In Cold Blood

[thedrifter]

Given to me by hubby..aka fontman

Ellie

In Cold Blood
From Strategy Page Dot Com

June 6, 2006: Accusations that American troops murdered civilians in
Iraq and Afghanistan are in the news again. Some of it is the usual
propaganda that the enemy has learned is
worth tossing out there from time to time. Some of it sticks with
someone, somewhere. Even Europeans media sometimes fall for doctored or
mislabeled photos of dead civilians,
and publish them as "American atrocities". The implication is that
American troops are out of control, poorly trained and led. Much of this is
fed by those opposed to the removal of
Saddam, via a war that did not have to approval of the UN. This is all
more about scoring political points than anything else.

What is unusual about the current accusations is that such events are
rare. While there are a lot of civilians killed by combat actions in
Iraq and Afghanistan, most are clearly just
people caught in the cross fire. The enemy knowingly takes cover among
civilians, to take advantage of American "Rules of Engagement" (ROE).
But at the same time, the
American ROE these days puts the safely of American troops above all
else. Thus if the enemy hides among civilians and opens fire, U.S. troops
will return fire, and the civilians
either get out of the way, or get hit. Brutal, but the alternative is
dead Americans. The enemy makes the most of the civilians they have
caused, through their actions, to get killed.
The current atrocity accusations are about "cold blood" killings. The
investigation will have to decide when the "heat of battle" turns into
"cold blood." That's a tough decision to
make, and the large number of imbedded journalists have written stories
about it. These are not the kind of pieces editors love, as they are
not as headline grabbing as atrocity
stories.

There are other kinds of stories editors have avoided. Take, for
example, what commonly occurred during World War II. When the Germans, for
example, were found to have
killed Allied prisoners, there was a period of weeks or months after
that where Allied troops were taking far fewer German prisoners. After
D-Day in 1944, this happened first on the
Normandy beachhead, when some German SS troops killed some Canadian
prisoners. Soon, German troops realized it was not a good idea to get
captured by the Canadians,
as German prisoners did not survive their captivity very long. This
sort of thing happened again at the end of 1944, during the Battle of the
Bulge, when SS troops killed a lot of
American prisoners. Retribution was quietly applied. These events got
out pretty fast after the war, and were even reported in the history
books. But less remembered were cases
in early 1945, as Allied troops advanced into Germany, and occasionally
encountered armed resistance from German civilians. Retribution was
swift, brutal and often not very
precise. There were other incidents where people released from
concentration camps, organized themselves into death squads and went after
Germans. Some of these stories
are only now coming out into the open, although they were whispered
about by Allied Military Police and intelligence officers who investigated
deaths among German civilians at
the time. Sometimes the patterns were noted, and sorted out, but dead
German civilians were not, at the time, something the victorious Allies
were very concerned about.

Try as you might to stop it, incidents of troops making their own rough
justice will persist. But there is a lot less of it. But it's not
considered news that there is far less of this atrocity
stuff in the current Iraq and Afghanistan fighting, than in earlier
wars. Interesting, but not newsworthy. But when it does happen, as it will
inevitably will, the longer the fighting goes on,
it is news. But it is very poorly understood, and poorly reported news.
That you can depend on.

-30-

Semper Fidelis,
Mark

[redneck13]

This post, explains it all. Great reading, and I believe the current events are not unlike those of the past wars. I think as with Nam, it's all politically motivated. I don't believe none of it. One reason is, if you're gonna committ murder, not all will want to go along with it. And how many were in this incident? Do you think that if you wanted to murder someone, anyone, unless they were/went over the edge, that you'd want witnesses? I don't think so. Great, Fontman, Ellie. Win

[ChristianMedia]

If the terrorists didn't want sweeping fire -- they would run away.