Archive for the 'War & Warfare' Category

I have just left the mind of a mad man — or a man on dope (“we all live in a yellow submarine … a yellow submarine … a yellow submarine … we all live …” ahem, excuse me; I sort of zoned out).  It is titled “New York Times Report from Ramadi: Evidence of U.S. War Crimes in Iraq.”  It is written by Barry Grey, of WSWS.  Who is WSWS, you say?  Well, none other than the World Socialist Web Site.  Real socialists?  ThaaaaAAT’s RIGHT!  You thought that they only existed on the campuses of American universities and in the democratic party leadership, didn’t you?  There are actually a few left out there, although not in Russia or China (or any other country who has actually tried socialism for any extended period of time).

Well, the title of the article is telling to say the least.  Mr. Grey doesn’t do any investigative work.  He ascribes a position to the NYT, a position in fact which is neither taken by the NYT nor supported by anything in the NYT article.  Either Mr. Grey is a liar and knowingly propagated slander against the Marines, or he was high on dope when he wrote this article.  We will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was high.  Whatcha been smokin’ Barry?  Pretty strong stuff, huh?

Let’s tackle this bizzare article piece by piece.  It begins as follows:

A front page article in the July 5 New York Times provides a chilling and damning picture of the daily, murderous violence being perpetrated by US forces in occupied Iraq.

Just so that you know the context, the picture is shown below.

Now then.  This picture could show a deserted part of town, or a slum where homeless people live (here in the states we could certainly show photos like this of inner city ruins), or perhaps it could show how certain city blocks can become a victim of the relocations that occur as a course of war.  What, exactly, it shows, Mr. Grey does not say, except to assert that “it is a damning picture of the daily, murderous violence being perpetrated by U.S. forces in occupied Iraq.”

Maybe its just me, but does anyone see a Marine perpetrating “daily, murderous violence” in the picture above?  Maybe, just maybe, it’s that dope that Barry is smoking.  Good stuff, huh Barry?

Barry continues by citing the NYT article (C’mon Barry, do your own investigative work):

“In three years there the Marine Corps and the Army have tried nearly everything to bring this provincial capital of 400,000 under control. Nothing has worked.

Hmmmm … strange.  Seems like only a few days ago we learned that Ramadi was seeing U.S. and Iraqi patrols for the very first time (or at least, Ramadi was seeing things that they ‘rarely’ saw) in large parts of the city.  But according to the NYT, the Marine Corps has tried “nearly everything.”  Quite a statement of superlative, that phrase.  “Nearly everything.”  Oh well, don’t worry about the facts.  We all live in a yellow submarine.

It just gets better and better.

Barry continues by citing the NYT article on the ethos of the Marines in Ramadi:

“One of the ‘habits of mind’ drilled into the Marines from posters hung up inside: ‘Be polite, be professional and have a plan to kill everyone you meet.’”

This is a bizzare as I can imagine.  Barry seems like a child at an easter egg hunt who is angry that he found an easter egg.  What does he expect?  Marines who have a plan to kill people.  Imagine it!  Actually, the wording is quite clever, precise and intentional.  It says “have a plan.” It doesn’t say to do it in all cases.  And if Barry thinks that there is an ethos in the Marines to kill people who attempt to perpetrate violence against them, he has that absolutely right.  I can vouch for this ethos.  Its there.  I’ve seen it.  But since I have never attempted to kill a Marine, a Marine has never attempted to kill me.  So I have not had any problems with them.  Is Barry shocked that a Marine would have a plan to kill people?  What did Barry’s mommy tell him that Soldiers and Marines do?  Apparently this is a traumatic experience for Barry.

Barry continues:

The Times’ article is far from a denunciation of the US military in Ramadi. It has more the character of an apologia, repeating uncritically the official US line that the people of Ramadi are “caught in the middle” of a struggle between American troops and insurgents—an absurd contention on its face given the tenacity of the resistance and the well-known tenet of counter-insurgency warfare that partisan guerrillas fighting foreign occupation rely on popular support and sympathy against the overwhelming military superiority of the occupier.

So it is all about the sympathy that the Iraqis feel for the insurgents?  It has nothing to do with fear of reprisal attacks?  On the face of it, there is nothing to this claim that the people of Ramadi are “caught in the middle?”  And Barry has not even been to Iraq and interviewed these people?  Barry, put down the joint, dude.  It is clouding your judgment.

Barry continues (apparently, he has not put down the joint yet):

Nevertheless, the very facts reported by the Times make clear that the US is committing war crimes, and that it is doing so in a systematic way and on a massive scale. The vast majority of these crimes go unreported, leaving the American people largely in the dark, unaware of the full extent of the horror being carried out in their name.

Ooooh.  See the twist of the wrist, the sleight of hand?

The “vast majority of these crimes go unreported.”  This means that we take his word for it.  Yep.  War crimes are happening, and on a massive scale.  Want the evidence for his assertion?  Well, it doesn’t work that way.  Why?  Because most of these crimes go unreported.  That’s why.  There isn’t any evidence for them.  We take Barry’s word for it.  Barry takes another toke and then continues:

“The inquiry into the possible executions of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha by Marines has also brought the same lukewarm response. More than three years into the war, many Iraqis say they are no longer surprised by abuses on the part of American troops [Emphasis added].”

Collective punishment, exemplary punishment, the destruction of entire civilian centers—tactics associated in the last century with Nazi barbarism in occupied Europe—are part and parcel of the modus operandi of the US occupation of Iraq. 

We can only respond with a collective ‘what‘?  I thought we were discussing Ramadi and looking at a picture of an empty block in the downtown area?  In fact, we were discussing Ramadi.  But Barry has allowed himself to lose track of the discussion and bring in elements of an incident that has no bearing on Ramadi.  Besides, the investigation being only recently completed, the results of the investigation have not yet been made public, and so Barry really doesn’t know what happened in Haditha.  But Barry has gotten worked up and only now reaches the pinnacle of his rant by screaming:

America’s so-called volunteer army is being brutalized and dehumanized by its involvement in a filthy colonialist war. More than three-and-half years into the slaughter, those young men and women in the military, having initially been bombarded with lies and propaganda, who have been able to retain some moral compass, find it increasingly difficult to continue to do so.

I am wondering when the draft was reinstituted since our Army is only a “so-called volunteer” Army?  A filthy, colonialist war.  Sounds like Marxist propaganda to you?  Well, it is.  Remember that this comes from WSWS — the World Socialist Web Site.

Oh well, Barry continues his ramble for a while; you can read it at your leisure.  Who would actually believe this stuff?  Barry’s dope dream was picked up and reposted by none other than the “Bay Area Independent Media.”  Imagine that.

We all live in a yellow submarine … a yellow submarine … Oh wait, was that all about LSD rather than weed?  Sheesh … my head is spinning.

Which is it Barry?  What kind of stuff are you on?  Care to come on over to the Captain’s Journal and tell us?  Over here, we do not have protest songs, long hair or dope.  You have to bring your own.  E-mails:

sfbay-web@lists.indymedia.org

https://www.wsws.org/phpform/use/comments/form1.html

I received this letter from the president of the “Warrior’s Fund” supporting the Marines currently under detention at Camp Pendleton.  The letter speaks for itself, so without any further from me:

Help us spread the word.

Thank you,

Rick Van Luvender

The Warrior Fund

http://www.warrior-fund.org

With the recent news regarding the incident in Haditha, and Hamdania Iraq,
a group of former and retired Marines decided to take action to ensure that
our military men are treated like American citizens and considered innocent
until proven guilty.

We have formed the “Warrior Fund” as a designated mission of United American
Patriots (an IRS 501 ( c ) 3 organization) which is run by Major Bill
Donahue USMC (RET). Our goal is to raise funds to defray legal fees incurred
by members of our armed forces as a direct result of their service in
combat. At this time our board of directors consist of me, Captain Don
Greenlaw USMC (RET) and Frank Albano. Certified Public Accountant William H.
Porterfield is our treasurer and he will handle the accounting issues of the
Warrior Fund.

They fought for us, now we shall fight for them.

Please take the time to visit our website and review our bylaws, biographies
of the Board members and the petition for assistance which must be completed
prior to any funds being disbursed.

Even though charges were formally filed, in the Hamdania case, an Article 32
investigation will now begin. It is imperative that the public is made aware
that the filing of charges in no way indicates that these men are guilty,
rather there remains the belief that all men are innocent until proven
guilty, which is a pillar of the American system of justice and a core
principle of the Warrior Fund.

The fact that any service member can be accused of a “war crime” by a
questionable source (We do not intend to disrespect the Iraqis that brought
charges, only to illustrate that we have no idea who they are, or their
level of integrity), and these allegations are taken seriously speaks
volumes about our American system of justice and our belief in the rule of
law. However attempts by the media and a certain irresponsible member of
congress to proclaim the guilt of these Marines without having seen a final
report from the investigators is sickening.

In closing, if you believe that these men deserve to be treated the same as
an average American citizen, please take the time to make a charitable
contribution which you may deduct from your income taxes. Any amount you can
spare will directly benefit these fine American warriors. In addition to
financial support we also need assistance in spreading the word about the
fund. Donations may be made online through paypal, or mailed to the address
on http://warrior-fund.org

Very Respectfully,

Rick Van Luvender
President
The Warrior Fund
http://www.warrior-fund.org

P.S. We would also like to invite all American’s who claim to “hate the war
but support the troops” to prove themselves by donating to the Warrior Fund,
which is a direct method to show that they do indeed support our troops and
their claims are not merely the empty rhetoric it appears to be.

In response to my post below on Camp Pendleton 8 Update (I think the comment might have been intended for my post on Room Clearing), Mike at Cop the Truth says:

“Stacking” is merely the way a team lines up “as***** to appetite” in preparation for storming a building, room, bus, plane, etc. The “stack” helps the assault team stay together, thereby cutting down on “friendly-fire” incidents. It also assigns specific areas of responsibilty to each man, according to skill level, assigned weapon, leadership role, etc. It provides for the maximum efficiency and safety of every member of the team, and the team, itself, and is used both by the military and the police, especially SWAT teams.

My response: Exactly!

You never know how much detail to include, and besides, I really don’t know how completely what the Marines do matches up with what a SWAT team does, for example.  There might be additional elements of the military version in use in Iraq that is not in the SWAT version, or vice versa.

Either way, the point is still the same.  “Room-clearing” is a rapid, deadly and precise procedure with the intent to kill those in the room.  It is not an opportunity to enter a room, sit with the occupants, and discuss their political or religious views.

We should all remember that war is a rough, deadly business when we see collateral damage resulting from it.  When we send our boys to conduct war, they will conduct war.  They are doing what we — through our elected leaders — have told them to do.

A ragged copy of Ernie Pyle’s “Here is Your War

I want to give a brief perspective on “room-clearing” procedures of the type used in Falujah (and apparently in Haditha, and I would guess in the future in Ramadi).

I commented in an earlier post that I didn’t know what a “stack” was (pertaining to the term as used by the NYT article on Haditha).  I still don’t, because a stack is not something that is, it is something a team does.  It is not a noun — it is a verb.

I use the term because it came up in the context of the Haditha incident.  Apparently, room-clearing procedures were used in Haditha.

Folks, let me be as clear as I can be on this.  Listen carefully for a moment.  I will be brief.  If Marines feel threatened and believe the enemy to be in a house or room, and the order is given to “clear” the room, well then … the Marines will clear the room.  They will do it the way that they have been trained to do it.  This method, this protocol, these procedures — they are designed to kill the enemy and protect Marines.  It is a fast and furious and deadly thing.

The procedure is executed within a couple of seconds.  No, I did not say it begins within a couple of seconds.  I said it is executed within a couple of seconds.  Finished.  Past tense.  Then on to the next room.

There is no protocol, no time, and no provision (AND THERE NEVER CAN BE) to identify and delineate friend from foe.  Such a thing does not comport with room-clearing.  Any attempt to delineate friend from foe would result in the countless deaths of Marines.  The entire protocol presupposes that there is enemy in the room to be cleared.

There is a moral to this little story.  Do not unleash the Marines unless there is a true need.  And when the Marines are unleashed, they will follow their protocol and do what they are trained to do.  It is to be expected, and frankly, I would have it no other way.

From time to time, this will result in the deaths — however tragic — of innocents.  Another result?  The protection and safety of Marines.

Kathi makes a comment that I thought was worthy of a post (it was too hidden as a comment). Here it is. Thanks to Kathi.

Don’t know if someone has already passed these on? But here are sites set up for 7 of the 8.

HM3 Melson A. Bacos http://www.patriotdefensefund.com/

LCPL Tyler A. Jackson http://www.fightingfortyler.com/

PFC John J. Jodka http://innocentmarine.com/

CPL Marshall L. Magincalda http://www.helpdefendourmarine.com/

LCPL Robert B. Pennington http://www.defendrob.com/

CPL Trent Thomas http://www.defensefundformyhero.com

LCPL Jerry Shumate http://friendsofjerry.blogspot.com/

End of comment. Editorial remark: See also:

http://journals.aol.com/kasee267/SupportingtheTroops/entries/524

Prior:

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/06/22/the-camp-pendleton-8/
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/06/16/not-far-enough-camp-pendleton/
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2006/06/15/my-phone-discussion-with-camp-pendleton-and-marines-in-shackles/

Permit a novice to weigh in on the recent SCOTUS decision.  This 185 page document should make for interesting bed time reading, which I will do later.  For the time being, it appears that:

1. The rage we feel at the “justices” of the left, who have given us some of the worst decisions ever made (and who, by the way, I predict will be reversed on many things in the coming years), is justified.
2. This rage should not cloud our judgment as to what the decision really says.

This decision has no teeth.  First of all, the SCOTUS Blog says:

The Court expressly declared that it was not questioning the government’s power to hold Salim Ahmed Hamdan “for the duration of active hostilities

In “New Taliban and Al Qaida Strategy,” I scoped out what I believe to be a revised “going-forward” plan for the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. It primarily involves the terror tactics used heretofore, such as beheadings, torture and other acts of brutality. But there are two elements present in this approach that seem to have been previously absent.

The U.S. forces, and especially the Marines, were keenly aware of the fact that factions of malcontents, thugs, criminals and other shady elements of society would band together into heterogeneous groups and cause general harm to the effort of the coalition forces. This was described in the Marine Corps “Small Wars Manual,” 1940 Edition. The two new elements we are seeing now include (a) the use of non-combatants as shields, and (b) an aggressive propaganda war to allege U.S. troop atrocities.

I have discussed in earlier posts, Haditha, Hamdania, and then Guardsmen being charged with civilian deaths near Haditha. The Marine Times carried an AP story about the proliferation of charges against U.S. troops, and so the issue is being recognized by the MSM (although I see the article as being somewhat wobbly, coming to no real conclusions and providing no substantive framework for this phenomenon — an interesting failure given the title of the piece, Experts: Put atrocity accusations into context). At least one of these three instances involved the use of civilians as human shields, and two others involve the killing of civilians in the heat of battle (the circumstances will be brought to light at trial).

In any battle in the Sunni triangle, my bet is that we will be able to find “witnesses” who would be quite willing to testify to U.S. troop “atrocities.” The effects of each of these (and similar future) instances will be fourfold:

1. To diminish the U.S. public resolve.
2. To make the U.S. troops hesitate when in potential danger, thus making Iraq a much mroe dangerous place for them.
3. To proliferate instances of accusations against U.S. troops as the insurgents and unsympathetic public better learn how to engage in this slander.
4. And thus to dishearten the U.S. troops.

The U.S. troops will be impaled squarely on the horns of a dilemma: do I defend myself if I feel threatened, thus ensuring charges if I kill a civilian who later is found out to be unarmed or used as a shield, or do I hesitate, thus ensuring my harm?

Do you think I am stretching things a bit? In “Spinning Haditha,” W. Thomas Smith, a Marine, makes the following insightful statement:

I went on to explain that Haditha had everything to do with the war in Iraq being a counterinsurgency. And every student of military science understands the ugly nature of insurgencies; where insurgents are un-uniformed, unconventional fighters who move freely throughout the community during the day, and become bushwhackers at night. They routinely use women and children as human shields, and often coerce the latter into the service of operating guerrillas.

This is particularly effective against U.S. forces, because the enemy knows that no matter how much stress they may be under, American soldiers will go to great lengths to avoid killing women and children; and even hesitate (at great risk to themselves) when they see women and children shooting at them.

There are the horns of the dilemma. Each and every time a Soldier or Marine fires and a civilian is killed, he can just about count on some other civilian being a “witness” to the incident where the account has him guilty of murder execution-style. Whether this is true or not, the seed is planted in the minds of the Soldier and Marine and eventually becomes a cancer.

American Forces Press Service reports that:

Alleged incidents of misconduct, such as those surrounding the Nov. 19 deaths of 24 civilians in Haditha, Iraq, do not reflect the honorable service of the overwhelming majority of coalition forces in Iraq, a U.S. general in Iraq said today.

“Almost without exception, the dedicated men and women who serve as part of Multinational Corps Iraq perform their duties in an exemplary manner every day,” Army Brig. Gen. Donald Campbell, chief of staff of Multinational Corps Iraq, said via satellite in a Pentagon news briefing.”

In my opinion, this is profoundly unhelpful. As far as the General knows, the U.S. forces perform their duties completely and without exception. At the very minimum, he should have waited until the trial was finished before anything was said about what some small percentage of our troops do. The General doesn’t know for sure. He is speculating on Haditha.

And this is the heart of the matter. Will the U.S. brass react to this new strategy by participating in the proliferation of charges against our troops, or will our troops get the benefit of the doubt? Will our troops fear defending themselves, or will they react as they are taught to?

The Marines are taught that their purpose is to “locate, close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver.” Will they be free to do this?

This is an admittedly small and inadequate tribute to the honor, character and courage of Staff Sgt. Christian Bagge, a double-amputee who lost one leg above the ankle and another above the knee to an IED in Iraq about a year ago. Today … he runs with the President. This is way cool. By the time we pass away, most of us will never be half the man that Staff Sgt. Bagge is right now.

Iran is taking a hard line position on the U.S.  According to a commentary in the Washington Post (hat tip to Blogs of War):

Two weeks ago, the secretary of Iran’s Expediency Council, dismissing the United States as a paper tiger, said: “Something very important is happening. . . . The Americans are no longer saying that Iran must be deprived of its nuclear rights forever. Iran has accomplished a great thing.”

But we should remember that this commentary is by Richard Perle, and like everything else he writes or says, it is moralizing, preening, self-serving and condescending.  When Richard Perle speaks, it is the “gospel according to Richard.”  This, in my opinion, leads Perle to believe that the Bush administration has “blinked.”  This might just be a fatal error for Perle’s analysis (and for Iran, if they agree).

In fact, there is much behind this decision to go political with Iran.  According to a Washington Post article:

The troubled Iraq war also hangs over Iran diplomacy. Administration officials have little confidence in the intelligence on Iran’s programs, while allies overseas view U.S. actions through the prism of Iraq. That concern has forced the administration to emphasize diplomacy to avoid the breach with its allies that characterizes the Iraq war. 

In hard negotiations, the Bush administration constructed, together with the international community, a package of rewards for dropping the enrichment and reprocessing programs.  Cheney raised an objection to where this might take the U.S.:

Officials said there was essentially no dissent among Bush’s top advisers on joining the talks. The Pentagon raised no objections, and the only cautionary tone came from Cheney, who said that the shift should not lead the administration down a “slippery slope,” in which they end up retreating from their core red line: an end to enrichment and reprocessing — the two paths toward fissile material. The group agreed to hold their red line.

It would appear to me that the Iranian thinking on this is wrongheaded.  There is apparently no desire to rush to war with Iran, especially when these issues are seen through the prism of Iraq.  However, the needed steps have been taken.  The international community has been briefed.  They have been courted.  They have even participated in the development of the package of incentives to lure Iran away from a nuclear program.

When the difficult time comes, that is, when Iran refuses to end the program, and the decision must be made either to end the program ourselves or let Iran go nuclear, the U.S. will say, “we did our best.”  Besides, you were involved just like we were.

Additionally, it gives the U.S. intelligence community the time to QA (quality assure) the information it is giving the administration.

Iran sees this as a win for them.  The U.S. sees this as a win-win.

And so Richard Perle is still on the outside looking in.  Just the way it should be.