A federal judge has ordered Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) to testify in a defamation case related to the deaths of Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha in 2005, according to the Associated Press.
Murtha, a former Marine. accused Marines of "cold-blooded murder and war crimes'' during the Haditha incident. Frank Wuterich, a Marine sergeant involved in the incident, has sued Murtha for libel and invasion of privacy over his comments.
According to AP, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer wants Murtha to explain why he made this statement and any documents he has related to the incident.
From the AP: 'You're writing a very wide road for members of Congress to go to their home districts and say anything they choose about private persons and be able to do so without any liability. Are you sure you want to do that?'' Collyer said, adding later, ''How far can a congressman go and still be protected?"
Frankly, I don't understand this ruling at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is appealed by the Justice Dept. and/or House general counsel's office on behalf of Murtha. Murtha, who can say some inappropriate things once in a while, was clearly acting in his capacity as a lawmaker when he made the comments and is thus protected by the Speech or Debate Clause from any type of prosecution for official acts.
Therefore, this case should have been dismissed, and I hope it will be. It's not that I agree with what Murtha said. I don't know enough about the incident to have an opinion whether Wuterich or the other Marines did anything improper or illegal. But Murtha has a right to say what he did under the Speech or Debate Clause, even if he was wrong about what happened. When we start restricting what members and senators can say in the performance of their jobs, then we are really in trouble as a country.
Update: There is a lot of confusion on the Speech or Debate Clause among Crypt readers, lawmakers, lawyers, public officials and the world at large, so I will try to explain it a little bit.
The Speech or Debate Clause does not protect members, senators or staff from arrest for a crime, and I am not suggesting that it does. If a member of Congress were to rob a bank or steal a car, he or she can be arrested and prosecuted for that crime. They have no constitutional privilege shielding them from the law on that front.
In addition, a lawmaker could libel someone if he or she were acting as a private citizen. That is entirely possible. Say I am a car dealer who sells Congressman X a new car, but he is unhappy about his purchase. Congressman X holds a press conference to announce to the world that I am "a damned crook who steals from everyone I sell cars to or have any other dealings with," including my own mother. It is obvious that I can sue Congressman X for libel based on the fact that our interaction had nothing to do with his official duties as a member of Congress, but rather as Private Citizen X. He has no constitutional privilege there.
But what Murtha did was comment on an incident involving Wuterich and other Marines at a press conference and in a follow-up TV interview. These interviews were related to his opposition to the Iraq war. The courts have found that such press-related activities are a normal part of the duties of a member of Congress, and are therefore covered by the Speech or Debate Clause. Murtha did not have to be on the floor of the House making a speech in order to enjoy the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause. My apologies to the commenters who believe otherwise, but you are incorrect on that front. Read up on the case of former Rep. Cass Ballenger (R-N.C.) and his comments about a mosque near his home, and you'll see what I'm saying.
Update 2 - To those who commented that the Ballenger was dismissed on grounds other than Speech or Debate, you are right. I cited the Ballenger case as an example of how courts have ruled that a member giving a press conference or answering questions in a TV interview is considered within the scope of official duties of a lawmaker, not as an example of the Speech or Debate Clause. I should have made that clearer in my earlier comments.
In addition, Murtha said what he said about Haditha using information he received from Defense Dept. officials as the then ranking member of the Defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. This information was gleaned from his contacts inside the Pentagon, contacts he has made as a member of Congress for the last 35 years (Murtha was elected to the House in 1972).
Therefore. his comments are covered by the Speech or Debate Clause, and he cannot be charged with defaming Wuterich or anyone else. I am not saying Murtha is correct in what he said about Wuterich and his fellow Marines. I do not know whether his statement was accurate or not, and it would probably have been better if he'd never made ir. But Murtha clearly had the right to say it, and hopefully this decision will be overturned on appeal.
One final note &0151; Wuterich may end up standing trial soon over his role in the death of 17 Iraqi civilians in the Nov. 19, 2005, incident in Haditha. If he were to go on trial and be found guilty of some crime in that case, then this lawsuit against Murtha would go away as well. Truth is the ultimate defense against libel, as any first year law or journalism student knows. I am not saying it will happen, and Wuterich is innocent of any wrongdoing as far as I know. But if it does happen, his legal action against Murtha would disappear. And my guess is that Wuterich's fate will likely be decided before this lawsuit is resolved.
So, to restate what I said before, this is a very bad ruling by a judge who is clearly unfamiliar with how the Speech or Debate Clause works. I hope the decision is appealed by the Justice Dept. (which has represented Murtha in this lawsuit) or the House general counsel's office and overturned. It is a legally unsound precedent and should be reversed as soon as possible.
#1
The Politico is a donk-loving site. Salt accordingly. IIUC, Murtha is NOT protected by the Speech and Debate clause when off the floor of congress. A self-promoting press conf is not speech and debate, otherwise, campaign speeches could never be libelous, and they have been held to be
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/30/2007 8:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Wasnt a campaign speech, it was HIS OPINION, and he stated it as fact. With malice (i.e. he intended to hurt those Marines).
He deserves to be sued, and I am glad the Judge is forcing him into deposition. I wish they could get someone of those IBM lawyers in o n this to tear Murtha up (and leak how badly he sputters stutters and dodges).
I have nothing but contempt for Murth the idiot, and hatred for Murth the Coward who will not even attempt to face the consequences of his own words.
Why PA is stupid enough to send this bribery laden, blithering cowardly lying old man to Congress should be a source of shame for the people there.
#3
Murtha, who can say some inappropriate things once in a while, was clearly acting in his capacity as a lawmaker when he made the comments and is thus protected by the Speech or Debate Clause from any type of prosecution for official acts.
Bull puckey.
These interviews were related to his opposition to the Iraq war.
Which is a PERSONAL opinion, thereby making his statements about the Marines a PERSONAL declaration, in no way reflecting the thoughts of feelings of his constituency on a majority basis.
Had Murtha made his statements conditional, as in he had "concerns" that these crimes had been committed, that would be one thing. However, he made accusatory statements in the manner of giving out basic facts. Putative facts that most likely do not have any basis in reality.
I sincerely doubt that Murtha will be able to exculpate himself by producing a Pentagon report corroborating his accusations. That would be one of the few ways of potentially exonerating himself of this treachery.
This was nothing but a calculated slam against America's military and promotion of the un-American democratic party line.
.... David Petraeus is a political general. Yet in presenting his recent assessment of the Iraq War and in describing the "way forward," Petraeus demonstrated that he is a political general of the worst kindone who indulges in the politics of accommodation that is Washingtons bread and butter but has thereby deferred a far more urgent political imperative, namely, bringing our military policies into harmony with our political purposes. ....
The general has now made his call, and President Bush has endorsed it: the surge having succeeded (so at least we are assured), it will now be curtailed. The war will continue, albeit on a marginally smaller scale. As events develop, it just might become smaller still. Only time will tell.
Petraeus has chosen a middle course, carefully crafted to cause the least amount of consternation among various Washington constituencies he is eager to accommodate. This is the politics of give and take, of horse trading, of putting lipstick on a pig. Ultimately, it is the politics of avoidance.
A political general in the mold of Washington or Grant would have taken a different course, using his moment in the spotlight not to minimize consternation but to stir it up to the maximum extent. He would have capitalized on his status as man of the hour to oblige civilian leaders, both in Congress and in the executive branch, to do what they have not done since the Iraq War began - namely, their jobs. He would have insisted upon the president and the Congress making decisions that wartime summons themand not military commandersto make. Instead, Petraeus issued everyone a pass.
In testifying before House and Senate committees about the current situation in Iraq, Petraeus told no outright lies. He made no blustery promises about "victory," a word notably absent from his testimony. The tone of the presentation was sober and measured. It contained the requisite references to complexity and challenge. Petraeus acknowledged miscalculation and disappointment. In contrast to his commander in chief, he did not claim that U.S. troops were "kicking ass."
Yet the essence of his message was this: after four years of futile blundering, the United States has identified the makings of a successful strategy in Iraq. The new doctrine that Petraeus had devised and implemented - the concept of securing the population and thereby fostering conditions conducive to reconstruction and reconciliation - has produced limited but real progress. This gives Petraeus cause for hope that further efforts along these lines may yet enable the United States to create an Iraq that is stable, unified, and not a haven for terrorists. In so many words, Petraeus told Congress that senior U.S. commanders in Iraq had finally found the right roadmap. The way ahead may be long and difficultindeed, it will be. But Petraeus and his key subordinates know where they are. They know where they need to go. And above all, at long last, they know how to get there. ....
The critics make a good case. Yet let us ignore them. Let us assume instead that Petraeus genuinely believes that he has broken the code in Iraq and that things are improving. Lets assume further that he is correct in that assessment.
What then should he have recommended to the Congress and the president? That is, if the commitment of a modest increment of additional forces - the 30,000 troops comprising the surge, now employed in accordance with sound counterinsurgency doctrine - has begun to turn things around, then what should the senior field commander be asking for next?
A single word suffices to answer that question: more. More time. More money. And above all, more troops.
It is one of the oldest principles of generalship: when you find an opportunity, exploit it. Where you gain success, reinforce it. When you have your opponent at a disadvantage, pile on. In a letter to the soldiers serving under his command, released just prior to the congressional hearings, Petraeus asserted that coalition forces had "achieved tactical momentum and wrestled the initiative from our enemies." Does that reflect his actual view of the situation? If so, then surely the imperative of the moment is to redouble the current level of effort so as to preserve that initiative and to deny the enemy the slightest chance to adjust, adapt, or reconstitute.
Yet Petraeus has chosen to do just the opposite. Based on two or three months of (ostensibly) positive indicators, he has advised the president to ease the pressure, withdrawing the increment of troops that had (purportedly) enabled the coalition to seize the initiative in the first place.
This defies logic. Its as if two weeks into the Wilderness Campaign, Grant had counseled Lincoln to reduce the size of the Army of the Potomac. Or as if once Allied forces had established the beachhead at Normandy, Eisenhower had started rotating divisions back stateside to ease the strain on the U.S. Army. ....
If Petraeus actually believes that he can salvage something akin to success in Iraq and if he agrees with President Bush about the consequences of failure - genocidal violence, Iraq becoming a launching pad for terrorist attacks directed against the United States, the Middle East descending into chaos that consumes Israel, the oil-dependent global economy shattered beyond repair, all of this culminating in the emergence of a new Caliphate bent on destroying the West - then surely this moment of (supposed) promise is not a time for scrimping. Rather, now is the time to go all out - to insist upon a maximum effort.
There is only one plausible explanation for Petraeuss terminating a surge that has (he says) enabled coalition forces, however tentatively, to gain the upper hand. That explanation is politics - of the wrong kind. .... an incremental reduction in U.S. troop strength makes sense only in one regard: it serves to placate each of the various Washington constituencies that Petraeus has a political interest in pleasing.
A modest drawdown responds to the concerns of Petraeuss fellow four stars, especially the Joint Chiefs, who view the stress being imposed on U.S. forces as intolerable. Ending the surge provides the Army and the Marine Corps with a modicum of relief.
A modest drawdown also comes as welcome news for moderate Republicans in Congress. Nervously eyeing the forthcoming elections, they have wanted to go before the electorate with something to offer other than being identified with Bushs disastrous war. Now they can point to signs of change - indeed, Petraeuss proposed withdrawal of one brigade before Christmas coincides precisely with a suggestion made just weeks ago by Sen. John Warner, the influential Republican from Virginia.
Although they wont say so openly, a modest drawdown comes as good news to Democrats as well. Accused with considerable justification of having done nothing to end the war since taking control of the Congress in January, they can now point to the drawdown as evidence that they are making headway. As Newsweeks Michael Hirsch observed, Petraeus "delivered an early Christmas present" to congressional Democrats.
Above all, a modest drawdown pleases President Bush. It gives him breathing room to continue the conflict in which he has so much invested. It all but guarantees that Iraq will be the principal gift that Bush bestows upon his successor when he leaves office in January 2009. Bushs war will outlive Bush: for reasons difficult to fathom, this has become an important goal for the president and his dwindling band of loyalists.
Granted, no one is completely happy. Yet neither does anyone go away empty-handed. The Petraeus plan offers a little something for everyone, not least of all for Petraeus himself, who takes back to Baghdad a smidgen of additional time (his next report is not due for another six months), lots more money (at least $3 billion per week), and assurances that his tenure in command has been extended.
This outcome reflects the handiwork of someone skilled in the ways of Washington. Yet the ultimate result is to allow the contradiction between our military efforts in Iraq and our professed political purposes there to persist. ....
The president has made no serious effort to mobilize the wherewithal that his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan require. The Congress, liberal Democrats voting aye, has made itself complicit in this shameful policy by obligingly appropriating whatever sums of money the president has requested, all, of course, in the name of "supporting the troops."
Petraeus has now given this charade a further lease on life. In effect, he is allowing the president and the Congress to continue dodging the main issue, which comes down to this: if the civilian leadership wants to wage a global war on terror and if that war entails pacifying Iraq, then lets get serious about providing whats needed to complete the mission - starting with lots more soldiers. Rather than curtailing the ostensibly successful surge, Petraeus should broaden and deepen it. That means sending more troops to Iraq, not bringing them home. And that probably implies doubling or tripling the size of the United States Army on a crash basis. ...
Of course, if he had done otherwise - if he had asked, say, to expand the surge by adding yet another 50,000 troops - he would have distressed just about everyone back in Washington. He might have paid a considerable price career-wise. Certainly, he would have angered the JCS, antiwar Democrats, and waffling Republicans who want the war to go away. Even the president, Petraeuss number-one fan, would have been surprised and embarrassed by such a request.
Yet the anger and embarrassment would have been salutary. A great political general doesnt tell his masters what they want to hear. He tells them what they need to hear, thereby nudging them to make decisions that must be made if the nations interests are to be served. In this instance, Petraeus provided cover for them to evade their responsibilities.
Politically, it qualifies as a brilliant maneuver. The generals relationships with official Washington remain intact. Yet he has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country. History will not judge him kindly.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
09/30/2007 01:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Iraqi Insurgency
#1
There is some logical merit to what Bacevich has written - if you take Iraq as an isolated situation, not connected in time or space with any other events.
One question that might be asked: Is Iraq following September 2007 the ultimate best test and worst trial that the US Armed Forces are likely to face within the next generation? Or within the next ten years, Or next three years?
Bacevich is basically advocating the "commitment of the reserve" in support of winning a decisive battle. Committing your reserve is always a last resort measure - that you only take when the potential rewards outweigh the probable risks.
Might there not be a coming conflict of even greater proportions and significance, for which we need to conserve some resources? The "Normandy" style battle to which he refers mght be next year, in another nearby cesspit nation. And - it might be wise to "rest and refit" the forces a bit, in preparation for that battle.
Who probably knows the most about possible future plans that might require a somehwat "fresh" fighting force? Is it Bacevich? Or is it Petraeus? I'll put my money on Petraeus.
As far as I am concerned, Iraq is looking less and less like a war, and more and more like a particularly nasty civil disturbance. The idea that US troops should be shedding blood to prevent Iraqi troops and police from shedding blood does not make sense to me. It is like having a $100,000 computer system blow out, to protect a $0.25 fuse.
I suspect that a "shock and awe" event involving clear cut combat offense is drawing near - and not in Iraq.
#2
If Petraeus actually believes that he can salvage something akin to success in Iraq and if he agrees with President Bush about the consequences of failure - genocidal violence, Iraq becoming a launching pad for terrorist attacks directed against the United States, the Middle East descending into chaos that consumes Israel, the oil-dependent global economy shattered beyond repair, all of this culminating in the emergence of a new Caliphate bent on destroying the West - then surely this moment of (supposed) promise is not a time for scrimping. Rather, now is the time to go all out - to insist upon a maximum effort.
Sounds real good on paper.
There is some logical merit to what Bacevich has written - if you take Iraq as an isolated situation, not connected in time or space with any other events.
Lone Ranger, cuts to the chase.
Who probably knows the most about possible future plans that might require a somewhat "fresh" fighting force? Is it Bacevich? Or is it Petraeus? I'll put my money on Petraeus.
Given who has been most successful in actual combat circumstances, I'd have to agree.
As far as I am concerned, Iraq is looking less and less like a war, and more and more like a particularly nasty civil disturbance. The idea that US troops should be shedding blood to prevent Iraqi troops and police from shedding blood does not make sense to me. It is like having a $100,000 computer system blow out, to protect a $0.25 fuse.
Old saying: "A $300 picture tube will protect a 50¢ fuse by blowing first."
I suspect that a "shock and awe" event involving clear cut combat offense is drawing near - and not in Iraq.
We can only dearly hope so. Iraq is but a prelude to the real event.
The Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy is a group of scholars, policy makers and concerned citizens united by our opposition to an American empire. The Coalition is dedicated to promoting an alternative vision for American national security strategy that is consistent with American traditions and values.
#4
Bacevich's posts at HufPo are filled with the same breathless urgency and profligate rhetoric that shows up in a lot of blog entries and comments from all sides of the political spectrum.
I haven't read Bacevich's books. From his articles online and in the popular press, however, he strikes me as being stuck in Vietnam era assumptions, shaped by his 1 year in Vietnam, early in his Army career.
Two examples of this from the article above. First, the assumption that the army can and should double or triple its size on a crash basis. That arguably was a doable course of action in the Vietnam era of conscript soldiers wielding relatively low tech equipment. It is not (from what I can tell) doable at all today under anything other than a national consensus of extreme emergency. And even then I'm not sure it's doable - not without destroying our Army's effectiveness. This is not your hippy-draft-dodger, learn which end of the rifle to hold and we're off, Army.
The second Vietnam era echo in Bachevich's writing is the charge that Petraeus is first and foremost a political general who has betrayed and broken promise with his troops. Set aside, for a moment, the fact that from what I've heard Petraeus is a highly respected and loved operational commander whose combat leadership was deeply effective before he assumed this larger command. Bachevich is arguing that Petraeus should have been MORE political - attempting to change national policy in broad ways.
The key here is that Bachevich's call for doubling or tripling the size of the Army is disingenuous in the extreme. He does indeed want Petraeus to make such a call -- because he knows believes the country would recoil in anger and force a change of policy in the MidEast in response.
It would appear from what I've read of his writings so far that it is Bachevich, not Petraeus, who is ultimately the accomodater. He and those of like mind believe that we can find our way through the post 80s world by diplomacy that will yield lasting peace if we only find the right accomdations to make with the Arabs, with the Palestinians, with the Russians, with the Chinese.
One has only to look at the CRFP document calling on Israel to withdraw to the green line, combined with vague statements that the Palestinians should be given aid to help them establish a stable country, to see the thrust of that point of view.
What he ignores is that under Clinton that was exactly the policy we followed. And it's pretty clear it didn't work.
He's right that our Army and Marine Corps is stretched to near the breaking point. Where we go next, tho, is a matter not only for debate but of great urgency as well.
#5
The man would be right---if some kind of US-friendly government in Iraq was possible. It isn't (I've written here in the past about the difference between the Arab---relatedness based, and "Western"---reciprocity based, systems of ethics. Voice shouting in the desert, so to speak).
IMO, that Petraeus, and Joint Chiefs, are doing is trying to preserve US military, which cannot survive another Vietnam like retreat---hoping, I guess, that reducing Iran will overawe Iraqis enough for a retreat which is not a rout.
p.s. 3 billion a week---as an Israeli I find the number, shall I say, interesting.
That's why we call it history. It takes time. I remember all the 'professional' moaning and groaning about 'not winning Korea' through the 60s. I doubt anyone today looking at the two Koreas can even question, 'who won'.
after four years of futile blundering
And yet you reference 'Grant' before that. Sorta skips your mind that your description fits the situation Grant was put in and at best all he could do was lock Lee into place, while Sherman cleaned up everything else along the Eastern seaboard. But, that was the plan.
What then should he have recommended to the Congress and the president? That is, if the commitment of a modest increment of additional forces �- the 30,000 troops comprising the surge, now employed in accordance with sound counterinsurgency doctrine �- has begun to turn things around, then what should the senior field commander be asking for next?
A single word suffices to answer that question: more. More time. More money. And above all, more troops.
No. You might be a officer and historian, but you ignore Korea. We 'surged' till the Koreans could do more of the effective heavy lifting. It took time to train and equip [and reequip] the Koreans. It worked. Korea was a 'economy of forces' theater, because the newly minted DoD was far more concerned about the threat posed in Central Europe. Yep, that's the message, ignore your own record on Korea. No model there.
This defies logic. It�s as if two weeks into the Wilderness Campaign, Grant had counseled Lincoln to reduce the size of the Army of the Potomac. Or as if once Allied forces had established the beachhead at Normandy, Eisenhower had started rotating divisions back stateside to ease the strain on the U.S. Army. ....
Grant wasn't training and equipping locales to take over the heavy work and neither was Ike. Sorta miss that 'nuance' there didn't you. I guess its natural given that submerged in our own record of the Korean conflict and our contribution is the bottom line fact in casualties is that the South Koreans paid the premium of the butcher's bill. We shifted a lot on their shoulders. They didn't have the luxury of others giving them enough breathing room to do the training in a less deadly environment, so they learned the hard way, in blood.
The author misses a point of an American character of war. Enlist the locales to carry the fight. In the end it wasn't the Army that got Geronimo, it was the Apache Scouts. In the end it was the South Koreans who shouldered the bulk of the fighting in Korea. It was the South Vietnamese who were carrying on successfully, till a Democratic Congress cut all material and financial funding giving the enemy their triumph that so long had been denied them.
The object is to provide just enough [remember the concept of 'economy of force'] support to the Iraqis to carry the fight. And it appears that has begun. The Iraqis provide the depth. With AQ's turning on the population and the 'awakening' to their own security needs filling the ranks of the Coalition, that depth is now denied AQ and is added to 'our' side. The enemy can not sustain themselves. It's the logistics of personnel.
The author needs to really revisit the turn around achieved by Gen. Matthew Ridgway after the collapse of the Army at the Yalu in Korea. This piece demonstrates either ignorance of that record or his own sand bagging for his argument.
#8
This is the difference between a Colonel and a General. Colonels are really the highest ranking military leaders. Generals are liaisons between superior units, different armies, and civilian leaders.
Once this distinction has been made, just by listening to a Colonel, you can tell if he ever has a chance to become a General. Granted, in a time of severe stress, a "fighting Colonel" may be made a General, but it will never be a good fit.
There are indeed "Command" Generals, but there are also "Logistical" Generals, "Administrative" Generals, and yes, "Political" Generals, all of whom are essential in supporting a military and keeping it fit.
#9
It's a J curve issue. Iraq dipped way down in the instability part of the curve. At that point people want stability first and foremost and the surge is providing that, bit by bit.
Iraqis will need to pull themselves up the right hand side of the curve to an open, representative and responsible society. What we can do to foster that is to make it clear we're not leaving soon, thereby threatening increased instability if they go backward to embrace a strongman / mullahs.
Doesn't have to be about ethics vs. relatedness. Boots on the ground in just the right numbers combined with persistance.
#10
Lt Col carries no weight, especially a blanket folder like this guy was. Lets face it, if you are West Point and as far as you go is Lt Col, you aren't much of an officer to refer to on command and strategy.
I'm sorry for his loss, I've personally seen 3 of my boyscout kids buried, and one nephew who lived with us for several years as a teenager as well as my son;s best friend (Anbar, there wasnt enough left for an open casket). But his loss gives him no more athority on this that mine do me.
He is a political hack like Cindy Sheehan, grinding his axe.
Biggest flaw this dumbass has? If we blanket the place, the Iraqis will quit, and it will be far too heavy a hand, and will result in backlash. The time for huge forces was when we first went in. This guy is an idiot for not even bothering with cultural and political considerations in IRAQ, not the US, dictating the level of forces. Its a kin to saying a little bit of starter gar helped start this camp fire nicely, lets dump the whole gallon on there now.
Furthermore, remember that the success were due to PRESENCE that was balanced, and ROE that allowed us to be effective. Ask any soldier over there - and look back to my complaints - the ROE held us back.
This moron former officer completely missed the point: The change in ROE and tactics (staying once we get there) is what turned thigns around, For it to be effective we needed more troops, but we got what we needed, and have succeeded. Tell me again professor, how will more troops help us in Anbar? The Marines there aren't even wearing heavy armor in many places. How ill more troops help us in Baghdad? We shop up and pacify all the areas without Iraqi faces (there aren't enough well trained troops to match us), then it becomes an occupation again, not a liberation.
This professor is a fool trading on his west point diploma.
#11
Let us assume instead that Petraeus genuinely believes that he has broken the code in Iraq...
WARNING: Bad Metaphor Alert! Code breaking is a static problem - find the key and it's game over. A better analytical model for war is a game - you move, your opponent moves; moves and counter moves. The situation changes constantly as one side or another gains the initiative.
Something people ignore when talking about Iraq is that 'the war' is two separate conflicts. The first was the Shock and Awe campaign that successfully removed Saddam. It was over at the Mission Accomplished stage. Following that is the ongoing proxy war being waged by Iran and Syria via their imported jihadis and al Qaeda. It is a separate game and Petraeus seems to be playing it very well.
Bottom line: I'm not impressed with this guy's analysis. Like OS said, the change ROE is making a difference.
#12
The time for huge forces was when we first went in. This guy is an idiot for not even bothering with cultural and political considerations in IRAQ, not the US, dictating the level of forces.
It's possible that a large amount of troops at the early stage might have been counter-productive, due to Iraqi cultural and political considerations.
It is funny tho, that being a 'political general' is an epithet when he doesn't serve your purposes. Colin Powell was a political officer; I don't recall Bacevich and his ilk ever putting this kind of blather out about him.
The relatedness vs. reciprocity tension is not simply one between Arabs vs. the West. As early as 1968 Fauzi M. Najjar argued, in an influential paper, that this tension existed within Egypt, as Nassar's socialism came into conflict with traditional feudal Islamic culture. Indeed, he argued that the emerging Islamicism of the Muslim Brotherhood was a response to the real inroads made by socialism and the interaction of traditional Egyptian ways of life with the modern western world.
His argument for so doing was that the Western banking systems inevitably would erode Islamic forms of relationship power in favor of quantitative reciprocity, thereby eroding Islamic identity -- an erosion he believed had already happened and would continue under Nassar.
The relationship vs. reciprocity tension has created cracks within Arab countries for decades. Petraeus understands this and is using it beautifully: find, create, deepen and exploit those cracks. Create relationships of convenience such as those in Anbar. They may not have deep roots, but they are useful for now. We'll see over time the degree to which those roots deepen and spread. Or not.
READER QUESTION: SUBMITTED BY A.C. (name withheld to protect reader identity)
I dont mean any disrespect to the noble lady Ms. Khadija but I would like to ask her one question. Do you have any idea what your web-site is doing to our youth??? Our young men who have responsibilities of their old parents, young brothers and unmarried sisters are being stolen away from their families for the cause of jihad. Dont you think you guys are misguiding them?
Because of your message of jihad, a young boy has been completely brain-washed and his mother has to beg him for love, affection and support but he says that he will sacrifice his family and his helpless mother for the cause of jihad. Please note that this boy belongs to a family who is in deep financial and relationship crisis. His father has zero bank balance and his parents are going for a divorce. He has a younger brother and a 22 year old sister who works and is single but this boy is ready to leave his family like this and even if he doesnt he is not mentally and emotionally THERE for his family. And this is all because of the teachings of Ms. Khadija.
RESPONSE: KHADIJA ABDUL QAHAAR
.... Alhamdulilah, I am pleased to receive your letter. This is an issue that many parents struggle with and inshaAllah we can lay the matter to rest here and now. .... Alhamdulilah, how blessed you are to have a son who is embracing his obligations to aid our Muslim Brothers and Sisters who are being warred against in a growing number of areas .... Allah tells us that the highest reward in Paradise is for those who are martyred in the way of Allah and what Muslim Father would not want the very best for his son?
Allah's Apostle said, "Allah guarantees him who strives in His Cause and whose motivation for going out is nothing but Jihad in His Cause and belief in His Word, that He will admit him into Paradise (if martyred) or bring him back to his dwelling place, whence he has come out, with what he gains of reward and booty." (Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53 Number 352)
It seems to me that you are confusing your own situation with that of your son. .... I have come to understand that in Pakistani culture, the head of the family is served by all of the siblings in order of age and gender, who in turn pass along responsibilities down through the family chain, with the youngest often bearing the brunt of the tasks and responsibilities. The male siblings are expected to support their parents once they are of working age and obey their elders under all circumstances without question. Female siblings are required to serve the men in whatever way the males deem desirable, even if they conflict with Islamic rulings.
The family structure that is prevalent in Pakistan and India is often not the structure of a true Muslim family. In fact, in many instances, it is a tribal structure that is no different than that which existed in the Jahiliyyah before Islam. In the Indian and Pakistani culture, the emphasizes is on building the family tribe and this is done is several different ways; by intermarrying to expand the core family, arranged marriages based on the status and power that will be gained by the marital alliance and a host of other practices designed to expand and strengthen the family tribe. Many tribal traditions have been mixed into the Muslim faith that keep its youth tied to a life of serving their parents and their tribe before they serve Allah. ....
I can not refrain from mentioning that there appears to be one overpowering issue in your situation. It seems you expect your provision to come from your son. This is incorrect; your provision comes from Allah, and Allah alone. It is Allah who is your provider and while as Muslims we are required to help our families and take care of them as best we can, this can not be at the cost of our duty to serve Allah. Allah requires that He is first in our lives and our families come next - not the other way around. You must not look to your son, your wife, or any other member of your family for your provision. By placing this burden on them, you are in fact undertaking an act of shirk for it is Allah and not your family who is responsible for your livelihood, well being and provision.
I have witnessed young Asian children who, when asked what they want to be when they grow up, quickly answer Shaheed but unfortunately the cultural constraints placed on them means that few will actually attain this most noble act for Allah because their lives are dictated by the needs of the tribe, most often lead by their fathers and at the cost of their own obligation to Allah. ....
Alhamdulilah, your son is on the true and right path, for it is a fard obligation on every Muslim to support the brothers and sisters who are under occupation and oppression at this time. There is no true scholar who will contract this. Bearing in mind there are many ways to fulfill the obligation of jihad besides standing shoulder to shoulder with those on the front lines, there is no escaping that our Muslim youth are our first line of defense. MashAllah you should be overjoyed that you have a son who understands his obligations and inshaAllah you should be pleased to support his every effort to please Allah by carrying out this work as Allah has commanded for us. ....
As for whether I know the affect this site has on the youth of Islam, this we leave to Allah. That said there would be no purpose for this site if there was not a true awakening among the Muslim youth who have had enough of humiliation, shame and poverty. ....
One final point: You can not take jihad out of Islam for it is central to our faith. Putting jihad aside is how we have arrived at our weakened state. We have tried to conform to what the western world would like us to be, in return for a small reward in this world, and we have abandoned what Allah has commanded of us. Its a losing formula as we can all clearly see. If you try to remove jihad from Islam, you will have to remove hundreds of pages of our rich history and huge parts of the Noble Quran. Jihad is as much a part of our faith as praying is and removing it from our deen is not only innovation and bida but it is simply impossible for Allah tells us that he will protect the Quran for all time.
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a hypocrite. (Sahih Muslim, 20:4696) ....
Embrace your son on his noble path and return to the truth path for this is what will resolve your circumstances, inshaAllah. The strength of the Ummah depends on strengthening ourselves first and Allah is blessing you with an opportunity through the Imaan of your very own son to shake off cultural traditions that are hindering your relationship to Allah. I plead with you, dear brother, not to squander it. ....
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
09/30/2007 00:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
I agree, they should all go get shot by Marines for Mo-ham-head (fleas be upon him).
#2
A.C. and family:
Jihad Unspun, based in West Vancouver, BC, Canada, casually sends your youth to their deaths, like cheap meat into a grinder. This is the 7th century faith you proclaim here in the 21st century, so drop it or quit complaining.
#4
So there I was, waiting for the unspun, suddenly a shot rang out! BANG! Yes, it was a Kook. Still we had to peek, gak! We await the latest 911 Martian Attack, Kent State Stooies, Grassy Knoll Cubans and all around Crop Circle Goodness, you up for it Spike? Do post more, we are lackering in pure damn insanity recently.
Posted by: Jack Rubenstein ||
09/30/2007 11:03 Comments ||
Top||
#5
lol
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/30/2007 11:20 Comments ||
Top||
#6
In West Vancouver, BC, Canada you say...
Why hasn't there been an accident there?
It's so simple...
Maybe even a bum looking for a handout.
#7
It is interesting, though, that someone (I don't actually think A.C. is the father of the family, perhaps the younger brother or the sister, or even the mother -- she's the only one whose emotions and actions are described) actually wrote in to Jihad Unspun to protest the selling of jihad as being the actions of a mufsid pushing the drug of haraba.
#8
Somewhere in my mess of downloads, I have a complete profile of the Canadian woman who operates JU. She has always been anti-American, and after 9-11 she joined the country's worst enemies.
Khadija was a wife of Muhammed. A Google search yielded this info:
Here is some interesting stuff I found in the contact information under domain name lookup.
Jihad Unspun
Bruce Kennedy, #300 - 1497 Marine Drive
West Vancouver, BC V7T1B8 Canada
+1 604 913 2241, Fax: +1 604 913 2240
bkennedy@jihadunspun.net
Interesting.....who is Bruce Kennedy? That would be a name I would like to keep as a handle. Well, as i have said before, some time back there was a muslim name and address in British Columbia (Canada). It seems the muslim paypal screwed it up or something so now they got this all white American convert to try explain where all the expertise and $$$ are coming from.
Washington: The Pakistan Army bears resemblance not to the Turkish army, with which it is often compared, but with the Indonesian army under Sukarno and Suharto, according to Shuja Nawaz, author of a forthcoming book on the Pakistan Army.
Boy howdy, there's a recipe for success.
Shuja was speaking at the Johns Hopkins University about his book Crossed Swords: Pakistan Army and the Wars Within on Friday. He stressed that the army of today reflects the increasingly urban origin of its soldiers in Pakistani society, which is a good thing.
No, for the most part the Army, particularly the officer corps, is Punjabi, with few Sinds, fewer Balochis, and most especially fewer Pashtuns. The Punjabis happen to live in the cities and fertile valleys of the upper Indus River, and the army draws from that.
National ideology: The army, he explained, has gradually expanded its remit to include protection of the national ideology, as defined by itself. He said this ideology has changed from a loose definition of a Muslim state at birth to an Islamic polity under Ziaul Haq, and now to the enlightened moderation of General Pervez Musharraf, even as the growing urban population appears to prefer the conservative end of the social and political spectrum.
It's a scary notion, but in Pakiwakiland Perv really is an 'enlightened moderate'.
According to Shuja, today, Pakistan is at another crossroads as a partner of the West in the global war on terror. The army is operating in a changed and highly charged domestic political environment. After decades of conflicts with India, it is now waging a largely futile war against an unseen enemy: Islamist terrorists within its own border.
Created mostly by the ISI with an assist by the Army who wanted to use them as cats paws in Afghanistan and (especially) Kashmir. Now the terrs have slipped their leash and are coming after Perv and the Army.
No supervision: Shuja pointed out that there is no hard financial scrutiny or supervision of the armys commercial enterprises or even its overall defence spending, which distorts the allocation of scarce domestic resources and retards economic development.
A situation common to thugocracies around the world.
Shuja said, The army and the armed forces in general remain a key element in Pakistans polity. They are well entrenched ... [however] unlike the Turkish army, they do not have any constitutional role in the countrys polity, (and) they have crafted a role for themselves and equipped themselves to tackle whatever problems they perceive, without an invitation from the government. This has created an inherently unstable system.
He was of the view that the army of today is ill-equipped and untrained for low-intensity conflict and has suffered heavily at the hands of well-trained guerrillas. Their major target has been President General Pervez Musharraf himself.
The Army fights the ISI, and the ISI wins every time.
Shuja told the meeting, It is important for the army to help create a stable national polity by subjecting itself in practice to civilian oversight and control ... [and] on its side, the civilian government needs to ensure that it follows the Constitution fully and does not involve the military in political disputes. Shuja warned that while the army remained a conservative institution at heart, it was not yet a breeding ground for large numbers of radical Islamists that many fear.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/30/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
the terrs have slipped their leash and are coming after Perv and the Army.
There are few more deserving individuals in the GWoT.
#2
Brian Becker of A.N.S.W.E.R. organization (and Communist Worker's World Party): 'we were stunned and shocked that a small group of right-wing anti-Muslim bigots would launch a campaign' against him."
put him on the list
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/30/2007 14:38 Comments ||
Top||
#3
we were stunned and shocked that a small group of right-wing anti-Muslim bigots would launch a campaign' against him.
I've got several ash-handled objects in my garage that could stun him a whole lot better than that. And believe me, this SOB needs a shitload of stunnin'.
Here once again, the fault line in American national security regarding Jihad and political Islamism can be seen in stark relief. There is no national hue and cry against Alan Colmes for criticizing IPT's reporting that someone called for "the Jihad way" in a Washington DC rally is nothing more than mere "conservative political correctness", because there is no agreed upon policy on Jihad, on political Islam, and on the war and identity of the enemy that we are fighting today.
It represents a dangerous degree of cognitive dissonance for Bush to rightly identify the Axis of Evil and then go all silent about jihad.
h/t The Torch - a great site re: the Canadian military.
Having returned from the Sand Box seven months ago, I have been catching up with the North American Counter Terrorism perception of radical Islamic Terrorism. After spending time in-country, I've gained a Mark One Eye Ball perspective, not just a Signal & Electronic Intelligence one that some would call an armchair quarterback perspective. One thing I have learned is, it doesn't matter how expensive, complex or computerized your intelligence sources are, there is no substitute for the Mark One Eye Ball on-the-ground to give you a good insight into what is going on, on the ground. I am surprised and disappointed that some if not all three major parties involved in combating this threat (Government, CT Professionals and Mass Media ) are still not getting it.
What do I mean? I mean effective communication one of the fundamental forms of conflict resolution about how we in the Western, non-Islamic world talk about and discuss the Islamic Terrorism/Insurgency organizations and their threat. One should remember that Islamic Terrorism and Insurgency ideology manipulates religious words and ideas to impose its goals on Muslims, as well as non-Muslims, through violence. By discrediting that ideological belief, one of the first and most essential tasks in addressing the root cause can be accomplished. Moderate Muslim/Islamic voices receive little notice in Western media. In other instances, individuals are fearful to speak out too loudly because of the threat from terrorists/insurgents and their supporters. Western society should encourage Muslim political, religious and social leaders to denounce terrorism, and cooperate in defeating terrorist groups and offer alternatives to terrorism that are real, credible and achievable. How quickly we have forgotten the lessons of the past, and are now making the same old mistakes. Remember the phrase "Hearts & Minds"? The British Special Forces used this phrase in the Counter Insurgency Operations in Malaya (1950-58), and Borneo & Brunei in the 60's (1962-66) with good results.
Counter Insurgency COIN Operation 101
In order to defeat the Terrorist/Insurgency organizations and their operations, one of the main goals is the starvation of their manpower new recruits and converts that supply to these organizations. This is done by communicating with the Islamic communities that these terrorist organizations draw their power and strength from. And it should be achieved in a language the community and culture understand, not in our own language and culture.
We have allowed the media and the subsequent political bandwagon to have their catch phrases, which have become ingrained in the CT vocabulary and dictionary. In reality, some of these words and phrases help legitimize the Islamic Terrorists and Insurgency actions in the eyes of the Islamic world. Here are some examples.
Jihad: To the Terrorist/Insurgency organizations and the popular Media and Politicians of the day the interpretation and meaning is "Holy War". In fact, the correct literal translation means "Striving". Within the Islamic/Muslim context "Jihad fi sabil illah" translates as "Striving in the path of God". This basic principle of the Islamic religion and the goal of all Muslims is similar to principles of a Christianity's Ten Commandments. An example of this can be a Muslim working in an office or at home conducting their life in God's name. Therefore, for Western society using "Jihad / Jihadist" or any other religious term to describe Terrorists/Insurgency operations and their actions only helps to legitimize an ideology within the Islamic society that CT professionals seek to defeat. Therefore, it should be removed from the CT vocabulary completely.
Mujahideen: "One who participates in Jihad." This designates one's activity as against the enemy of the Islamic Jihad.
Al Qaeda's Caliphate: "Successor" This does not mean a re-establishment of any historical regime, but a Global Totalitarian State. A good example of such a State would be the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
Allah: "Arabic for God." This is a name that is not specific to Muslims. Arabic speaking Jews and Christians use this word as well. All three religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, identify God/Allah as the God of Abraham, but they do not share the identical concept of God/Allah.
Words that should be incorporated into the Anti & Counter Terrorist vocabulary and subsequent dictionary are:
Hirabah: Hirabah is derived from the Arabic referring to war/combat means, sinful warfare, or warfare contrary to Islamic Law, and should be applied when describing Terrorist/Insurgency organizations as "Global Hirabah" and NOT "Global Jihad".
Mufsid / Mufsidun: Meaning an evil/corrupt person. The specifics of this denotation of corruption carry enormous weight in most of the Islamic world. So we should describe the Terrorist/Insurgency organizations as "Mufsidun" and not as "Jihadist".
Fitna: Literally means temptation or trial, but has become a reference to the discord and strife amongst Muslims. This best describes what is currently going on in Iraq today.
Fattan: A fattan is a tempter or subversive. Applying this term to Terrorist/Insurgency organisations condemns their activities as divisive and harmful, and also identifies them with movements and individuals with negative reputations in Islamic history, such as the Assassins of Caliph Utham in 656 AD.
How we in Western societies speak and think about Islamic Terrorism/Insurgency will shape its eventual conclusion. Only by using the correct vocabulary, instead of the current incorrect vocabulary popularized by the media/political bandwagon, can we bridge the division of difference between both societies, and thereby divide, weaken, and defeat the Islamic Terrorist/Insurgence Organizations' Threat.
Carl's career spans 26 years in the Military, Aviation, and Law Enforcement Specialist group of occupations. This includes service in the British Armed Forces (1979 - 2001) and currently sits on the Michigan Tactical Officers Association Executive Board as Training Director.
Throughout his career, Carl has placed a special focus on anti-terrorism procedures, training and operations. He has operated in important theatres like, Europe, Balkans, the Middle and Far East, the United States, and Canada.
Carl is a member of the International Counter Terrorism Officers Association, International Association for Counter Terrorism & Security Professionals, International Law Enforcement Educators & Trainers, National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians, Canadian General Standard Board on Personal Body Armour Committee, International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors, and he is an Associate Member of the Royal Aeronautical Society.
#1
This idea of trying to impose the word "hirabah" over the word "jihad" has been criticized by Robert Spencer here, here and here.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
09/30/2007 10:50 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This idea of trying to impose the word "hirabah" over the word "jihad" has been criticized by Robert Spencer here, here and here.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester|| 2007-09-30 10:50 ||Comments Top||
Troll.
Posted by: Jack Rubenstein ||
09/30/2007 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Sorry, Jack, but citing Robert Spencer (and Hugh Fitzgerald) is not trolling.
#4
Hmm... maybe if they told Osama this, he would die... of laughter...
Posted by: john frum ||
09/30/2007 11:36 Comments ||
Top||
#5
So ... there's a reason this was posted in Opinion. ;-)
I don't think the author is (pace Spencer) aligned with the Sauds etc. And I'm also not sure Spencer's word is the only one to be had on the subject.
Spencer wants us to focus on the existential threat posed by aggressive Islam practicing taqqiya. He's concerned that the West understand what we're facing. That's an important message.
Hospedales is thinking tactically. His aim is to find ways to create and exploit cracks in the Muslim world to our advantage and his argument is that one way to accomplish that is by challenging the noble-sounding call to jihad.
Under the right conditions, creating and exploiting cracks can be very powerful - witness the skill with which Petraeus and his subordinate commanders have exploited the cracks in Anbar caused by Al-Q's heavyhanded treatment of locals. As those cracks widen, others are approaching the coalition to form alliances. Possibly temporary ones, but in any case we'll use them to as much advantage as we can.
Do I think a change in vocabulary will cause the jihad set to take a weekend retreat, search their souls and change their aspirations to managing McDonalds franchises instead? uh uh.
Does Hospedales have some insights into the way in which Islamicists are recruiting online through preaching that shapes the thinking of impressionable young men seeking an identity?
I think he might. He's looking at this the way a really good cop considers how to counter gangs who are moving into his territory and recruiting the local kids.
#6
Of course the concept of jihad would have no legitimacy in the islamic world were it not for the speech patterns of the kafir. What a great idea! Wish I had thought of it.
Every bit helps. And I think it would no harm to use derogatory terms for jihadis becausqed there are Mulims in western societies.
Americans positively suck in the propaganda field: the fact is you sucked so much it was you not the Soviet Union who was considered the evil empire by most of mankind. It is sadiostic torturer Guevara who is in most teeenagerrs' T-shirts not Kennedy or Reagan. And Chirak (spoit) not Bush who passed
for a hero in 2004.
And winning the propganda war goes with small steps like this one. Having jihadis named hiraba is not a propaganda Midway but it is at least a Wake island battle.
#7
It also sets the stage to either have true moderate Muslims speak out against terrorism in Muslim terms -- or refuse to do so, in which case it becomes easier to inform the Western public just what's going on.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/30/2007 20:17 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Permit me to suggest that hair-splitting over Islamic terms will prove a tremendous disservice to fighting terrorism. The term "jihad" is thoroughly embedded in the public's consciousness and identifies a central tenet of Islam that is absolutely inimical to the West.
Even if slightly incorrect in useage, it is far better to militate the general public against hostile core elements of Islam so that pressure is created against its theocratic dictates. Both shari'a and jihad are so toxic to basic liberty and individual freedom that it is far better to keep opposition focused upon these two poisons than to worry about catering to Muslim perceptions of themselves or their violent co-religionists.
#14
I'm guessing Hospedales isn't primarily concerned with what the American public thinks. He's concerned with framing the responses of Muslims to Muslim-initiated violence.
Labeling the violence 'hiraba' rather than 'jihad' induces cognitive dissonance. Not always and for all Muslim listeners - but in the places where there are small cracks, where a mother grieves for her son caught in crossfire or enticed to a suicide bomb, this can broaden those cracks.
#15
it is far better to keep opposition focused upon these two poisons than to worry about catering to Muslim perceptions of themselves or their violent co-religionists.
Catering. Interesting word.
In Anbar our commanders might label it psyops. And later, building relationships that lead to IED factory tips. And then to sheiks of some of the largest tribes openly aligning themselves with the coaltion and the government.
#16
"Screaming asshole" is the alternate English translation of the Arabic word, Barbara. But to help clarify thinking it's critical to use the correct terminology for the target audience. You could footnote the translation for those not familiar with the concepts, though -- that would help drive the point home to our little post-Friday sermon visitors. ;-) I'm really looking forward to the little idiots trying to explain to the kufrs why it's jihad instead of hirabah -- that's not the kind of knowledge we're supposed to have.
#17
In Anbar our commanders might label it psyops.
Yes, and it's all well and fine to make such distinctions over there. To consume lots of ink and dissipate any momentum of the American public's already lagging perception of Islam by detailing such minutae seems a lot more counterproductive than anything else.
Despite Hollywood's best efforts, it just can't get war right. Filmdom's fiery-eyed zealots have never quite managed to fake the 1,000-yard stare.
The point has been underscored this week by "The War," a documentary that for all its shortcomings has performed a great service, bringing to light previously unseen combat footage. That footage demonstrates what combat veterans and combat photographers know, but many filmmakers and ordinary Americans, innocent of that variety of carnal knowledge, do not appear to fully grasp. The most extraordinary things can be quite ordinary, the most unbelievable events playing out in matter-of-fact fashion. Without drama. Without irony. War, the stuff of the world's greatest drama, is in fact very hard to film, as any combat cameraman can tell you. To do it effectively is to put yourself in a position where you very likely will be killed. To capture any of the drama you expect war to have, you have to capture the faces. And if you are successful, what you see then is often a void. An evocative, soul-chilling nothingness.
Hollywood's longstanding failure to capture the reality of war is in part anchored in Hollywood's tiresome, anti-American, multicultural agenda, but goes beyond that.
Hollywood came closest when it dispensed with moral lessons and just tried to be faithful to reality with docudrama "Band of Brothers," safe territory deep in the heart of the Good War. A brief faithfulness to recorded reality that allowed Hollywood to explore the practical, ground-level execution and experience of war. Another rare departure from Hollywood's typical moralism was "We Were Soldiers," on the horrific battles of the Ia Drang in 1965, that attempts to understand the fighting spirit of professional soldiers. (Actual survivors of near massacres there consider themselves victors, tragically, deeply wounded though they were by their experience. They held their ground, giving better than they got. Despite their pain, the stuff of Hollywood epics, they understand the fundamentals of the execution of war.)
Hollywood's moralistic monkey has climbed back up on its shoulder with "Flags of Our Fathers," an attempt to tell the story of Iwo Jima without telling the story of Iwo Jima, paradoxically attempting to underscore the heroism of Iwo by pointing out how it was used for propaganda purposes, in effect diminishing the heroism and sacrifice of the Marines at Iwo by reducing it to a propaganda exercise. That was followed quickly by an odd exercise in political correctness, "Letters from Iwo Jima," which through the eyes of that rarest of Japanese soldiers on Iwo -- one that wanted to live -- spins a tale of meaningless, futile sacrifice in war that, with its ennobling of the Japanese commander, paradoxically seeks meaning and exalts sacrifice in the futile effort to make futile sacrifice meaningful. . . . Go read the rest of it.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/30/2007 10:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hoolywood doesnt get it because Hollywood is run by liberal elites, and staffed by liberal effetes.
Unlike the Lee Marvin generation, few if any even know anyone who has served, and even fewer have served in the military, much less in combat. Not to mention that its all about look and feel, not about reality.
So its no surprise that Hollywwod doesn't "get it", mainly because they do no "go there" and do not have the character and couage to do so..
#3
Hollywood because there are no more patriots like John Ford or Raoul Walsh nor former soldiers like Samuel Fuller (who was in D-Day) only rich white kids like Hanoi Fonda.
#4
We Were Soldiers was an excellent flick, but I think Mel Gibson financed most of it himself, probably with his Braveheart $. Tears of the Sun with Bruce Willis was another good flick, with honorable US military represented
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/30/2007 13:55 Comments ||
Top||
#5
What accounts for Hollywoods failure to capture the reality of war?
It's icky. What's more, understanding why wars are fought and how they're won requires something more than the demagnetized moral compass that passes for today's Hollywood mentality.
#8
The problem for Hollywood is that modern warfare requires teamwork and the epic dramas of fiction rely on heros and villains. Preferably there should be one of each. Reality rarely co-operates with the writer.
For example Spielberg, in "Schindler's List", consolidated several people who helped Schindler into one character to help simplify the plot.
Another problem is that drama requires that the story be structured a certain way, with specific twists and turns leading to a climax. Once again real battles rarely follow Hollywood's needs.
The best war movies were made in the twenty years after WWII. Most of the writers, directors etc had served during the war, and so had alot of the audience. Once the WWII generation had retired from film-making, the new generation of film-makers was left with epic stories that they'd learned in school.
To this was added the usual crap from Viet Nam (which is really just an update of the anti-war stories told after WWI). The net effect is an attempt to stuff war stories into a structure the stopped being realistic once Knights in armor left the battlefield.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
09/30/2007 14:52 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Another problem is that drama requires that the story be structured a certain way, with specific twists and turns leading to a climax. Once again real battles rarely follow Hollywood's needs.
Great analysis, Frozen Al. Anyone who doubts this need only read T.E. Lawrence's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" and then compare it to David Lean's admittedly spectacular movie, "Lawrence of Arabia". It would be a kindness to say that the movie's timeline has no bearing in reality. Yet, "Lawrence of Arabia" remains one of the finest films ever made. Three Academy Award nominations and SEVEN Oscars amply attest to that.
#11
"What accounts for Hollywoods Hollyweird's failure to capture the reality of war?"
They're on the other side. >:-(
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/30/2007 17:17 Comments ||
Top||
#12
"The War," a documentary that for all its shortcomings..
Largely made due to the political environment of our times. Call me a nit picker. However, Mr. Burns needs to recheck the record. Morocco and Algeria were not occupied by Germans. Neither was southern France. Vichy France was neutral. American maintained diplomatic relations with Vichy. Without any Congressional authorization or declaration of war, Mr. Roosevelt invaded the territory of a neutral country. We invaded without real warning. We killed Frenchmen defending their territory, long before we could drive across North Africa to reach the Jerries. If you want to bring out the dirty/real side of the war, why cover that fact up? Oh, because it would indeed have play today.
Oh, and we don't want to address the new information gleaned from the recently declassified Japanese diplomatic traffic which indicated that the consulates were reporting they were making contacts in the Japanese communities along the west coast, home of around 90% of the American military aircraft production based in Seattle and LA at the start of the war. No, no. No need to introduce such drivel, right?
#13
The only reason that Hollywood made good war movies during WWII is that the US was allied with the Soviet Union against the Nazis. Hollywood was filled with Communists who did their utmost to rally the American people to save Uncle Joe. When the Communists became the enemy, their hearts just weren't in it any more. Their loyalties were with the other side. When Communism collapsed, all that was left for the denizens of Hollywood was a lingering anti-Americanism. You can't make a good war movie when you despise the US, despise the troops, and despise the American way of life.
My contempt for the Hollywood crowd was formed during the VietNam years and will probably last as long as I live. The drugged-out, narcissistic, self-righteous, effete, anti-American, and basically ignorant scum that populate Hollywood don't realize that if the US were to fall to her enemies, they would be among the first to lose their heads.
#14
Oh, and we don't want to address the new information gleaned from the recently declassified Japanese diplomatic traffic which indicated that the consulates were reporting they were making contacts in the Japanese communities along the west coast, home of around 90% of the American military aircraft production based in Seattle and LA at the start of the war.
P2k, do you have a link to that information? It sure would provide some historical context for considering the internment of America's Muslim population.
Monkey Tennis Centre has been doing some interesting reporting and analysis lately. This link will take you to his round-up post on Blackwater in the US media, link rich and a worthy read. Excerpt, but do RTWT:
Two more stories on Blackwater in the New York Times today they might as well start a separate daily 'Blackwater' section. Neither contains much in the way of new or useful information, and appear to be in the paper simply because several reporters have been tasked with producing Blackwater stories every day for the next year:
(a) because it's the kind of sinister, 'military-industrial complex' stuff the Times feels compelled to report and thinks is 'sexy', whether or not it's correct or even interesting;
(b) because it's one of the few 'negative' stories coming out of Iraq right now, and an important counterweight in the eyes of the Times to the increasingly positive stories coming out of the country; and
(c) because the Times hopes that if it keeps digging it'll come up with some damning evidence against the Bush administration.
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.
A federal judge has ordered Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) to testify in a defamation case related to the deaths of Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha in 2005, according to the Associated Press.
According to AP, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer wants Murtha to explain why he made this statement and any documents he has related to the incident.
By Khalid Hasan 
