The Few, The Proud, The Murderers

[northamericancitizen]

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article13408.htm

First paragraph: -- "Of course the first line of defense, for those craven enough to defend atrocities just because Americans commit them, is to say that Iraqis do worse. And in fact the U.S. military, after lying about the massacre of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha last year, then lying about the number of Iraqis killed, then covering up the massacre until a Time magazine article made it impossible to keep lying, attempted that very line of defense: As Time reported in March, “Lieut. Colonel Michelle Martin-Hing, spokeswoman for the Multi-National Force-Iraq, told Time the involvement of does not mean that a crime occurred. And she says the fault for the civilian deaths lies squarely with the insurgents, who ‘placed noncombatants in the line of fire as the Marines responded to defend themselves.’” All lies, of course. There were no insurgents hiding among civilians. There was no crossfire. The Marines weren’t defending themselves. They were out on a rampage, murdering at point-blank leisure, lodging bullets in the heads of women and children, My Lai-style."

[jbnow]

1. I agree with the paragraph

but not the subject line.

Not all Marines did this or would do it, just sounds really bad put as "The Few, The Proud, The Murderers" I know it is their line, not yours.

[acmejack]

2. Tristam wields a mighty broad brush!

To smear hundreds of thousands of honorable men and women who served their Country with great pride is simply incorrect. I take great exception to Tristam's headline, while the unit in question did commit atrocities and war in and of itself is undoubtedly the ultimate atrocity, I refuse to accept that all participants are murderers. In fact the massacre came to the attention of the authorities through the efforts of a member of the unit which was involved.

[stopbush]

4. Broad brush smears are a fact of life in the world these days.

For some reason, our military seems to be given a free pass in this respect. But there will come a time
when Americans will have to acknowledge that our military isn't just a bunch of "kids" who are
"doing the job they were ordered to do." Believe me, I doubt that the people of the country we illegally
invaded view our soldiers as such.

As one who lived through the Vietnam era, I can tell you that the atrocities that were revealed at My Lai
had a great impact on the nation's view of the military. There comes a point where all of the talk of
our "heroes" morphs into "chumps" for mindless and unquestioned devotion to evil policies and, yes,
"murderers" for carrying out those same policies. Torture and murder may be currently sanctioned at the
highest level of our shameful government, but that in no way abrogates the moral imperative that each
of us as human beings holds within ourselves to disobey policies - or even orders - that would have us violate
our morals.

The military is a team that is only as strong as its weakest members. These murdering Marines (let's call them
what they are) disgrace the military. Tristam's smear is a minor offense compared to the DISGRACE these
Marines have brought upon themselves, our military and our country.

Either our country matures to the point where we completely stop painting groups with broad strokes
(ie: illegal immigrants, Democrats, Republicans, red necks, Hollywood elite...pick your poison) based on the
actions of a minority, or we take groups like the military off the "do not touch" list and go after them with
the same lack of understanding as we do everybody else.

[acmejack]

5. As a veteran who served during the Vietnam era

I am well acquainted with the My Lai incident. You are welcome to make the assumptions that you wish, as you obviously have already. It is very easy for one to pass judgment while sitting in the comfort and safety of their lazy boy recliner, it is another matter entirely when you experience that obscenity of combat first hand. You might be a little less quick to damn anybody's actions under those conditions, perhaps not, but who can say for sure?

But we will never know though, will we?

[stopbush]

6. As a veteran, you know that even war has its rules.

Throughout history, those who violate the rules of war have often been (not always) held to account.
Atrocities happen in every war, but it does our military nor our country any good to engage in
atrocities just because eveyone else does so.

As far as passing judgment - said judgment is informed by the promises made to the citizenry
by our government when our nation became signatory to the Geneva Conventions. Article 6 of
the Constitution is unequivocal in stating that ANY foreign treaties we enter into become the law
of the land. Contrary to how bushco may try to parse the law, actions such as those that happened
at My Lai and have now apparently occurred in Iraq are clearly against the law of the land and the punishment
remedies for breaking such law is quite clear.

No, I have never been in combat nor directly witnessed its horrors. But one need not be in the room when combat
goes wrong and soldiers decide that they have become a law unto themselves to know the difference between right
and wrong. Not every soldier when faced with the obscenity of war chooses to step over the line. History is replete
with the stories of those who paid the price of their lives defending the greater good of NOT stepping over the line.

The law is not there to inform the better angels among us. It is there to provide a baseline of acceptable behavior
for those whose morals are not as lofty as the angels. The Nuremberg trials ended the notion that soldiers of any stripe
can be excused for atrocities because they were "just following orders."

We undermine our own credibility and cede the moral high ground to think that we are above the very laws that we were
instrumental in instituting.

I thank you for your service to our country...and for providing an on-the-ground counter to opinions held by those like myself who
did not serve in uniform.

[northamericancitizen]

8. Everything is in the intention. ( the blind path toward a specific goal.)

Thank you for your sincere reply.

I posted the original article many hours ago.
I don't even remember exactly when. I have been awake for too long.

Today and in general.

War is the most evil human ...human what?
Behavior? Instinct? Rationalism?


____________________________________________________________________
Coming back to your inspiring post, you wrote:

" Not every soldier when faced with the obscenity of war chooses to step over the line. History is replete with the stories of those who paid the price of their lives defending the greater good of NOT stepping over the line.
The law is not there to inform the better angels among us. It is there to provide a baseline of acceptable behavior for those whose morals are not as lofty as the angels."

Do you really believe that it can stop a soldier to go too far on the dark side?

I don't.

I deeply believe that even thou those laws were created to prevent more atrocities in a war situation, they are not acting as deterrent because War is not normal life. The parameters are all askew. The unacceptable living conditions become the norm and then : Who remembers the laws?

Those laws are efficient after the fact. To punish those who lost their sense of humanity.

I never was and probably never will be on the front lines as a combatant.

So please be indulgent as I try to understand more about the behavior of individuals stocked in a hellish situation.


Lets take a group of 15 soldiers.

The weak characters, when confronted with intolerable pain,( and its not important if its coming from their side or the enemy side) will feel lost, and try everything to get rid of that overwhelming emotion.

Too much is too much.. so they say...and they will instinctively lower their human moral standard, and embraced the next acceptable code : the Forces.


Consequently, Most (9) will follow blindly their leader ( the official one or the natural one) and from that point on, their actions will have no weight on their conscience cause they silenced it. The responsibility now lies on the Other one.


The ones left (6) are sitting at both extremes, with their pain more acute than "most " cause they have a stronger sense of self. (It doesn't matter if their self image is real or just illusions.) Among those few, half or more will keep their humanity and get closer to the angels while some of their comrades will numb their pain by taking pleasure in hurting the "enemy" and/or any individuals representing that enemy.

Does it make sense?

nac

[northamericancitizen]

7. Your post is quite troubling...eom

[northamericancitizen]

3. I am sorry that I posted this without reading it carefully.

My apologies.

nac