thedrifter
06-12-06, 05:10 AM
In a war, innocents often die
Wilmington Morning Star
Some American Marines face legal jeopardy because of an incident in Haditha, Iraq, last November that left two dozen civilians dead.
But before we rush to judgment about the specifics of that day, we might ask some larger questions: What sort of tactics work to truly end fighting? How does one keep order in a Middle Eastern country?
The Marines were on patrol when an improvised explosive device went off, killing one of their own and injuring several others. In response, the Marines allegedly killed locals. Describing the incident last month, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., declared that Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood." Now, as investigators - some in uniform, some in the media - zoom in on the gory specifics, it's important to see all the angles of the Haditha tragedy. And Murtha is not helping to provide the perspective we need.
For example, if an American was killed first, then Marines were hardly acting in "cold blood." In legalese, the Marines were in "hot pursuit" - the opposite of "cold-blooded." Moreover, it's unlikely that all those killed in Haditha were, as Murtha said, "innocent." IEDs are social weapons; somebody had to plant it on the street.
Does being in the midst of killers of Americans justify being killed by Americans? The answer is no - except when the answer is yes. Sometimes in war, the U.S. finds itself fighting the entire enemy population, including women and children. And the result is no less barbaric just because there's no alternative. In February 1945, American airplanes firebombed the German city of Dresden, which had no military significance, killing at least 25,000. A few months later, the U.S. atomic-bombed two strategically unimportant Japanese cities, killing more than 200,000.
In each case, almost all the dead were civilians. Their "crime" was their citizenship in countries whose militaries were still killing Americans. American leaders calculated, cruelly but correctly, that the U.S. goal of unconditional surrender could be reached only if Germany and Japan were confronted with annihilation. Even now, it's hard to argue with the success of U.S. strategy.
And speaking of success, we might ask this about Iraq: What strategies will lead to success? How will we succeed in establishing a cease-fire between Sunni and Shia? Let's consider two possible peace scenarios: The first scenario holds that existing U.S. policy, which includes Marines patrolling hot spots such as Haditha, is, in fact, succeeding. On Sunday's "Face the Nation," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said of the Iraqis: "They have a political process that has been maturing ever since the liberation." Rice's claim provoked an incredulous response from CBS newsman Bob Schieffer, who suggested that 40 or 50 killings every day did not equate to political maturation.
The second scenario holds that the security situation in Iraq will be fixed the old-fashioned way - the traditional Arab way. Back in 1982, for example, Saddam Hussein survived an attempt on his life in the village of Dujail. In retaliation, as many as 148 local men were executed. Saddam's actions were brutal, even criminal. They also worked to thwart future assassination plots; there's a reason Saddam lasted in power for another 21 years. And during his reign, it was safe to drive around Iraq.
Perhaps it's time to turn over control of the country to the real experts - Iraqis themselves.
Of course, they'll be brutal, but at least no more Americans will be killed, or be killers.
James Pinkerton is a columnist for Newsday.
Ellie
Wilmington Morning Star
Some American Marines face legal jeopardy because of an incident in Haditha, Iraq, last November that left two dozen civilians dead.
But before we rush to judgment about the specifics of that day, we might ask some larger questions: What sort of tactics work to truly end fighting? How does one keep order in a Middle Eastern country?
The Marines were on patrol when an improvised explosive device went off, killing one of their own and injuring several others. In response, the Marines allegedly killed locals. Describing the incident last month, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., declared that Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood." Now, as investigators - some in uniform, some in the media - zoom in on the gory specifics, it's important to see all the angles of the Haditha tragedy. And Murtha is not helping to provide the perspective we need.
For example, if an American was killed first, then Marines were hardly acting in "cold blood." In legalese, the Marines were in "hot pursuit" - the opposite of "cold-blooded." Moreover, it's unlikely that all those killed in Haditha were, as Murtha said, "innocent." IEDs are social weapons; somebody had to plant it on the street.
Does being in the midst of killers of Americans justify being killed by Americans? The answer is no - except when the answer is yes. Sometimes in war, the U.S. finds itself fighting the entire enemy population, including women and children. And the result is no less barbaric just because there's no alternative. In February 1945, American airplanes firebombed the German city of Dresden, which had no military significance, killing at least 25,000. A few months later, the U.S. atomic-bombed two strategically unimportant Japanese cities, killing more than 200,000.
In each case, almost all the dead were civilians. Their "crime" was their citizenship in countries whose militaries were still killing Americans. American leaders calculated, cruelly but correctly, that the U.S. goal of unconditional surrender could be reached only if Germany and Japan were confronted with annihilation. Even now, it's hard to argue with the success of U.S. strategy.
And speaking of success, we might ask this about Iraq: What strategies will lead to success? How will we succeed in establishing a cease-fire between Sunni and Shia? Let's consider two possible peace scenarios: The first scenario holds that existing U.S. policy, which includes Marines patrolling hot spots such as Haditha, is, in fact, succeeding. On Sunday's "Face the Nation," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said of the Iraqis: "They have a political process that has been maturing ever since the liberation." Rice's claim provoked an incredulous response from CBS newsman Bob Schieffer, who suggested that 40 or 50 killings every day did not equate to political maturation.
The second scenario holds that the security situation in Iraq will be fixed the old-fashioned way - the traditional Arab way. Back in 1982, for example, Saddam Hussein survived an attempt on his life in the village of Dujail. In retaliation, as many as 148 local men were executed. Saddam's actions were brutal, even criminal. They also worked to thwart future assassination plots; there's a reason Saddam lasted in power for another 21 years. And during his reign, it was safe to drive around Iraq.
Perhaps it's time to turn over control of the country to the real experts - Iraqis themselves.
Of course, they'll be brutal, but at least no more Americans will be killed, or be killers.
James Pinkerton is a columnist for Newsday.
Ellie