|
|
 | | From: | historymatters | | Subject: | Re: Volunteers for Arizona civilian patrol in April | | Date: | 22 Jan 2005 15:30:14 -0800 |
|
|
 |
- Chas wrote: -
> "historymatters" wrote
> > "(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and
> > degrading treatment;"
>
> Look at the common conditions of war at the time.
> They weren't talking about 'hazing' type activity. Simple
embarrassment
> isn't 'humiliating and degrading treatment'.
Have you seen the photographs, including the ones withheld by the U.S.
media? There is nothing simple about the abuse depicted in them. Ask
yourself this question: If I were one of the prisoners subjected to the
abuse depticted in the photographs would I consider it "humiliating and
degrading treatment"? Honestly now.
> 'enemy propoganda' is always going to be against their enemy; you.
> The Islamofascists have 'Israel/India and France' causing the
tsunami- what
> would you do to obviate that sort of egregious lie?
> The handling of prisoners is inconsequential to the overall
contretemps
> between Islam and everybody else.
When I was an instructor at SOA, we approached the problem by using the
"slice of the pie" theory. A portion of the pie contained those who
were our enemy and nothing we could say or do would change their minds
about us. A portion of the pie contained those that agreed with us and
supported our objectives, and a portion of the pie (usually by far the
largest) contained those that were undecided. If that is true, and I
believe in the case of Muslims and the greater world it is, than our
objective is to reinforce the opinions already held by those that agree
with us, and attempt to sway those undecided over to our cause.
The propaganda we use to effect our objectives is different for each
slice. Does that make sense to you, or are you suggesting that PsyOps
only works for the enemy?
Look at the war of information and commentary confined only within
United States and assess how effective propaganda has been in shaping
public opinion, and how public opinion shapes our strategy in
prosecuting the war, and you clearly understand the "credibility of
propoganda" issue.
> Google up 'Paris Peace Talks'.
Come one now. Are you suggesting that Kissinger and company prolonged
the war through appeasment at the Paris Accords? The war was a clash of
competing superpower ideologies played out on the battlefields of SE
Asia. It was a test of wills, and strategies that included the threat
of expansion and nuclear overtones. If anything, the Paris Accords were
designed to try and find a way to shorten the conflict, not prolong it,
when it became clear that public opinion was rapidly shifting against
the conflict -- something that we should be mindful of in the present
case of Iraq.
> Did he compare it to how he was treated as a POW?
> The standard of comparison we practice with prisoners is higher and
far more
> strict than anytime in the history of the world.
Well, the Irish might disagree with you on the treatment of prisoners
in the 1940s, but the point here is that Sen. McCain is on the record
as being both disgusted over the incidents at Abu Ghraib, and in
complete opposition to the Administrations policy on torture and abuse,
including the risk such garbage poses to our troops and our standing in
the world.
> And you require a torturous redefinition of standards to even allege
> mistreatment.
The standards are crystal-clear in both domestic and international law.
You appear to muddy them up in trying to find ways to diminish the
effects of both the acts committed and the effect thereafter. In 21
years of military service, including action in both Operation Desert
Storm and Somalia, I would never have allowed or condoned such acts or
behavior, at any level of command, regardless of the circumstandces.
And I did not have to study the GC articles to understand the
difference between right and wrong.
> Islam admits to some 10% 'zealots'- that's about 150,000,000, isn't
it? One
> might well assume that they're primarily young, highly motivated and
active,
> as opposed to a representative cross-section of Muslims in general.
> They're at war with everybody they meet from the Southern Filipines
to North
> Africa.
> Frankly, the 90% are of far less interest than the zealots.
Again, I refer back to the pie theory.
> It's like any other competing ideology- their justification means
nothing
> when it gives permission to act like Islamofascists. I just don't
care why
> they do what they do- res ipso loquitur, if you will.
But my point is that you should care. Understanding what motivates your
enemy is paramount to effective planning for the prosecution of
warfare. In fact, I would agree that "understanding enemy motivation
and its decisionmaking process while optimizing one's own process is
only a prelude to creating a successful coercive strategy."
Source: http://www.ndu.edu/inss/DefHor/DH23/DH_23.htm
> There is no 'increase in danger to our troops'. They were already in
harm's
> way, and the motivations of the enemy have zip to do with any outrage
> against us over prisoner treatment.
> They already countenance kidnapping for ransom, torture of captured
> non-combatants, summary beheadings, videoed pleas for mercy-
> get some priorities there.
Do you think that the local populace, who are not members of the
terrorists but just average citizens, might think twice before helping
our soldiers identify the enemey based partly on their distrust of us
over such nonsense as Abu Ghraib?
If you accept that as one effect of the "outrage" than it clearly does
poes additional risk for our troops, does it not?
> Our system is so partisan that no action is going to go unquestioned
or
> unreviewed by the opposition.
> If memory serves, some of the first complaints about prisoner 'abuse'
were
> that their 'issue' prayer rugs were too small; the menu wasn't
culture
> specific for 'staples' or 'favored dishes'. They didn't like the idea
of
> women guards- not just the idea of having a woman in authority over
them,
> but the possible defilement of being touched by a menstruating woman.
They
> don't like dogs- not because they're dangerous, because they're
unclean
> animals.
Prisoners gripe, but that does not sanction abuse from MPs. Again, one
has nothing to do with the other.
> And, while two wrongs don't make a right, the idea that scares
detainees
> most of all is being sent back to their own. They'd like to be free,
> pleaseandthankyouverymuchsir, but being transferred to the tender
> ministrations of the Afghani's, or their fellow Iraqi's, is what
populates
> their nightmares.
Well, I've not spoken to any of the detainees, and they are not allowed
to make public statements, so I have no idea what their greatest fears
are. However, it is a historical given that prisoners almost always
want their freedom restored.
JT
|
|
| | From: | Chas | | Subject: | Re: Volunteers for Arizona civilian patrol in April | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:01:54 -0700 |
|
|
| "historymatters" wrote
> Have you seen the photographs, including the ones withheld by the U.S.
> media? There is nothing simple about the abuse depicted in them. Ask
> yourself this question: If I were one of the prisoners subjected to the
> abuse depticted in the photographs would I consider it "humiliating and
> degrading treatment"? Honestly now.
You allude to some photos for which I have no referent; sorry.
Were any of them ear-cropped, branded or tattooed, sent to slave labor or
publicly defiled?
Do you count *any* treatment other than as an honored guest to be
inappropriate?
> When I was an instructor at SOA, we approached the problem by using the
> "slice of the pie" theory. A portion of the pie contained those who
> were our enemy and nothing we could say or do would change their minds
> about us. A portion of the pie contained those that agreed with us and
> supported our objectives, and a portion of the pie (usually by far the
> largest) contained those that were undecided. If that is true, and I
> believe in the case of Muslims and the greater world it is, than our
> objective is to reinforce the opinions already held by those that agree
> with us, and attempt to sway those undecided over to our cause.
The most basic tenets of the religion are founded in a spiritual battle
between Islam and anything else; anything. The most basic tenet is to
'Submit' to Islam, and Recite the oath of allegiance to their leader.
That's not a common ideological stand, and your 'slice of pie' theory
doesn't apply.
> The propaganda we use to effect our objectives is different for each
> slice. Does that make sense to you, or are you suggesting that PsyOps
> only works for the enemy?
I think that playing into their idea of ritual defilement *is* 'psyops'. The
whole idea is their superstition, by your standards. There is no actual harm
except in their minds; right?
Or do you think we should schedule our troops to make sure they don't come
in contact with menstruating women?
> Come one now. Are you suggesting that Kissinger and company prolonged
> the war through appeasment at the Paris Accords?
Leading right up to Nixon's 'Secret Plan to End the War'- nobody knew it was
abject surrender.
>> It's like any other competing ideology- their justification means
> nothing
>> when it gives permission to act like Islamofascists. I just don't
> care why
>> they do what they do- res ipso loquitur, if you will.
> But my point is that you should care.
Their 'justification' is what I don't care about.
> Understanding what motivates your
> enemy is paramount to effective planning for the prosecution of
> warfare. In fact, I would agree that "understanding enemy motivation
> and its decisionmaking process while optimizing one's own process is
> only a prelude to creating a successful coercive strategy."
No argument there- just a disagreement on the question itself; does a
religious ideology motivate one in the same way as a political/social
ideology (as with Uncle Ho v.'the democratic republic').
> Do you think that the local populace, who are not members of the
> terrorists but just average citizens, might think twice before helping
> our soldiers identify the enemey based partly on their distrust of us
> over such nonsense as Abu Ghraib?
No.
Of the twenty-five million population in Iraq, the numbers of people who
wouldn't approve of the methods at abu Graib are minuscule. They know what
would happen to them if taken by their own, much less the previous regime.
They think we're sissies for thinking that wearing funny hats and doing
naked gymnastics constitutes 'torture'- hilarious.
> If you accept that as one effect of the "outrage" than it clearly does
> poes additional risk for our troops, does it not?
No- our troops are already at risk- along with the civilian population,
competing religious groups, the revenue producing infrastructure and the
first attempts at some sort of government by consensus.
> Prisoners gripe, but that does not sanction abuse from MPs. Again, one
> has nothing to do with the other.
You use the word 'abuse' very freely at this point.
The standard of treatment is not based on that given to civilian criminals,
it's based on war; killed from a distance indiscriminately in large groups
as a preference.
There is no presumption of innocence as there would be in a civilian model.
> Well, I've not spoken to any of the detainees, and they are not allowed
> to make public statements, so I have no idea what their greatest fears
> are. However, it is a historical given that prisoners almost always
> want their freedom restored.
And they generally are agents of a nation-state that can exchange prisoners
under parole, negotiate and end to hostilities, act in a reciprocal manner
with civilized restraint and so on.
Let's say they were all 'Thuggees'; followers of the goddess Kali,
stranglers by religious practice. You find guys dressed up as Thuggees;
strangling scarves in their pockets, making tea for the others of their
group-
Who do you release them to? How do you trust that they won't return to their
spiritual practice? What assurances can they give that would override their
allegiance to their religion?
Chas
|
|
|
