Fighting Un-Conventional Wars

[betsy]

And i'd like to add this, a nation at war has to decide what actions it can live with in order to win...I say win because one does not go to war to lose...OK maybe france Joking, I say this because when it's all over we are the ones that have to live with our actions, we can re write history, we can change history, but we can not undo our actions....

Yes. Very well said.

[bradco]

For those who think that the west is truly moral in the way we fight Id encourage them to actually find out about the way the Iraq war has been conducted.

I understand that attacking Iraq became "immoral" only because the UN did not sanction it? Had the UN gave the go-ahead signal....it would've been a moral war?

No im talking about the conduct of the war regardless of the jus ad bello legality of the war. From torturing detainees, to indiscrimante attacks,unacceptable levels of collateral damage in relation to military necessity etc.

[KrustyKidd]

From torturing detainees, to indiscrimante attacks,unacceptable levels of collateral damage in relation to military necessity etc.

US 'torturing' (I have had worse in training when in the Canadian military) was not condoned and dealt with in highly publicized trials of those responsible, indiscriminate attacks are disputable and when discovered are also dealt with, collateral damage is inevitable - especially when dealing with a foe that uses cooperative and non cooperative citizens as shields.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KrustyKid,

US 'torturing' (I have had worse in training when in the Canadian military)

You had worse than being tortured to death? That must have been pretty bad.

I have heard and read (from Gwynne Dyer, and others) that some of the tactics employed by western forces can be very unpleasant. There have been many recruits that have dropped out of 'special forces' training after being subject to interrogation methods testing, saying "If that is what our side is capable of, there is no way I want to be captured by the enemy!". I don't doubt you experienced things most people wouldn't ever care to face.

However,

was not condoned

I disagree here. It was only 'not condoned' after it hit the newspapers. Certain methods, including the one (suffocation) that led an Iraqi general to be tortured to death, were deemed 'acceptable'.

[betsy]

I have heard and read (from Gwynne Dyer, and others) that some of the tactics employed by western forces can be very unpleasant. There have been many recruits that have dropped out of 'special forces' training after being subject to interrogation methods testing, saying "If that is what our side is capable of, there is no way I want to be captured by the enemy!". I don't doubt you experienced things most people wouldn't ever care to face.

I don't doubt that atrocities do happen. But there are various contributing factors why atrocities happen, although I don't condone them.

Perhaps watching innocent civilians being humiliated and beheaded on video is enough to bring out the worse in some people.

Remember the Nepalese hostages that were killed? How did the people of Nepal reacted to that one?

By going after innocent Muslim civilians in Nepal. This by the way, is another example that I could cite supporting some of my points for that other thread in Federal Politics (Poll: Muslim Population in Canada)

The psychological impact of actual combat....we'll never fully understand unless we are in the shoes of those who are there and fighting it.

Nobody wants to be captured by an enemy. Period. Because you'll be at the mercy of the ones who hold power over your fate. And if your captors happens to be sick, then you can count yourself gone.

Regardless of Geneva Conventions or not.

What good are laws when you've been a captive taken in some isolated location...tortured and already dead?

Then, there are those who are truly sick in the head....whom most probably joined the force just so to be able to do what they enjoy doing.

Have you noticed though? Even when we dole out criticisms....the criticisms and condemnations are not evenly spread out across the board. The west is heavily taking the thumping! The evil guys suddenly look like the little angels.

[geoffrey]

Do you really want to sink to their level and destroy our moral high ground?

Once we get into the business of killing mass groups of civilians and internment, what distinguishes us (free world) from them (Islamic terrorists)?

[Army Guy]

Geoffrey:

Once we get into the business of killing mass groups of civilians and internment, what distinguishes us (free world) from them (Islamic terrorists)?

Geoffrey make a good piont here "nothing" distinguishes us just the methods employed to kill.

The east and the west are equally guilty of breaking the convention or planning to break the convention in future conflicts. Proving the convention is only a guide, and then only used by the victor to punish someone for the conflict....

I'll explain, Geneva convention states that it is forbiden to purposily target civilians, but if you were to ask any nation with nuclear wpns what thier targets were, they would be population centers...i mean what military target takes a 100 megaton nuclear device to destroy it. we're talking a blast raduis of 300 kms,or more...and fully employ them knowing that the radation hazards will cover thousands of km and effect millions...This wpn alone breaks most of the conventions, and yet all sides have them and are willing to use them...moral right or wrong....

There are dozens of wpns platforms that fall into the same catagory...

My piont is nothing in war is morally right, no side has the moral high ground...dead is still dead, just how it came about is really the question...be it shot, or slowly beheaded, or fed to the lions...

So the conventions really are not to govern nations conduct as per say, but rather the avg soldiers conduct, not only to keep some sanity to warfare, but to keep it from turning into total war, where thier are no rules...

Because man, and i mean both genders are capable of some very sick shit....and yes i'm talking about all of us not just soldiers, but all of us....and it does not take training to cross over the edge just alittle exposure or tramatic event and once you've crossed that line it's very hard to come back....to what we consider normal behavior...

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Army Guy,

So the conventions really are not to govern nations conduct as per say, but rather the avg soldiers conduct, not only to keep some sanity to warfare, but to keep it from turning into total war, where thier are no rules...

Indeed, the Geneva conventions are mostly in place to protect non-combatants (a prisoner is considered a 'non-combatant), and to keep the business of warfare 'somewhat gentlemanly'. Some might think that this notion is silly, but would one rather surrender to a 'gentleman' or a savage?

[bradco]

Do you really want to sink to their level and destroy our moral high ground?

Once we get into the business of killing mass groups of civilians and internment, what distinguishes us (free world) from them (Islamic terrorists)?

Im in agreement with Geofrrey here.

We in the west like to think we are the civilized peoples of the world so why should we not hold ourselves to a higher standard. "The west is heavily taking the thumping" because we believe that it is us that ought to lead the world not resort to immoral and savage behaviour.It is not that "the evil guys suddenly look like the little angels" but that we know they are evil and that we dont want to sink to their evil level. We want to be above their level.

[betsy]

We in the west like to think we are the civilized peoples of the world so why should we not hold ourselves to a higher standard. "The west is heavily taking the thumping" because we believe that it is us that ought to lead the world not resort to immoral and savage behaviour.It is not that "the evil guys suddenly look like the little angels" but that we know they are evil and that we dont want to sink to their evil level. We want to be above their level.

Did you read Army Guy's reply?

[betsy]

It is not that "the evil guys suddenly look like the little angels" but that we know they are evil and that we dont want to sink to their evil level. We want to be above their level.

So to be above their level....we criticise and focus our vocal condemnation to every little "immoral mistake" that we think the good guys had done. The good guys who are there fighting and dying for us...and we thump on them. Publicly. In the papers.

You could just see it now. A terrorist waving a tattered copy of a newspaper to civilians...showing a critical article of the good guys: "See? Even their own people are saying they are wrong! They are the bad guys!"

In the meantime, the lefties and liberal thinkers are practically mum about vocally condemning the evil guys....showing almost like a silent acceptance of the fact, because anyway, the evil guys being the evil ones that they are, are just being evilly normal?

[ft.niagara]

From torturing detainees, to indiscrimante attacks,unacceptable levels of collateral damage in relation to military necessity etc.

US 'torturing' (I have had worse in training when in the Canadian military) was not condoned and dealt with in highly publicized trials of those responsible, indiscriminate attacks are disputable and when discovered are also dealt with, collateral damage is inevitable - especially when dealing with a foe that uses cooperative and non cooperative citizens as shields.

I have mixed feelings about a Democrat win. While I would like to see the US out of Iraq, I somehow get the feeling that the bad guys have won. Now the attackers will become the defenders of THEIR policy. Maybe for once the Democrats will have to STATE a common policy.

[bradco]

We in the west like to think we are the civilized peoples of the world so why should we not hold ourselves to a higher standard. "The west is heavily taking the thumping" because we believe that it is us that ought to lead the world not resort to immoral and savage behaviour.It is not that "the evil guys suddenly look like the little angels" but that we know they are evil and that we dont want to sink to their evil level. We want to be above their level.

Did you read Army Guy's reply?

Ya I still think we have a moral highground over terrorists....do you disagree? I agree with most of the things Army Guy has posted here but...

"My piont is nothing in war is morally right, no side has the moral high ground...dead is still dead, just how it came about is really the question...be it shot, or slowly beheaded, or fed to the lions..."

Although I think this holds generally I would argue that in cases of self-defense, defending yourself should not be considered immoral. If you have to kill armies who are attacking your country I dont consider that immoral. Again thats more of a jus ad bello argument so not all that relevant. For me the method of killing is not the issue. Wars are fought to be won and killing of soldiers is necessary to win. Its when you target civilians or do not consider levels of collateral damage when attacking that there is certainaly a distinction in levels of morality.

In response to the use of nuclear weapons: I would conisider the use of such weapons as immoral and illegal in almost all cases. It is incredibly difficult for the collateral damage of a nuclear strike to not be higher than the military necessity. I do believe that with nuclear weapons there is a suffiecint norm against their use, especially in first strikes. The only country I have ever heard of thinking of using nuclear weapons as a first strike is the US who toyed with the idea of "tactical" nuclear strikes. Needless to say I think the public outrage in the US would be enough of a deterrence against the use of such a weapon unless absolutly needed in immediate self-defense (no pre-emptive Bush doctrine garbage).

"In the meantime, the lefties and liberal thinkers are practically mum about vocally condemning the evil guys....showing almost like a silent acceptance of the fact, because anyway, the evil guys being the evil ones that they are, are just being evilly normal?"

please provide information on who hasnt been condemned. Practically the entire world condemned 9/11, the "left" condemned everything about the Taliban and Saddam.

"The good guys who are there fighting and dying for us"

I wouldnt thump on any of the Canadian soldiers that are dying for us cause I dont believe they have done anything wrong. I would thump on american soldiers who were invovled in Abu garib (spelling?). Are you saying you wouldnt?? For military actions, unless its soldiers immorally/illegally acting on their own, it is command that deserves to take the heat not soldiers. The soldiers job is to obey and he should not be held accountable for doing so under most circumstances.

[betsy]

Ya I still think we have a moral highground over terrorists....do you disagree? I agree with most of the things Army Guy has posted here but...

Yes. Since we don't go about blowing up innocent civilians deliberately just to get the attention of, intimidate and be feared by the whole world.....and we don't deliberately use our own civilians, and any other innocent civilians as human shields.

Most powerful nations of yesteryears (and those practically same ones of today), had always shown a "moral highground".

But then, really using the word "moral" as THE main thrust of your argument is using the word quite loosely.

Because, if we really delve into morality....I'lll also argue that lefties and liberal-thinkers' definition of what is moral is relative. That is for another topic.

[betsy]

Although I think this holds generally I would argue that in cases of self-defense, defending yourself should not be considered immoral.

Again, moral by whose definition?

I see the atack on 9/11 as an act of aggression.

I see the US was only defending itself when it launched war on the terrorists! That the war had to be launched in Afghanistan...and Iraq...was just a matter of course. Since the terrorists are funded, and trained, and harbored, and bred, and recruited in those mentioned places...and we know, not necesarrily confined to those mentioned places alone.

[betsy]

The only country I have ever heard of thinking of using nuclear weapons as a first strike is the US who toyed with the idea of "tactical" nuclear strikes.

While I, too, would not want to see any countries using nuclear weapons, I am not however, too quick though to condemn the idea of a "first strike."

[betsy]

please provide information on who hasnt been condemned. Practically the entire world condemned 9/11, the "left" condemned everything about the Taliban and Saddam.

We're way past 9/11. I think the lefties and the liberal-thinkers were just in shock then.

I'm referring about Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan now.

Some Liberal leadership candidates are one proof. Obvious media coverage, is another.

Yesterday, newscaster Matheson (I think it was him on ctv newsnet) interviewed a guy (I can't remember his position) who appears to have knowledge about the Gaza incident. Of course the pre-requisite norm of the media showing the baby with a bloody face...the feelings of disbelief...abhorrence to the fact that 7 children were killed.

Translation: Oh, Israel is such a monster!

But the telling part was when Matheson asked if the people of Gaza are okay with the fact that Hamas is launching attacks on Israel right from their midst. Oh yes, said the guy....it's been known for a long time. They're okay with it. But, he was quick to add after he realized what that statement meant...that's their only way they can show their protest against Israel.

Bingo.

[Army Guy]

Bradco:

Although I think this holds generally I would argue that in cases of self-defense, defending yourself should not be considered immoral. If you have to kill armies who are attacking your country I dont consider that immoral. Again thats more of a jus ad bello argument so not all that relevant. For me the method of killing is not the issue. Wars are fought to be won and killing of soldiers is necessary to win. Its when you target civilians or do not consider levels of collateral damage when attacking that there is certainaly a distinction in levels of morality.

Yes there is a distinction in levels of morality, in peace time, when we are all craving out a living and watching the late night news...but part of warfare is destroying the will of the people as well, to drive them in forcing a peace...hence why the allieds bombed germany cities, to have thier people force thier governments in surrender or cease operations...they did this and we still do it today knowing full well it is again'st the conventions...Most nuclear wpns are targeted again'st civilian population centers...what military target could be big enough to cover a raduis of 300 kms....not many and yet 100 mega tons is standard nuk wpn....it was designed to kill populations not military targets...But the conventions state we can't target them be it for defense or offense....

It's during limited conflicts that the conventions come in to play and our own people force the adherance to them...IE to limit collateral damage when attacking etc etc...until the engagement grows and then the conventions are thrown out the window, and our people no longer care....

To sum it up, On the battle field it is kill or be killed, and conventions are either bent or dismissed, without much thought, there is no moral high ground just survival....and when you boil it all down, that is what a soldier will do survive..

All nations have broken the conventions, the carpet bombings before normandy landings moral or immoral, they knew those towns were full of peace loving frenchmen as well as germans....yet they were light up like a christmas tree...there are examples after examples...look at the destruction brought on by both sides...most towns and cities were flattened, look at any pictures and you'll see plenty of collatoral damage, not to excuse it, but it is part of war...

It all comes down to what we as a nation are willing to except, and what we expect from our soldiers...

[JerrySeinfeld]

The only country I have ever heard of thinking of using nuclear weapons as a first strike is the US who toyed with the idea of "tactical" nuclear strikes.

While I, too, would not want to see any countries using nuclear weapons, I am not however, too quick though to condemn the idea of a "first strike."

Listen. The very first step in waging unconventional war is so obvioius its right ni front of our eyes but the lefties don't understand it.

To win, you need to believe in your society.

We (lefties) are a self-loathing group. We hate our own traditions, our own beliefs, our own history.

Contrast that with Islamofascists: They are self confident, aggressive and belief they are RIGHT.

If we are to win this unconventional struggle, it starts with not being as bleeding heart, over sensitive society that apologizes for itself.

[Figleaf]

......in the case of the hamas women shields.....they took an active role in a fire fight, albeit a passive one.

They were active and passive both! That was their mistake -- inconsistency.

[betsy]

Sorry, but I just have to get back at the media again. I need to get this off my chest.

Remember the recent incident when that kid on a bike got killed by our soldiers in Afghanistan?

Oh everybody was screaming for an inquiry! How did that happen?

Our soldiers just got attacked and just had a combat on their hands at that time...and here comes this youth on a bike going towards our soldiers! It is normal to assume he could easily have been a suicide bomber with bombs strapped on his waist! Why would not any soldiers think that?

But what infuriated me was that, not one....not even one of the numerous journalists and talk show hosts I've seen on tv had asked: What kind of parents would let that kid go biking at such a time. What was that kid thinking? he was not that young, as I recall...besides, with all the things happening in Afghanistan on a regular basis, you'd think even children know well enough to duck or to take cover once the shooting starts!

The accusing eye is quick to pierce at our soldiers! Why do we make our soldiers walk on eggshells....at a time like this?

[bradco]

"While I, too, would not want to see any countries using nuclear weapons, I am not however, too quick though to condemn the idea of a "first strike."

In what instance would you justify a first strike??? Do you mean in self-defense or as an aggressive attack. In cases of self-defense do we need irrefutable evidience? If you are going to make a comment such as using a weapon like a nuclear weapon I think it is wise to explain under exactly what circumstances.

"I'lll also argue that lefties and liberal-thinkers' definition of what is moral is relative"

Confusing statement since ALL definitions of morality are relative since everyone has a different opinion on what is and isnt moral.

"I see the atack on 9/11 as an act of aggression.

I see the US was only defending itself when it launched war on the terrorists! That the war had to be launched in Afghanistan...and Iraq...was just a matter of course"

I see 9/11 as an act of agression as well like everyone else. That is why I fully supported, and still support, the war in Afghanistan. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so thats a different story. In that war it was the US and coalition forces who were the aggressors, regardless if you agree with the ends of removing Saddam.

"We're way past 9/11. I think the lefties and the liberal-thinkers were just in shock then.

I'm referring about Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan now.

Some Liberal leadership candidates are one proof. "

This statement is incredibly problematic. First of all you group lefties, liberal thinkers and Liberals all into one and assume that they believe the same things which is false. Then you group 4 entirely different conflicts into one and assume that someone ought to support all which is also false. I guess I would define myself as a small "l" liberal: I supported Israels actions for the most part in southern Lebanon and the Afghanistan conflict. Iraq I could have supported a war if it was conducted differently and justified for different reasons. Palestine....is complicated. I support the construction of a Palestinian state but condemn most of the actions taken by terrorist groups.

[bradco]

The only country I have ever heard of thinking of using nuclear weapons as a first strike is the US who toyed with the idea of "tactical" nuclear strikes.

While I, too, would not want to see any countries using nuclear weapons, I am not however, too quick though to condemn the idea of a "first strike."

Listen. The very first step in waging unconventional war is so obvioius its right ni front of our eyes but the lefties don't understand it.

To win, you need to believe in your society.

We (lefties) are a self-loathing group. We hate our own traditions, our own beliefs, our own history.

Contrast that with Islamofascists: They are self confident, aggressive and belief they are RIGHT.

If we are to win this unconventional struggle, it starts with not being as bleeding heart, over sensitive society that apologizes for itself.

This is an interesting reply. Since it was made in reply to talk about the use of nuclear weapons as a first strike I assume your in favour of such actions?? The use of such weapons is entirely against our traditions and beliefs in the west so I wonder how you can support their use while arguing that we are not then self-loathing. What kind of culture violates their own beliefs and traditions??

You talk as if you want us to be "aggressive" yet isnt that what we are trying to take away from the world? Isnt our belief that aggression is not good??

I disagree with you completely, if we are to win this unconventional struggle we must be true to our beliefs not violate them and sink to the level of the terrorists. This war isnt about territorial conquest it is about the conquest of culture. You cant have your culture win if you forfeit it in battle.

[killjoy]

The worst, ugliest most nightmarish thing about it is that there really isn't any "what to do about it".

Sure people will debate and maybe even try a few decent ideas but in the end, and we all know this at our core, the kind of extreme cult-like fanaticism of al qaeda and the students of Islam simply can't be countered. They call that a strength. You can't reason with them. They're not stupid either. They clue in to the excuses people in the west like to make for them and they work with it. It's like art imitating life or visa versa. They hear our attempts to empathize with their "view" and they go with it, but underneath it all is the undeniable volatile theme of religious dominance, to the point of global law. To many if you do not wish to convert, well then death is the best thing for you really. You should be happy.

All you can do is shake your head. The viciousness and willingness to kill of one side will, sooner or later, only equal the viciousness or willingness to kill of the other. That's not an opinion, but go ahead and argue it. It's an equation. Like oils separating from water the viciousness of one side is sooner or later matched by the other...if it gets that desperate. There is no 'smart' way to fight that kind of fanaticism.

I know it P.O's a lot of people to hear that but it's true. They want their boot on your neck. I'm truly sorry so many liars used that truth to lie, because it's true all the same. I fear we're not really going to see that in time, and really who can blame us? It's so very hard for many of us to relate to that level. So many of them just want to kill you. They think have a 1000 reasons and they only need one: salvation, Allah.

The full effect of the global industrial revolution is finally settling for good into the last reaches of the planet. This means the old power structures must cope with this tsunami, and in the case of theocracies (ish), they must play the religious hard line or surrender ground to keep power/significance (like the Church did). This will not end if we leave Afghanistan. It won't end if they leave Iraq. It's not going to stop even if Israel evaporates. It won't matter if we all drive solar cars. It won't even slow down.

I fear this has only just begun. This past 5-15 years; only prelude. In 5-10 years we may all be screaming for their blood just like them. What to do indeed.

[betsy]

In what instance would you justify a first strike??? Do you mean in self-defense or as an aggressive attack. In cases of self-defense do we need irrefutable evidience? If you are going to make a comment such as using a weapon like a nuclear weapon I think it is wise to explain under exactly what circumstances.

Btw, how can it be in self-defense if you're doing the first strike?

Okay Brad, here's the scenario:

If intelligence gave vital info that the ENEMY is launching a nuclear attack in 24 hours.

What will you do?

a) Wait and see if it is true.

Launch your attack NOW. (this is option b. I can't get rid of this icon. I didn't even choose this icon!)

c) Engage in diplomatic talk now and try to negotiate.

d) Pray that they miss.

e) _________ (you may have another answer that I couldn't think of, so fill in the blank if you do).