It’s not that I’m uninterested in the Haditha incident. Armchair Generalist has said everything I would have said on the subject. And, as usual, I like a lot of what Callimachus of Done With Mirrors has to say on the subject as well.
The one valued-added on this subject that I’d like to contribute is this. The Cold War was not a hot, shooting war for its entire duration. That’s why it was called “the Cold Warâ€. If the War on Terror, like the Cold War, is to be a generations-long conflict, it will be and, as we have seen from the attack on 9/11 to the terrorist campaign waged by “the insurgency†in Iraq, much of it will be waged against civilians.
This year we may prosecute soldiers who murder civilians and other soldiers who cover up the crimes. Will we do so next year? Or in 10 years? Or in 30 years?
That’s why, if military force were to be used in prosecuting the War on Terror, I favored a short, sharp, harsh coup. The effects of a protracted, generations-long shootin’ war (even with the current, sustainable level of military casualties) on our soldiers and on our society will just be too grave. Alea jacta est.
Amen to your last paragraph, Dave.
As I understand Rumsfeld, the “Long War” extends beyond the borders of Iraq. So, how many “short, sharp, harsh coup” actions are we to expect?
If Iraq was the end, and Afghanistan the beginning, why is America still at it today? Why does the sabre rattle against Iran?
The “War on Terror†isn’t some nice clear cut confrontation between nation-states which the UN and the “World Community†can eventually arbitrate. The war on terror is amorphous, asymmetric warfare, pitting some really unhappy people against the “Great Satan.†Exactly how do you engage in some “short, sharp, harsh coup†against that? Deploy strategic nuclear weapons rendering the entire region uninhabitable? All ideas gratefully acknowledged.
Americans need to understand that to defeat the Iraq insurgency will require behaviour as harsh as the insurgency itself. No quarter should be given. Any engagement should result in total destruction of the opposing force. Any attack against American forces should result in an ever greater attack against the suspected perpetrators. Allowing the insurgence the luxury of terror within Iraq does nothing except steel the Iraqi mind against the occupying coalition forces.
There is one more remote possibility, that might lead to a success so overwhelming, every critic of peace would die from shock: take the current budget request for the Iraq war, buy as much food, medicine, clothing, hygiene supplies, portable generators and the fuel to run them, and stuff them on C130’s and begin dropping these everywhere in Iraq and Afghanistan. After no more than ten days of continuous air drops any American could walk anywhere in these countries and be welcomed as real saviours. Keep dropping the supplies, hour after hour, day after day, until there is so much on the the ground no militia of insurgency could possibly control it.
That might be a real interesting approach. Guess BushCo would shit at such an idea.
Well, jimbo, since I’m not a neocon and, further, am skeptical that we’ll have the patience to tend nascent democracies with major troop emplacements for the multiple generations needed and I didn’t support either the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan I don’t feel the need to defend the administration’s policies.
But, in answer to your question, in my view we shouldn’t be fighting terrorists internationally with military forces. We should be securing points of entry into the country from entry by prospective terrorists and engaging in more energetic counter-terrorism activities at home. Our military should be only be used against the state sponsors of terrorism. But that’s just my view.
“Our military should be only be used against the state sponsors of terrorism.“
What should our military do in a case like this? Please, show me the light.
While it may be drastically needed, I’m not sure calling for a coup on our government is a very safe idea.