A Midol Day
Anytown, Iraq-- Here is a picture from the April 2007 VFW magazine showing another successful take down in the Phony War on Terror [the photo shows the 1/5 Marines ''guard(ing) insurgents,'' 4/10/03.]
Look at the picture as if it were an old Coke commercial. Count the Marines. Then look at the ''suspected insurgents,'' replete in normal street clothes, and tied up like pigs, with something like Kotex pads covering their eyes. Why are there no captured weapons seen in the photo?
In previous wars, the U.S. personnel always proudly displayed the captured weapons to prove that the bad guys were really bad guys. It is generally called evidence.
If they're not insurgents, they'll be really pissed. There is no dignity in being hogtied and having sanitary pads wrapped around your eyes. Stripping citizen's dignity is not an excellent way to win hearts and minds.
posted by rangeragainstwar at 2:48 PM
17 Comments:
This kind of picture reflects a problematic attitude among people advocating the "war on terror". The attitude holds that we, the world's largest superpower, need to do every single thing humanly possible in order to win. That means that we grant ourselves a license to dehumanize people and cross certain boundaries on human life that we would not have done in previous wars (at least not publicly like this). I agree such a policy is clearly self-defeating.
And what kind of person stands over blindfolded, dead bodies on the ground gloating over this "victory"?
Mike,
I must clarify, these are live prisoners. I should have been more clear in the piece. However, it doesn't detract from the dehumanizing aspect of these Marine's stance.
I feel compelled to put out some of these supposed feel-good pictures which I find in the magazines of the military fraternal organizations. The magazines use the photographs to instill patriotism and unquestioning obedience to GWB's policies; they have quite the opposite effect upon these writers.
Jim
Claymore,
It's Purple Heart that is doing the agitprop. If the photo's outdated, complain to them; it ran in April 2007.
Once again you miss the big picture. Regardless of when this occurred, we're still throwing people on the ground and treating them as cargo.
Jim
"Claymore: Quit the agitprop."
I ask Claymore. Do you realize that this kind of picture would never make it into the mainstream media, and that we ordinary American citizens are very much sheltered from images of the war? Do you realize that if most Americans saw pictures like this, they would strongly disapprove?
Or I suppose, Claymore, soldiers and ordinary Americans are two different class of men. No, sir: we are all men.
Mike,
All the way!
Ranger:
I don't think I'm saying anything that original, and I think there are some larger lessons here that are not limited to war or even politics. The idea is that if you really believe in something and have a conviction that it's right, you need to be able to stand up loudly and clearly say so, rather than avoiding the full consequences of what you believe. When people think that they need to censor the media and prevent us from seeing images, that shows that they see something potentially problematic.
Similarly with these lawyers who were recently fired: if Gonzalez and Bush actually believed it was right, they would allow people to give testimony saying as much and make themselves accountable.
Mike,
Right, if you believe in the Constitution, and the right of free speech has primacy, then nothing should prevent a free and open debate in the marketplace of ideas.
Censorship should be the only behavior which is odious to a transparent society. Unless of course, you have something to hide.
Ranger, it seems that there has been quite a spike in military deaths lately. Today it was reported that 4 soldiers perished to roadside bombs. How many more lives will be erased by bombs before the solders can come back?
Am I right to think that we are reaching the endgame, regardless of what Bush might want?
I think the US military was not made for Iraq, just like it was not made for Somalia or Vietnam.
Mike,
Just a quick comment on Somalia and Beirut(1983): the U.S. assumes Peace keeping missions (PKO), but once they get in country they take sides vs. remaining neutral. We accept PKO that are politically unsustainable.
There was no political will to sustain Vietnam indefinitely, as there is not in Iraq, I believe. Both Iraq and Vietnam were addressed via military means, rather than politically, socially and economically, which was the true nature of the struggle.
It seems obvious to me that Vietnam and Iraq are neocolonialist wars of aggression.
Yes I believe there's and endgame that cannot be controlled by GWB.
As a soldier we accept deaths, but the deaths that are happening serve no military purpose in Iraq. That is the sadness of this entire campaign.
Yeah. That's one only of the sadnesses we'll have to live with for a long time because of this Goofy War on Terror. The chickenhawks in DC can toss off sound bites like "War is hell" as they buzz by microphones on their way to their next executive appointment...but betcha they don't know the paragraph that Sherman ended with that sentence. It's this: "I am side and tired of war. It's glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation."
..anon.
anon,
Yes, it is quite a statement from bloody Sherman, of all people. And as his brother was a senator, he knew both sides of the coin.
ranger, you're right that Iraq is a neocolonialist war of aggression. If the "war on terror" had not happened oil would still be trading at around $20/barrel. It's no coinsidence that Exxon and the boys have made record profits. Then take a look at the oil connections of George the first and it opens the mind up to all kinds of senerios.
Chaos is a big part of the plan here. As long as we can keep Iraqi oil off the market place the price of oil goes up and Saudi Arabia (OPEC) and Bush and his buddies make tons of money. Now, lets rattle the sabres a bit here and see if we can't get that Iranian oil off the market and really rake in the bucks!
Lets wave the flag and condem the doubters as unpatriotic. Lets control the press and media coming out of the war zone and run with this thing as long as we can.
War is good business! For some!
Claymore,
I will not offend my readers by printing your vulgar ad hominem attack which I rec'd today. You've been warned; now, you're off.
I suggest you find a site more to your ideological tastes,
Happy Easter,
Jim
trip wire,
In a nutshell...
I find it unfortunate that claymore didn't feel it necessary to respond to what I said, but instead launched below the belt attacks on the blog owner. If Claymore actually believed this was just "propaganda" and that there is nothing wrong with treating detainees like cargo, he would come here and say as much, and at least try to justify the policies we are criticizing.
Maybe Claymore has a point, maybe he doesn't. But the fact that he launches ad-hominem venom on the blog owner instead of addressing what we say shows that we have absolutely no reason to accept his idea that this is just "agitprop". It has always been the case that, when someone tries to take a principled and ethical stance that might be opposed to the status quo, they face a certain degree of ostracism and are often made into a pariah by the "true believers".
trip wire,
Jim here: Yeah, good business for the medical conractors; not so good for the 25,000-plus wounded.
Steve: I get the feeling the "war on terror" is one of the biggest stories in recent history in the past few decades. Vietnam was nothing compared to the current global state of insurgencies, battle for energy supplies, and the force of nationalistic and indigenous ethnic movements all over the world. The Cold War was also nothing (relative to today), and the "ideologies" that were supposedly at war were passed on from the people above. Of course the stakes were huge then, but we had MAD to maintain a level of stability and we definitely did not have the kind of indigenous resistance all over the world that we see today; people were simply less mobilized then.
I was wondering, as a military person, would you agree that in terms of these issues of importance, the best war to compare the War on Terror to would probably be World War 2?
Post a Comment
<< Home