Matt Barganier at AntiWar reads an excerpt from the new book, American Deserter, and asks a question about moral obligations. He also touches on one of my own beaten-horse subjects: the sacrosanctity of The Troops™.
Still, he grants more than I would. He grants--with caveats, admittedly--a limited exceptionalism to scenes like abu Ghraib. He quotes a description of a raid from American Deserter in which it's made all but explicit that a group of innocent Iraqi women were gang-raped by American soldiers, but then he says:
Now let’s take the most grunt-sympathetic reading of this passage and allow for the following: People, especially young men, behave terribly under terrible stress. Soldiers don’t get to pick their assignments (not really true of those who volunteer in the middle of a war, but I’ll be generous). In fact, let’s go ahead and throw the alleged mass rape into the exception pile.Painfully, I think we must reject the premise here. Consider warfare from the beginning of recorded history, and rewrite one of Matt's sentences with some editing:
Fine.
Though torture, rape, and murder are presumably not routine procedures for occupying forces in Iraq, these blind, tornadic raids on civilian homes are. Two hundred raids in eight months: you do the math. These are literally everyday, humdrum activities for the occupiers.
Torture, rape, and murder are routine procedures for occupying forces.I would ask Matt to search his mind and his conscience and to ask himself: Is there any reason other than the fact that they are American, that they're us, to believe that these are "presumably not routine" in Iraq?
What other purpose is there in sending the soldiers of an occupying army home-to-home in a conquered nation but to terrorize and brutalize the population? None. "These blind, tornadic raids" are by design and intent terroristic.
It seems to me that even among the most vocal, purposeful, and persistent critics of American imperialism, there remains an unkillable seed of exceptionalism. It's a salve to what remnants of our collective goodness--if such ever existed--persist. It allows us to say that, yes, the conquest of Iraq was wrong, criminal, negligent, brutal, unpardonable . . . but still, it was different, somehow, than any other conquest by any other people at any other time in the damned history of one people violating another. It's a last, desperate attempt to cling to some bit of rightness, to the myth of the noble intention. It's understandable, but it's wrong.
Here is a truth: American forces in Iraq beat, rape, steal, maim, and murder in Iraq. They practice collective punishment. They destroy and expropriate private property. They seek to break the local population. They seek domination through the same old, crude methods that occupiers have alwas sought it. These acts are endemic and essential to the principal acts of invasion and occupation.
America is an empire, ladies and gentlemen. Let's not pretend it means something other than what it means.
10 comments:
Anonymous said this in comments for the last post, but I'll repeat it
"never assume malice when stupidity will suffice".
Why would military commanders have an express policy to rape and terrorize, as an end in itself? It seems much more credible to me to attribute these actions to the chaos of the situation and the willful stupidity of the American command. Too clueless to realize the self-destructive nature of their rules of engagement.
America as a cyclops struck in the eye, lashing around blindly at innocents and enemies alike. Striking many of the former, creating many more of the latter.
Graeme,
The object of all terrorism is not the immediate harm done, but the resulting fear. The brutality, the randomness, indiscriminateness, the seeming pointlessness are all factors that add to the fear the populace experiences. Fear is an excellent tool to subjugate.
MB
Thanks for the link. Of course, I granted all those points to make the argument as strong as possible for those disinclined to criticize the troops. I've seen all those points repeated so many times that I figured it would be futile to take them all on at once. I don't buy into American exceptionalism, either.
Best,
Matt Barganier
Graeme-I'm a fan of aphorism, but the idea that stupidity or malice are mutually exclusive categories is your first error. But your second is ever asking, "Why would military commanders have an express policy to rape and terrorize, as an end in itself?" MB addresses that somewhat. To his reply, I'd add, as the post explained: Because rape and terror are inherent to the act of conquest. As is, was, and shall be. I can think of painfully few exceptions to that. We are conquering another nation, and the question, more realisitically, is "Why whould those not be practice?"
Matt: Point taken. You also wrote about the manner of making an argument to a particular crowd in your post, and I ignored that part.
It reminds me of a Thomas Friedman column in 2003 where he said the "real reason" for invading Iraq was to hit back at the Arab world for 9/11 and go "house to house" and make it clear that we were ready to kill.
Graeme, you write: "Why would military commanders have an express policy to rape and terrorize, as an end in itself? It seems much more credible to me to attribute these actions to the chaos of the situation and the willful stupidity of the American command. Too clueless to realize the self-destructive nature of their rules of engagement."
The first point is that they may not have an explicit polity to rape and terrorize. In fact, if they did that would be stupid. Do you need such a policy when you send a bunch of trained warriors into a hostile country, trained warriors who are as convinced of their superiority as they are of the occupied's inferiority, many of whom come are poorly educated, young, inexperienced, angry about being there, etc.?
And do you honestly think that military commanders who studied military history at West Point and other military academies don't understand the simple dynamics of insurgency and imperial conquest? You really think that when they order door to door operations, massive sweeps, etc. that they dont expect their to be some lawlessness and unrest? Do you think they just happened to leave every Iraqi ministry except for the Oil Ministry unprotected after the war by chance, not expecting their to be lawlessness and looting? I could keep going; but this proposition that somehow our military leaders don't understand the dynamics of the situation on the ground is ridiculous and I hope you rethink your position or restate your case so it makes more sense.
Graeme, here's an article you might want to read.
I want to add a follow-up: Graeme's disjointed explanation only makes sense if you think that the ongoing occupation and invasion have as its primary goals peace, prosperity and democracy for our Iraqi wards.
I can understand why you would think that, the media and politicians pump this propaganda constantly.
Consider this alternative explanation; security doesn't really concern us except insofar as it keeps Iraq's oil production down. What we want and need is a stable government, not aligned with Iran and agreeable to U.S. demands, that can keep the domestic population cowed while it enriches its immediate 'family' and the foreign oil corporations that have just been given the legal green light to manage the petroleum sector.
It makes more sense why our military would behave in such a way that would terrorize the population if those are the goals. If Iraqis stop resisting occupation and accept what we are offering them - fine, if they want to continue making noise then the U.S. will keep pounding them until they tire.
Security in this sense means that economic function can continue, even if the people are angry, resentful, and beaten down. Terrorism of the wholesale variety - meaning 160,000 troops going door to door and showing the willingness to kill - is what they believe will achieve this end.
If I understand the point it's that the U.S. intent is plainly to subjugate, and ancient precedent suggests that rape, murder, and torture are constituents of subjugation. A person could say, I didn't mean to stink up the kitchen and contaminate the ground beef with e coli, I meant to shit on the grill. Any unfortunate repercussions on ground beef and/or olfactory conditions in the workplace were just the outcome of a very confusing situation.
Guess I'd have a hard time swallowing that.
justin: thanks for that Taibbi article - good stuff.
I think I could have made myself clearer. I certainly don't think "peace, prosperity and democracy" are America's goals in Iraq. I'm reluctant to speculate as to the actual goals, but if fear and subordination are the objectives, then the operation has been a miserable failure.
Iraqis live in fear, but American brutality (harsh though it is) is no longer the greatest danger. The destruction of society and the ensuing civil war have proven far more deadly. And the various Shia and Sunni militias show little sign of being afraid of or impeded by the occupiers.
The number of troops present in Iraq is sufficient to commit the usual brutalities, but not nearly sufficient to make all of Iraq tremble in fear. If Moqtada ever decided to fight America again, I have my doubts the military could maintain authority even through the most brutal methods.
Certainly America has not proved able to produce the sort of puppet government which Justin describes. Instead, it has lurched back and forth between supporting the Shia, fighting the Shia, and all manner of haphazard aims. It is difficult to discern any clear, enduring goals, even nefarious ones, in current actions.
William Lind wrote recently (http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_2_26_07.htm)
of the US as having a "non-thinking military", and I think there is much to be said for this analysis.
Hopefully that's clearer.
Justin: Thanks for the link. I'd seen the article before, but its a very good one. As to military leaders understanding the situation on the ground, I've no doubt many of them do to an extent. Yet the contrasts between the "hearts and minds" tactics of a Petraeus versus the gleeful brutality of an Odierno are glaring, and weaken the evidence either of uniform understanding or a clear strategy. As Lind notes in the above article, it is also very difficult for officers who comprehend the situation to effect change through the Pentagon bureaucracy.
eww. gross!
and please... don't piss in my sink.
Post a Comment