Bush by numbers: Four years of double standards
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 9, 2004 19:16
VIEWED: 9195
PAGE 9 of 9
"Putting everyone in handcuffs. Sort out
insurgents later. Better than shooting them all"
Excuse me, but how DO we "identify" the
insurgents from the innocent bystanders
in Falujah? Not just in the hospital, but
everywhere?
Reading through your post (which I appreciate,
because you supply a lot of detail) it sounds
as if we ARE shooting first, asking questions
later. From what you tell me, we've decided that high civilian casualties are not only expected and permissable, but we've already predetermined that high casualties will be the fault of the
insurgents -- all part of their "big plan" to
win the war of public opinion-- and therefore will not be any fault of U.S. policy or tactics.
That sounds both terribly callous and
suspiciously untruthful to me.
But enough about my opinion. The point is, Do you think moderate Iraqis and the world at large will buy our assertion that the terrorists are to blame for whatever happens in Falujah? Or do you think
that - despite our efforts at the hospital - reports from Falujah will cause much of the world to denounce America's actions there?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by firefloozysuzie:
"Putting everyone in handcuffs. Sort out
insurgents later. Better than shooting them all"
Excuse me, but how DO we "identify" the
insurgents from the innocent bystanders
in Falujah? Not just in the hospital, but
everywhere?
In the hospital, the coalition cuffed everyone because there were known insurgents there, shooting at coalition forces. The innocent civilians there can later be identified by ID documents or by known hospital staff.
In the city it will be more difficult. Civilians have been told to stay off the streets, and if they do so they should be somewhat safer. If the insurgents decide to set up a fighting position in their living room, there's not much the coalition forces can do and not open themselves up to heavy casualties. It is just not possible to do what would be in effect a hostage rescue hundreds of times a day.
Quote:
Reading through your post (which I appreciate,
because you supply a lot of detail) it sounds
as if we ARE shooting first, asking questions
later. From what you tell me, we've decided that high civilian casualties are not only expected and permissable, but we've already predetermined that high casualties will be the fault of the
insurgents -- all part of their "big plan" to
win the war of public opinion-- and therefore will not be any fault of U.S. policy or tactics.
That sounds both terribly callous and
suspiciously untruthful to me.
I don't pretend to know the minds of the coalition commanders, but I'd suspect that they are very concerned with civilian casualties, both from a humanitarian and a political standpoint. However, they know that there is a point in trying to save civilians beyond which they cannot go, or they'll be placing their troops at unacceptable risk. So they will return fire if fired on, and use air and artillery against strongpoints rather than frontal assault. I expect that the quicker the coalition forces move, the fewer civilians will be killed.
The insurgent's use of suicide car bombs and roadside bombs routinely kill more innocent bystanders that the coalition forces they're supposedly targeting, and it doesn't seem to bother them. I doubt they are any more concerned about the residents of Fallujah. They have in the past shown video of civilians they claim were shot by the coalition, but a bullet wound from their AK-47s looks about the same as from a Marine's M-16. Who knows?
Quote:
But enough about my opinion. The point is, Do you think moderate Iraqis and the world at large will buy our assertion that the terrorists are to blame for whatever happens in Falujah? Or do you think that - despite our efforts at the hospital - reports from Falujah will cause much of the world to denounce America's actions there?
I would hope that moderate Iraqis see that their country isn't going anywhere until the insurgency is marginalized and some form of participatory government is in place. This is a major first step in quelling the insurgency.
The more radical Iraqis, either religious or nationalist, will of course see it as an invasion and worthy of condemnation.
The world at large will see the events there through two seperate filters; the coalition and Iraqi government's, and the insurgents'. I trust the insurgents version less, but others will have different opinions.
The U.S. government's biggest concern is, rightly in my opinion, how it plays out to the moderate Iraqis and the American public.
I'd have preferred that the insurgents had left the city or surrendered, and that we were now starting civil improvements, as are occurring in Sadr City, rather than blowing stuff up. But the country will never be stable, and elections never possible, with major cities held by the insurgents. They have to go.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks a lot, really, for not dismissing my
questions out of hand. Because I have, as we all do, a stake in how Americans are perceived and a natural concern about how safe the world will
be for us in the days ahead.
In my case, I had planned to spend three weeks
in Central America this coming January, and hoped to pursue intensive language studies while volunteering as a teacher.
Now that we've reelected the President and have
revved up our war in Iraq...I honestly worry that
it would be stupid of me to travel outside
the U.S. on my own right now. If this Falujah operation is likely to raise anti-American sentiment, at least for the short term, I guess I would be better off finding a similar opportunity closer to home :(
I'll be watching to see which filter prevails,
of course, and hoping the news out of Iraq
isn't too bad (whatever that means).
Thanks again.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME