On the Way to the Forum. . .
As usual, this news article (''Halt Search for GI's, Group Warns'') features a mishmash of non-interchangeable terms.
This administration does not like to be pinned down; to define terms is to disallow the Iraqi affair from continuing in motion indefinitely. If, on the other hand, things remain is a welter of confusion, no one will achieve enough clarity to demand the circus close down.
As example of this confusion, the lead paragraph indicates the soldiers were captured. This is correct, indicating they are POW's. The paragraph ends, however, ''The Pentagon acknowledged for the first time it believes the servicemen are in terrorist hands.''
Why are they called terrorists if they are engaged in organized military assaults/ambushes that kill four U.S. GI's and one Iraqi, and capture three? This does not fit any definitions of terrorism. Terrorists do not stand up and fight toe-to-toe with seasoned combat forces.
The U.S. administration for some reason will not acknowledge the true nature of the beast facing U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are in fact engaging military-type organizations with high levels of morale, training and equipment.
Indeed, why are U.S. efforts to build an Afghan/Iraq Army so important if the threat is only terrorism?
''Residents complained of random detentions and homes being ransacked as the hunt drew in more troops. . .'' From the Iraqi viewpoint, this behavior could be construed as terrorism.
Kind of like the yellowcake intelligence, maybe. The article also indicates the U.S. forces killed two and injured four:
The correct term would be ''wounded,'' since this was obviously achieved in armed combat. Perhaps the administration is loathe to use the term wounded as this would confer dignity and legitimacy to these resistance fighters, an action U.S. sources dare not take.
The same officer, speaking on conditions of anonymity ''because he was not supposed to release information, said about 100 suspects had been detained. The U.S. military would not comment.''
Of course the U.S. military could not comment, because they don't have to. They can detain 100 suspects, whisk them away to security prisons, and even torture them, all done with U.S. tax dollars and the tacit approval of our government. But the secrecy so bought is a misappropriation of our funds, as this is not what democracy is all about.
What gives the U.S. military the right to detain suspects? Iraq is not their country, so whose laws are they enforcing?
In the meantime, a U.S. overreaction only insures poor treatment of our own captured soldiers. Let's hope that these soldiers are afforded the honors of war. Possibly they would be more likely to receive them if U.S. forces afforded resistance fighters the same dignity.
This administration does not like to be pinned down; to define terms is to disallow the Iraqi affair from continuing in motion indefinitely. If, on the other hand, things remain is a welter of confusion, no one will achieve enough clarity to demand the circus close down.
As example of this confusion, the lead paragraph indicates the soldiers were captured. This is correct, indicating they are POW's. The paragraph ends, however, ''The Pentagon acknowledged for the first time it believes the servicemen are in terrorist hands.''
Why are they called terrorists if they are engaged in organized military assaults/ambushes that kill four U.S. GI's and one Iraqi, and capture three? This does not fit any definitions of terrorism. Terrorists do not stand up and fight toe-to-toe with seasoned combat forces.
The U.S. administration for some reason will not acknowledge the true nature of the beast facing U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are in fact engaging military-type organizations with high levels of morale, training and equipment.
Indeed, why are U.S. efforts to build an Afghan/Iraq Army so important if the threat is only terrorism?
''Residents complained of random detentions and homes being ransacked as the hunt drew in more troops. . .'' From the Iraqi viewpoint, this behavior could be construed as terrorism.
''It also suggested that the weekend ambush was in revenge for the rape-murder of 14-year-old Abeer Qassim al-Janabi by American soldiers in the area last year.''
“At this time, we believe they were abducted by terrorists belonging to al-Qaeda or an affiliated group, and this assessment is based on highly credible intelligence information,” (U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell) said.''
Kind of like the yellowcake intelligence, maybe. The article also indicates the U.S. forces killed two and injured four:
''During the search Monday, U.S. and Iraqi forces exchanged fire with gunmen near the town of Youssifiyah, killing two and injuring four, an Iraqi army officer said.''
The correct term would be ''wounded,'' since this was obviously achieved in armed combat. Perhaps the administration is loathe to use the term wounded as this would confer dignity and legitimacy to these resistance fighters, an action U.S. sources dare not take.
The same officer, speaking on conditions of anonymity ''because he was not supposed to release information, said about 100 suspects had been detained. The U.S. military would not comment.''
Of course the U.S. military could not comment, because they don't have to. They can detain 100 suspects, whisk them away to security prisons, and even torture them, all done with U.S. tax dollars and the tacit approval of our government. But the secrecy so bought is a misappropriation of our funds, as this is not what democracy is all about.
What gives the U.S. military the right to detain suspects? Iraq is not their country, so whose laws are they enforcing?
In the meantime, a U.S. overreaction only insures poor treatment of our own captured soldiers. Let's hope that these soldiers are afforded the honors of war. Possibly they would be more likely to receive them if U.S. forces afforded resistance fighters the same dignity.
Labels: confusion of terms in the Iraq war reportage, terrorist versus p.o.w.
posted by rangeragainstwar at 2:31 PM
6 Comments:
When I was a pol-mil intel analyst in the 80's, where we supported the Salvadoran government fighting an insurgency, we were not allowed to call the FMLN "terrorists" in our intel reports, even though that's what the Salvadoran government called them. They were "guerilla fighters" or "insurgents." And that was during the Reagan administration. We've really come a long, long way since then, haven't we?
d.k.,
Yes, we've come a long way, baby.
I was involved in terrorism counteraction during the same period, as an instructor, and the Reagan administration accepted the hypotheses of Claire Sterling (The Terror Network); namely, that all terrorism was directed by the Soviet Union.
I didn't accept it then, and we now know that was a false assumption. Alas, since it was the policy of the administration, it carried the weight of truth and fact.
Now we have al Qaeda to perform the function of the defunct Soviet Union. It is as spurious a concept now as it was then; there is not an al Qaeda operative behind every tree.
Since the Salvadorean gov't had more legitimacy than the present Iraqi or Afghani gov't, it would be correct to call them guerrillas or insurgents, though their tactics often were terroristic.
As an aside: where do FAO's go during war time (for my personal edification)?
Ranger,
All good points. And you make a good point, yes, we could point out that the tactics of the insurgents included terrorism, certainly, but calling the five groups that comprised the FMLN (or, the Contras in Nicaragua - who we did not call freedom fighters either) terrorists was not done.
FAOs go to G-5/ S-5 billets in TO&E positions, they man all the Defense Attache positions (overt spying), they train and advise units (somewhat like SF, except without the web gear,) teach, and they work in the DIA, State, CIA, and do strategic planning and especially predictive-contigency planning. The principal jobs, though, are the DATT and asst. DATT positions, which expand and "overtly" infiltrate local forces, unlike SF, who work side-by-side as advisors and operatives with the tactical units.
Just one last point, to follow up a comment you made earlier. One reasons FAO won't become a branch, is that there are no FAO commands. Most FAOs are CA officers, so they have to do the company command and S3 stuff in the basic branch -- then move permanently into the FAO track. I think that's desirable, since without command experience, which is the real test for officers, as you know, you can't really bring anything else to the table.
I've never seen any reasonable ideas to get around this... but that said, even when those basic branch experiences are "punched", FAOs lag professionally in terms of competition, because they have to go back to their branch for consideration for battalion command, and by that time, as LTCs, they are far behind their brothers (sisters) who single tracked or did a tour in a secondary specialty.
d.k.,
We have forgotten the continuum of war, which should begin with level I and II threats, which then transition into partisan, guerrilla, and eventually, conventional war.
Terrorism was traditionally considered a level I or II threat. We have forgotten this, and we have elevated it to major threat status; this is simply not the case.
d.k.,
Thanks for bringing me up to speed on the status of FAO.
Since they are CA, they could conceivably come under the SF umbrella. After all, we accept psy-ops types. With flexibility, this integration could be accomplished.
Under the old system of the country team, where the ambassador called the shots, the FAOs would be appropriately dropped into the special forces command structure, as there would be closer civil-military operations--as there should be.
The country team concept would correctly utilize both skill sets, and integration of them would be synergistic.
The Army/military talks about entering the 21st century, but they insist on career paths that go back to WW I. There must be exceptions to policy for the good of the service, and it would seem the FAO career field is one of those.
Post a Comment
<< Home