A Soldier's Tale: Please don't let them use me

I heard Durbin's comments shortly after he made them. He didn't say one thing about our nations military. He was talking about the policy and treatment of prisoners.

I don't care how much of the media buys into the hype, and jumps on his case. He still didn't say anything at all against the U.S. military. This article like you often do only choses to take the lesser accounts of questionable treatment to highlight, and then tries to portray those standing up to the abuses as making a bid deal out of nothing.

By the way I checked out your comments on Santorum and his comparison of Democrats to Nazis. Unless there is more somewhere else that I missed they were limited to 'kind of lame'. There is a huge disparity in the squeaking you are doing, sir noisy wheel.

Anyway If people want to say that the U.S. isn't killing 1.75 million of its own citizens like pol pot did and we can't be compared to pol pot in that area: If people are saying that we aren't killing 13 million of our own citizens like Stalin did in the Soviet Union: and if people want to say we aren't killing 6 million people like Hitler did, then they would be correct on all counts, and it would be wrong for anyone to make that comparison.

Durbin was not making that comparison. If anyone wants to say that like Soviet gulags people are being taken into custody not being released, not being given a trial, access to lawyers, a chance to defend themselves, not being charged with any crimes, and being held indefinitely with no limit set on the amount of time they can be held, then the comparison is fair, and the parallel is consistent. That is what is happening.

If people want to say that torture like chaining a prisoner so he can't move, is made to lie on the floor while he defocates, and urinates on himself and our govt. policy allows for this kind of treatment by a govt. just like Pol Pot and nazis tortured their prisoners... well it is true that both govts. and now the U.S. govt. is allowing that kind of torture.

I think it is stupid to just focus on that element of Nazis because they did all that and much worse. Neither Durbin, nor I are saying that the U.S. is as bad as Nazis, and anyone who says that Durbin is is guilty of politicizing the argument.

I have pointed out the parallels(and differences) between the regimes Durbin used when talking about U.S. policy in regards to prisoners. Nobody, including you, or any article you have posted has shown the specific parallels I mentioned to be false.

People can try and use the military as a shield from Durbin's parallels, but I think it is shameful. Durbin did not say one dispariging thing about our military. Those are the facts.

I welcome you to show how the specific parallels I've highlighted are not accurate, and what part of Durbin's comments is derogatory toward the U.S. military.

 

As I and the Senate said, the discussion was on the Policy. That is what Durbin was referring to, not the soldiers who were doing their duty. When the U.S. policy allows that kind of treatment, then it is similar to other policies no matter who used them that allowed that kind of treatment.

Abu Ghraib also included rape of prisoners. I'm sorry that rape doesn't rise to the level of "truly awful" to you. I think any prolonged and inhumane treatment of prisoners who aren't deemed to be a threat(the majority of those at Abu Ghraib) is "truly awful".

Even if some don't think the treatment of the prisoners done at Abu Ghraib was truly awful let's look at what was accomplished by it. Increased hostility towards our troops, and the U.S. in general. That put our troops in far more danger, than whatever information they thought they could get out of the prisoners. As is there are no reports of useful information coming from those tactics, and loads of hostility on record as coming from that. This is one of the main reasons I believe torture is an ineffective tool to use in 'protection' of the troops. In reality it doesn't protect them but puts them in more danger.

I think the majority of U.S. policy is in no way similar to those of the govts. mentioned by Durbin. But a policy that allows the treatment described in that FBI report is on the line with some of the policies of the groups that Durbin mentioned. It was stupid of Durbin to make the comparison, because other people would certainly loose sight of what he was talking about and try to hype up the fact that he brought up those govts. and the U.S. in the same breath.

It was stupid of Durbin to make that comparison for those reasons. But he didn't slander the U.S. soldiers, and as much as some folks want to strike out at any Democrat who dares to find fault with anything that goes on with this administration, it is ashamed that they tried to deflect the comparison at soldiers who have been serving honorably. It isn't fair to them.

As far as people being held responsible for the deeds being done, that is true only in some cases. Yes a few of those on the grunt level were held accountable. That is good. They should. But is the policy still in place that allows people to be held in detainment for an indefinite amount of time? Is the policy that allows those prisoners to be held without ever being charged with anything, see a lawyer, or possibly not even know why they are being held? Is the policy still in place that allows a detainee to be chained lying on the ground defocating and urinating on himself?

As long as policies like that are in place, they will continue to endanger our soldiers lives, and prevent us from winning the hearts and minds that this administration has laid out as one of its goals in the war.

It isn't just about being humane. If people don't care at all about being humane to these people, they should care about protecting our soldiers, and fighting the war as effectively as possible.

 

ApparentlyTim Russert and John McCain disagree with you. From Meet the Press of 5/19/2005:

"MR. RUSSERT: Your Democratic colleague Dick Durbin of Illinois set off a firestorm when he compared the actions of Americans at Guantanamo to Nazis, Soviet Gulags and Pol Pot. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that Senator Durbin should be censured by the Senate for those comments.

SEN. McCAIN: Well, I think that Senator Durbin owes not only the Senate an apology—I don't know if censure would be in order--but an apology because it does a great disservice to men and women who suffered in the gulag and in Pol Pot's killing fields. Dick Durbin should be required to read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" and I think that he would--may have a better understanding that there's no comparison whatsoever. And it does a great disservice to the majority of men and women who are serving in Guantanamo who are doing the job that they're told to do and they're doing it in a humane fashion. To tar the American servicemen and women with a brush that applies to the gulag or the killing fields is a great disservice to the men and women in the military who are serving honorably down there.

MR. RUSSERT: Should he formally apologize?

SEN. McCAIN: Well, I don't know what a formal--but he should certainly apologize.

MR. RUSSERT: Will the Senate take any action against him?

SEN. McCAIN: I predict to you that by the time this program is shown next Sunday that Mr. Durbin will have apologized.

 

People can disagree all they want. Nobody has shown that he said anything bad about the military or has shown where specific parallels aren't accurate. It was stupid of him to make the comparison, but the reaction is ridiculous.

 

The birthrate doesn't have to be zero, you just have to kill them faster than they can be replaced.

 

Crikey!

I can't believe people take this seriously. I suppose Islamic terrorists were so busy fighting in Iraq that they couldn't attack Madrid, Bali and Jakarta.

This roach motel idea, that all of the terrorists will come to Iraq and won't go elsewhere, is ridiculous. That's like saying I won't have roaches in my house in Minnesota if you have some sugar spread out in your house in NY to attract the roaches too.

 

That will only be impossible if we efficiently and wholeheartedly pursue the hearts and minds tactic the Bush administration has talked about. Otherwise we create them faster than they can be killed.

 

My standard for what? My standard for disagreeing with people trying to hype his comments up in order to attack him, and redirect the target of his comments to be the U.S. military, then I will disagree. It doesn't matter how big of a news story it is, how many people burn with exaggerated righteous indignation, the truth is still the truth.

I wasn't saying that everyone should be stupid but accurate. I was saying that Durbin was guilty of being stupid in making the comparison, and there are some parallels that can be drawn.

 

I've only had a chance to skim the posts in the last two days and I can't believe how the pro-invasion side is continually spinning the same justifications that either have been proven wrong or are highly questionable.

1. I have to reiterate this because I find the idea so patently ridiculous.
The idea that even though Saddam wasn't working with Al Qaeda but its a good idea to invade Iraq to create a roach motel where terrorists check in but they don't check out totally ignores the global nature of the enemy we are dealing. While fortunately we haven't had an attack in the US since 9/11 the idea that we're keeping them occupied in Iraq is specious at best when they've carried out attacks in Spain and other countries. We're not dealing with an enemy with a centralized command structure and centralized resources. These are loosely connected cells that operate globally. Its not like Al Qaeda command structure is deciding well we need to channel all of our troops and resources in Iraq. While we are killing many in Iraq that doesn't mean that there aren't others who are still plotting to get us here and with the anger engendered at the US that just means there are more people willing to come after us or turn a blind eye to those plotting to do so.

2. Yes, by the definition of terrorist Saddam was a terrorist but again for someone like Basso who likes to bring up the importance of context surely he must recognize the context of why this is called a war on terrorism. If this is a war on terror in general thats a recipe for war without end. Uzbekistan is led by a terrorist, there are a bunch of terrorists running around in the north of Sri Lanka, there are terrorists canibalizing pygmies in the Congo and there are still terrorists in Northern Ireland who. If this is a war on terror lets go after them. Heck the Tamil Tigers are probably a lot easier to beat than Saddam and would engender a lot less hatred.

3. The idea that Saddam was ripe for the picking in the Middle-East so we should to make Iraq our terrorists Roach Motel or experiment for democracy. Yes Saddam's regime was weak and hated those are benefits but at the same time what are the costs? The biggest problem that I have with the invasion is that so little thought and planning was put into the potential costs. Questions regarding how difficult it might be pacify the whole country, how would we deal with those insurgents both home grown and coming into the country, how could we get Iraqi infrastructure up and running, and also what sort of diplomatic fallout might happen were dismissed by the Admin..

Any difficult endeavor requires planning particularly what happens afterwords and any good manager knows before undertaking a plan a costs benefit analysis is critical. To Giddyup's football analogy this is why any good coach doesn't call blitzes constantly even if they know the opponents line is weak; you always have to consider the possiblity of a screen pass.

4. To bringing up that Saddam was giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Yes he was but the so were the freakin Saudis, Kuwaitis and many others in both the Middle East and Islamic World. The support for the Palestinian Intifada isn't something that divides pro or anti US Islamic regimes since practically all Arabs and Muslims support it and many fund it.

I agree we're stuck in Iraq now and that failure, handing Iraq to the insurgents, isn't an option. We've made our bed and have to lie in it even if it is covered in our own feces. But lets stop trying to continue to feed us these specious justifications.

 

Roach motel! I like that imagery... but I don't think anyone meant anything that seriously. Obviously every terrorist in the world didn't come to Iraq because we baited them... but a helluva lot of them did.

 

How exactly are they defending Iraq?? And again, what are they trying to do? Understanding their goals is the key to understanding their actions. Cleary by blowing up Iraqi citizens they aren’t defending Iraq. Nobody at all came to Saddam’s rescue, so no one was defending him. What these guys want is to radicalize the region and to create an Islamic state. Bush opened the door for them in Iraq, and set the table too. He removed an infidel they hated. He threw the country into chaos and made it a veritable terrorist’s playground. For good measure he left thousands of American troops behind in a vulnerable and unwinnable position. So now the terrorists can destabilize the country and the US will still be blamed for the war, and they can at the same time show the world that the US is foolish, weak and a loser since it can’t even handle a country like Iraq.

And there will be many different groups getting in on the act, not just the terrorists. Do you think that Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria want a secular democracy on their boarder? Do you think they want an American base at their back door? If not, do they have the power to interfere? Heck, their operatives could practically take day trips to Iraq and still be home for dinner! Does the US have the manpower to seal all the boarders? No. Does the US have the intelligence capability to know what’s going on in Iraq? No. Does the US have the support of the Iraq people to help them plug either of these fatal holes? Generally speaking, no.

Around here the farmers and people who live on acreages tell a story about the coyotes that live around there. A coyote is a small scruffy animal that would be no match for a reasonable sized dog. But the coyotes are smart. They send one in to a back yard to provoke a dog. The dog gets crazed and takes off after the coyote. The coyote then runs out of the yard into the bush with the dog in hot pursuit, out into the bush where there is a pack of coyotes waiting… Once the dog is out of his element he’s weakened. He is disoriented, confused and he’s surrounded by a pack of coyotes who are in their element. They attack and run from all sides until the dog wears down, and then they kill the dog and eat it.

 

“Dr. King loved America enough to confront its injustices, not compromising the truth and not fearing any man…”
George Bush - Jan. 17, 2005

 

We don't create them at all. There are people in the world who are sympathetic to the causes of the terrorists, and some of that group would be willing to become terrrorists themselves with the right motivation. Those are the inactive terrorists. When we kill active terrorists, some of those people join the fight. That group of inactive terrorists is the pool that the enemy can draw from, and it is not bottomless. Even if every Arab Muslim were to side with the terrorists, that is still a limited number of people. It is much more likely that only a small percentage of that already small global minority would ever become terrorists. The question becomes, can we kill the terrorists at a faster rate than new ones are bred, and I believe we can. It has nothing to do with a hearts and minds tactic and everything to do with drawing as many as possible out into the open where the full force of the US armed forces can be brought to bear against them.

 

<b>Grizzled

How exactly are they defending Iraq??</b>

Defending Iraq from democratic freedom...

<b>And again, what are they trying to do? Understanding their goals is the key to understanding their actions. Cleary by blowing up Iraqi citizens they aren’t defending Iraq.</b>

They are attempting to shift the blame for those deaths to the US, as in "if the US hadn't even come here, none of this would have happened." That's their goal. They are defending Iraq from an outcome the terrorists don't want for Iraq: a democratic republic.

<b>Nobody at all came to Saddam’s rescue, so no one was defending him.</b>

I imagine that they were there when the US rolled into Baghdad.

<b>What these guys want is to radicalize the region and to create an Islamic state.</b>

What better way to accomplish that than to openly kill and maim the people you are trying to win over. That's open terrorism and it is wrong, wrong, wrong to let them get away with shifting blame to the US.

<b> Bush opened the door for them in Iraq, and set the table too. He removed an infidel they hated.</b>

They hate the US even more.

<b> He threw the country into chaos and made it a veritable terrorist’s playground. For good measure he left thousands of American troops behind in a vulnerable and unwinnable position.</b>

The chaos has been wrought by the terrorists not the US.

<b>So now the terrorists can destabilize the country and the US will still be blamed for the war, and they can at the same time show the world that the US is foolish, weak and a loser since it can’t even handle a country like Iraq.</b>

Not if we don't go down that road.

<b>And there will be many different groups getting in on the act, not just the terrorists. Do you think that Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria want a secular democracy on their boarder?</b>

Iranians do, I bet. You have to distinguish between the ruling elite and the ruled.

<b>Do you think they want an American base at their back door? If not, do they have the power to interfere? Heck, their operatives could practically take day trips to Iraq and still be home for dinner! Does the US have the manpower to seal all the boarders? No. Does the US have the intelligence capability to know what’s going on in Iraq? No. Does the US have the support of the Iraq people to help them plug either of these fatal holes? Generally speaking, no.</b>

I agree that some more help from those cowards at the UN would have been/would be nice.

<b>Around here the farmers and people who live on acreages tell a story about the coyotes that live around there. A coyote is a small scruffy animal that would be no match for a reasonable sized dog. But the coyotes are smart. They send one in to a back yard to provoke a dog. The dog gets crazed and takes off after the coyote. The coyote then runs out of the yard into the bush with the dog in hot pursuit, out into the bush where there is a pack of coyotes waiting… Once the dog is out of his element he’s weakened. He is disoriented, confused and he’s surrounded by a pack of coyotes who are in their element. They attack and run from all sides until the dog wears down, and then they kill the dog and eat it.</b>

And how many of that deck of 52 Terrorists have been captured or killed. I think you have gotten your roles reversed here. The effort in Iraq has been a success. The debate seems to be has the price been worth it.

 

Politics of war in Iraq-- The art of sitting in an air conditioned room in America; switching channels between a basketball game and a 'reality show', eating pizza, and occasionally taking a trip to the fridge for another cold one, while pompously hitting the computor for a few minutes to defend your know-it-all brilliant political opinions about 150,000 American soldiers who are sweating bullets and blood half way around the world in the middle of a desert who have to believe somehow they are defending democracy just to keep sanity.

They also have to believe they are defending something or another that somehow has to do with their spouses and children who are sitting at home praying and worrying about the next car bomb or fire fight. Something political experts like us certainly understand because of our affinity for shows like Desparte Housewives and American Idol. Let's talk about the politicians who use soldiers like pieces on a chess game on every message board we populate and I am sure the politicians will tune us in and call off the game. Let's talk about the stupid soldiers and the brave soldiers, the mean and the compassionate until they all learn the courage we show by complaining to each other and fixing the world's problem four or five times each day.

Is there anyone on this BBS who is any different than the Congressmen and politicians in the White House? Politicians are the manipulators and slaves of media spin; and polls and TV pundits are the new voice of American ideals.

I just can't find a good reason to use American soldiers as my cannon fodder to prove how brilliant I am (not to mention politically correct).

I do not like our politics on both sides.

If the President, every politician and everyone who posts on this board could do 3 months patrol on some Iraqi streets with an automatic weapon in hand and stress levels pressing Advil into the brain twice a day we would have a pretty good reason for speaking out.

Politics is rotten business. War is worse.

I think we should pray more, say less and hope someone's dad or mother, son or daughter, comes home, alive.

The best we can hope now is for the politics of Republicans to find a graceful way to get our soldiers out while the politics of Democrats can find a graceful way to let them. Some real bi-partisonship would be nice, like sending all of the politicians over to Iraq and let them stay there until they agree on the best thing for America.

I just am not for bashing the soldiers. Nor do I think any politician is listening.
Most politicians hear what they want to hear. Sounds like us doesn't it.

 

Well of course when it comes to insurgents they aren't just terrorists. Some of them are fierce loyalists to Saddam or just don't want a foreign army on their land. Morale and enlistment in insurgent or terrorist ranks will continue to rise, and as new ones are born, grow up, become more and more sickened with tactics that they see as cruel and unjust they will keep joining.

I guess we just disagree. There aren't enough soldiers in all of our armed forces to stop them. Furthermore we only draw a very small percentage out into the open. They stay hidden until they strike and then go back into hiding again unless it was a suicide mission, in which case they are dead.

The strategy of terrorists would not be to use suicide bombings if they were worried about running out of people. They will use their resources the best that they can, and conserve what they need to conserve. As long as we continue to support oppressive regimes in the middle east, have policies like we do at Gitmo, torture innocents, etc. there will always be people willing to fight that.

Even the Bush administration who has done such a horrible job carrying out this war understands that they have to win hearts and minds. So even if you are correct and it is possible to kill them fast enough, it doesn't matter because the U.S. isn't trying that approach.

 

Good points Rhester.

From what I've heard about soldiers is that in combat most of their thinking is much more basic than believing they are fighting for democracy, freedom or even to protect people at home but instead focussed on protecting your fellow soldiers. Units in combat seem to operate under extreme peer pressure where the willingness to take on hazardous missions or put yourself into harm in other ways is because that's what your comrades would do. From hearing about soldiers who get injured some will say that its worse than getting killed because they have to live with not being able to help their unit.

I think most of us recognize that for the most part our soldiers do an outstanding a job which is why something like Abu Ghraib really stands out. We also recognize that our soldiers are under civillian control which is why things like Abu Ghraib and Gitmo the civillian leadership should be held investigated and held accountable if anything about their leadership has encouraged or allowed abuses to happen.