On War On Terror, Are YOU Open Minded?

[Annie]

Doesn't everyone?

Actually, no. I for one will take anyone at face value, one has to 'prove' their stupidity to me.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Cant much take the moral highground if you've never had it... I was against the war in Iraq from the start. But, if we were going to go in we should have given it our all.. when the insurgence erupted we should have stuck a boot on ever street corner of every town and kept them there. You cant fight an insurgent war by taking and retreating or dropping bombs from 30,000 feet. A first year graduate from west point could have told you that. Now what the hell those brains, with all their stars and ribbons, were thinking I'll never understand.

The generals in charge of the military are regular army and don't understand counterinsurgency warfare. They never have and never will because they don't like it. They like their expensive tanks, artillery and other toys that can be used in a regular war.

 

[editec]

Conventional armies cannot defeat terrorism.

Most of the time, all convention armies can do is to make matters worse.

 

[Reality]

To not take a public position on torture is not to condone or promote torture as acceptable. To not telegraph to the enemy what we will or will not do is not to presume that we will or will not do anything. Also the definition of 'torture' is not universally shared by all and, until it is, it is imprudent to outlaw it either in principle or by law. (Example: Is solitary confinement or uncomfortable conditions or boring food or embarrassment or humiliation or instilling fear or dread torture? Some extremists say yes while others limit the definition of torture to that which inflicts excruciating pain, injures, maims, and/or is intended to cause lasting injury.

It is also prudent to allow some flexibility should the lives of innocents, especially hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of lives of innocents, be at stake.

The war in Iraq is not the War on Terror, but it is certainly part of it and was considered as such by the U.S. Congress when it authorized it. With so much distance between the emotional impact of 9/11 and now, we probably need to redefine what the War on Terror is again, too. Some seem to have forgotten already.

An open mind considers ALL the aspects of an issue, not just the politically correct ones.

We wouldn't even be having this discussion had the Commander in Chief kept his ranks in order and avoided troops sexually molesting prisoners. Its that simple.


Scroll about middle was down the original link and see "Gen. Taguba knew scandal went to the top"

 

[Reality]

The generals in charge of the military are regular army and don't understand counterinsurgency warfare. They never have and never will because they don't like it. They like their expensive tanks, artillery and other toys that can be used in a regular war.

Exactly. The military is for one thing: destroying. When we need something obliterated we should call on the military. If we don't need something obliterated, we shouldn't.

 

[Foxfyre]

We wouldn't even be having this discussion had the Commander in Chief kept his ranks in order and avoided troops sexually molesting prisoners. Its that simple.


Scroll about middle was down the original link and see "Gen. Taguba knew scandal went to the top"

Nonsense. The ugly Abu Graib incident was not even included in the national debate on 'torture' and those guilty in that incident have been tried, convicted, and all sentenced to appropriate punishments. If the facts had led to General Taguba, he too would have been tried, convicted, and sentenced to appropriate punishment.

The issue came to the forefront when prisoners claimed abuse from their American guards--most such claims subsequently not supported by verifiable facts--plus the debate over whether or not 'water boarding', that produces neither pain nor injury, constitutes torture.

And not only have we not agreed as a people on what constitutes torture, it remains appropriate that we not telegraph to our enemies what we will or will not do when we are physically threatened or attacked by those enemies.

 

[Reality]

Nonsense. The ugly Abu Graib incident was not even included in the national debate on 'torture' and those guilty in that incident have been tried, convicted, and all sentenced to appropriate punishments. If the facts had led to General Taguba, he too would have been tried, convicted, and sentenced to appropriate punishment.

The issue came to the forefront when prisoners claimed abuse from their American guards--most such claims subsequently not supported by verifiable facts--plus the debate over whether or not 'water boarding', that produces neither pain nor injury, constitutes torture.

And not only have we not agreed as a people on what constitutes torture, it remains appropriate that we not telegraph to our enemies what we will or will not do when we are physically threatened or attacked by those enemies.

The series of incidents due to the complete failure of the chain of command at Abu Girab is what brought prisoner mistreatment into the news cycle. It was the first step in th discussion that has been had since. If you don't see a connection between the two I don't know what to tell you. Maybe another incident would have brought the issue to the forefront, but thats not what happened.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Exactly. The military is for one thing: destroying. When we need something obliterated we should call on the military. If we don't need something obliterated, we shouldn't.

Not entirely true. The Green Berets are trained for this kind of warfare. In fact, the early days of Vietnam was strictly a Green Beret operation. Then the regular army got jealous because the Green Berets were getting combat experience so they figured they should be in on the action as well. After that, things went downhill from there into a quagmire.

Look at how well Afghanistan was going. The first part of that operation was Green Berets and other special operations units. They managed to do what the entire Russian army couldn't do and they did it in a couple of months. However, the conventional folksd have taken over and now it's spirally downward as well.

 

[Chris]

Terrorism is a minor threat blown our of proportion by Bush-Cheney. If you want to defeat terrorism, let the Shia and the Sunni fight it out among themselves.

 

[William Joyce]

If the cause is right, torture away. But it does raise an interesting question. You torture to get information, partly. Why don't you have this information? What information do you need? If you are simply defending your country, seems all you have to do is keep invaders out. They come over the line, you kill them. If you are invading a country, you just kill 'em and take over.

Whenever you're in a situation where you have to depend on torture-extracted information, seems there are other problems, bigger problems afoot.

 

[Foxfyre]

The series of incidents due to the complete failure of the chain of command at Abu Girab is what brought prisoner mistreatment into the news cycle. It was the first step in th discussion that has been had since. If you don't see a connection between the two I don't know what to tell you. Maybe another incident would have brought the issue to the forefront, but thats not what happened.

That is not what came out in the trials. These were bored guards who took upon themselves to entertain themselves at Iraqi expense. They thought a general order to get what information they could out of the prisoners would be their stated justification, but after the fact they all admitted that they knew better. Some were charged only for not reporting the abuse to higher command.

Given the level of vehement and irrational hatred for our President, I don't buy for a minute that it all started with Abu Graib. The leaked photos long after the fact were used to reinforce accusations and innuendo that was already out there. After the "get-Bush-at-any-price" gang saw that is was obvious that they weren't going to get more than limited mileage out of those photos, they moved on to other things.

When you are dealing with tens of thousands of people, you are going to have screw ups, misconduct, error in judgment, and just plain evil from time to time. This is true no matter what sector of society we are discussing. Abu Graib was no more than a blip in the big picture. It certainly was not a 'breakdown in command from top to bottom'. It was a stupid thing to do and those who did it paid for it appropriately. It certainly was not a 'breakdown in command from top to bottom'.

 

[Reality]

That is not what came out in the trials. These were bored guards who took upon themselves to entertain themselves at Iraqi expense. They thought a general order to get what information they could out of the prisoners would be their stated justification, but after the fact they all admitted that they knew better. Some were charged only for not reporting the abuse to higher command.

Given the level of vehement and irrational hatred for our President, I don't buy for a minute that it all started with Abu Graib. The leaked photos long after the fact were used to reinforce accusations and innuendo that was already out there. After the "get-Bush-at-any-price" gang saw that is was obvious that they weren't going to get more than limited mileage out of those photos, they moved on to other things.

When you are dealing with tens of thousands of people, you are going to have screw ups, misconduct, error in judgment, and just plain evil from time to time. This is true no matter what sector of society we are discussing. Abu Graib was no more than a blip in the big picture. It certainly was not a 'breakdown in command from top to bottom'. It was a stupid thing to do and those who did it paid for it appropriately. It certainly was not a 'breakdown in command from top to bottom'.

Sorry, but they get a separate justice system which means they have different responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to control their ranks.

Furthermore, some testimony completely contradicts what you are saying. Its not surprising from someone who repeatedly cries about "vehement hatred of our President" would speak to SOME of the evidence and omit mentioning evidence that contradicted his vehement defense of anything related to the president at any cost.

Military Court Hears Abu Ghraib Testimony (washingtonpost.com)

Pvt. Ivan L. Frederick was called as a prosecution witness in the Army's criminal case against Spec. Charles A. Graner Jr., the alleged ringleader of the abusive guards at Abu Ghraib. But his testimony tended to support a key element of Graner's defense -- that he was following orders from higher-ranking officers when he punched and beat the prisoners and forced them to wallow naked in freezing mud outside the prison.

Frederick, a staff sergeant who was demoted to private after pleading guilty to abuse at Abu Ghraib, said he had consulted with six senior officers, ranging from captains to lieutenant colonels, about the guards' actions but was never told to stop. Frederick also said that a CIA official, whom he identified as "Agent Romero," told him to "soften up" one suspected insurgent for questioning.

The agent told him he did not care what the soldiers did, "just don't kill him," Frederick testified.

 

[editec]

Not entirely true. The Green Berets are trained for this kind of warfare. In fact, the early days of Vietnam was strictly a Green Beret operation. Then the regular army got jealous because the Green Berets were getting combat experience so they figured they should be in on the action as well. After that, things went downhill from there into a quagmire.

Look at how well Afghanistan was going. The first part of that operation was Green Berets and other special operations units. They managed to do what the entire Russian army couldn't do and they did it in a couple of months. However, the conventional folksd have taken over and now it's spirally downward as well.

Special forces don't work either.

They didn't work in Viet Name they're not working in Afghanistan and they won't be able to do the job in Iraq, either.

If you want to defeat terrorism you have to win the hearts and minds of the people because terrorism is the weapon of coice of a people who hate the invaders and do not have a military to repell them.

 

[Foxfyre]

Special forces don't work either.

They didn't work in Viet Name they're not working in Afghanistan and they won't be able to do the job in Iraq, either.

If you want to defeat terrorism you have to win the hearts and minds of the people because terrorism is the weapon of coice of a people who hate the invaders and do not have a military to repell them.

The fallacy of your point made here is in the denial of the enormous successes we have accomplished in winning hearts and minds. The U.S. media wants failure in Iraq and there is a certain segment who buy into that quite readily. This is poignantly illustrated here:

In 2005 Al Qaeda's No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, wrote a letter to the then top insurgent leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. "[M]ore than half of this battle," he wrote, "is taking place in the battlefield of the media.... [W]e are in a media battle, in a race for the hearts and minds of our umma [people].”. . . . .


, , , ,A Marine officer whose credibility I trust cites an operation of success in the Fallujah region earlier this month that was reported as a disaster by US and British media companies. His unit had established a new precinct headquarters for Iraqi police, Army troops, and US Marines to patrol and protect a dedicated area. It was well received by the local populace and almost 200 Iraqis volunteered for police recruitment. Insurgents sought to disrupt it but were routed.

Meanwhile, in a separate firefight at a makeshift suicide vehicle factory, three separate suicide bombers were killed, two suicide trucks were discovered and blown up, and foreign and other fighters were killed or captured. On the defending side, one civilian and one policeman were wounded, with no US or other casualties. "The enemy was killed in his tracks; his best weapon was discovered before it could cause any harm," says the officer, "but Western media reported no enemy killed in these operations, 28 civilians killed, and 50 civilians wounded. We are getting demolished," the Marine officer says, "by nefarious enemy media outlets …… 'reporters' or 'sources' for Arab and other news agencies either on insurgent payrolls or who have known sympathies with insurgent operations, and by collective Western media that are often being manipulated by enemy elements. What incredible economy of effort the enemy is afforded when US media is their megaphone. Why spend precious resources on developing your own propaganda machine when you can make your opponent's own news outlets scream your message louder than you could ever have hoped to do independently?"

Clearly the insurgents have taken to heart the message that their war is a war of words as well as arms.
In battle for hearts and minds, Iraqi insurgents are doing well | csmonitor.com