being callous. I'm showing you what the people who DO think so are seeing. And notably, there aren't any of them in this thread.
You asked how people could possibly see the military as callous. I answered. That is all.
Human Shields and Choice - Occhidiangela - 03-04-2003
The assumptions you make are erroneous.
I know what goes into targeting, and single sensor targeting is slowly but surely becoming a thing of the past, precisely for the reasons being discussed in this thread. The profound poltical impact of errors in targeting, particularly when the governments involved, for example, any NATO government, has as its goal the minimization of targeting errors. You don't want to blow up a nursery if you are aiming for an electrical switching station. 1) i It is a waste of a sortie and a bomb 2) you don't, aAS A MATTER OF POLICY target non combatants, 3) you have political trouble to deal with thanks to the way the modern age works: war as a spectator sport on CNN.
Even so, with multi source infor being used for targeting, errors are still made. The error rate, however, is well below 1%. Try that error rate in any other endeavour.
Great illustration? The Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Error. How the intelligence services of 16 countries could not agree on where that 'non target' was (NATO target lists go through a formal targeting board to get on the approved target lists: that is official NATO military doctrine), I considers it as being as much an error in 'war by committee' as a pure human error.
I imagine the briefing to pilots on that raid: "These coordinates house non targets, thus, if you lock on to it abort the drop and go to secondary target" All it takes is the briefing card to have a single typo . . .
If your assumptions were correct, in the microwave transmissions example, then the perception of callousness certainly would pass my common sense test.
Human Shields and Choice - Conner Macleod - 03-05-2003
Ok, this thread is officially out of control. 7 pages?
I like Alan Colmes' comment on the issue. We just got him on the radio here in Dallas and it's a god send. I'm not a liberal, I side with conservatives most of the time, and I do think for myself. But his comment was this regarding the Human Shields...
"I'm a liberal, and when people who call themselves liberals do these kinds of things, it makes all of us liberals look stupid." - Alan Colmes, 3/3/2003
To me, they are now pawns of Saddam, and guess what? That's their right to leave the land of the free to go over to a country that hates them. But when they actually thought that they were going to be allowed to protect non-military targets, they may have been sucking on the bong a little too long. When it comes to murderous dictators, you don't trust anything that they say. In the 60's, these tactics were all fine and noble. But try that with someone who can be comparable to Adolph Hitler and Josef Stalin's ideology. The thing we forget about Saddam is he is a classic psychopath, which means he cares not for anyone's life. He executed his own son-in-laws for goodness sake. I would also proclaim him a political genius in the Middle Eastern world. Much like Hitler, he usurped power and killed all his opponents. Anyone who speaks against him in that country is a walking dead man. And even more like Hitler and Stalin, he located the useful idiots who are so idealogical and foolish that he was able to maintain his power.
I'm glad that in my country, the USA, we have the right to free speech. I think it's GREAT that we have the power to say, "Bush is an idiot, Clinton is a moron, etc" and not risk death for it.
Stalin used to say, "To maintain power you must have useful idiots." The big fear I have for these people over there is that when they don't play along with Saddam's wishes, they are no longer useful idiots. If they are in Iraq when the bombs start bursting in the air, they will be forced at gunpoint to be human shields of the military targets. If they refuse, they are no long useful idiots and become useful hostages or worse, useful worm food. Saddam could EASILY take them hostage and hold them prisoner in ANY military target for them to await their death at American hands. To run a well run dictatorship, you must take a lesson from Stalin, Hitler, Khruschev, Castro, Khadaffi, the Ayahtolla Khomeni, and King Fahd. Propaganda fuels your power and support. If Saddam can drag out dead Americans and show his people and the world that Americans did this to their own people, get ready for a big problem.
I have a bigger fear that we will be distracted with a rescue mission as well as a war. Remember in the Gulf War, Saddam took many reporters prisoner. He beat them and starved them until the war was over. And these were people that could go home and tell EVERYONE what he did. I think the movie Midnight Express sums up what these poor, misguided, misdirected people are in for.
Human Shields and Choice - kandrathe - 03-05-2003
Quote:I don't think the military is being callous. I'm showing you what the people who DO think so are seeing. And notably, there aren't any of them in this thread.
Well, with the possible exception of Warblade. :) I think my views are very divergent from his on so many levels.
Sorry, I didn't think I was being defensive. We can just call this a friendly discussion. I wrestle myself with the philosophical dichotomy of a 'war' that is 'non-callous'. The very nature of war are that its aims are to achieve a military/political objective at the expense of whatever enemy stands in the way of that objective, including lives and property of the enemy. Compassion usually takes a back seat when B52's are involved.
Is war neccesary? Ever? I think from the responses on this board one could see that even pacifists were qualifying thier non-aggression. Then, is it acceptable to defend yourself from an aggressor? So, the next question in an age of WMD is; do you preempt the obvious plans of an aggressor? Most of us would think it acceptable that police officer's would fire the first shot if you pointed a gun at them. If you can get him to set aside all his weapons, and surrender so be it. In this case, I don't think Saddam is willing to submit to the justice of nations.
Is there some criteria of acceptable behavior amongst nations, whereby beyond which war is the only natural consequence?
Quote:If might makes right, then there is no room for love in this world.
If you do need to engage in a war, what level of compassion is neccesary, or desired. Finally, understanding that no human endeavor is without flaw, our police officer might accidentally injure an innocent bystander. In the case of the 'volunteer' human shields, they are choosing to stand between the police and the criminal. I would say they are aiding the criminal, and interfering with international justice.
Warblades point is that no police officer should fire his gun when there is any chance of unintended injury. Unfortunatly, in the case of Iraq, I feel it would only reinforce Saddam's practice of placing his military installations in close proximity to sensitive sites (hospitals, child care facilites, air raid shelters, old age homes, etc.) Much as would the criminal, shielding their bodies with an innocent bystander while firing at the police. When your adversary has no ethics, your ethics become a liability and a weakness which they will exploit. We cannot abandon our ethics, or we devolve into what we despise.
Quote:You asked how people could possibly see the military as callous. I answered. That is all.Yes, I see. So, in our police officer analogy, some people find the police and their tactics brutal. Sometimes they are, and the police officers are held accountable. So I would say that if any inquiry of a US military 'callous' incident reveals criminal negligence, then those responsible should be held accountable. The international court at Den Hague should investigate and absolve or convict those responsible. Acceptable?
Human Shields and Choice - Occhidiangela - 03-05-2003
Quote:The international court at Den Hague should investigate and absolve or convict those responsible. Acceptable?
Not acceptable for American citizens. That is a matter of American law and policy. The way it does work, however, is that any negligent activity is by law in our country investigated and adjudicated in our courts, as no American military member gives up his citizenship and those rights when his country sends him or her into harms way. That issue is contentious in our own policy circles. An American Army sergeant in Somalia got courtmartialed and punished for shooting a Somali civilian who assaulted him in Mogadishu, for example. Some who saw that trial were appalled that we would put soldiers in harm's way and then courtmartial them for using their arms in a hostile environment. But, the ruling was that the sergeant violated the Standard Operating Procedures and standing orders on that mission, so he got hammered.
In this imperfect world, the desire for 'justice' is not always answered in court, where both OJ Simpson and the US Marine EA6B pilots who hit the gondola wire in Italy appeared to have gotten less than what many in the public perceive as their 'just' punishment for their acts.
I was amazed at how some simple military flying rules, which were violated, were not considered sufficient grounds to hammer the d!ckens out of the pilot in command of that mission. However, due process is required.
At present, the American political climate is not conducive to trusting "international" courts in such matters.
PS: edit. The censor/auto editor on this forum eats dog feces. :P See d!ckens for why. It came up as some &*%^$ stuff on first typing.
Human Shields and Choice - WarBlade - 03-05-2003
Occhidiangela,Mar 6 2003, 07:57 AM Wrote:In this imperfect world, the desire for 'justice' is not always answered in court, where both OJ Simpson and the US Marine EA6B pilots who hit the gondola wire in Italy appeared to have gotten less than what many in the public perceive as their 'just' punishment for their acts.The problem when they don't, they wind up with all the anti-American sentiment that somehow seems baffling to so many and also wind up generating other unwanted consequences . . .
I was amazed at how some simple military flying rules, which were violated, were not considered sufficient grounds to hammer the d!ckens out of the pilot in command of that mission. However, due process is required.
At present, the American political climate is not conducive to trusting "international" courts in such matters.
Quote:18.12.2002
By PHIL REEVES
SEOUL - Four United States soldiers have been attacked in South Korea amid a wave of anti-Americanism triggered by the death of two teenage girls run over by a US armoured car.
The assaults came after 50,000 South Koreans poured on to the streets for weekend rallies calling for a retrial of the two soldiers involved in the accident in June.
There has been fury in South Korea, a close ally of Washington, since US military tribunals acquitted the men last month.
Sergeant Mark Walker and Sergeant Fernando Nino were in the vehicle that ran into Shim Mi-son and Shin Hyo-sun.
The girls, both 13, were on the way to a party.
The soldiers were charged with negligent homicide.
South Koreans flooded to rallies in Seoul and other cities to call for the soldiers to be retried by the South Korean courts
:blink:
What's really surprising here is that only "Four United States soldiers have been attacked" to use their words.
Human Shields and Choice - Skandranon - 03-05-2003
kandrathe,Mar 5 2003, 07:40 PM Wrote:So I would say that if any inquiry of a US military 'callous' incident reveals criminal negligence, then those responsible should be held accountable. The international court at Den Hague should investigate and absolve or convict those responsible. Acceptable?Well, as Occhi pointed out, the US doesn't agree, but I believe in the US military's courts-martial.
Then again, I have to admit that I'm presenting a rather biased view. I'm a huge military supporter (which is why I lament the pathetic state of the Canadian military at present) and so tend to see military actions in the best possible light. Let's put it this way; though I may oppose the war in Iraq, I don't oppose the US military or protest against it. There are different flavours of war opposition.
Human Shields and Choice - Occhidiangela - 03-05-2003
Korean citizens are as stupid as any Americans, no surprise, as the current Status of Forces agreements between the respective governments spell out who has jurisdiction in such cases. The Korean Government is a full partner in crafting and maintaining the Status of Forces agreements that keep Americans on their soil as a deterrent to NK aggression. Should the folks in Seoul choose to do so, they, like President Aquino in the Philippines, will tell us to leave. I for one will be in support of that move, as IMO South Korea has been given 50 years to grow its own ability to counter NK aggression. Time for them to stand or fall on their own merits. Trouble is, our governments have gotten into the habit of working together, and our presence in Korea is tied to security in Japan as well. It aint as simple as I wish it was.
The anti American sentiment is what it is, and is promoted by those who oppose American presence in Korea in the first place: some South Koreans are very much "Yankee Go Home" sorts, as are some operatives whose loyalty lies elsewhere, a bit further north.
The call for a retrial is purest bullsh**, as the jurisdiction was correctly laid down per the Status of Forces agreements between governments. If the Koreans want to yell at someone, they need to yell at their own government. Xenophobia being a historic Korean habit for about 600 years, it is no surprise that such calls for retribution against the 'round eyes' are heard. Not a difficult sentiment to trigger in that culture.
Our Constitution protects our citizens against double jeopardy, and I repeat, for those who are unsure on this, U.S. Citizens do not forfeit their constitutional rights when sent by their government into harms way, or overseas to fulfill treaty obligations to our allies.
If it creates image problems, then so be it: that is the price for being at the top of the heap.
And I wonder if the prosecutor was not set up to fail in succumbing to political pressure to go for a negligent homicide charge rather than a manslaughter charge: that charge is usually an easier conviction, though this case doubtless had its own weirdness.
Human Shields and Choice - Dani - 03-06-2003
Occhidiangela,Mar 5 2003, 10:46 PM Wrote:Our Constitution protects our citizens against double jeopardy, and I repeat, for those who are unsure on this, U.S. Citizens do not forfeit their constitutional rights when sent by their government into harms way, or overseas to fulfill treaty obligations to our allies.Hogwash. Common sense says, that it is just for you to be tried in the courts of the territory where you committed your crime. US constitution is just that, the US constitution, shouldn't hold any weight outside of US borders. (Often doesn't seem to have that much weight inside the US borders either, if it happens to conflict with whoever is deciding things.)
Midnight Express is not a depiction of a horrible tragedy, it's a depiction of what happens if you're dumb doing dumb things in a foreign country. (US student get's caught trying to smuggle drugs out of Turkey, get's thrown into a Turkish prison, which has no tv, but has other entertainment. ;) )
Human Shields and Choice - kandrathe - 03-06-2003
Yes, I too am a little skeptical of an international criminal court ursurping the US Supreme Court. I think too many cases would be politically motivated, rather than a true quest for justice. As the world becomes a smaller place, I feel we will need to homogenize our individual nations justice systems into an agreed upon framework for international justice (and punishment).
One point I would like to clarify, however, is that I wouldn't hold a military person responsible for acts commited in the service of their nation. To order an air strike by mistake is tragic, but hardly criminal. In these cases, it is the entire US government who is responsible and I feel it is the US who should apologize and pay reparations to the victims families.
The incidents you cite where the pilots, or the sergeant in Somalia failed to follow SOP's are cases where their disobediance and perhaps negligence contributed to or caused the incident. In the case cited by Warblade;
11/21/02 Court martial begins in Korea for driver of armored vehicle
11/22/02 Tracked vehicle driver found not guilty in Korea
Seems to be an unfortunate traffic accident, and from the above descriptions they do seem guilty of negligence. There were also extenuating factors. I'm not sure why the court martial panel ruled as they did, and then again I don't have the entire court transcript to review all the testimony and evidence. I must admit that US soldiers running down Korean school girls with a 45 ton tracked vehicle is serious news material. It is just the kind that anti-US activists can use to further their cause.
Human Shields and Choice - Rhydderch Hael - 03-07-2003
WarBlade,Mar 4 2003, 02:48 AM Wrote:Really?One slight problem with your illustration. You speak of heavy foot traffic passing outside, conjuring an image of happy, placid civilians going about in their daily work, and at the same time the tower falling under the sight of some American guided bomb...
Let's see . . .
In the heart of my city about 5 minutes walk up the hill from What I presume is the densest shopping district in the country sits the TVNZ building. The top of this is packed with various communications transmitters and recievers. By the quotes you presented above this structure would appear to fit the profile of a legitimate military target to an American bomber (assuming of course spyplane-only intelligence as per the Iraq situation). Bearing in mind the heavy foot traffic passing just outside the building, I find myself thinking that a "callous disregard for human life" is exactly what a bombing on it would be. ...
...the funky thing is, we have these things called FLIR. Pave Tack. Thermal imaging. And a Stealth Fighter whose motto is "We own the night". Blast that target in the middle of the day, or in the dead of night, the comm tower is destroyed nonetheless in either case. The only difference then would be when the streets surrounding in this business district will be clogged with civilians.
You illustration ignored the standing tactic of attacking such a target in the dead of night, when no one is around. At least, not as many as your sentimental illustration tries to envision.
Human Shields and Choice - FoxBat - 03-07-2003
Conner Macleod,Mar 4 2003, 08:02 PM Wrote:Ok, this thread is officially out of control. 7 pages?Hmm, you haven't been around the Lounge too long :D
This isn't necessarily a reply to your post, though I think you've outlined the less-than-ideal conditions for the protestors themselves. My comment will instead refer to the outside view, and it's rather short.
If innocents have to die as a part of war, if there must be some sacrifice of civillians for the greater good, than it might as well be Americans as Iraqis. If "America" has no problem with this, then the protestor's actions have no effect, just trading some Iraqi lives for American lives. If "America" does have a problem with this, then they appear to have forgotten that Iraqi civillians are people as well.