Morality In Warfare

Remove all ads!

I'm not using the unjust war arguement. I am saying that the tactics have to suit the objective. If the objective is to win over the Iraqi people, then the tactics have to be geared in that direction; if the objective is just to kill the enemy and bring the army back home then the tactics of winning should be just that. Hope that makes more sense.

 

So? Fighting a war is no longer about honour. You don't hand your opponent a sword if they drop theirs, or in modern context, you don't change your tactics to give the opposition more of a fighting chance.

In an ideal world, sure. But unfortunatly we're not dealing with situations that make this type of action possible. In a combat situation, when your life is at stake, you take the least risky option for yourselves and your comrades.

Takes too much time and the insurgents would be too spread out (they have an entire city to hide in). Not to mention, many would protest against such action, viewing tactics like that as barbaric.

In this case the tactics are to remove the insurgents. These people can't be negotiated with and they continue to strike at any system of order that has been established. It's a little difficult to get a people to like you when there is no order. Many Iraqis want to be safe, knowing no car bombs are going to kill them if they just want to go grocery shopping.

 

You still don't get it mate.

All I'm saying is, kill the insurgents, but don't destroy the mosques. If they can't do that, I will obviously be unhappy, but that IS all I'm trying to say.

I believe that the US forces in Iraq are good enough at what they do to deal with the insurgents without causing such damage to the mosques in Iraq. If they fail to see the relevance or importance of these buildings to us, as you seem to, then of course, its a lost cause to argue about.

 

And there are situations where they can't kill the insurgents without destroying the mosques or at least damaing the mosques. Unless the US can develop some kind of Fallout-esque 'power armor' then you can't just waltz on into a mosque and kill the insurgents.

 

I give up...

 

As crude as this is, I think the issue here is of cost (human and otherwise) and benefit. Unfortunately, it's not an open-and-shut assessment since you're dealing with qualitative variables (sorry, just finished a stats and statements analysis). Which is worth more: the lives you save today by destroying a building, or the lives you may save later by taking a more sensitive approach? And how do you tell the other group they're lower on the list?

@ TGS: I think the issue is a bit broader than just how to win the immediate fight. Sure, if that was all there was to the matter, then by all means blow the mosque/temple/monastery/historical site to pieces. A cost-benefit analysis of that action might indicate that down the line, it will cost a hell of a lot more lives, and I don't blame military personnel for doing what it takes to go home alive - in that situation, I'd tell anyone who suggested otherwise to lead by example. I put unpalatable situations like this on the commanders-in-chief: you don't start a war without a plan for re-establishing peace, no matter the reason why you're involved. If you don't plan how you're going to do it, you're not going to be able to make it up on the fly - a good reason to be reluctant to go to war, as you are.

@ Chevalier: Rape isn't just a "tax" applied to POWs and non-combatants caught up in a war. Sometimes rape becomes a weapon of genocide in and of itself - something which compounds the crime and makes it even more heinous. Some of the things in Kosovo, Bosnia and parts of Africa have followed this pattern.

 

I have learned a lot from reading this thread. If Faraaz is correct and the only thing that matters is the mosque, then the U.S. is handling this entire ordeal incorrectly. The smart move would be to use neutron bombs and wipe out the entire population. If done correctly we probably wouldn't even damage the windows.

The insurgents in Iraq are crazy. The U.S. has no desire to stay in Iraq. If they really wanted us out of there the easiest and quickest way for it to happen would be to stop fighting. Once the fighting stopped and a government was elected to govern the nation we would be out of there in weeks. Instead, we see religious leaders (I have to remember that Islam is a religion of peace) basically inciting violence to increase their own personal power and influence. The fact that the Iraqi people can't figure this out bothers me.

 

Even if the US would leave Iraq would still be controlled by a puppet regime. I doubt the current US regime has any interest in seeing anyone they dont like winning an Iraqi election in the near future. The only way for the insurgents to get the US to *really* leave is to fight, not that I think it will be overly succesful or really in their own best interest. Say Bush declares himself dictator for life next year and he get the support of the army and that then the rest of the world unites in removing Bush and we say the succeed. Would you not fight their occupation and look at the people they put in power with suspicioun even if you are happy that Bush is gone?

 

That is absurd. I stand by my original post. The American people are tolerant of us being in Iraq because we consider it foolish to leave a country in chaos. If the chaos went away so would we. The American people have no interest in turning Iraq into a Vassal. I know all the "neo-con fearing paranoids" think that, but the citizens will not tolerate the problems and costs of turning Iraq into the 51st state.

Once again, If the chaos goes away, we would be out as fast as we could ferry the troops home.

 

There seems to be a preponderance of war historians here, but not many modern warriors. I doubt many here have read any of the military "Order of Battle" documents issued in the past ten to twenty years (let alone one from Iraq).

In general guidelines say the same things, follow the Geneva convention, minimize collateral damage, do not endanger civilians, etc.. Many of the attrocities listed here are a violation of that. I, for one, have never believed everything on the news -- too often the news is extremely slanted (I believe this is especially the case about Iraq). Not all casualties have been inflicted by US troups -- I would believe most civilian casualties have been inflicted by the insurgents (they have obviously shown no regard for civilians in their bombing campaigns). The very individuals saying they are protecting religious treasures are, in fact, promoting their destruction in an effort to start a holy war. And, once again, the US will help to rebuild, the insurgants only want to destroy.

For those interested in the warfare codes of terrorist, you should find and read "The Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla" by Carlos the Jackel. It may give a little insight into the minds of those insurgents fighting in Iraq.

 

TGS: But what about the aims of the US to turn Iraq into a democratic state? Surely they'll stay longer than "the chaos" in order to establish their goals?

 

I don't believe the chaos will end until there is a functioning government. You are correct in that a 100% U.S. pullout isn't realistic in the short term. However, if the violence stopped it wouldn't surprise me to see a 50-75% reduction in troops/personnell with-in 6 months. As a matter of fact if it happened today I'm sure we would get as many of the troops home for X-Mas as we could. We love that kind of crap.

 

@TGS: Well...there ARE other things that are important as well, such as the mistreatment of the people in all those incidents we hear about, like rapes and killings and sexual abuse and whatnot, but to my understanding, they are one-off incidents.

I've heard of a lot worse in my time, especially in the conflicts between India and Pakistan, Israel and Palestine, etc.

The main point, as far as this particular discussion goes, is that the US made a grave error in destroying those mosques, because they have thoroughly alienated Muslims wordlwide.

We might have been sympathetic, seeing as they are trying to setup a democractic government in Iraq (who's independence of American influence is suspect, but nothing can really be done about that at this point ) but they managed to do the one thing which will alienate all Muslims globally, and unequivocally.

 

I thought that the majority of Muslims were peace-loving people who value equality and humanity. Yet when extremists from the fringe of their religion desecrate their holy places by using them as bases to launch attacks that kill other humans (of course they are infidels, so not quite as human in the view of some), their anger is directed at those who destroy the mosque, rather than those who desecrated it and caused its destruction.

I am not sure that I will ever understand the mindset of the Muslim community.

 

Don't knock it till you've tried it.

Well, Islam places a lot of importance in our places of worship...which might seem strange, because we don't really have any kind of idols or relics in our mosques, by and large, to signify the presence of God etc, like statues of Jesus Christ in churches, or various idols in Hindu temples.

But they are very offensive. And trust me, if you think we don't feel angry about the insurgents, you're mistaken. As hard as it may be for you to believe it, we Muslims are as apalled by 9/11 and by the Islamic fundamentalists who are giving our community a bad name, as the next guy. Atleast, all the Muslims I know, and myself personally are.

But, you have to admit, since 9/11, the States has done pretty much everything it can to offend, alienate and oppress the Muslim community based on the actions of "extremists from the fringe of their religion", which is why there is increasing anger and hostility towards the US and any/all anti-Islamic actions we learn about.

Hence, unless you've been the object of malignation (sp??) and vilification of the US and all its allies for the last 3 years, I doubt you ever will understand the mindset of the Muslim community.

Edit: I missed the bit where you said...

I hope you're not implying what I think you are implying, because from what I have seen of my fellow Muslims, I am proud that so far, they have not resorted to what you are accusing us of, though we could very well have assumed what you are saying after Abu Ghraib and the plethora of similar incidents which followed.

I doubt I'll be able to understand your mindset, mate.

[ November 16, 2004, 15:17: Message edited by: Faraaz ]

 

This is strange. I actually find myself ... agreeing with Darkwolf. I suppose there's a first time for everything.

I'm not going to keep repeating the same thing I and numerous others have been saying. Perhaps Faraaz can help me to understand something that I just don't get. If the roles were reversed and a church was destroyed in the U.S., I don't think the entire Christian population would feel alienated. We might feel bad that the church was destroyed, but the level of outrage that you describe the Muslim community feels towards the destruction of mosques simply wouldn't be there.

It almost seems that the Muslim community reacts with the same sense of outrage towards a mosque as Americans did to the twin towers, and I don't see why. Perhaps it's just because I'm not particularly religious. Then again, I know many people who are very religious, and I don't think I'd use the terms "alienation" or "outrage" to describe how they would react towards a destroyed church.

If any Christians were outraged by the destruction of the church it would be because they attended that church. But that's not what is being described here. You're saying Muslims at large would have this reaction, even if it was a mosque in a different country, that they have never seen, and quite possibly never even heard of. To me, that just seems.... odd.

 

Even if you are not religious think of the historical (and religious) value attatched to ancient mosques. In Ireland we have lots of pagan alters, stone formations,megaliths, rock and stone carvings and people would feel annoyed if US marines or anyone else destroyed them because they do not apreciate the historical beauty of them. Most people in Ireland are not pagans but they still love our pieces of artwork.

I remember a row broke out a few years ago because an American girl was sitting in a (now dried out) healing well in Ballylouchlin smoking and throwning her butts to the ground. That was a great disrespect to the country and people.

 

@Aldeth: Like I've already said, its hard to explain...but I'll give it another go...just for you...

Well...its like this, you have immense respect, love, fear of God etc etc. Mosques are viewed as the one place on Earth Muslims can go to, to pray and have a direct contact with God or Allah. Now, you can of course pray in your home, or wherever you are, and that is the same...but it is just ingrained in our culture to attach a level of...shall we say 'reverence' to Mosques??

Anyway...there is that, and destroying them seems to Muslims like the US is spitting in the face of all that Islam holds sacred and good and holy. Kinda like the discrimination anyone named Mohammed, or Ahmed would experience when trying to get through Immigration and Customs at any US airport.

And yes, I can see how it would seem odd to you, if you contrast them to Churches at a similar level of importance...but in Islam, Mosques are a lot more than that, and it is a lot less tolerant of insults to the dignity of Islam.

I hope that helped? I really don't know how to describe gut feelings in words and analogies, in terms which you might find easier to understand.

 

Ah, the voice of reason! Well done, Aldeth, I am in complete agreement here.

Faraaz, as far as I understand your view of the recent events (just based on your post above, I'm in no way a profound adept of faraaism ) you say that some muslims you despise attacked the USA on 9/11 and that the USA dared to react. Over-react, yes, but react nonetheless. From then on the USA made many mistakes.

So, today, the muslim community is rightfully angered and hostile towards America. And this is, mind you, not because the USA were invading each and every muslim state or mosque conveniently available but rather because of their invasion and subsequent warfare in Iraq. A people you have little if anything in common with. Apart from being muslim, that is.

Apart from being compassionate - what really is a good thing -, may I ask what is driving you? And what exactly is wrong with Darwolf's assumption that there are extremist muslims that don't value the lives of those they regard as infidels?

 

I cannot argue with the fact that historically the US has meddled in the Middle East to the detriment of all, but to insinuate that we have adopted a policy to persecute Muslims is WAY over the line . There are isolated instances of abuses and bigoted actions, but those are not limited to one side. The Muslim community in the US is generally accepted, and with an exception of a small time frame after 9/11, there is no more violence toward the Muslim community and their places of worship than their are against Jews, Catholics or Protestants. Can you make the same claim for the Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon, Egypt, or any other predominately Muslim nation?

You state that the US is out to oppress the Muslim religion. This is quite offensive, and patently not true as if we had wanted this we would simply have bombed every mosque in Iraq in the first wave of attacks. We have not declared a "Holy War" in fact or deed.

Even after the 9/11 attack we still didn't single out Muslims. In the airports the random searches could easily have been directed at a specific profile, but it wasn't, everyone is subject to random search, I know, I have been subjected to the random searchs 2 of the 3 times I have flown since 9/11, and no one would mistake me for being Middle Eastern, I don't fit the profile of a terrorist.

In fact, if anyone is persecuting it can be argued that it is the Muslims. Why is it that almost every major military conflict currently ongoing has one common thread...one side is Muslim? To answer my own question, I guess it depends which side you are on. If you are Muslim I suppose it looks like you are being oppressed and persecuted, and if you are on one of the other side it looks like the militant arm of Islam is trying to expand its reach by force.