Tell the Europeans in crystal-clear language that the United States intends to strike preemptively clerical Iran's nuclear-related facilities unless they insist to the Iranians that Western inspectors must be allowed immediate free access to any challenged site in Iran.
This is not a viable option. Iran has lied continously with respect to their nuclear facilities and operations. Inspecting whatever portion of them they choose to reveal is not just self-delusional but outright foolishness. The only sure way of interdicting Iran's aspirations for a clerical nuclear bomb is to physically demolish all traces of their network. Preferrably while exterminating a large portion of their proliferation-oriented staff as well.
What a preemptive attack would certainly do is provoke another debate about the competence of a ruling clergy who led the nation into a head-on collision with the United States. Khamenei and Rafsanjani, and the Revolutionary Guard Corps behind them, would not look so clever or so unchallengeably strong the day after U.S. missiles and planes destroyed the nuclear facilities. The clerical regime might well try to retaliate against the United States clandestinely. It rose to power in large measure on deceit and a willingness to use intimidation, ruthless violence, and terrorism against its opponents (which is, of course, why you don't want them to have a nuke).
This is the bottom line and little else matters.
The only responsible rejoinder here is to threaten your enemy with massive retaliation, aimed directly at the world he cherishes, and especially at the military and security-and-intelligence structures that guarantee his survival. If we want to stop Iran's terrorist-supporting clerics from getting nukes, we have to be prepared to stare them down.
Only when Iran's mullahs are staring down the barrel of American military guns will this ever happen.
Yet as of now, the initiative contains no coercive measures for encouraging dictators and kings to loosen their grips on their societies. In the State Department's view, this evolution is all supposed to happen voluntarily.
Don't bet the farm on it. There is absolutely nothing to indicate such change will come from within.
If the president's counterterrorist democracy project makes sense in the Middle East--and it is certain that this president believes passionately that it does (a good example of a man who knows virtually nothing about the Middle East knowing more than many "realist" foreign-service and intelligence officials who've dedicated their lives to the region)--then his administration needs to prove that the Broader Middle East Initiative is more than just ideological window dressing. It should attach pro-democracy conditionalities to American aid.
Hit 'em in the pocketbook. American taxpayers deserve better accountability for how their tax dollars are cast upon overseas waters.
And no American government post-9/11 is going to force the democratically elected government of Israel to move it, not before the Palestinian people have proven beyond doubt that they have gone cold-turkey on terrorism. It is in fact the "Wall," not Arafat's death, that is the real catalyst for change among West Bank Palestinians.
If the Arab world continues to use the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a stalling point, then implosion of the corrupt Palestinian system is a priority. Arafat's dead-end political strategy must be laid open for the self-defeating and power-grabbing methodology that it has always been.
From The New York Times, an opinion article by Thomas J. Raleigh, a retired Army lieutenant colonel.
Ooh Rahh! Kill them all and let their god sort them out.
This is one of many disturbing comments (in this case from someone who identifies himself as a Marine named Clay) that have appeared in an online petition that will eventually be sent to Congress in support of the Marine involved in last month's shooting of a wounded insurgent in a Fallujah mosque.
Many who signed this petition (more than 340,000) are, I'm sure, reasonable people concerned about a military man in a tough situation. But sadly, there are also those -- like the author of the sentiments above -- who believe that the deviousness of our enemies would justify us in abandoning our values and principles on the battlefield. This is a dangerous view, for both moral and practical reasons.
Clay's comment, and others like it, prompted me to recall the advice I once heard from a battalion commander I served under nearly 20 years ago. Lt. Col. James S. Gribshaw Jr., a highly decorated Vietnam veteran, was known among those in his platoon as "The Magnet" -- a reference to the peculiar attraction his body seemed to hold for shrapnel. One day in 1987, he and I were observing a training exercise at Fort Lewis, Wash.: a platoon setting an ambush. It was a textbook operation, save for one glitch. After the assault, when the prisoner-search team returned to the kill zone, a soldier shot a wounded enemy role-player, calling him an "[expletive] gook."
Gribshaw was to lead the discussion reviewing the lessons learned from the exercise. I expected him to focus on the sound tactics the platoon demonstrated during the operation. He didn't. Instead he said some things that have stuck with me to this day. I'm reconstructing his talk here from memory, but I'd vouch for its being about 95 percent correct:
A soldier in this platoon shot a wounded man today. You cannot do that.
You will find yourself in combat someday. And then you are going to go home, where you will have to live with what you have done -- to accomplish your mission, to stay alive, to keep your buddy alive.
When you assault across a kill zone, you do so violently; if you hesitate, you die. However, later, during the search -- different story. If an enemy soldier is wounded, you can't kill him. If the tactical situation does not permit you to evacuate him, do what you can to relieve his suffering, and continue the mission.
Your enemy is a combatant, a human being. He is not a "gook" or a "slope." If you dehumanize your enemy, you will dehumanize yourself, and you will do things that you will regret. And you won't go home with honor. We made a mistake today. That's why we train. Learn from this. Questions?
.... Every soldier, at some point in his career, hears similar advice. Sometimes it comes from someone like Jim Gribshaw, who faced an enemy that -- not unlike the insurgents in Iraq -- intimidated civilians, booby-trapped corpses and engaged in other practices that were beyond internationally recognized rules of war. Abu Ghraib aside, U.S. soldiers in Iraq have consistently demonstrated that they fight with honor and with due restraint. As a nation we can accept nothing less, because an army in the field derives its moral authority as much from the values and principles of the nation that sent it to fight as it does from the conduct of each soldier. .... should we abandon our values and allow ourselves to be overcome by hatred because of our revulsion against those who kill children, or office workers, or a woman working to alleviate suffering, such as Margaret Hassan, we risk losing our own humanity and undermine the moral authority of our troops overseas. And we risk losing this war. Don't take my word on this -- ask Jim Gribshaw.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/25/2004 11:22:28 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
...LTC Raliegh is absoultely correct - you do NOT shoot the wounded. What the article doesn't say is that if the wounded are still trying to shoot YOU, too f**kin' bad - waste 'em where they lay.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
12/25/2004 11:42 Comments ||
Top||
#3
who believe that the deviousness of our enemies would justify us in abandoning our values and principles on the battlefield. This is a dangerous view, for both moral and practical reasons.
Only dangerous to the NY Times allies (the terrorists).
Lets get this stright. The Terrorists (I simply refuse to call them 'insurgents') do not deserve the geneva convention. They deserve all the compassion and tolorence as that rabid dog in to kill a mockingbird. You do not send your child out to 'checkout' a rabid dog. You do not invite the dog into your house. You do not seek to find an 'understanding' with the rabid dog.
You kill it. It you can do it from a distance so much the better. If it takes gun, knife, stick, or your bare hands -- you kill it!
#4
Nope, CF, the LTC is correct. He's not talking about your enemy's lack of honor, he's talking about us preserving ours.
I'm really torn by what that Captain did to the severely wounded terrorist. The man was clearly dying and was in agony. One could very well view it as a 'mercy killing'. But waht LTC Raleigh is saying is that we don't get to make that decision. It's about our honor and our ability to live with ourselves afterwards.
If a wounded terrorist is trying to shoot you, or toss a grenade at you, then he's still a combatant. Shoot him. But if he's just lying there, even if his head is half-open and his brains are hanging out, you can't shoot him.
That's my two cents as a non-mil person, anyway.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/25/2004 12:17 Comments ||
Top||
#5
It's all about policy.
NY Times wants policies that gets Americans killed, because frankly, liberals love dead Americans, especially dead American military.
But liberal rags like th NY Times love dead Americans nowhere near as much as they like live terrorists killing Americans, preferably on camera.
Since this was a mercy killing, the Capt. should get a pass, but he will be tried and most likely convicted. I see the killing as the defendant does, putting a terrorist out of our misery.
#6
We've spent several million words discussing how policy has to change to reflect reality. That includes shooting people "playing dead", or who will still continue to kill people as long as they draw breath. Our enemy doesn't respect the Geneva conventions. Our enemy uses the Geneva convention training our people have to kill US soldiers. We are fighting an enemy that has no scruples when it comes to killing others, and that includes any "Muslim" that doesn't think EXACTLY like them. They do not respect anything but their ability to kill others. They do not fight like soldiers, but like animals, and should be treated as such. We've seen how those released from Guantanimo go back to their murdering ways as soon as possible. If we allow them to get away with this, they will use our own squeamishness to destroy us. This is not a situation where "being a good guy" wins. Kill them all, before they kill us.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
12/25/2004 13:04 Comments ||
Top||
#7
yes we want American killed tortured and raped them and their families most of all we want bastard pro idia and Israeli scum like all of you, grinded to specks . that capt. is a scum, turkey and corn raised moron, that should be impaleted
all of you are not American by the way you piss out comments you sound frustrated juinduist minority go back to your litle shity countries or go to service the army!
Posted by: proud liberal ||
12/25/2004 13:10 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I am in full agreement with the colonel. However, I would like to add several points. First of all, killing of enemy wounded is a strong G2 indicator of low morale, whoever does it (enemy or friendly), and is a top reported information item to Command. Second, G2 sees the execution of wounded as "stealing" possible tactical information from them--information that could save friendly lives or end enemy lives. Third, the commission of such acts changes the complexion of the battle, turning either a military campaign into a police action, or requiring criminal investigation in the future. Killing a single wounded enemy soldier may preclude the legal execution of enemy war criminals at a later date. It may also expose the murderer's entire chain of command to disciplinary action. It is, and should be treated on a par with murdering other non-combatants. Granted, there are many "situational provisions" to this, such as enemy who are violating the rules of war, but they must be considered on a case-by-case basis.
#11
I stand corrected Steve. You are right in that you do not simply shoot wounded enemy soldiers and we should not sink to their level by 'kill everyone and let God sort them out' kind of tactic - that does more damage to ourselves then it does the enemy.
(Note to self: read entire artice twice before posting..... :)
On the other hand you have to make sure that the 'wounded' soldier is a non-combatant and is not simply employing a ruse to get you to lower your guard.
I would replace the term 'wounded' with 'non-combatant'. A 'wounded' solder may still be trying to kill you (and hasn't the enemy has employed this tactic) and a 'non-combatant' (yet unwounded) person who has surrendered should be protected and not simply shot out-of-hand.
#12
The LTC who wrote this didn't mention the real problem. This may be because he doesn't know the facts.
The situation is much more dicey:
You have, say 20 prisoners. You have seen terrorists fake being wounded in order to kill your fellow soldiers. The 20 prisoners have been told to lay still in a language you can't understand. One of the prisoners is moving a bit more than the others. This prisoner starts to get up.
If you wait until you see whether he has a bomb or not then you may be jeopardizing the lives of not just your fellow soldiers but also the other prisoners.
Tough situation but this is what we are in and the LTC seems not to understand it.
#14
You have, say 20 prisoners. You have seen terrorists fake being wounded in order to kill your fellow soldiers. The 20 prisoners have been told to lay still in a language you can't understand. One of the prisoners is moving a bit more than the others. This prisoner starts to get up.
If you wait until you see whether he has a bomb or not then you may be jeopardizing the lives of not just your fellow soldiers but also the other prisoners.
This is where the extreme viciousness of terrorists must come back to bite them and bite them hard.
The disregard shown by terrorists for all human life, not just that of their enemies, requires a hair-trigger response in return. In the example above, a single captured combatant can end up killing, not just the surrounding American soldiers, but all of the other prisoners as well. This is a threat to our armed forces and also an impediment in gathering intelligence from captured combatants.
The way that terrorists completely ignore and abuse wartime conventions merits the transition to a shoot-to-kill policy and validates extreme prejudice in dealing with all who fit the typical combatant's profile.
Any who complain that this effectively promotes a potentially lethal overlap onto non-combatants should be reminded that it is the terrorists who drive this sort of escalation in harshness, not American troops or military doctrine.
If Iraqi citizens want to stop being confused with the terrorists who operate freely within their midst, then they need to begin interdicting them or informing upon the terrorists right away. Attempting to blame American troops for using exceptional force in dealing with extremists is nothing but misdirection.
Terrorists both invite and require the harshest treatment while simultaneously imposing that same brutality upon all others who countenance their existence. This is the rightful penalty that civilian populations must pay for insufficient action against terrorists in their midst.
One can only hope this will be made abundantly clear to all Iraq when Iraqis are killed by the hundreds as they try to vote. Terrorism, not America, is Iraq's worst enemy. The uncompromising opposition American troops show such viciousness must serve as a demonstration of how severe the penalty is for supporting terrorism.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/25/2004 20:17 Comments ||
Top||
#16
This is about the guy in the Mosque, not the mercy killing of the guy with his brains hanging out. They are two very different situations. The centerpiece of this editorial is a story about a training exercise in which a guy comes back and kills a wounded "prisoner". That is in no way similar to the actual incident other than a wounded person was killed. The terrorist in the mosque was deemed a potential threat and therefore killed in a split second decision. He was not yet processed as a prisoner. This editorial is fatuous at least but really more deceptive than anything else. Just what I would expect from the NYT. A**holes!
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
