 |
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2003
FIGHTING BY THE RULES? YEAH, WHATEVER!
Ever since I first heard U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld complaining about Iraq's non-compliance with the Geneva Convention (where the treatment of prisoners of war has been concerned and where "fair fighting" has been concerned), I've had a hard time putting into words my reaction to his reaction. The best I could come up with is, "You got to be kidding me; now it's about who fights fair and who doesn't? Pleaaaaase... you made your bed, Rumsfeld, now sleep in it!"
As you can see, not a very articulate response. So, after hearing one of my co-worker's two cents on the subject.... well... he said it best... tell the people what you said, co-worker Phil:
"Why are these Pentagon spokespersons constantly reporting all these fake surrenders and disguised soldiers and whining about what dastardly mustache-twisters these Iraqis are? Isn't that, like, why Bush had us go to war with them? The one thing on which both pro- and anti-war camps agree is that Saddam Hussein's regime is bad, and who expects an outnumbered, outgunned, "rogue" nation to play by the rules? Plus, on the scale of 20th century war atrocities, those that we can currently pin on the Iraqis seem like small potatoes so far, and isn't the U.S. military--the mightiest armed force in human history--up to the challenge? They sound like British redcoats complaining about how the damned colonists won't come out and fight fair."
Couldn't have said it better myself. IT'S A WAR, for God's sake. What the heck did you expect, Fair Fighting. Give me a break. It has been clear to me throughout this "campaign" that it's all about being right and looking good. Make the other guy wrong so you can be right. Make the other guy look bad so you can look good. The United States of America is great at doing that, even "in" a time of war.
Posted by Mikal at March 31, 2003 6:09 PM
| TrackBack
Not sure how you're doing it but somehow you've been reading my mind again. Same discussion I had at work when the news footage broke about the US POWs a couple days ago. We must have been fed the same food as kids. :-)
I can't really claim to know what the TV reports are saying...cause I don't have a TV (an atrocity in Belicove's mind, I'm sure). But, I would like to comment on Phil's comment. "They sound like British redcoats complaining about how the damned colonists won't come out and fight fair."
Weren't the Britains sent to fight with targets on their chests, hence 'redcoats'? I could be wrong here, but the fair fight was lost in the tailor's office, not on the battlefield...and I'm sure that the tailor was just doing his/her job and that would lead me to believe that the home government (God shave the Queen, although not under a Queen at the time...right? All I know is that we won that war too...and I speak Engish..but not the Queen's English b/c pissed doesn't mean 'drunk' to me) would have been responsible on some level. No?
As for fair fighting...if fighting were fair, then Lenox Lewis would have two complete ears, right?
Though I am not sure that I totally digested all of what was said in the post, I do know that I continue to be truly upset to hear anyone make comments, statements, voice almost ignorant opinions on what is happening (i.e. Why are these Pentagon spokespersons constantly reporting all these fake surrenders and disguised soldiers and whining about what dastardly mustache-twisters these Iraqis are?) If you (anyone in this forum) have an inside and therefore know (beyond a doubt) about FAKE surrenders or there are NOT disguised soldiers then please state your source. Otherwise make sure you 'add-in' that all of your words are based on your cynical, disagree-about the war, sad for humanity attitude or conscience.....truth is you do not know if the surrenders are fake, nor do you know if the Iraqi soldiers are not disguising somehow.....It simply feels like such a huge disrespect for our young men and women who are over there experiencing all of the emotions of war, on behalf of our country. I do not for a second believe that there is intentional deceit that is going on regarding the reporting, especially from the embedded journalists. Call me niave if you want, but I believe journalist that are in the middle of this conflict have to lay their own heads down on their hard helmet against a tank wall for a few minutes sleep when they can grab it, (meaning they have to sleep with their own hearts) and therefore have no reason to report to us anything but what they know to be true. It is easy for someone in our country, with their feather pillows, and their stimulating literature, and luxury resturants to express our disagreement with the war in such a way that SHOUTS ignorance, and promotes disrespect from those who are actually making the tough decisions and risking life and conscience. I do not articulate near as well as many of my colleagues on Belicove.com (great site Mikal) or on the AEE list, but I needed (wanted) to try and express something about the energy I feel.......
I'm afraid CLW misunderstood my premise. I did *not* mean that I don't believe the statements made by said Pentagon/Centcom spokespersons, nor was I alleging that there is false reporting from embedded journalists. I believe these reports, and believe that we may be shocked by far worse from the Iraqis before this is over. The example of Jessica Lynch, a female soldier with three broken limbs, being beaten by a feyadeen soldier may prove to be a mild example.
My point was that I find it unseemly for the Pentagon to make such a point of highlighting every incident of Iraqi perfidy. It sounds callous to dismiss these as trivial, since each incident obviously brings trouble to the American soldiers who must deal with it, yet given that we are at war with Iraq because--selecting from the menu of reasons offered by the Bush administration--we consider it a terrorist nation, how can we be surprised when they act like terrorists? I don't need to be sold, again and again, the idea that Iraqis are bad. It sounds like PR spin when what we need is information. Indeed, combined with media saturation dramatizing individual American casualties, it contributed to the wide perception that the war was "not going well."
You are right that I was opposed to the war, vehemently, and I continue to be very concerned about how the aftermath will be handled and what unforeseen ramifications we'll be dealing with in the years to come. I am angered by those who claim that opposing the war is anti-American and does not "support the troops."
However, I am equally angered by war protesters whose thoughtless outrageousness trivializes and invites disrespect to our ideas. Personally, since the war has begun, I believe it must be won, so that it at least accomplishes the one good end it is intended to: removing Saddam Hussein. I also believe that both soldiers and journalists are generally decent, honest people doing the best job they can. But I have little patience for anyone who pushed for or silently acquiesced to this war and yet seems not to have considered that war is bad, that it causes young people to do evil things and to die. I didn't want this war, but now that we have it, I believe we should stop complaining and get it over with.
My grandfather and I were talking about the new Gulf conflict just days before it began, officially. He's been in war. He's guarded POWs. He and I both thought this was a bad war for the US to get into without more multi-national support. We both agreed that it needed to happen, but neither of us liked the way in which it was happening.
The subtly lies in the diplomacy, not necessarily with Iraq but with our international community. He and I agreed that Bush failed miserably to "touch, move and inspire" other world leaders. Thus, we have been left to fight in a relatively small coalition and the overwhelming world opinion seems to be anti-USA.
Can you blame them?
We are doing the right thing, in my mind. We did not get involved in the right way.
The League of Nations failed to act during the 1930's while Germany (Germany withdrew from the League in October 21, 1933, roughly 9 months after Hitler became Chancellor) occupied large portions of Europe and exterminated millions of civillians. Pearl Harbor brought us into the war and shortly thereafter we acted when the League of Nations would not and could not becuase they had waited too long. The League of Nations disbanded and all assets were transferred to the United Nations in 1946 in an effort to live out the dreams of the League. Sadly, the paper pushing continued in the new iteration and they failed to act when needed and now the US has to act for them, again.
The United Nations failed to respond to their numerous documents and resolutions, and now the USA has had to act for them. My arguement may lose some creedence with the judgemental statement to follow, but this is simply how I see it: Crusty old men are pushing papers and claiming to uphold grand ideals that will keep the world at peace, but when they need to act with more than paper, they cower.
An incredibly simplistic analogy could be drawn like so: you speed, you're given a warning, you speed, you're given a stern talking to and a ticket with no points and a small fine, you speed, the previous authoritative action is repeated, you speed, the previous authoritative action is repeated, you speed, the previous authoritative action is repeated, you speed and you take out a gaggle of children crossing a road, the previous authoritative action is repeated.
At this point, you have no points on your license but you've paid a few fines, and you're still driving. Everyone in your neighborhood is aware of your speeding problem and your incident with the children, and they let you know that they are very displeased with your behaviour and wish you would move to another neighborhood. You stay and continue to speed, becuase why would you move? You know that you'll continue getting slapped on the wrist and you'll hear slight criticisms from the neighbors, but you'll be allowed to continue your behaviour.
Psychologists call it enabling. World leaders call it diplomacy.
At some point, forceful measures need to be taken to punish the offender. Some force must take away car or country in an effort to effect the behaviour.
Phil, I agree that the Pentagon is playing to the lowest common demonator with their stories that the media loves about the dastardly actions of 'unfair' war tactics. I feel that there are many other facts and figures that would resonate better with the educated public and would better support the men and women in our uniforms.
CLW, I don't believe that Phil was saying that the fake surrenders were not happening, nor that he had a "disagree-about the war" attitude. I believe that he felt that the Pentagon was doing a disservice to our troops and our public by dumbing-down the war effort. I could have Phil wrong on this one, but I think his comments could be summed up in this way: the Pentagon is giving us Annie logic when we can (and would rather) have Doonesberry commentary (with a less biased view). Y'all mihgt have to pick up the comics to catch that one.
Alright, I've taken up enough hard drive space and I welcome any flame mail. This discourse makes me happy to live in a place where I can freely bash my President and be both proud and supportive of our government.
Post a Comment:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
