The Rise and Fall of the Kevlar Kids

Not all of America, Ugly Bastard. Most of us aren't evil at all. Unfortunately, some of the Americans who are evil have a little too much influence right now, so it may seem to some people that it is America herself who is evil. Hopefully we'll be able to make it right before that false impression becomes permanent, or worse yet, before it becomes accurate.

No, the buck stops with us, We the People.

America is evil. We are evil.

Truman would've accepted responsibility. I will accept responsibility.

I am a bad, bad person.

Ugly Bastard wrote: No, the buck stops with us, We the People.

I am a bad, bad person.

Talk is cheap - less than 3 cents a minute if you have the right plan. The real question is : What are you going to do about it?

Yep, I can't help thinking that if you meant that, Ugly, you wouldn't be being flip about it, you'd be writing to Congressmen.

We would never accept this happening to American children. If there's a moral difference between Iraqi children and US children, then maybe the people making policy who think that had better try and explain it, rather than as Celestina says, putting it down as collateral damage or human shields or military necessity.

When I see the images of the dead children I feel responsible. This is our military killing innocent children in our name. We are just as responsible as they are.

If this were to happen to my boy, I would become a terrorist.

rockman, your comment seems to assume that you believe that US troops have never killed a child in Iraq, but you don't make a single reference to a factual account that corroborates that claim. Do you have any facts?

Agreed. The troops aren't over there with a mission on being hellbent to blow away little kids. How about an OPTIMISTIC article (if anyone on here is even capable of that mindset), exposing the incredible things our troops are doing for the children and people of Iraq... including rebuilding hundreds of schools, hospitals, etc?

Brad Farris: rockman, your comment seems to assume that you believe that US troops have never killed a child in Iraq, but you don't make a single reference to a factual account that corroborates that claim. Do you have any facts?

First of all, you have misquoted me. Actually you failed to quote me, so I guess you completely misunderstood what I said. The article claims that US troops have INTENTIONALLY killed Iraqi children because they were between our troops and militants. I asked for some proof of that.

And no, I cannot prove a negative. Silly of you to ask.

Actually no, rockman, the article doesn't claim that. Your original comment starts out by saying

This article seems to assume that it's common knowledge that US troops knowingly kill children in Iraq...

Which is not inaccurate since it is your opinion. You go on, however, to challenge the author to prove that your opinion about what was written is true, by characterizing it as a "claim." It would be helpful if you would read the article before getting all indignant about something that was never said.

Amen, Brad Farris. Indignance comes cheap these days.

Kai wrote: How about an OPTIMISTIC article (if anyone on here is even capable of that mindset), exposing the incredible things our troops are doing for the children and people of Iraq... including rebuilding hundreds of schools, hospitals, etc?

Kai,

There are many optimistic articles out there. If you want to read one, go elsewhere and find them. This article wasn't meant to be optimistic. No point in your whining about it. The author is free to write what she wants. If you don't agree, fine.

Better yet, write one if you can.

You say -- "rebuilding hundreds of schools, hospitals, etc" Are these the same schools, hospitals, etc that we destroyed?

Reminds me of one of my grand-kids. He got into trouble at school for breaking someone else's pencil. Then he had to replace it with a new one. Should he be commended for this incredible act of stupendous generosity?

Celestina you write

Actually, what I said in the article is that our troops kill Iraqi children and then the act is justified by claiming that the "enemy" uses them as shields. I never said they delibrately attempt to kill children. And I never attempted to throw criticism at the troops on the ground.

and yet your article says this about "the men and women out there fighting it for our side":

From a more pragmatic perspective, in killing innocent children, are we stopping terrorism? If you saw your little sister's head rolling across the floor when you were eight, would you support the people who did it? Ever? No, you will grow up to hate them. You will grow up to view them in the same two-dimensional light in which they viewed your family. They aren't people, they are murderers, and you become not a person, but a terrorist.

How you can present "killing innocent children" without criticizing the very troops that are being referenced by your article is not only a delicate endeavor it is an absurdity that offends any soldier, father, and husband who can plainly read what you are calling it.

I know contrary to your post, that many of those soldiers, friends, fathers, and husbands are people, are not terrorists, and not cold blooded murderers as stories of "your little sister's head rolling across the floor" so gruesomely convey.

@ Daniel

You have no idea what absurd is until you experience it first hand.

I have long had an understanding of what is absurd, and I am certainly experiencing it first hand from many comments like this statement you made.

Who would (in their right minds) vote anyone into office who ran on the platform that killing half a million children is justifiable to meet the goals of America?
That is insane.

@ Celestina

the main jist of my article was not to attack the acts, which could be argued as accidental, but the sentiment and justification which allow them.

Let me assure you that what you now call the main gist of your article was greatly undermined in your first paragraph and I summarize.

Now I am against this war in general, but I can talk rationally about it. I can debate the rationale..., I can respect the men and women... I can discuss strategy, and even give credit to those with whom I do not agree... Until someone brings up the Kevlar Kids.

Then what? You are clear in your article about how gruesome these acts are and how they only result from murderous and terrorist actions of our men and women in uniform. Read the accompanying comments that have been generated, I am not interpreting your article any differently than so many others who have commented here.

I submit for every "fair perspective" you convey that Iraqis and those who oppose the war perceive the US as "baby-killers" in the slightly more gentle term of "innocent children killers", that there is also a much "fairer" perspective to consider beyond the tragedy of thousands of children who have died in this war (both in Iraq and the US) there are millions of children very much alive and thankful to be playing in the streets, yes in Iraq.

I challenge you to stretch your mind around the perspective of much good that our troops are doing, and it sounds like you are one who is determined to present even the unpopular perspectives fairly and equally.

From the 1st article posted above:

"An Iraqi child was killed as terrorists and multi-national forces exchanged fire in northern Iraq," the statement said.

"Terrorists used Iraqi children as shields when multi-national forces returned fire. During the engagement, the child was killed."

This means they were caught in the crossfire.. not that US forces actually took aim and shot a child on purpose.

Iraqi civilians often complain that US forces open fire indiscriminately when attacked, leading to innocent people being caught up in the crossfire.

As opposed to... them just standing idly by while being shot at? They are trained to react and control the situation instinctively, which means that if you shoot at US Forces, they are going to shoot back. The Iraqis should be complaining that insurgents are attacking the US forces in the 1st place. Blame their countrymen, not the US.

Kai, I'm not sure who you're arguing with here. The point of the article, as far as I can see, was not to claim that "US forces actually took aim and shot a child on purpose." I don't find any such claim in my reading of this article. Further, in your second point, you put forth exactly the argument which Celestina addressed, that "[w]e are perfectly justified in killing children because the enemy is hiding behind them." I believe that the important question to be answered is (quoting Celestina):

If The Enemy is evil and barbaric for using children as shields, are we less so when we blast them to pieces?

So what might be your response to that question? If we claim that a child's countrymen are barbaric for putting her (or him) in harm's way, how do we avoid the symmetric argument that we, too, are barbaric for failing to protect her (or him)?

To put it another way, imagine that a horrible, irresponsible parent left their child alone to play beside a busy highway. Now lets say that you, Kai, are hurtling down that highway, having just learned that your house is on fire, hoping to save your own child, who is asleep in the house. If you look up at the last minute and see that the child has wandered out in the road in front of your car, will you consider it to be justified for you to mow the child down? Would you be able to sleep at night if you didn't do everything in your power to avoid the child, including injuring yourself by running off the road?

If we claim the moral high ground, we must do everything we can to avoid these situations - not at the level of the individual soldier, who is thrust into the situation without choice, but certainly at the level of our military and national leaders, who are ultimately responsible for the actions of our forces.

I didn't find any proof in those links of the allegations in the article by Celestina, either. All it says is that the incidents are under investigation. Nobody even claimed that human shields were shot on purpose. The other claim, that there was a massacre, is a different matter and we shall see what the outcome of that investigation yields.

Kai, I'm not sure who you're arguing with here. The point of the article, as far as I can see, was not to claim that "US forces actually took aim and shot a child on purpose." I don't find any such claim in my reading of this article.

I was making the point that US forces DON'T have this approach to combat. The tone of the article to me was one of painting the US Military out to be baby killers.

Further, in your second point, you put forth exactly the argument which Celestina addressed, that "[w]e are perfectly justified in killing children because the enemy is hiding behind them."

I never said we're justified, but in the cold, cruel reality that is war, these things happen. Not on purpose by any means, and should be avoided if at all possible, but in the heat of battle, people will die. War by its very nature isn't perfect. We've advanced quite a bit since WWII, during which millions were killed in large scale carpet bombings of entire cities. The US Military is much more precise and accurate now, but not perfect, and shouldn't be expected to be. I guess my entire point was to stick up for the grunts on the ground doing their best to rid the world of the enemy. Crap happens and I'm sure for a fact that any children that are collateral damage will eat those soldiers up for many years to come, despite the fact that they're accidents.

Agreed, Kai, it's not the "grunts on the ground" who are primarily to blame for much of what happens in battle. That is not to say, however, that there is no blame to be laid. That's a point which is often missed - people who oppose the war (or war in general) don't blame the "grunts on the ground" for doing their job. The responsibility for putting those brave men and women into the situations in which they find themselves lies squarely on the backs of our civilian and military leadership. What can be maddening is when the position of people who "support the troops" but "oppose the war" is mischaracterized in order to misdirect focus away from the people who bear the responsibility for starting wars and toward the people who oppose them.

I can see your point, and as eloquently as you put it, I'll actually come out and say I agree. Well said.

I guess you not keeping up with the latest on chases. If you've been carefully watching TV, you should know that the new rules are to follow but not to get *too* close if there is any possibility of endangering innocents.

But if you stay tuned to the news and the real world, you would know that this sort of thing still happens all the time.

Phaedrus72 - welcome back - I haven't seen you around here in a while.

With respect, I understand your analogy, and I think that it is useful to emphasize the difficult situations which our armed forces (not to mention our police officers) find themselves in. I think, though, that if you look into it, you'll find that many police departments in the US have moderated their pursuit policies as a result of exactly the types of situation which you describe. A lot of factors are taken into account when the decision to continue a pursuit or to break it off is taken, including the nature of the crime which the person being pursued is suspected of, whether or not innocent people will be further endangered, etc. Indeed, these policies are put in place by department administrators precisely to prevent police officers from being forced to make such difficult decisions "in the heat of the moment."

So, I guess I'd just want to say that you've certainly made a good analogy, but the situation is somewhat more complex than it might appear, both in law enforcement and in battle.

I agree but I think the analogy holds because in battle we are not talking about shop lifters, we are talking about terrorists. If anyone watches the show cops there are still plenty of car chases and everyday innocent people are killed because of them. My point is that it is not the cop's fault but the criminal's fault.

I haven't been on here too much lately for several reasons. I have been busy getting ready to go to truck driver training school starting May 1st at the local community college and because I grew tired of all the senseless partisan bickering. I have also noticed a lot of people around here have quited down in the past couple of weeks. Is the newness of newsvine wearing off for some of us?

Such is life. When things get old, they get less desirable, unless it's wine. This is from my limited perspective of 77 years in this world.

Why are you starting on May 1? Is it because May 1 happens to be International Workers's Day?

International worker's day sounds like some kind of socialist thing. No, May 1st is just when the school starts.

They need to know we will do everything in our power to not kill civilians.

As opposed to the insurgents who are killing scores of innocent children and civilians. US troops are NOT killing children indiscriminately or on purpose. Of course it probably happens, it is war. But when it happens it is an accident. The insurgent terrorists on the other hand do not care who they kill, they are animals and no we should NOT be trying to make friends with them. That is the problem with liberal ideology. You guys think that all we have to do is make friends with the world and all will be well and good. This is the most naive thinking there is. There ARE bad people in this world, Celestina, I hate to break that news to you, but there are, and there are people who want nothing more than for the US to be destroyed. Making friends with them is not an option. Once again, as usual, you are an idealist, whereas as I'm a realist. I believe there IS such a thing as evil in this world. Liberals don't. I wonder how you feel about the subject of evil?!

With regards to what Phaedrus72 mentioned...

It's as if I was actually hearing it from Bill O'Reilly himself. Nice quotes.

Do you actually think people (not terrorists, insurgents, and/or animals as you put it) in other countries (not just Iraq, we are in other countries as well) have no rhyme or reason behind their doings?

Let's drop the analogies and get right to it. If someone killed your child because they thought s/he was a terrorist -- for what ever cause they happen to be fighting for -- wouldn't you be upset? No matter if they were actually aiming for you or if they had the wrong house -- or even better -- they in your eyes WERE WRONG TO BEGIN WITH. It is all about perception -- not about who is actually right or wrong.

And BTW, we do things in this "war" that definitely do make more enemies everyday. To name a few: torture and cluster bombs in populated areas -- both against the Geneva Convention agreements that we signed. These combined with killing children, blowing up Moscs, and waving the American flag in an nation which we, in the eyes of many, unjustly conquered -- doOd, we are definitely winning brownie points here. You need to stop thinking about just the people in Iraq. If history has taught us anything, it is that people, especially in this day and age, see attrocities across borders and oceans. But, that is exactly what this administration fails to realize -- being realists you see.

Another nice article Celestina. Good work.

As opposed to the insurgents who are killing scores of innocent children and civilians.

I think when most people use this argument, they think it's making U.S. troups look really good. Wrong. The "what we do is morally justifiable because what they are doing is so much worse" argument is a huge fallacy.

I think my philosophy professor said it well. If you go out and steal a loaf of bread, that is morally wrong. If you go out and steal a loaf of bread because you are starving to death, it's still morally wrong. Are you going to starve to death because stealing that bread is wrong? Of course not. But that doesn't mean that you can call stealing it morally right.

Even though the actions of the troups in Iraq may be argued to be unavoidable on one side, morally reprehensible on the other, and a combination of both in the middle, it doesn't mean that we can't still say that the action of killing those kids was morally wrong. That also doesn't mean that the US troups in Iraq are immoral.

I think that's what Celestina is driving at here. Just because we recognize the immorality of killing these children, doesn't mean painting the soldier who found himself in that unfortunate situation as a monster. We judge the soldier as we judge the starving man stealing a loaf of bread. A fundamentally good person, put in a situation where they were made to commit and immoral act. The necessity may be arguable, but I have a feeling that may be difficult to do from our armchairs.

but I have a feeling that may be difficult to do from our armchairs.

Exactly, all of these armchair diplomats really amaze me, especially seeing as the vast majority of them have never been a soldier themselves and have abolutely no idea of what they are talking about. I am so sick and tired of all the negativity thrown around newsvine about everything the US does. It's almost turned into a contest of sorts to see which liberal can be the most negative. I guess the most negative gets to feel more caring or something or other. This is the real reason I haven't been on newsvine as much as of late. I can't stand the negativity. All you guys do is wallow in your own misery and you want others to wallow in it as well. Well I refuse. I'm through with newsvine and this time I'm not kidding. I don't have the time or energy to have to continuously combat negativity and endless tripe and I dont have the time, energy or inclination to have to constantly explain to liberals why the world works the way it does. Maybe if the world was a perfect place, everything could be as you seem to want it. Unfortunatly the world is not a perfect place and the sooner you realize that fact the better off you will be.

Celestina, as far as name calling, I wasn't aware that the term idealist was a pejorative. It defintitely was not meant that way, but I have noticed those on the left here on newsvine, overly sensitive. I merely noticed that you and others are idealists, in that you wish for a perfect world. If you took offense to that, then I suggest you do some soul searching, because I was never taught in school that idealism was a nasty word. Naive, yes, but name calling, no. Goodbye, all. One less realist conservative here to prevent you guys from wallowing in your own self pity and misery.

Calvin, I tried to be civil, I really did, but I just can't take it anymore. Feel free to delete my account if the newsvine staff finds it in their best interests to do so. Newsvine is not about debate at all. It has turned into a no holds barred, bash everything US, negative, miserable place to be. It is grating on my sanity, and I choose not to associate with negative armchair diplomats.

It's almost turned into a contest of sorts to see which liberal can be the most negative. I guess the most negative gets to feel more caring or something or other.

Phaedrus, I think you have touched on a very real phenomenon. While I could not articulate the feeling as you have, I have been posting numerous articles to try to infuse humor, influence the overwhelming sense of pessimism, and encourage the escape from wallowing in misery, self-hatred and criticism that will get us nothing but short unpleasant life-spans.

There are no conservatives that I know of that rejoice at the death of children, and the constant wallowing in misery without some redemptive actions will certainly add to the tragedy. Let's move on.

Phaedrus,

So what will you do.. find a more conservative forum where you can "preach to the choir?" If you leave, you concede defeat. I'm not trying to be mean, but perhaps you need to develop a thicker skin. I know I have. Almost everyone on Newsvine has felt offended at one time or another, liberal, conservative or independent. You did receive votes for your comments and even a star or two, so someone was listening to you and agreeing. Don't focus on the negative.

Correct Walt. Let's not leave because we disagree, we have learned something from the perspectives of others, let's simply move away from topics that stir up such strong feelings of hatred and negativism that they can truly be harmful.

Before I posted a comment to this and another thread this morning, my positive feedback was above 98%, now it is just above 96%. I am afraid the negativity goes well beyond the commentary, and takes square aim at individuals for their opinions. Perhaps the pessimists prefer an amen choir to the honest expression of differing beliefs.

I am afraid that I may not be far behind you Phaedrus72.

We're supposedly all here to learn and "get smarter." We can do that by listening to the people we are debating with, researching our opinions and those of our opponents, keeping an open mind, and working off the assumption that we don't know everything. A person who thinks this way:

...I dont have the time, energy or inclination to have to constantly explain to liberals why the world works the way it does.

...One less realist conservative here to prevent you guys from wallowing in your own self pity and misery...

has nothing to learn from anyone.

Maybe I will take some of your advice Calvin. It is not the differing views that I take exception to. Of course, I understant that in any kind of forum there is going to be differing opinions on everything. That is to be expected and welcomed. What I am finding increasingly hard to tolerate is the constant negativity. Just look at the front page and count all the articles and seeds saying in effect Bush sux, American sux, Americans are evil baby killers and the like. It's really as if there is a contest going on to see who can be the most negative and who hates Bush the most. "I really hate Bush" "Oh yea, well I REALLY REALLY hate bush" "Oh yea, well American troops are baby killers." "Oh yea, well Bush is an idiot." "Oh yea, well Bush orchestrated 9/11" "Oh yea, well Cheney shot a man in the face on purpose and he was drunk too." This is what newsvine is turning into and I'm here to say that it is not productive, in the least. As I said, it is a bunch of miserable people wallowing in their own self pity, self doubt and misery. I probably won't leave altogether, I'm just gonna have to not get into these political discussions. But it is hard because when people denigrate the country that I love and my American family, then it is just as if they were denigrating my own family. Who could stay silent if someone was attacking their family? So I'm really confused as to what I should do. Any advice would be appreciated Calvin.

Every family has problems. If someone said my family was all alcoholics I'd agree with them because it's true. If they said we should clean up our act I'd agree. Saying "you're messing up and you should be better than that" doesn't seem like an attack to me, it seems like constructive criticism. If there's a true problem in American conduct I don't get defensive about, I accept that that's the way it is and that we probably could and should do better in the future. There have been serious problems with the way this war, and particularly this peace, have been waged that have led to unnecessary deaths and unnecessary anger against America. I believe one of Celestina's points is that it is strategically unsound to go after say two insurgents in a building that's filled with civilians if getting the insurgents means that you anger five people enough that they become insurgents themselves. If that's what our policies are doing, they are digging us into a hole.

I was a contractor at the State Department during the buildup to this war, and can't express the complete frustration the people there felt with being unable to get any of their plans for post-war iraq in front of the Pentagon brass. Similarly almost a decade of continuously revised invasion plans for Iraq drawn up by the Pentagon itself were ignored by the Secretary of Defense. I'm not saying these things because I hate anybody or hate America. I'm saying them because the leadership should be doing a better job. They should particularly be doing a better job of listening to their own experts.

Phaedrus72,

Actually there is a reason why you see so much "negativity" - it's more to do with "sensationalism" rather than negativity per se. If there's one thing that watching TV or reading news in the US has taught me, it is this:

Sensationalism sells.

It can be really good like some of the top rated news programs or it can be really bad like Jerry Springer. Given that it's hard to be really good, it's easier to be bad. Face it - Newsvine is not exactly teeming with future Pulitzer prize winners. So, what's the next best alternative - to write up some sensational stuff that will get the buzz going on Newsvine. In most cases, in the pursuit of sensationalism, we fall prey to writing stuff that falls into the "negative" category. (Negativity depends on the perception of the reader.)

Nota Bene: I'm not saying this particular article is good or bad. But, overall, sensationalism abounds. For example, take a look at today's top seeds:

* Boot Camp reveals that OSX is slower than Windows * The Worst President in History? * Machiavelli personality test: How Evil Are You? * A buffoon named Rush Limbaugh * Palestine Chooses Wrong Side * Pulitzer Winner: Bill Clinton Decimated the CIA * Race: The Power of an Illusion

At least 4 of the 7 can be said to be "negative" depending on your outlook. Regardless, most of us will agree that they are sensationalistic. No wonder it gets people to take a look and then once they are in, draw them in with more stuff that will either rub them the wrong way as hard as it can or get billions of happy molecules floating in their system. Generally, it's easier to get people riled up than to make them feel good. So, one thing leads to another and before you know, voila!

As for this particular article, I thought the heading was pretty good - not sensationalistic (thumbs up to Celestina) yet good enough to make you want to look at the article. This is in stark contrast to the others such as "worst president in history" or "Clinton decimated the CIA". Just by reading some of the headings you know what kind of people/votes/comments to expect.

Is there a solution to ameliorating this situation? I don't know. I can think of using some kind of a tag - "S!" - to indicate that the article is "sensationalistic". Meaning, people would vote for it being sensationalistic and by looking at their count of S!, you can decide whether to read it or not.

So... the fact that he is a muslim makes this his quote more accurate than anyone elses...?

Sigh... I knew I would get this comment when I wrote that. On second thought, I should have left that out as it distracts from the point.

Actually, Mr. Harari prefaces his speech by saying his family has lived in the Middle East for centuries - that would probably give him a slightly more accurate take than most Americans I should have included that instead. Sorry.

I don't know the context of Harari's quote, but are you seriously using it to justify collateral murder? What is the difference between blowing yourself up in a public place and dropping bombs on a restaurant to "take out a high profile target"? They are both acts committed by people who have lost their souls.

I saw a picture of a dead Iraqi man with a little girl on his back in the streets of Falujah. I find myself speculating about the man always coming home with a smile for his precious daughter... or the trust she had that her dad would keep her safe. There was no water, no place to hide. I don't know whose bullet drilled through them or if someone mistook the girl as ammunition. It doesn't matter. "Shoot anything that moves. I don't care if it's a grandmother." So said Patton for what most consider a just war. What law or provocation justified this one? This tree has poisoned roots.

That would make a difference - however, I have to ask; how long did he live in the Middle East?

Your premise is that in order to defeat terrorism, we must become terrorists. This is an absurdity. If our troops are simply fighting for survival (their own, and arguably, ours), then they are just another gang fighting in a gang war, with no more moral authority than a warlord in Somalia. I think we're better than that, that our troops should be defending not just American lives, but American principles. One of those principles is that we don't kill innocents, not even to save ourselves.

I don't know the context of Harari's quote, but are you seriously using it to justify collateral murder?

Your premise is that in order to defeat terrorism, we must become terrorists.

Good Lord. How did you guys infer this from the above comment? Let me state in words you cannot misconstrue: The killing of civilians is not morally defensible. It is a tragedy. The fact that most Americans feel this way is seen as an exploitable weakness by insurgents. Now which of these statements would you like to debate (as opposed to addressing points I never made and would never make)?

Gold Rust, as this speech given to a group of scientists in the Middle East, I assume he's there now. I could be wrong...

"It is trying to play ice hockey by sending a ballerina ice-skater into the rink or to knock out a heavyweight boxer by a chess player."

Actually, chess boxing is a real sport which can be won by a boxing KO, or by checkmate.

One thing you learn in chess and in boxing is don't play your opponent's game. If you do you've lost. The choices laid out in this little speech are either/or - either you shoot the man always surrounded by children or you let him go. There are always different approaches to the problem.

Actually, chess boxing is a real sport which can be won by a boxing KO, or by checkmate

This may very well be the coolest thing I have ever seen. I think I'm going to cry. Thanks, Brian!

Actually I agree with most of your points here, Djehuty. The Vietnam comparison is accurate in the respect that we are fighting where we are unwanted by a large segment of the people and the enemy blends in very easily with the civilian population. Add to that the fact that an AK-47 is as common a household appliance as a TV in Iraq and you have a recipe for a lot of collateral damage. My point was that the insurgents are well aware of this fact and are more than happy to exploit it. They are also aware of the fact that it is American policy to avoid civilian casualties if possible. They are willing to go to a level that (hopefully) we are not and they see our unwillingness to do so as weakness. BTW, I also agree with the bulk of Celestina's article. I absolutely believe we need to take the moral high ground. The question is how to do that and remain effective militarily. Iraq is without a doubt the worst mess we have been in since Vietnam. I would like to hear less defending/accusing of our troops and more constructive discourse on what to do from here.

Yes, you're right. Perhaps the only real difference between our points of view is that I see it as "that strategy is not going to work and it's morally indefensible... so lets rule it out and find another strategy." whereas (if you'll forgive me putting words in your mouth) your approach might be "this strategy is not working so lets make the best of it while we try to find other solutions or improve it." Is that a fair assessment?

What to do from here is pretty clear: get out of Iraq. The current rationale for staying is that, without US troops, Iraq will fall into civil war and chaos. Assuming for the sake of argument that our presence really can prevent such a war (a questionable assumption), we have two choices. Leave, and let the resulting chaos run its course without us, or stay until...? Well, until somehow our military presence permanently stabilizes the Iraqi political landscape. The former Yugoslavia is an instructive example here. Yugoslavia was held together by a series of strong authoritarian rulers for 60 years; once Tito died in 1980, the largely artificial nation fell apart. Are we willing to stay in Iraq as an authoritarian regime indefinitely?

There are simply some situations that military intervention can do nothing to improve. Thanks to our ill-advised invasion, Iraq is now one of these situations. Cut our losses and recall our troops, their mission to oust Saddam Hussein is complete.

Djehuty,

That's close, but I also believe the killing of civilians is not morally defensible. In fact I used your words in a comment above. I do find it hard to believe that killing children is a military strategy. As for "making the best of it", I believe we have to change tactics now. Unfortunately the people at the top of the chain of command have a very poor record in this department.

vannevarWhat to do from here is pretty clear: get out of Iraq.

I would tend to agree with you except for one thing: We broke it, we bought it. One point I see brought up over and over by Iraqi civilians is the fact that we are the reason the insurgents are there and we do little to protect the public from them. The civilian casualties we see now are nothing compared to what's going to happen if we drop our weapons and leave. Don't we have some moral responsibility to the people we have put in harm's way? We should never have invaded Iraq the way we did, but having done so, do we not have the duty to attempt to stabilize the area (tall order) before we leave? Of course, the current administrations myopic policies are going to prevent this from occurring. I fear that what will eventually happen will be similar to the fall of Saigon, to use Djehuty's Vietnam analogy again.

Thanks, Walt - I guess we are pretty close on this issue.

It would be worth an article/discussion about "if we wanted to leave how would we do it?" I think.

I would hope our foreign policy would be based on surer ground than 'we broke it, we bought it'. We liberated the Iraqis from a cruel dictator; their fate now, whether we stay or not, is in their own hands. Just as the Vietnam war was merely the latest round in a centuries-old conflict, so it is with Iraq. And like Vietnam, we can waste more years and more lives only to end up with the same result, or we can exercise some free will and leave now.

I think you're being a little unfair, James, because you're representing a few sentences of Celestina's piece as if it were her whole argument. Before these sentences she provides a whole class of casualties which she is not talking about, including those killed in error, those killed because they were combatants, and so on. She narrows it down to those children in their homes who were killed by US troops invading those homes. She questions the morality of this, not by arguing about the right or wrong of "insurgent leaders" being in those homes [just by the way, it's always "leaders" the US says it's going after, but it's sometimes house by house searches (which would be called "home invasions" in the west) of a whole neighbourhood...], because that's a separate point - her argument is that given that the people we're after are in their or someone else's homes, should we be going in after them in this way?

Then you take issue with

From a more pragmatic perspective, in killing innocent children, are we stopping terrorism?

Which is a statement which assumes that the justification for actions which lead to the deaths of these children is that we are stopping terrorism. Not an unreasonable thing to assume given the statements of a whole bunch of politicians. But mostly the military either doesn't talk about the deaths (therefore simply doesn't have to justify them) or mentions them as casualties in the arrest or killing of another insurgent leader. I saw an Australian TV news report recently where the reporter said (I think it was SBS Dateline) the morgue had been forbidden from releasing Iraqi casualty figures but he was permitted to look over the shoulder of the guy at the morgue as he scrolled down his computer screen past over a thousand names. In the face of this sort of thing we're left with assuming motives and justification.

Your point that some youths are insurgents is completely valid. I would argue that the best way to prevent youths joining the bad guys is to show that we're the good guys instead of breaking into their houses and killing their parents, but at least lets have a discussion about the whys and wherefores of that - after accepting Celestina's point that killing children is not an acceptable byproduct of our strategy.

Djehuty,

The problem is that the argument is presented as if that is the situation that occurs when we are placed in that scenario; we shoot through human shields. However, it's not encompassing all aspects of what might lead to the issue of children being killed. For example, as I mentioned, something like the 15 year old killed in Saddam's sons' house (which you mention is a valid point). That should be inclusive in the analysis of questioning the justification of shooting children.

But the human shield aspect of children involved in combat may be on the outside presented as the argument, but the argument of the issue must involve all possible aspects of children being involved in that situation. Take, for example, the opening paragraph of the article:

Thousands of children have died in Iraq. No one denies this. Of course, there is a war going on over there. Everyone knows people die in a war, sometimes even civilians. Some of these deaths were accidents, where our military acted rashly and just plain made a mistake. Some of these deaths were just kids in the wrong place at the wrong time, who got caught up in the crossfire. But some of them were "enemy combatants".

The presentation that we acted "rashly", or wrong place, wrong time. But to then connect the human shield concept is taking one type of death, and applying it more broadly. The conclusion of the article leads me to believe so:

This is the United States. We are innovative, powerful, and pervasive. We can afford to wait a little while. We can afford to have a conscience. We can afford to make choices that are morally superior to our "enemies". In saying we had no choice but to kill the children, we become terrorists ourselves.

Maybe she indeed meant only to apply it to that specific situation, but the side notes seem to connect all deaths. Inadvertently or not, it seems like a straw man.

James, your point about straw man arguments is well taken. However, we needn't parse the original article like lawyers to get the gist of the argument being made. Thousands of innocent people, including children, have been and continue to be killed by our troops in Iraq. Even if you buy the notion that it is morally acceptable to risk killing innocents in the name of US security (which I do not), you are still left to explain how this is contributing in any meaningful way to US security. We are alienating our allies, and providing terrorist organizations around the world with priceless recruiting material and credibility.

Your post implies that children die in Iraq because they are insurgents themselves, or because 'someone' puts them in a dangerous situation out of malice. But simply being in your family's home is not an inherently dangerous situation, even if your family members are criminals. What makes it dangerous is that someone attacks the house with reckless disregard as to whether innocents are inside, in the ironic belief that it's morally acceptable to risk killing innocent people in order to prevent the killing of other innocent people.

The hidden assumption that makes this seemingly contradictory belief palatable to otherwise rational people is that 'their' innocent people are worth less than 'our' innocent people. According to this ghoulish arithmetic, apparently one WTC victim is worth 10 or more Iraqi victims.

Your post implies that children die in Iraq because they are insurgents themselves, or because 'someone' puts them in a dangerous situation out of malice. But simply being in your family's home is not an inherently dangerous situation, even if your family members are criminals.

I disagree. If your family members are violent criminals, the home is an inherently dangerous environment. That is not only applicable in American society, but also in most societies on the earth.

The hidden assumption that makes this seemingly contradictory belief palatable to otherwise rational people is that 'their' innocent people are worth less than 'our' innocent people. According to this ghoulish arithmetic, apparently one WTC victim is worth 10 or more Iraqi victims.

In a war zone, there is always a difference in the value of all human life. Whether it is right that different value gets assigned is a different argument entirely. But it is the fact of the matter. Civilians caught in a war zone, unfortuneately, receive less value-added worth than those, say, in the states. Dresden? Tokyo? London? While it was absolutely terrible people died then, value of life was different. The most famous battle of World War 2? Suprisingly, Pearl Harbor is most likely right beside D-Day. Even though there were thousands of other conflicts in World War 2, and many conflicts that took more lives, different value was assigned to those at Pearl Harbor because of the nature of the attack - a surprise attack. All human life, to most humans, is variable in value, not static.

James I think vannevar covered most of what I'd say, so I won't go further in to this, except to take a little issue with:

If your family members are violent criminals, the home is an inherently dangerous environment.

Not so much because the statement is wrong, although I think it is, but because it is part of the sort of black and white, you're with us or you're a terrorist type thinking which I've got a problem with. Most of the insurgents are not, in their eyes, violent criminals. I'm sure they each think of themselves as fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people against foreign occupation, or of defending their religion against a Christian crusade, or as defending their clan, tribe, sect or whatever against the US / other clan / evil Shiite collaborators or whatever, you name it. I'm not saying this is justified or correct thinking, but it would be a stretch to say that these people are violent toward their own children or that they recklessly endanger them. What they probably think is "sh*t it's not safe for the kids here in Baghdad, what with the militias, the killings, the evil Shiite collaborators, the Christian crusade against muslims, and the foreign occupation.... I wish I had somewhere safer for the kids to go, but what can we do except try and keep a low profile here in our house."

Djehuty wrote:

Not so much because the statement is wrong, although I think it is, but because it is part of the sort of black and white, you're with us or you're a terrorist type thinking which I've got a problem with. Most of the insurgents are not, in their eyes, violent criminals.

But any criminologist will tell you (my bachelors was in Criminal Justice) that a violent offender has more of a chance of having a household prone to attacks/violence/etc. I'm not talking about them deserving what besets their house, but it is a combat between them, the civilians they target now, and the forces attempting to stop them (Iraqi army, police, coalition forces). Their attacks on civilians cause a response. They could indeed focus on targeting military and police, but they've lost that main focus. Now it's a war against civilians they have engaged in, and in order to stop them, they put their families at risk because they involve themselves with violent groups (and become de facto violent themselves).

but it would be a stretch to say that these people are violent toward their own children or that they recklessly endanger them.

I never even hinted at the first part (them being violent towards their children), it was never a part of my argument. For the second part, they do, since their attacks demand a law enforcement and/or military response, depending on the situation. For if no response were given, there'd be no deterrent effect. Without a deterrent event, it is easier for a person to engage in the activites, and the cycle continues. This is was is breeded by anarchy, a lack of a code of laws. Look at that village that just burned to suspected kidnappers alive. They thought no law enforcement existed, so they became anarchy in the village.

James

But any criminologist will tell you (my bachelors was in Criminal Justice) that a violent offender has more of a chance of having a household prone to attacks/violence/etc.

I know this argument you're making sounds crazy - clearly when you say the sentence above you're leaving out the idea that the attacks/violence/etc are exactly what we're saying we shouldn't take part in - but actually you have a point. First let's clear up a red herring: I misunderstood you when I interpreted what you said to mean violence within the home. But as far as "they bring it on themselves" - you're right. The moral position from the point of view of an Iraqi who takes up arms against the occupation is that he has endangered his family, because he knows that the US forces may one day break down his door and come in firing.

That issue does not relate to the moral responsibility of the US, however. At the point where they decide to break down the door when they know innocents may be involved, they take risks with innocent lives. It's like a speeding driver with a child in the back seat. No police force in the civilized world would engage in a high speed chase in such a situation, they would follow, wait, and not make the situation more dangerous, or else they would share responsibility for the death of the child if there were an accident.

Oops, sorry, I hadn't read (until now) the part of this comment thread dealing with police procedures in the west.

James, I'm not certain it's appropriate to compare the actions, motives and family situation of a violent criminal with one of the insurgents in Iraq. I think most of the people we think of as violent criminals in the US -- in the layman's mind, rather than the criminlogist's -- are involved in their crime for some kind of personal, material (or pharmaceutical) gain. I think that any personal or material gain that might be experienced by the insurgents in Iraq are most likely not the primary motivations of their actions, but possible long-term effects of their actions. For the most part, the insurgents are committing their violent acts out of national loyalty, tribal loyalty, or sectarian rivalry, or even grief-driven revenge. Can you really compare the family situation of this person with the violent criminal?

Can you really compare the family situation of this person with the violent criminal?

Absolutely, yes.

Because by several means of measurement, both groups are indeed deviants. Deviance is the reason criminology and criminal justice systems exist.

But, at what point do they stop being deviants and start being part of the mainstream? Is defending your home and your country by guerrilla tactics a deviant act? When we were in Vietnam, for example, huge numbers of regular civilians -- farmers, peasants, schoolkids, and grandfathers -- were throwing bombs and holding guns and planting mines, both in the South and in the North. Were they all deviants? The guys who strap the bombs across their chests and blow themselves up -- yeah, there's something very wrong with their minds. And we're probably not targeting his house because he's in little pieces in the market, not at home. But the guy who plants an IED along a route traveled by the enemy's tanks? Why is he a deviant?

But, at what point do they stop being deviants and start being part of the mainstream?

Depending on who's definition of deviance you use, but in general, they start becoming part of the mainstream when they follow the law of the land. Those who disregard the law of the land are deviants; those who disregard the law of the land and hurt or kill people without due regard are violent deviants.

When we were in Vietnam, for example, huge numbers of regular civilians -- farmers, peasants, schoolkids, and grandfathers -- were throwing bombs and holding guns and planting mines, both in the South and in the North. Were they all deviants?

If the people throwing rocks were organized and flourished in an environment where this was not the exception to the rule, but the rule, then no they were no deviants. They were citizens-turned-soldiers. But that was because of the de facto lack of rules that applied to them. In Iraq, it's different, as explained below.

The guys who strap the bombs across their chests and blow themselves up -- yeah, there's something very wrong with their minds. And we're probably not targeting his house because he's in little pieces in the market, not at home. But the guy who plants an IED along a route traveled by the enemy's tanks? Why is he a deviant?

Because the guy planting an IED is willing to disregard the law of the country, and the regulations imposed by their curfew, to plant a device that kills people. There is deterrence to this act as well, and he blatently ignores that deterrence. The deterrence is that anyone caught on the road after 10:00pm risks getting a .50BMG to the head. Ignore that, ignore the rules of society, and you are a deviant. Risk other's lives, you are a violent deviant.

Re Laws of the country, James: In criminal justice terms you're right saying a deviant is someone who breaks the law. I'm not saying it is or isn't the case in Iraq, but there are definitely cases where the moral thing to do is to break the law, however. Remember Thoreau, visited when he was in prison by a jurist friend who said "I'm very disappointed to see you in there" and he replied "I'm very disappointed to see you out there." I think Nuremburg had it right to punish people for following some laws.

I think that part of the problem may be the word "deviant." It may have a particular definition in criminal justice studies, but it is more frequently used in a context where it carries the connotation of "psychological damage" or "sociopathy." Those psychological definitions may apply to a subset of criminals, but its usage in conversation with laymen to refer to all criminals can't help but provoke a great deal of resistance. Is everyone who drives faster than 55mph in the US a "deviant"?

Even if we're not using it to mean psychological damage, applying the term sociologically to such a changeable property as "the law" seems to be lacking in utility. It is tarring an individual with a value-carrying label based on a infinitely mutable condition. Take this scenario for instance: On January 15, 1920, I go down to my local bar and have a drink of whiskey as I've done every night for 10 years. I am not a deviant. On January 16, Prohibition goes into effect, so that night, I go down to the bar which is now a speakeasy and I have my whiskey, and continue to do so every night. I am now a deviant. On December 6, 1933, the day after Prohibition ended, I go down to my local bar, which was a speakeasy and I have my whiskey. I am not a deviant. I've done nothing different that entire time. My actions have been consistent, yet the law has changed. To apply the property of deviance -- which definition contains an "action" of motion -- to the non-changing, non-acting element in this scenario is to make the word meaningless.

Finally, basing the assignment of "deviance" on arbitrary laws made by political bodies is purely morally relativistic, a description generally used as an insult in our society. We can wind up asserting that if a law decrees so, adherence to what is considered an absolute moral -- moral behavior is generally considered "good" -- can be tagged with a word -- deviant -- which connotes negative judgment and thereby defines the "good" action as "bad." This construction, which negates the moral action, indicates then, that adherence to the law is the ultimate moral good.

I don't buy that and I don't believe you would either. Because if that is the case, then all the Iraqi Parliament has to do is pass a law saying that it is every citizen's responsibility to drive the American occupiers out by any means necessary, thereby removing your only posited defense of US actions in attacking targets where children may become "collateral damage."

I think that part of the problem may be the word "deviant." It may have a particular definition in criminal justice studies, but it is more frequently used in a context where it carries the connotation of "psychological damage" or "sociopathy." Those psychological definitions may apply to a subset of criminals, but its usage in conversation with laymen to refer to all criminals can't help but provoke a great deal of resistance. Is everyone who drives faster than 55mph in the US a "deviant"?

They commit deviant acts, yes. If they consistently commit deviant acts, then they deviantly disobey minor laws. Those who disobey felonies (part 1 offenses), are seriously deviance in the sense that they violate our most serious and precious standards and laws. Deviance has a general defintion, but in it's breakdown, is seperate for how serious the laws are that people deviate from.

Finally, basing the assignment of "deviance" on arbitrary laws made by political bodies is purely morally relativistic, a description generally used as an insult in our society.

While I personally don't mind calling myself morally relativistic, I don't see deviance as a definition being relativistic. It is what society deems right and wrong. Consistently do things that are wrong according to society, that person is committing deviant acts and is a deviant.

I don't buy that and I don't believe you would either. Because if that is the case, then all the Iraqi Parliament has to do is pass a law saying that it is every citizen's responsibility to drive the American occupiers out by any means necessary, thereby removing your only posited defense of US actions in attacking targets where children may become "collateral damage."

And if they passed that law, then the insurgents would no longer be deviants. They would de facto be enforcing the law of Iraq. Because through their elected representatives, they chose to dictate the right and wrong of society. We can change the basic right and wrong of an act even for the most sacred of protections - the Constitution. If right and wrong were not meant to change, we wouldn't be able to amend the Constitution - but we can.

Iraq doesn't pass a law like you described because the society of Iraq still sees American forces as helpers, when it comes down to it. They have chances to elect representatives who would tell us to leave, but they didn't. The deviants are those who ignore this same democratic process and kill Americans and Iraqis alike, almost indescriminately.

Very well said, DBS.

I agree. Think about the difference in the cost of weaponry being applied here. When we use modern guided explosives to target enemies we are spending far more than 10 times what it would cost to just carpet bomb with more simple devices. It is a vote by dollar amount for the security of those not being targeted, and the dollar amount is so substantial that it can't be ignored by saying that they must not care at all who they are killing.

Nice thoughts, but let's see some action. So, when are you going to Iraq? Or are you going to let the others do it for you and vicariously redeem yourself?

Just noticed that 4 other people voted you up. Just wondering if they are also part of the "vicarious redemption" brigade? How many of them will go to Iraq to help make it safe and prosperous?

Talk is so cheap. Can't even put a price on it. Easy to say things that make you look good, but in the end, it doesn't matter one #$%&*&@ if you don't act on it.

What could be more evil? Doing it again.

Cassandra,

A few comments on your comment:

1. Why is it easy to bomb a whole house in order to take out one insurgent leader?

--- That might stem from the American way of life. We like to do things wholesale and not retail. Why go mom-and-pop why you can go to the friendly neighborhood super-mega-market? As many things in as little time. It might also be so as to avoid scenarios like in some of the Hollywood movies that you see where someone has to travel back in time to get rid of someone that will cause a lot of harm in the future which is actually the present. (a la Terminator). So, by eliminating some of the other house members, we might actually be getting rid of future insurgents. That's what they might be thinking.

2. Nobody needs guts to declare war.

The one who does the declaration does not have to fight it. You can always declare war and then go make yourself secure in some "undisclosed location" because the people will need their leaders tomorrow.

This is unlike back in history where you were the king, you declared war, and you lead from the front, like Alexander of Sparta or Genghis Khan. American technology is so advanced that you can have a nuclear bomb dropped by pressing a big red button or if you're unlucky enough to have to be in the battlefield yourself, you still have the luxury of releasing a bomb with the press of a button while sitting in the comfort of your cockpit 5000 feet above.

Bottom line, you don't need guts to declare a war. You just need to be sure that you know which button to press and that you can find your way to the "undisclosed destination" even if the electricity goes out.