Just remember, reflexive skepticism about Western military action is by its very nature fallacious. Every situation must be evaluated on its specific merits. How can we know in advance that army units will model themselves into Kill Teams and go around massacring villages? This is not to say that once we have invaded and occupied a foreign nation and our army units have modelled themselves into Kill Teams and gone around massacring villages we should approve. Indeed, having invaded and occupied a foreign country and then beset their countryside with Kill Teams, we should strongly disapprove of Kill Teams. But to presume in advance that these Kill Teams will exist based simply on the precedent of every major conflict in the last six decades is to engage in logically fallacious a priori reasoning. The only moral moral objection to armed massacres is retrospective.
14 comments:
From the article:
Gibbs walked the Afghan to a nearby ditch and forced him to his knees, ordering him to stay that way. Then he positioned Morlock and Winfield in a prone position behind a small berm no more than 10 feet away. "To be honest," Morlock later told investigators, "me and Winfield thought we were going to frag ourselves, 'cause we were so fucking close."
With everyone in position, Gibbs took cover behind a low wall and chucked a grenade toward the Afghan. "All right, dude, wax this guy!" he shouted. "Kill this guy, kill this guy!"
As the grenade went off, Morlock and Winfield opened fire. Morlock got off several rounds with his M4. Winfield, who was armed with the more powerful SAW machine gun, squeezed off a burst that lasted for three to five seconds.
Given the SAW rate of fire, that's between 37 and 62 rounds of ammunition at a target they knew was unarmed. Then again, had they thought he was in fact armed (as their later story would have to indicate), that's about how long a trained soldier might fire. You've got to respect that commitment to the bit.
If we don't send "our" army units into the conflict zone, then I don't see how they could model themselves into Kill Teams. And we have been promised that no ground troops will be sent in. So there you go. Q.E.D.
I am referring of course to our protection of Libyan civilians. It's possible that regrettable errors may have been made in other conflicts.
a priori reasoning is about all we have, until the event is over. That's why convicted criminals are locked up. We dont want to find out if they'll do it again.
you can never know you've killed the wrong people until you've killed a wider sample, allowing you to distinguish the corpses of the bad with the corpses of the good, which you might define by allegiance or hairstyle. This sample must necessarily widen over time, because you must be able to compare and contrast the people you've killed in one territory with those we've killed in another. you may also want to test out new killing weapons with new targeting devices, in order to see whether these new devices are more efficient killers than the last. certainly, to achieve efficiency there must be many tests of killing.
Run's Lai!
Why stop at 6 decades? We had front line combat units in the Pacific Theater of WW II that didn't turn a single POW in. Some of our boys raped their way across Europe in WW I. The atrocities committed by American troops in the Spanish-American War rival those of the Third Reich. Add in the Indian Wars, The Civil War, etc...
Nobody could have anticipated the breaching of the levees.
David,
Your comment made me laugh, so I checked your blog out. You need to update it more often, slacker.
I've bookmarked you, but you have three weeks to justify it.
I don't see any connection to Vietnam, Walter.
And I still don't think it's fair to condemn an entire program because of one slip-up.
"No casualties were reported from the incident, but it earned Stevens an Army Commendation Medal and a Combat Medical Badge. Stevens later admitted that he had concocted the ambush not only because he wanted to get rid of the illegal grenade but because he "wanted to hook up the guys in the company" with their Combat Infantryman Badges, 14 of which were awarded in the aftermath of the shooting. All of the awards were revoked when the Army learned the attack had been faked."
Back in '63, my granpa Bill (god rest his soul) was working for the Stanford Research Institute, and his job was to advise our military on how to advise the South Vietnamese.
My dad told me a story about what convinced granpa to get out of the military game:
"[Granpa Bill] was participating in a planning session for a large scale assault. The Army and Marines were going to sweep through an area clearing it of the enemy. The Air Force would provide air cover for the attack. Navy battleships would bombard the jungle with their big guns. My father spoke up and said that the naval bombardment was unnecessary to the attack and would just waste ammunition, while possibly killing many people who were not enemies. A general quickly pulled him aside, explaining that 'the Navy boys have to play too.'"
American military culture has really changed in the last 50 years.
Dude's name is Morlock? They're not even trying anymore.
When I was a kid we played Cowboys and Indians. Now I'm teaching the youngin's to play Kill Team and Global Combatant :D
Obama's speech last night made it really clear that our intervention in Libya will be nothing like our invasion of Iraq. Sounds good to me.
Post a Comment