Do the troops have the unalienable right to defend themselves

[tgnyc]

at all costs?

I think not.

It seems that when you invade another nation and overthrow its government, your #1 priority from that moment forward should be to protect the citizenry of the nation you invaded.

#1. Not #2, after protecting yourself. #1!

In light of that, the typical explanation given when U.S. troops gun down Iraqi civilians at checkpoints or on open roads -- it was an accident, we're in a war zone, and the troops have to defend themselves -- is illegitimate.

The people the troops have to defend are not themselves; they are the Iraqis. That means the U.S's shoot-anybody-that-gets-too-close stance is flat out wrong. The proper stance is that the U.S. troops have to give all Iraqis the benefit of the doubt, even if that puts THEIR OWN LIVES AT RISK. That means no shooting at cars just because they are approaching the checkpoint faster than you feel comfortable with, or because they are driving closer to your Humvee than you feel comfortable with. Yeah, that sucks and is scary and is dangerous, but guess what? War sucks, is scary, and is dangerous. Deal with it. Or better: think about it next time before you decide to overthrow another country's government.

One of the many reasons this Iraqi War is bound to be a failure for the U.S. is that our troops consider their own lives more important than the lives of those they are allegedly "liberating."

Any junior high schooler can tell you that that's a recipe for resentment. And as long as the Iraqi people resent the U.S., the war is a failure.

[Spider Jerusalem]

1. Well, the problem is that they've made a total balls-up of the occupation.

At least, in part. The US military could've benefited from emulating our British allies (who for the most part treat Iraqi civilians in their sector as human beings, instead of as potential targets).

Instead, the US have made a botch of it, from the top of the command chain (where the real responsibility lies) to the bottom.

[wtmusic]

25. And it's interesting to note

that British troops have not been, to a large part, exposed to the suicide bombings the US has.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

2. so...making yourself a target

by promising not to shoot until AFTER the suicide bomber has blown himself and 50 people to smithereens makes sense? How the hell is that protecting ANYONE? You're not even protecting Iraqis that way...

The best way to avoid a conflict of that nature is to not be there in the first place...

SubjectProdigal

[Sparkman]

13. Civil War exists now in Iraq, the new paradigm. We ruined the country.

Now that the U.S. military arm of the neocon junta has "settled in" in it's aquisition of Iraqi Oil & some 17 permanent bases there, I can't understand how can anyone justify any soldier's actions. Only the naivete of the appologists for this "aquisitor" phase of the U.S. empire argue the minutia surrounding the horrendous conflicts we have imposed upon Iraqis. What can we say about their failure to lay down and submit to U.S. bombing of their neighborhoods is, well , what would YOU characterise it?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

19. i would characterize it as

soldiers in a position that they did not ask to be in having to defend themselves from people who are willing to die to take out as many civilian and military as possible...a near impossible feat.

Should we be there in our current capacity? Probably not. But to suggest that soldiers not defend themselves is just horseshit. I don't expect the Iraqis and others to not fight...we would fight like mad here... but people will not NOT defend themselves. And given the penchant for blowing themselves up, the insurgents have created a necessity for what some refer to as active defense (that would be the shoot first and don't ask questions later model).

SubjectProdigal

[Sparkman]

26. The Ghandi Caste really got it right, 300 yrs of Brits, bloodless ouster!

That was a class act.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

28. well, the insurgents aren't exactly practising sit-ins

now are they? It would probably work better toward removing us from their lands than the method they are using now...

SubjectProdigal

[wtmusic]

31. So if everyone in Iraq just sat down and sang "Kumbaya"

and let us relieve them of their oil, we'd be out of there sooner?

[Sparkman]

39. Consider this, with NO violence from The Occupied, the Occupiers look evil

and the bare faced "democratisation and freedom" line gets exposed with little rebuttle possible. In theory, the empire would look like the Brits in 1940-something, when they were shamed out of India.
Non violent principles are difficult to intelectualize until they are applied with commitment and comformity, because of an accumulation effect of the aggressors crimes. In theory, at some point, only the most mercenary war profiteers would persist in occupation, killing and theft of the invadeds' resources.

[wtmusic]

40. By the 1940's the British occupation of India was over 300 years old

The Bush administration would be ecstatic with "non-violent principles" being practiced by the Iraqis:

1) The myth of democracy could be perpetuated while their oil was being plundered

2) Military would be freed for other exploits (Syria?) to keep the machine running

3) Halliburton/Bechtel etc would be in seventh heaven with fat contracts and little risk to their employees.

4) Labor shortage? If the Iraqis strike, we bring in Mexicans.

Maybe non-violent means are effective against a four-century occupation, but in this case the oil will be far gone by then. The Iraqis have the right to defend themselves and defend themselves agressively against a foreign invasion. That's what they're doing.

[Sparkman]

42. well this discussion went well. lunchtime here.

[Bucky]

3. The army has very specific rules of engagement.

Sadly, those rules are not always followed, nor when violated always enforced. This is another reason, or rather the central reason, why you want to avoid vanity wars. War is always a terrible thing. Sometimes it's unavoidable. Iraq is not an example of that, however.

[Sparkman]

14. Iraq is beyon unavoidable, PNAC prooves its "aquisitor" phase of U.S.

foreign policy. My only curiosity at this late stage in Iraq, since that attrocity is well along, is what stage is the U.S. in it's empirical era? The duration of the 17+ permanent U.S. bases in Iraq beyond the 2009 presidency shift will tell a lot.

[Bucky]

17. What I said was "Iraq is NOT an example" of an unavoidable war

That's why I called it a vanity war.

[Sparkman]

23. exactly, and i just mention that beyond that, Iraq is a long planned war.

The U.S. NEEDs permanent war, on Communism, Socialism (Nazis), on non-corporate drugs, on terrorism foreign, and now on domestic terrorism.
The criminalisation of the poor here at home has long been a social scientists disipline. It's great when a R.O.T.M. Republican aparatchik blurts out the trite talking points of the empire, like, "Muslim foreign nationals are doing all the terrorism in Iraq".
Does Debate 101 advise:Get your opponent on the defensive early & often? Just a guess.

[LisaL]

4. I think they go by saying-

might has all the rights.

[bryant69]

5. I don't know

I think that points to the immorality of the war in general - but I don't know if the changes you suggest are practical or even possible.

What would you say to the soldiers "Sorry, you guys are screwed, but if an Iraqi seems to be taking hostile action towards you, just let him. Until he actually attacks (by which point it's too late)."

I would agree that our soldiers are not trained properly; they do not see themselves as part of a community, but as totally seperate from it.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[SouthernDem2004]

6. You are certainly entitled to your opinion..... /nt

[BIG Sean]

7. Sorry, but I completely disagree with your arguments...

Hi,

The troops have put their lives at risk by simply being there. You talk about a car approaching the checkpoint faster than a soldier feels comfortable with as if these men and women (soldiers, marines) should just stand there and let themselves, and everyone around them, get blown up.

"One of the many reasons this Iraqi War is bound to be a failure for the U.S. is that our troops consider their own lives more important than the lives of those they are allegedly "liberating.""

Huh? OF COURSE!!!!

[wtmusic]

24. Too bad, Sean

They get blown up. We're in their country. "Faster than a soldier feels comfortable" gives them the right to take out a family?

This kind of attitude is exactly why we will lose the war.

[BIG Sean]

29. Give them the right?...No

Hi,

Nobody has the 'right' to kill a whole family. Just like we as a country didn't have the right to attack them in the first place.

However, I know that if I was there, and I was working some check point, and a car came rushing at us and didn't answer to a command to stop...well, I would defend myself.

Face it, most people in the military, that are of the rank that they are working some check point in Iraq, are there for economic reasons (no jobs in there town, .etc), they are not 'warriors' looking to wipe out a family.

[wtmusic]

30. The circumstances have changed

"A car came rushing at us and didn't answer a command to stop" is a bit different than a car moving "faster than the soldier feels comfortable".

Of course everyone has the right to defend themselves. But the burden should be on our troops to be sure that they are being attacked first. A big part of the problem is preparation--many of the checkpoints still aren't marked as clearly as they should be.

Right now we are far too cavalier about killing innocent civilians. It's racist and it's disgusting. There was a time when soldiers put honor above their own lives. If a soldier isn't willing to do that, they shouldn't be in combat.

btw welcome to DU

:bounce: :toast: :bounce:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Soldiers are killers, not protectors.

That's what they're trained to do. That's why they carry guns. That's why they're in Iraq.

[tgnyc]

9. The point isn't to wait until the bomb is detonated,

but there must be middle ground between that and the actions we read about like these from today's LA Times:

Three men in an unmarked sedan pulled up near the headquarters of the national police major crimes unit. The two passengers, wearing traditional Arab dishdasha gowns, stepped from the car.

At the same moment, a U.S. military convoy emerged from an underpass. Apparently believing the men were staging an ambush, the Americans fired, killing one passenger and wounding the other. The sedan's driver was hit in the head by two bullet fragments.
(...)
the driver of the car was no ordinary casualty. He was Iraqi police Brig. Gen. Majeed Farraji, chief of the major crimes unit. His passengers were unarmed hitchhikers whom he was dropping off on his way to work.

And the attitude expressed here by a U.S. "contractor":

"I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by six,"

are cute and sound intuitive, but are disasterous in a war in which your mandate is not to try to conquer the people of the country you invaded, but instead to win their support and trust.

[quisp]

10. You never were in the military, were you?

while you are entitled to your opinion your logic is completely wrongheaded.

[tgnyc]

11. I was never in the military. But

I think I know enough about the roles of the military to agree with this person, quoted in today's LA Times:

According to one European diplomat, the American military's emphasis on protecting its troops has made U.S. soldiers more likely to kill and injure civilians than are other members of the coalition, such as the British, who are stationed in southern Iraq.

"The U.S. has force protection as their No. 1 priority," said the diplomat, who asked not to be identified because his remarks did not have his government's prior approval.

"The British have it as a priority, but not by any stretch the absolute priority. I think that makes the U.S. soldiers more jumpy."

[Sparkman]

16. Please elaborate, maybe with an anecdote or two?

[kiki]

12. The "Casualty Tolerance Index"

A few years ago, during the sane, pre-9/11 era, I read about something called the "Casualty Tolerance Index". This was the number of lost lives that members of the public thought was acceptable to achieve certain goals - bring democracy to China, stabilize the Middle East, etc. The French scored very highly... the lowest scores, of course, came from the US. American citizens generally seemed to think, to a greater extent than other countries, that there was a certain level of loss of life above which the ends were not worth the means. Put simply, they didn't want "our boys" dying for other people's problems. The culture of individualism in the US was so strong, that there were cases of soldiers wanting to sue the army for being injured... being in the army was just a job, and one that shouldn't entail any more risk than any other job.

I don't know for sure, but I don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that the figures for the US have risen dramatically in the post-9/11 world. I suppose we should be impressed that the W administration has managed to create such selfless bloodlust in the American people.

But, these soldiers are children of the "me" generation, and the culture of individualism is still strong. So it seems that in many cases, notions of "duty" and "sacrifice" have transformed into a new doctrine wherein one has a "duty" to protect one's own ass (and those of your buddies) - and may "sacrifice" any foreign innocents that get in the way of this objective.

[Sparkman]

15. Self preservation is much easier if the enemy is sub-human. Cluster bombs

and permanent Depleted Uranium munitions proove the mindset of the military planners. The empirical drive to gather foreign resources and establish outposts has long proven disasterous for south Americans, Africans, and say the Japanese.

[wtmusic]

22. Why the CTI is meaningless

Back to the future, again.

This whole subject was an issue during Vietnam (for a moment). "The number of lost lives that members of the public thought was acceptable to achieve certain goals"? It all boils down to this: most people think invading other nations for arcane reasons is wonderful until their brother comes home in a bag.

After that happened 55,000 times in 'Nam, the "public" decided it wasn't such a good idea after all.

[Fescue4u]

18. One ALWAYS has the right to self defense

ALWAYS.

[Sparkman]

32. I prefer to hail the RIGHT TO AWOL YOUR ASS OUT OF A S-HOLE.

[Fescue4u]

35. english please

This is an English speaking site if you don't mind.

I'm sure that you are desperate trying to insult me, but I don't understand what you are trying to say.

[Sparkman]

38. I've never been accused of mincing insults, twice. AND this was no insult

I prefer to uphold those, in this Iraq/Afghanistan war scene, who upon finding themselves up to their waste in alligators, opt a stage left exit, via the time tested tactic of going AWOL.
So I prefer to HAIL those souls who say enough of this, and tell their comrades and their "superiors", take this war and shove it.
If some want to stay, fine, do your thing, but I didn't sign up for this duty 'cause it's all changed around on me, and book a flight to awol city.
Whatever one says about the brave hangers on is fine. But who's gonna support the deserter, damn few of us. Count me one of those.

[wtmusic]

41. More are

http://freecamilo.org/

[tuckessee]

33. Even while committing a flagrant crime? n/t

[Fescue4u]

36. thats an interesting question and a good point

I think that the right of self preservation is still an inalienable one though. The right of self preservation is just that and doesnt NECESARRILY extend to harming someone else (i.e. you can always put your hand up to stop a blow, but whether you are enttiled to return that blow is not nearly as settled)

The right to live is one's most basic right and even if the law ignores it sometimes, that doesnt mean that it does not exist.

Of course if you are harming someone (say in a flagrant crime), the other person ALSO has the right of self defense and to do what they must to stop you.

[wtmusic]

20. Agree 100%

Shoot first, ask questions later? I don't think so. We're in their country. Their lives come before ours. Period.

[JHBowden]

21. Rights have nothing to do with it.

If I was over there, I'd rather be safe than sorry.

I suspect most people are the same way.

[wtmusic]

27. Rights do have something to do with it

and morals, and ethics. That's why there are "Rules of Engagement". That's why we don't just nuke the place (that would be safest of all, wouldn't it?)

[tgnyc]

34. If you'd just launched the violent overthrow of another country's

government, what would make you think you could reasonably expect to be "safe?"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. They should also have the right to stand trial when they murder.

Even if the claim is "self-defense".